good evening the Rarent Town Rarent Township Planning Board is now in session call to order the notice requirements of the open public meetings act have been satisfied by the placing of a notice of this meeting on the bulletin board at the municipal building filing the notice with the township
clerk and transmitting the notice to the Hunton County Democrat the Courier News the Star Ledger and the Trenton Times roll call please chairman Mr edward Eddings here vice Chairwoman Miss Donna Drews here mr robin Fatu here mr mr scott McDade here miss Michelle Cavakiri
here mr dennis Clank Cannon has asked to be excused mr james Miller also asked to be excused mr glenn Sakalowski here board professionals board attorney Mr joe Toriello present township planner Mr jeffrey Varella here township engineer
Mr reesh Dargy present board traffic consultant Mr j troutman here and all other board professionals spat be excused okay very good thank you i'm going to ask everybody to please join rise and join in the uh reciting the pledge of allegiance followed by a
moment of silence for our troops to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all thank you
okay if everybody has a copy of the agenda for this evening I'm just going to make a note up front that we had uh the the planning board will be going into a plan a closed session this evening but in consideration of how many people are here and what we have on the
agenda we're going to put that at the end of the meeting we just have to make sure that we a lot time to go into close session so if you're following I didn't forget about it i just moved it to the end in the interest of all of your time this evening and thank you all for being
here we have quite a bit on the agenda this evening in terms of uh excuse me chairman's report I do not have anything to report on this evening anybody on the board have anything to report on no engineers I don't you're good
planners comments no comment very good attorney's comments nothing to add okay if you don't mind I guess I can give a quick update on affordable housing to 285 minutes for the fourth very good thank
you moves forward okay all right next up are the minutes for February 12th 2025 we had received those in advance of the meeting for review does anyone have any comments or
changes to the February 12th minutes i do not there being none can I have a motion to approve the February 12th 2025 minutes so move second
chairman Mr gettings yes vice Chair Miss Donna Drews yes m robin Fatu yes mr scott McDade yes mr glenn Solowski yes okay next up are the meeting minutes for the February 26th
2025 meeting along with the closed session notes so does anybody have any comments or suggested changes to those okay there being none can I have a motion to approve
so move second chairman Mr edward Gettings yes vice Chair Miss Donna Drews yes mr scott McDade yes mr glenn Sokowski yes okay all right we have some resolutions to
approve this evening as well the first up is from 2024 actually it's resolution number 14-2024 this is Flemington Junction 3 LLC and we have all received the resolution in advance for review
good evening good evening Mr chairman ron Shimanoitz here on behalf of Flemington Junction Associates 3 the applicant uh we're here tonight to discuss the resolution uh your council Mr toriella was courteous enough to give
me an advanced copy of it we reviewed that provided him with uh several comments but there's one item in particular we wanted to discuss with the board there's a proposed uh condition of approval it's set forth in proposed
section C paragraph 14 and that condition states that the applicant shall apply and obtain a zoning permit and all construction permits within two years of the date of the resolution and if that doesn't happen the approval
automatically expires becomes null and void that's the first part of condition 14 the second part of condition 14 says that the applicant has one year from the first construction permit to commence construction and obtain a permanent CO
and if not the approval expires and becomes null void uh this condition is unworkable for my client and you'll hear from him as to why but I do want to point out a couple things to the board we don't dispute
that boards where there's a variance granted has the power to put time limitations on variances so we we agree on the law the question is whether this board has been authorized by their rules there's no ordinance in place uh and I
would also emphasize it was not discussed during the hearing what a reasonable time limitation should be but perhaps most importantly as I hope many of the board members recall this same applicant or an associated entity uh known as Flemington Junction Roman
numeral 1 came before this board sought approval was granted preliminary and final site plan approval eight variances three design waiverss and that condition was not included the condition we
complain of tonight was not included in that resolution and that was as a result of our appearing on Flemington Junction One and Mr gardner who you'll hear from in a minute uh gave reasons why it's an unworkable condition so Flem one does
not have that condition uh we came to you with a second application which we refer to as Flem 2 similar situation we were received preliminary and final major site plan approval that approval included five varances and one design
exception and that resolution did not include the condition uh we we now come to the resolution for tonight and the condition is proposed to be included it's our request that it be excluded uh from the
resolution uh a couple of additional points for the board to consider um again the board certainly has the authority to impose durational limitations where there is a variance involved we don't dispute that but they
must be reasonable uh my humble opinion is that it should the standards for that should be set forth in an ordinance you have no such ordinance you do have rules and regulations mr varela pointed that out to me and those rules and regulations do
allow the board to consider alternate time periods depending upon the application uh I would say that the board should apply their rules uh consistently uh so if you did a certain way in FM one and Flem 2 for certain reasons uh this is a similar application
uh and and the uh condition should be omitted for the same reasons um the uh uh uh the other thing I want to point out is that the the time limitation in your
rule your your planning board's rules and regulation applies across the board so if you have someone coming into this board for a site plan with a one- foot sideyard variance uh that time limitation applies if you have someone
coming in for a a much larger project that might take longer to get fully approved get through financing maybe the time period shouldn't apply uh uniformly to all different types of projects and
the board needs to look at this issue uh project by by project the other thing I would just point out to the board is what's the risk here uh you you have two projects being built the third one we're trying to get off off the ground you
know this developer the variances the board did grant that would be subject to this time limitation are dimensional some have to do with the setback to the the uh the flood zone and having u improvements in the flood zone i mean
some have to do with the um size and shape of the property which is not going to change so um you know I would ask the board to take that into account uh those are um what I would say you know the lawyer
arguments for why this condition should be excised from the resolution but there's practical considerations and and I would turn to Mr gardner who lives this every day has to go out and get financing and actually take risks to build these projects in your town so David if you could just comment on how
that proposed condition in the resolution affects you well first I think you said did such a good job that they don't even need to hear from the char i'm going to need you to you guys be right into that microphone i'm sorry it's the same things that we spoke about
on the first project and the second one you didn't even put it in there so we thought everybody was you know understood but um we have to get financing on that no bank's going to give us a loan on the property on on the project if the
approval can go away you know number one the first project when we built the four buildings the 150,000 ft we still don't have permanent cos okay and Jeff's just told me this and it's it's I think the way the ordinance not the ordinance the
way your rule is written it it's two years from when the resolution is signed we're at four years from the resolution signed on the four buildings right now we still don't have permanent COs we have a TCOS on all the buildings and
apparently we finally solved something that Jeff came up with i don't know there was there's been a number of things over and over lots of things have popped up to get to the permanent CO spot but um that's it's four years so um it's not
and and we leased the whole place up right away we had we got tenants on the like it wasn't we we pulled all the permits on the four buildings we bu it just you know the it's takes a long time and we you know we had at that time we had crazy supply chain issues with things that were like the leftovers from
COVID um it it's just not it's that and also we're not even we don't even own the land yet on this one we're it's we're you know contract purchasers so um you know to go and
close and you guys can pull the approval i mean after we spent a million dollars literally to get to the point because that's how much it literally costs by the time we're done with everybody and the whole thing and the engineering and okay and they get to the finish line and then you guys can just pull the plug
it's like so like do I go forward and close with the that I mean it's just it's just it's very unreasonable i mean our expectations because one and two one we came in and I probably was better at talking about the issues than I am now
um two it wasn't in there so we figured that you know you were just I don't I don't know if it was the same if Joe's office drew it it must it was not okay so I guess so that would have been the I guess the reason that he didn't he didn't bring it up again but you know we
it's it's it's very impractical and the other thing is I know all the legal arguments whatever but we've been in business for 60 years in New Jersey and I I don't know any project ever I think that we've ever had that was completely
variance free this is the only town where this has ever come up where it was the where like they the they the the the planning board just wanted to put a time limit on us because there were variances involved there's the state rules which I think they typically go for like five
years initially and then you can come in and extend it but I've never had what what happened here 5 years ago and then what's happening now and what's in there is very I mean I'm not as as Ron said I'm not arguing it's not the law and you're not it's not the right of the
board do to do that but it's one of those things that's just like over the top um and then finally just the economics i mean you okay so the first project we put the four buildings up and we for we're 100% lease we're 100%
occupied the second building on Minia in the the 50,000 ft building we have a tenant that we're doing per for like 11,000 ft and we just got a signed LOI for like a solar company to take the balance so we literally going to have
the whole thing fully occupied but before that guy the 50,000 ft guy popped into our life i mean the the the balance which is like 37,000 ft or something there was a 27,000 ft guy who was hot hot hot and we were going down the road
we had leases out and then with the tariffs the guy flipped out half of his stuff comes from China so and all of a sudden he was he went cold on us so you know I mean who knows what can happen i mean our business it's a tough business the real estate development business everybody thinks you just wave a wand and we spend three four years getting
things approved we spend another couple years building something we spend another year or two getting it rented and then hopefully at the end of the day our kids make some money on the project anyway I'm just being a little silly but I would really appreciate if the board would consider relieving us of
that language because you know I mean it's just it's it's very ownorous on us to Well thank you both for that explanation please correct me if I'm wrong well you didn't see that language in one and two because subsequent to
those a recommendation was made to us uh because we have so many applications that get approved and people disappear so it would cause so so we put an end on it uh and we started that in that interim
between I'm using your words Flem two and and Flem 3 okay so that's that's what it is it it wasn't directed solely at you it was a procedural thing for our planning office because there's
so many applications that get approved and then Well I think we've proven ourselves a little bit at this point we've been around for I mean you know this isn't our those two industrial buildings are not the only we've been in town with Prayer Commons for many many years so I mean we typically build what we say we're going to build and usually
it comes out pretty nice and then we pay our taxes well well if I if I can Mr gardner um first of all I've dealt with both you and Mr shermanitz in the past and you're both very respectful very professional so this is nothing nothing
um regarding any any prior history with either of you um but um this paragraph 14 is in every resolution in every board everywhere in the state of New Jersey from my law firm and it is not hyperbole
or incorrect to say you are the only developer that's ever objected to this every developer throughout the state of New Jersey factually has no issue getting financing with this clause in paragraph 14 because it is so standard
that it is literally it permeates the land use boards throughout the state of New Jersey factually and to the extent that you need a an extension from the two years you just come before the board and say "I'm having a problem with and I need an extra year." And it's routinely
granted and as your attorney said uh with respect to the MLUL you would be allowed to get these three one-year extensions to go out to five years and at the end of five years then you're out of luck not because of the board but because that's what land use law says so
this paragraph 14 that you're objecting to is literally the status quo of applications throughout the state of New Jersey so I understand that that um you you you you're feeling discomfort from
it because it wasn't in the prior ones but I do things differently and and my firm does things differently and we do it in a way to ensure that nothing slips through the cracks and the onus would be on you to come back before the board to ask for additional time we would hear
you were reason were you know this is a reasonable board and I certainly can't speak for them but to the extent that you were to put forth a reason for an extension it would it would be it would be granted and then you can continue to do it the downside is if we follow uh
your uh request to remove it we have uh we have a uh we have a resolution that goes in perpetuity and I have to in and of course this board is free to reject my legal advice they wouldn't be the first client that would reject my legal advice it won't be the last but I can
only say with the utmost passion that I I would encourage the board to keep the resolution as is that any concerns that you have is addressed through a procedural you write a letter to the board and say I need an extra year and you can do that three times so I I don't
I don't understand what the issue is knowing that there's that ability to to to get that at that additional time period and and you know um Mr shamanowitz did talk about consistency and he referenced one and two in terms
of consistency that consistency is also why I'm because every resolution that will come from my firm is going to have paragraph 14 in it on every application so to your point about consistency this is an SOP as far as as far as I believe
unless the board directs me to to to not put a time limit on it I I will certainly follow their advice but unless I'm directed to remove 14 this is going to appear over and over again in every application mr chairman may I respond mr
t certainly yeah couple things first of all I like that Joe has been elevated to the de congratulations oh thank you sir that's right uh Mr toriel mentioned that this condition permeates it's from his perspective it permeates because he's a
board attorney and he does this and his boards i go to boards throughout the state sometimes I see this sometimes I do not so we have a difference of opinion i think a difference of experience anytime a board's represented by the the the drill to yellow group yes
you're going to see that condition it does not mean it's in every single town i can represent that to you i go to a lot of different towns throughout the state uh the comment that the municipal land use allows three years plus extensions uh we were granted
preliminary and final site plan approval uh where you get final with preliminary the protective vesting is based upon the final so that is a two-year protective vesting that's for the site plan approval it doesn't say anything about the variance variance is controlled by
the provision that you're trying to put into the resolution by way of your rules and regulations for your board so there isn't a statutory provision to come in and ask for that extension um and
uh in terms of Flem one uh remember there the condition was discussed uh to the chair's point that this came later in reaction to certain applicants who kind of disappeared that condition was placed in by Mr drill and
it was argued as we are tonight and the board made a decision to actually take it out it wasn't that it wasn't part of your procedure it was that it was placed in arguments were made and the board made a decision to take it out so that
was an affirmative decision and in terms of perpetuity uh it's it's not an approval in perpetuity i I disagree respectively with Joe uh again for the same reason the municipal land use will only grant you protection for a certain amount of time on the site plan so we
have both the site plan approval and the variance approval so it's not in in perpetuity um those are my responses to Can I ask a point of clarification was Flem won uh before the board of adjustment no because Mr jill wasn't our attorney
for planning board he was the executive Mr bolardo I believe had to step down and jumped in yeah i I reread all three resolutions flem one Flem two and Flem word for word okay and
they're the the attorneys are referenced so I I'll just share as a a kind of companion note because I do wear two hats on board of adjustment and planning board and this is in every resolution that we see at board of adjustment so um
and we routinely once or twice a year we'll see applicants coming back before the board to ask for the additional time and it's literally a three minute you know they stand up and say why they need it why
what the justification is I've never seen one denied but it also gives us that authority to have these time frames you know upon which we expect things to happen because we haven't passed in our township have some projects that came in
pulled some permits and then disappeared um that didn't have this condition a long time ago so I there's something if I may something that Mr gardner said I just want to get some clarification on and that's your ability to get the
financing for this with the ability to get the extensions because I understand why a bank wouldn't give you the loan if the if the planning board could pull the application but with the extensions that are available notwithstanding your point
just a minute ago doesn't that open the door for the bank that so long as they know that they can get extensions Could I give a quick answer to that first of all the the language is scary in the in the resolution which follows the rule and
regg it's an automatic ex expiration and and be the cruel becoming null and void so from from the lawyer point of view and lawyers represent banks they see that and say "Whoa this isn't even like this is like you get to that date there's no more approval." But I don't
David if you have something no man i want to go to back to what Joe just said okay we've done business for 60 years in New Jersey we've been in probably 20 25 municipalities okay and I 93% of of our whatever we were doing had
some sort of variance and I've never seen this anywhere other than this town because it's such a red flag that you would bring it up so it's just their firm that you know and it makes work i get it so that we're here talking and they had to talk to us and look in the books and do whatever you got to do mr
gardner it's not done to make work uh I I don't appreciate that that's not Well I I'm just saying that like it we're not the first ones to say it i apparently we are we are thorough in what we do it has nothing to do with making work and my
job is to protect my client which is this board and factually factually there has literally never been an issue with financing in all of the towns that my firm is involved with none of them and they've been projects as big as this or
bigger and some smaller so how you know how would you know- because nobody's ever raised this as an issue no one's even objected have you ever represented a developer with a bank to get a loan we're not going to litigate this here this evening this is for the planning
board to hear your concerns and to make a decision i can speak as a township committee person that we as a committee have had concerns with projects that have approved applications for which there is no expiry so we have wanted to
make sure that we had some level of protection and we now know that there is so we know that there is an ability to have extension we are a very reasonable planning board and we always have that option proposal or suggestion yeah if
the board's not comfortable with removing the condition alto together and and I will say that uh in dealing with this issue Mr toriello offline uh the last draft has increased the time period from one year to two year your your rules of red talk about one year uh
would the board consider extending that uh period beyond the two years that Mr toriello put in we would recommend the four-year period i mean would the resolution be more immenable if it said
the two years with the option of additional to site specifically that you can come in for additional extension at one year increments for up to five years is that is there a way to soften the language thereof thereup yeah that I mean that would help but having having a
set period greater than two years would would help a lot more would that be for permits or talking about permanency uh actually for both let me just double check because
that that condition has two parts to it as I stated in my introduction i think the the most important part is um applying for the permit and obtaining the construction permit that was the
two-year limitation i think that's the most important part of getting a little more room because where was the the permanent C again what I first said is that Jeff's we still don't have the permanent CO on Flem one okay
and I think we're close now finally right you you you came up with Yes that's correct every every permanent and um TCO and and pero there's procedures and nothing's everything's done in accordance with the site plan and what the board approved and um but and
there's a checklist that's that's required for permanence right right now the draft as you know the last draft has a two-year period for construction permits from the date of the resolution and a one-year period from the first
construction permit to commence and complete construction with a I mean that that's that's very unreasonable how do we know that's that construction-wise that there's not going to be another pandemic that there's not going to be this there's not there's there's things that happen okay and there's also the
market if we're we're not and then the question also is is CO for the shell of the building and then we have tenants that go in so we it should be specific about the shell so I mean if you need to put a time limit on it because you think we're
going to go someplace and not then then I'm asking for I think four year i mean again we've been at it for four years since the sign resolution on one we've been done for a year but there was paperwork and things no there was there was site work that needed to be completed and some inspection work so
there was there was things that needed to be inspected there was paperwork that became like new paperwork for your processes over here that have been pushed back and we had to go back to the MUA to get another like letter we had to go to soil to get another letters that had already really happened already so
that that's just part of the sir if I may I have been in both the construction department and the zoning department and the process with everything has not been straightforward okay so I understand all of your concerns but the process with
everything with new tenants coming in it was not the easiest process because of us well between the communication between the township and your offices yes so hopefully you can consider some sort of
compromise that we can all what what I would what I would be okay with adding would be if said during two-year period or extension thereof which shall not be unreasonably
withheld because it won't [Music] now you've got something you've got verbiage in there that says not only do you can you get the extensions but it will not be unreasonably withheld
after how many years it's it's the it's the law it's 5 years you can't go beyond five years so you've got nobody here is no one's on how about this two-year or extension thereof thereof which shall not be unreasonably withheld consistent
with the ML which is which is three one year extension i think we're starting to mix apples and oranges with the preliminary and final cycle i'm I'm I'm trying I'm not comfortable with anything other than that that's it that's like all I can offer
from my perspective well I mean yeah I we have a simple request to the board the simple request is the last draft has a two-year period and a one-year period we would request that those periods be bumped out how far out mr gardner is asking
four years how far out would be in the wisdom of the board but I think it should be a a time certain we understand we can come in for extensions we we get that three and we'll we'll leave it to the board
how about if we split the difference here on three so it means three years from when when when you sign this resolution what do we have to accomplish have to obtain a zoning permit and construction permits
is that a construction do we have to do site improvements to to apply for that jeff meaning if we came in after this was all we did this and we came in in a month for a zoning permit and a building
permit before we touched the ground are you going to issue a building permit no I'm not going to I know you're not but Jeff doesn't issue building I mean the town I mean the building would you issue a zoning permit not without a pre-construction meeting or
without profession review yeah yeah not on the resolution compliance the plans are all finalized see that that for the board just so you understand the process what happens where you become at the mercy of this gentleman your engineer okay and if he drags it on for months
and months and months of reviews and back and forth and blah blah blah then all of a sudden that that two that period of time that we're talking about we we start to lose time to get permits and to build the building that that's why I mean I I appreciate that you
that's what happens so so once it's done with resolution compliance and the board signs off engineer signs off pre-construction submitted performance bond and then a zoning permit just a clearance that you had that week nothing
that we're going to put anything extra this is just to protect the board the process and everything's all all paper but for the board's education what happens is soil conservation will probably not let them issue a building permit until we do a certain amount of
the site improvements build the detention basin put up silk fence do the there's a whole bunch of stuff that happens i'm not making this up this is reality of how it works so all of a sudden three years is that's why we're four years out right now on the on the first step chairman if I could make a
recommendation because we could obviously go quite extensively on this we need to create standard language that we put in all our resolutions because we will be then negotiating every single situation so we need to agree as a board
what will that standard language be that is consistent with the laws that also creates the flexibility to help support our partners in development in this process but what I would like to avoid is creating one-off
situations to accommodate individuals versus having a standard language that we can all rely upon that everybody knows is consistent that the community understands is consistent so should we table this for tonight and come up with something to substitute
here whatever it is I'm just recommending it's the same same across the correct that's my recommendation and to be clear from the applicant's point of view we would have no problem with the chairman's suggestion of a three-year time
with the ability to come in and ask for the to I think that was a fair compromise by the chair the added language council was just clarifying what's meant there right it just expands upon it it doesn't change anything but it clarifies and provides additional depth to what that
means correct press that in and you're amendable to that correct so three years can you reread the language council just so we're clear on what we would amend well I Are you saying three years instead of three it says two years right now it says two years right now so you
want three on every on everybody three with that additional language are we okay with three it would have to be in every single resolution that's what I'm saying it would apply to everything moving forward you're looking for the second house
because we're gonna create a mission it's both of them i'm going to recommend we table it we discuss it and whatever we come up with as the as the consistent language for everybody that's what it'll appear in
there whatever it is and then you'll get you're putting us into duress just so you know if we can't move this forward with a with a Okay because we have to we have a contract i've got to close on the land in in like 90 days mr gardner I hear you if you want to get out you can
accept the resolution with the language i have it you don't want to do that so the time the additional time is your voluntary choice i'm not comfortable making a decision tonight so I'm asking the board to Are we saying three years i'm not okay with that not okay with
changing a single comma or semicolon at this point you're asking the board to consider it they're going to consider it we need additional time can we Can we accept it the way you drew it now and come back in and reopen it as a a conversation on this thing and come back i I wouldn't want to go down that road
the re the reason is we can't we can't finish off certain permits to build here without getting having a signed resolution we'll turn it around okay so there's permits that are involved with the D with that I I can't go forward because I need a signed resolution i mean I've never had experience like this
that it keeps going on you can accept as it's written now and you don't have to worry about it so any additional time or duress is self-imposed because you're the one who's interposing an objection to the verbiage I provided joe we're so I don't understand i understand that but
it's like you can't have it both ways when is your next meeting excuse us can we talk about this in executive decision and we will turn this around quickly for you we understand your time constraints so but we really do need to take this tonight we will discuss it in close
session right so when is the next meeting that we can come back and do this again that's what I'm You can wait till we're done i'm sorry you can wait till we're done with close session but our next meeting is April 23rd so it's two weeks it's two weeks it's two weeks i'd rather come back i have a
gig tomorrow night my band is playing in New York City i'm exhausted um I think we're done i know april 23rd y All right well we'll come back on April 23rd i appreciate if you can talk about
it at your close you work it through and then I'll be in touch with Mr i just I just I just would request that you consider be you reverse it and put in our shoes that we did two projects we didn't have this issue why it's a thing i really was expecting to walk in here and be out in five minutes i don't know
why this is a thing but apparently it is thank you very much thank you Mr okay next up resolution 06-2025 New Jersey Conservation Foundation we have that
resolution anybody have any comments on that resolution this is New Jersey Conservation yes it is i just want to make a note of an a edit that Jeffrey had added and it's I
believe it's the last page if Jeff or Joe wanted to just put it on the record that it's there yeah I'm just looking for Here we go it's Yeah the D so it's on page 11 um uh
number 3D uh the four trailers on the western side of the property shall be removed that was uh discussed and agreed to and it was an oversight on my part so good good eyes on that thank you
okay anybody else no can I have a motion to approve resolutions 06-2025 i'm going to give that to Scott sorry Michelle um chairman Miss Edward Gettings yes vice Chair Miss Donna Drews
yes miss Robin Fatu yes mr scott McDade yes miss Michelle Kavakiri yes mr flyn yes that was quick next up is resolution 07-2025 which is uh Joseph and Despina
McNelte this is the properties at six rolling lane and three William Barts Road anybody have any comments or changes on this i had recused myself just for the record i needed to recuse myself from this so I have nothing to
say i'll move it if no discussion michelle was that you make second it okay um Vice Chair Miss Donna Drews yes miss Robin Fatu yes mr scott McDade yes
miss Michelle Capakiri yes mr glenn Stoolski yes okay and the last resolution up this evening is resolution 08-2025 this is Woodmont Rarit and Flex LLC at 101 East Corner Road
any comments regarding this resolution i'd like to move to approve it okay okay hold on chairman Miss Gettings yes vice Chair Miss Donna Drews yes m
robin Fatu yes mr scott McDade yes mr glenn Soowski yes okay next up is citizens privilege for the folks who are here in the room this evening if you have anything you'd like to address to the planning board other
than what's the two applications that are yet to come this would be your opportunity to do so and if you'd like to please step up to the microphone give your name and we would be happy to hear from you there's nobody online we don't do that anymore so okay there being none
we can move on to the first public hearing which is Flemington Concrete Products LLC this is a minor site plan with bulk variance for a one-story 10,800 ft² manufacturing building mr chairman I'm going to step into the hall
michelle if you want you can go in the conference room and said it's more comfy don't forget me okay that's good thank you for your professional yes we're all just trying to work together all right good evening my name is Robert
McN i'm from the law firm of McNal Yaros Kenzinsi and Lime we represent Crater Concrete Products LLC uh this property is located at 5 Foster Lane block 27 lot 30.02 the property owner is Flemington
Concrete Products LLC this is an approximately 19.6 acre parcel in your I2 or major industrial district zone the parcel was created as part of a minor subdivision of three industrial lots in
2009 via resolution 12209 also in 2009 the property was approved for development as a two family 6,400 ft office and garage building a 3100 ft concrete recycling plant and a
one-story 24,000 square ft manufacturing building these improvements were subsequently constructed along with other approved site improvements such as pave and gravel parking three-sided storage bins lighting landscaping and
storm water management facilities the applicant is currently seeking to construct an additional 10,800 square ft manufacturing building with parking and lighting on the property the purpose of the proposed building is to provide for additional square footage
that will improve the operations and the management of the existing business but will not expand it if this application is approved the applicant does not intend to hire any additional employees nor expand the scope of its services now
I won't go into too much more detail uh in my opening i'll leave that to our witnesses but I do want to just outline our necessary relief tonight we're requesting preliminary and final major site plan approval along with variances and design waiverss from the
following a C variance and design waiver from section 296-152 in as much as it references the requirement section 296-75 C2C that parking be curbed and the
applicant is not proposing to do so a C variance from section 296-153B2 for an aisle width of 18 feet or 25 ft is required and a C variance from section 296-153B2 for an aisle width of 24 feet
where 25 ft is required no additional signage is proposed tonight I have two witnesses for you by Richard Creeder uh the owner of the entity holding the property and also the entity that owns the operating company will testifies to the current
operations and the need for additional development i also have Steven Parker of Parker Engineering and Surveying our project engineer and planner who will testify as to the existing site the proposed development and the legal justification for the granting of the
requested variances no one has any questions i'll ask Mr the creator to be sworn in and we'll start can I um swear in all of your witnesses and I'll do the board professionals absolutely we'll just do it once for efficiency so everybody could raise your right hand do
you swear that the testimony you're going to give this evening is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do can you please start from left to right state your name uh for the record richard Rakkesh Dargy with environmental resolutions
j Jeff Beckarella thank you all thank you council thank you mr crater will you give the board uh your home address please yes 23 Providence Drive in Flemington and are you the owner of both
the operational entity and the entity that owns the property yes that's correct and when did you purchase the property uh that we're here about tonight i think you mentioned that earlier it's the same date 2009 yes okay um and you developed you obtained the
development approvals for those current operations that I discussed in my opening is that correct yes okay for the board and this was also in I believe Mr vakarella's letter can you describe the current operations for the site please sure first I wanted to thank the board
for the the opportunity to sit here i know the last couple meetings unfortunately were uh cancelled abruptly and I apologize for that the uh in addition to living within the township for the last 35 years the uh although it's listed as Flemington Concrete
Products it's actually Crater Vault is the company that work there it's a 100 plus year old business five generation uh it's my brother and I that run the the businesses now and uh as I mentioned before I live in the township and have for a number of years mr k I'm gonna ask
if you could just get a little bit closer to that microphone yes sorry no I may have turned Is it off uh talking about uh the uh primarily the business that goes back over the the hundred years is in the concrete burial vault or burial crypt business uh and monument
work uh the work that's done there primarily at the site is production of concrete burial boxes that are used for cemeteries throughout not just the state the larger metropolitan area also including a lot of the veteran cemeteries in the surrounding New York
New Jersey Connecticut actually done in Arlington on groups that we've sent down to Arlington National Cemetery for our veterans actually and currently doing work at Ar at uh William Doyle Cemetery which is New Jerseyy's own state run
veteran cemetery so we supply that um those products throughout that area in addition to producing concrete in addition to uh the u class B recycling center uh that was approved a number of years ago so we will also bring waste
concrete in individuals bring waste concrete in uh that we stockpile process and crush and use it as a recycled aggregate uh that's used for construction projects throughout uh can you tell the board the number of employees that you have at
your current operation i'm ready for that question the number of employees are not changing um that's all right let's frame it this way the plan that you have for this building you're not going to need any additional employees correct no i'll give you a
little background of what necessity the necessity to to uh have us look for bring this building up so in the nature of the business of what we do when the pandemic hit uh early in 2021 uh the you can imagine that time particularly in
the northeast and New York New Jersey uh and within our veteran cemeteries there were a number of deaths that needed to be handled for us as a company where most people were staying home and not working our uh work exploded uh we had tremendous amount of of need for our
product to service the pandemic when it hit uh and the uh that kind of woke us up to you know what would be needed to be able to uh continue that and also looking at for the uh safety for our own employees during the pandemic making
sure we had spacing and allocation for everyone to be able to work safely and continue to come to work uh the um and those operations although at that point uh kind of pushed us to our maximum um in terms of productivity it really
highlighted that uh some of the products that we produce need to be spread out a little more space than currently have there also one of the products that we end up um the u producing is a colarium which
is inground burial boxes are used for full casket get remains to be buried colarium is actually for crees so it's a niche wall with colarium where the u the crees are put within uh those products require a lot of additional time from a
fabrication standpoint typically most products in concrete are produced and then put outside storage this product needs a number of weeks if not over a month to stay inside as it's finished for production uh this building allows us to have more room to keep those
products inside not have to push them out right away uh so when we talk about from an employee standpoint how that will change it's really giving uh us more room to work with the existing employees that we have and be able to keep some product inside instead of
having it pushed outside right in storage can you tell us the uh days and hours of operation of the business uh the operations typically from 6:30 to 3:00 although they will start earlier and or
later depending upon uh the uh the needs of the time and one of the questions that was in uh Mr troutman's letter was describing um the number of and types of delivery vehicles that will be on site can you talk about that a little bit
see that there but that's the uh so we we run a number of different uh trucks the trucks can end up being uh dump trucks uh for materials that are coming in from uh throughout the operations uh tankers trucks of cement uh tractor
trailers that run uh typically out uh the uh readymix trucks uh single uh straight 33,000lb trucks with hydraulic booms on them uh the numbers are not
um probably around and one of the questions we saw in the review letter was uh talking about the traffic flow and the circulation can you describe if there'll be any impact with that the traffic flow is pretty consistent uh you know
certainly when the traffic coming in one of the requirements with our class B permit is is that there's permanent signs at the entrance uh that contractors coming in from the air that typically comes in normally uh the uh the sign does give instructions of what
to do and that is a phone number there active 247 call but the flow is a counterclockwise flow around the property uh the uh in the back where the storage is of the products sometimes that storage in terms of how the rows are lined up may adjust where the type
of concrete being produced in terms of its size may adjust where the placement is or how that's arranged what the uh flow is a typical counterclockwise and warped and just so the board's clear this is
not a retail site correct yeah it's there's no retail anyway okay um and with the new building you are planning to use that for um the fabrication of materials or for storage how are you going to use that uh combination of both
so it's it's going to be uh fabrication of materials that are uh currently produced and then the uh storage and finishing of those materials that are produced okay and on the plans you have a mezzanine section can you describe how you intend to use that the uh the
mezzanine is going to end up being used as a uh for employees uh as a break area so the employees that will be working within this building will typically be two to three maybe four employees from this operation that we're moving over to
the building and then those employees will have a place to to wash up and and there was a question as to the location of the stock piles can you explain uh for the board how the D and the county inspects these locations and
if you've had any issues in the past with that please so the uh part of our permit with the uh D is an annual renewal uh the D will come out on a quarterly basis uh and inspect uh not just the uh
property the piles um processing the material but also our records related to that so what comes in and what comes out uh those piles will um build up and then also um you know go
down so the u those materials are are always in flux uh daily if not certainly weekly other stockpiles of materials are raw materials that are used to produce concrete uh which are typically sand and stone and any of those materials that
you're storing on site those are materials that you've been approved to store on site correct yes okay part of the process all right um and are the existing locations of the stock piles shown on the plans there was some question as to whether they
were located uh yes at the same time the uh the approved for the class B uh recycling don't believe this i don't see Mark okay all right
is your It's helpful if we can see some of these things that you're describing i don't know if your engineer is going to cover that and do their testimony yes we'll cover that okay great thank you can can can those be added to the plan i'm sorry can those piles be be
delineated on the plan sure and not on these plans but on prior plans they were the approval years ago but also regulated and monitored with the state
okay thank you uh any new storage on site that you'll need uh no or minimal around the building um with production taking place within the
building like this building we're doing storage is typically kept closest to the building so um there may be some rearranging don't perceive utilizing more space than we currently have okay
i'm sorry just will that storage be on what side of the building the there's currently one building for production typically everything that's stored is around that current building the new building is adjacent to the current one but much
smaller and it would just be filling in so the materials would be placed close to that new building and then just as they're close to the existing building and the materials are concrete and just taking a look at some of the questions that were raised um from the
letters um you are able to confirm the identification number of the new building with township fire marshall yes um do you need a new trash enclosure no
um we had a letter from January 13 2023 from the municipal recycling coordinator requesting that you participate in uh annual reporting of the recycling act activity for the prior year are you willing to comply with that yes I
believe we are in compliance because I know certainly with the state there's requ there's recordkeeping that's sent in and monitored continuously uh in addition to the state coming out and doing inspections we also work with the county so although we'll have at a
minimum four state inspections in some cases we may also have four county uh quarterly inspections throughout the year in addition to when the state comes out so we we could have eight inspections come up uh take place throughout the year
have you had any um issues in the past with either those state or county inspections no there's there hasn't been a violation or any uh item of note in four or five plus years um the township landscape
architect had recommended that a condition of any approval be added that the um uh prior landscaping planting and maintenance uh of the vegetated storm water management facilities that are associated with your
2009 approval be reviewed and replanted and restored you have no issue with that do you no that's that's fine okay um the fire marshall had also in his letter of January 3rd I think there were
four or five um issues that he wanted you to address i'm assuming you don't have any issue with that no um can you uh briefly talk about the color of the new building and its relation to the existing building we're to the extent possible we're going to
match the buildings uh the buildings are light tan i think the gutters are blue the company's color is blue so we'll keep it as a close match but I'm not sure who's going to really see it but the um at least it'll be
consistent and can you touch on that what somebody driving by can see from the road the uh the site the the site would have access from Pennsylvania Avenue and between
Pennsylvania Avenue and our site or other properties one of them being the Tuminous or um the Stavola asphalt plant so we're in between them and at a different elevation so very little of any this building I don't think you'll
be able to see it from any road Mr chairman I don't have anything else for this witness okay any other questions from the board members mr crater yeah um a question um I don't know if you were going to go
over it there was an earlier report from the U rtmua regarding sewage capacity we can talk about that or if that's that'll let for the engineer uh it's got to be answered
either way yeah Mr creater respond to that yeah so the the uh currently uh the uh we have a capacity uh we're underutilized by 050 of an
.edu and the uh the employee count is not changing um and uh that was as of a recent um survey that was done for the 2025 year uh and the year prior we were under
by over twice that i think where this came up I know this has been out there in in the uh um for consideration for a few years we're finally sitting down today i think that one point we were over by one quarter of an edu three four
years ago that was the time when we had the the pandemic hit and our numbers uh spiked but we've been nowhere near that employee count since then so do you have an updated letter from RTMUA stating
that you have capacity we do as a matter of fact so we have a letter from December 15 of 2023 that states that the difference between the edus allotted to the property and the 2024 calculated usage
is two and then a letter from December 12th of 2024 where that difference is 50 so in both ines can you submit that absolutely the
agency review did have an acceptable Okay great you want copy of this now anybody want a copy of this letter give it to Jeff i have a bunch of We have this back in 2022 yeah we just have an old Okay and other point of clarification if
you can find the employee count that would be helpful because that relates to traffic and sewer capacity and all that kind of stuff so if you can find it in your notes at some point I think that would be helpful because
I think we have uh 32 okay great is the employee count uh but that that takes that's not that's a combination of of part-time full you know because there's drivers that come in and out our own drivers that will load up and don't come back
until questions from the board now if we have somebody in the audience from the from our township this evening and you have a question for Mr crater based on his testimony now would be the time to do so okay thank
you Mr mcn we uh that was very free form we usually don't go that much free form but for Mr parker right the uh the going through the engineering letters and it would be helpful if you went through the [Music]
letter and I'm going to ask you to do so quickly because we're playing beat the clock tonight thank you in advance so I My name is Steve let's get you qualified first can you give the the board the benefit of your uh credentials please i'm a licensed uh engineer and a planner in
the state of New Jersey uh I'm an owner of Parker Engineering and Surveying i've testified before this board as well as other boards throughout the area as engineer and planner uh for applications similar to this one license are still in good standing they are yes yeah you're
acceptable to the board are you testifying both as planner and engineer yes you are okay thank you let's start with the engineering first so we I will just go right to there's a I believe the latest letter uh is from November 12th of 2024 um and I think we
can go through that u quickly i think Mr it might be good to put the exhibit up and just familiarize do you need a stand do you need a stand because it's kind of hard to understand the comments when the exhibit hasn't been introduced
the plans that we have are just the plans that were before okay so okay [Music] so the plan that I have on the board is sheet number three uh of the plan set
that was submitted uh for uh review by the board and I'm sorry I'm just looking for the letter I i just [Music] had this in a good spot for you right here is that is that all right
um so so yeah this just to give a a little bit of I was going to ask you that does that work all right I'll stand close the planet three shows the location of building itself in the middle of the site it's a little over 19
acres uh in total area uh the access from the property is Foster Lane i'm just going to point to that it's a culde-sac on the lefth hand side of the drawing uh immediately to the uh drawing south of the property is the railroad property to the north um is the
Bushville Creek area um and then you can see most of the site is already been developed already there's a the manufacturing building is located where I'm pointing right here the offices uh a two-story uh shop building is over there the back part of the property is the
stormwater mansion area and then the rest of the site in through here is for uh vehicle circulation as well as storage of the uh the products uh the ones that have been made as well as uh the the storage of the concrete materials the the concrete plant is in
the back area here and then the the bin area where the storage piles are located are up also in the north what I say the northwest part of the site over there um so that just provides a little bit of of context for the site the proposed building is right basically in the middle um and where that is is that's in
an area that's uh again substantially developed there was a portion of that that's uh that's lawn right now um but it's kind of right in the middle it works best operationally for the company to have it there uh because it works well for the circulation and the storage
of the materials as described in Mr crater uh so I'll move right to the letter the review letter yes um just be clear on that when when Mr peter said that there was going to be some additional storage outside the proposed manufacturing would that probably occur
in that proposed gravel area or Yes that's correct it's going to be right in basically right in front of the building right over there okay and and that's that if you ever got there there's a lot of stuff already stored in that area right now uh and they're just going to continue that um I I think we can go through this uh
relatively quick Mr chairman i think um on page number two of the letter uh comments one and two uh we we can agree to uh those items um comment number three is just uh
comment about the the overhead door on the proposed building on the east side is going to come out onto into a gravel area and yes it is that's in fact going to be gravel uh so the access in and out will be over a gravel area not over a lawn area
um we'll agree to the um request for additional information number four um and I think comment number five is regarding one of the uh the variances that are being requested um as part of the uh uh the the proposed building
there's some parking that's going to be in the back of that building or the north side of the building and the access to that parking area is by a an aisle that goes directly over to this area where towards where the concrete plant is what we're suggesting is that aisle really only needs to be 18 ft wide
uh because it's just for the the use of these cars that may be parking in the back over here um so it's it's not a heavily trafficked area um the 18 foot width is really just for two-way traffic uh that'll be for ve for cars that may be going back and forth so we're requesting a waiver for that just to
help minimize the amount of impervious coverage uh there on the property um we think that's a better design uh than increasing impervious coverage um and it's just quite frankly not necessary for the way it's going to be used um the next comment is comment number
six about a um a curbing and again the the only new area uh that we're talking about is that parking area behind the proposed building um right now the way that the site is designed the storm water runoff from that area goes flows
right overland into the detention basin uh that's right directly behind it uh we're proposing to eliminate or not propose curbs in that area that would increase more the need for more catch basins it would increase the uh the uh storm water management structures that are out there we don't think it's
necessary we think the site was originally designed uh to flow as overland flow into those detention basins we're just proposing to keep it that way u so we'll operate basically the same as it did before um so again the curving we don't believe is necessary actually we think we think it functions better without curving out
there um to eliminate the need for more stormwater structures um I think the next comment seven we would as a comment um number eight uh of course is u so conservation district approval is one of the outside
agency approvals that would be required uh and certainly we agree to that um I think comment nine is a another comment about lighting uh lighting plan has been included in I believe sheet five of the drawings um comment number 10 storm water
management there's a Can I just stop you there for a minute Resh have you seen that lighting plan yes uh the the revised plans do have the the lighting information it's better um comment number 10 again is is a comment about the storm water management
um and then there's some additional comments regarding that so we'll just go right to the next section then um on page three um comment number one we'll agree to those comments in the Ferrero the latest Ferrero engineering memo um to address
those uh to the satisfaction of the board engineer we'll agree to comment number two um I believe comment number three is uh regarding the uh banked parking the ordinance allows a certain percentage of the parking stalls to be
bankked parking um and so the the requirement for parking for the manufacturing building we're providing 10 of those parking stalls behind the building four of them are going to be banked in front um and they'll just we just have we're just showing them where they would be located um quite frankly
we really don't think we're going to need any of them uh because there's no increase in the number of employees but uh that's what the uh the ordinance requires so we're providing the ones in the back of the building yeah I I think the only the purpose the main main reason we asked that question was just some
clarification the drive path is that uh is that what the intended path is for the trucks or for passenger vehicles and I guess because our question was you're showing a drive path going to the bank parking uh and not to the proposed
parking on the basin side so what's the what's the purpose of the drive path I guess is yeah that's really just for the any of the trucks or ve or large vehicles that are going to be traversing the site okay so it's a truck circulation path not necessarily you're not directing people to the bank parking you're directing trucks with that that
path correct that's exactly right yeah to provide access how they would come to the site i'm sorry could you just uh clarification on on number 2A so are the utilities going to be underground they are yes okay and so then then you agree
to show the limit of disturbance yes um okay comment number four uh trash enclosure there's an existing trash enclosure between the existing u uh office building and the manufacturing building that's going to remain in place again there's uh no need for uh for any
more than what's already there um we agree with comment number uh five number six we agree with that as well agree with comment number seven um agree with comment number eight and
comment nine as well i think uh comment number 10 is a uh comment about the existing stormwater management system uh it is functioning uh as designed um and I think there's a recommendation for portions of that to
be televised um in the vicinity of the proposed improvements so we'll agree to that as well uh provide and provide a a report or a copy of a a video whatever is preferable yeah the report's fine okay um comment number 11 we agree with as well we'll provide those details for
the roof drains uh number comment number 12 will agree with also as well as 13 14 15 I think was discussed by Mr crater he's agreed with the comments of the landscape architect uh that you know to replace any of the landscaping that
um didn't survive since the original approval um so we agreed to that as well as number 16 also um there's some additional outside agency approvals that are listed there of course any of those that are required
will secure uh prior to the issuance of any permits i think that's basically it for the engineering letter um so we'll move right into the uh letter for Mr varela
i'm sorry you're going so quickly which I appreciate but um item number 13 um Are you happy with Yeah you have what you need we asked for just some some
clarification uh but we did subsequent um to our um the the last review the applicant did submit additional storm management uh information and the main thing we wanted to to make sure is that the storm management basin uh can accommodate this
additional impervious they did provide the information from the from the original storm run management report and the the proposed discharge from the uh from the basin is far below uh what the allowable was from the original design so I'm satisfied as far as the uh
suitability of the uh the um existing swimmer management basins to handle the runoff um so moving on then to the planners uh Mr mr barella's letter um and this is December 12th 2024 correct yes correct
that's because there was a previous one that's right in 2023 um I think that um comment number one has been uh just a comment number two I believe Mr crater provided the overview of the business operation um as well as number three number four
the variances that are being requested you talked about uh I think two of those uh one of course was the uh curbing uh weight variance for the curbing two was the variance for the width of the driveway aisle we're proposing it to be 18 ft versus 25 ft which is what the
ordinance requires and then uh the third variance is for another width of 24 feet uh where 25 ft is required i'm not 100% sure where that is there may be an existing part of of the site that has that on there but I don't believe we're
proposing um the only aisle we're proposing is the 181 aisle um but there may be portions of the developed property that Yeah I believe it's it's a portion it wasn't Yeah it wasn't what was being proposed so this is a pre-existing is
that is that is that what you're saying so it's a pre-existing non-conforming so this is just to kind of clean things up is that okay yes got it um uh number five is it uh also a the curbing is also is an addition to a variance is a design waiver or design
exception i'm sorry so we're requesting that uh in addition to the variances um and then I think we talked about the the testimony why we think that's a better alternative how we think it improves the site and doesn't contribute to um uh you know storm water man increased storm water management um and we think the
circulation will work better without those items without the uh um curbing and with the 18 foot wide aisle width um I think number seven uh we it was discussed by Mr crater uh with the RTMUA and the uh you're going to get us a
letter yep okay um I think the drive paths we did talk about again um Mr crater described how the site works when trucks come in they kind of um traverse the site in a counterclockwise fashion um and that's going to continue um I had that I only had that comment
because um we went to the site just as a site visit it's been it's been quite a while but when we were trying to figure out what the circulation is it was it was not it wasn't clear but I mean you're correct it's not for It's not for retail the public isn't isn't invited
but it was more of how just some testimony for for the board of how it So if if a an employee was coming in and going to work in the new building would you show us the travel path that they would go yeah they would mr whatever yes i would see them coming in this way
and then going the area but I think some of what you may have seen Jeff is that and what's not shown here is the class B recycling allocation there's piles that
are here that go here that go up and down center row so when the truck will come in to bring material in we receive material they'll come down this way and then have that material done and then also
they'll come through that way so there is another class B so there is additional and then there's inventory within here that inventory also has rows so a port that's not really not for traffic
but and those aisles aren't defined on the on the ground really because they change you know certain times they have a lot of inventory sitting there and other times it's it's depleted and it's not there so you know the exact that's the general trend is what's described by Mr crater um the exact location is not something that's marked on the ground
because because it changes but you're going to generally show where the stock piles for the class yes yes that that'll be part of the plan revision um uh comment number 10 is a request uh we provide the parking uh calculations on
sheet uh three of the plans and I think the request is for just a total number we haven't reached we broke it out for the individual buildings we'll provide a total number uh on the revised plans um and I think Mr c described number 11 the employees and the mezzanine
um number 12 comment number 12 in the in the area uh just below the manufacturing building uh there's an area that was approved for banked parking stalls under the original site plan approval from 2009 uh since then there's a rail siding
that's been added in an area um so that's not shown on the plans here we'll revise the plans to show that and what we're going to do is take the uh that banked parking and just slide it over to the east a little bit so it's on the other side of the rail siding there there's plenty of room to feed it to fit it in there where's the rail siding so
it comes in So the railroad tracks run kind of east west here they're just below the site uh there's a rail signing that comes in right kind of right this area here right next to the existing parking area for the manufacturing building and was that approved in a previous application
uh I wasn't involved in the prior application so I don't know that was the railroad sighting the majority of the signings on the rails uh property the uh I assume that was yes i
would assume that it was but I can't say for sure that but where it comes onto your property was that was that approved i would assume that it was at the time because the the rail was there okay i'm not testifying but my
recollection from the F Greek application is the uh application for the F Greek Greek am I saying that correctly there was some testimony given at that time where the siding was on the railroads property but on this one he's saying
it's coming onto the Oh okay i didn't I didn't pick up on that yeah because it's going where I thought it was no he said there so there's Could you show on the map where that siding is onto your property and then what's what's the siding used for well the area is right
through right through here now again the sighting uh I point to that area that may be just the access for the from the site onto there i don't know exactly where the railroad that's what Mr varel's comment is he wants to see exactly where that is but and I don't think the I don't think the railroad uh
is as close or even comes near the tracks themselves correct so the tracks just they aren't on your property the tracks or they are the tracks are on the property okay so there is a rail a off
siding whatever the the technical term is rail session i recall we had discussions about this on the creek because there was I recall we had discussions on this in the F Creek Creek because uh of the
product they were doing in there in the rail siding and the rail spur that is governed by department of transportation department right but the site plan stuff which we
Oh okay we're going to include that on on the new on new plan of the show yes yes and is Yeah do you use that it very rarely the the product that we're looking to that product I mentioned that bearing
product that you're finishing and it's finished like an architecture with concrete uh the sites that we can truck to recently uh we actually rail the products rail product down in Florida and a rail out and out
west cemetery construction but you're talking maybe the uh comment next comment is comment number 13 um the this as described by Mr crater this is really just a storage building there are there are no uh solar panels proposed for that
uh and there's no real lead uh uh aspects of the design for the building either it's it's a it's just going to be it's not conditioned space uh in the main part of the building and it's just a basically a warehouse and a you know manufacturing area as you described
um number 14 on the last page again I think Mr crater talked about that uh D and the county came out and look at those stock piles uh and ensure that they are in compliance with uh the regulations um wetland uh we've requested a waiver from providing uh a
wetland analysis that was done as part of the original uh approval back in 2009 this is uh the area that we're talking about as part of this project is interior to the site it's not near any of those wetlands so there would be no impact so uh no need to get uh an
updated D approval for that um it's not even close to the wetland um I think the traffic uh review we can go over that uh that's comment number 16 uh 17 the storage is screened from
the whole back area of the site you can't really see from Foster Lane or from Pennsylvania Avenue so it's all screened um lighting uh existing lighting we didn't you know uh number 19 I'm talking about um could you just go to 18 i'm sorry
that we're going to show those stock piles uh we'll be illustrated on the plan uh we're we'll agree to do that number 18 does um lighting i believe the other site was approved the lighting for that was approved there's been no changes that's been operating for years um we didn't show that on these plans because again that was already pri you
know previously approved there is lighting for the new building and that is included in the plans um the color of the building again it'll match uh the existing building number 21 no new signage is proposed we'll agree with number 22 uh
building identification to be confirmed with the fire marshall now number 23 is a comment regarding the um uh just a slight discrepancy in the building area i think we had uh 10,800 i think the architect had 10,790 um we'll make sure those are
consistent uh and then of course we agree with comment number 24 uh 25 26 she's here i'm sorry also 23 says the plan shall reflect one number the plan shall reflect one number yes we we'll make them consistent okay got it
and I I believe the number is going to be 10,800 okay i'm sorry i I missed that my apologies okay um and I believe the um rest of those comments are just comments um think that's all I have Mr chairman
okay any board questions any other additional board questions mr parker no I don't believe we have anybody here from the community if anybody wants to ask a question but Mr parker on his testimony this would be the time
you said Mr park you would now speak to the traffic so there's a um a review memo by Mr traman dated January 23rd 2023 um and I think the conclusion
uh in that letter is that um there a detailed traffic impact study is is not required i believe is the important conclusion of that um and I think the testimony provided for the hours of operation number of employees and so on uh I believe is
consistent with that jay are you good with that testimony on your report yeah I think the main thing to establish in our memo is we had we had run some troop generation numbers as if the site was expanding so even if
that were to occur it's a very low impact building for this type of use and now we're getting testimony that they're just needing more elbow room they're just spreading their existing employees out so it's probably even less than what's
in my memo um and the operational testimony that we've already heard I think confirms a lot of the other questions about deliveries employees uh hours uh so my comments are satisfied okay very
good thank you Mr parker you just want to touch real quick on on any planning aspects that you haven't covered already yeah I think we I think we've touched on those um already how we think that uh this is is a you know better for open space circulation better for storm water
management and it's just a better option uh for the var the request for the variances so I don't know that you need more explanation that Mr chairman well I think you need to make your case for the C variances right well okay we certainly think that this is uh an improve an improved option for the development of
the site uh that's there we believe that the um the circulation of the site will be improved i think the storm water management of the site will be improved uh by not requiring curbing around the
parking lot uh and by allowing the 18 foot uh drive by width those are really the two variances that we're talking about here uh so we we believe it's a better design option uh and we don't we believe that this can be approved without uh any detriment to the uh to
the zone plan and zoning orders or to the the public surrounding site mr parker it's your opinion that the benefits of granting the variances outweigh any detriments and the variances will not substantially compare the zoning plan ordinance yes
I don't have anything else for Okay i'm just looking for my notes on the fire you said you had satis would satisfy everything on the fire marshall's report am I correct remembering that yeah that's correct correctly okay good that was the um fire marshall's letter
of January 3rd 2020 yes sir yep okay sure so um just just to sum it up so there if the board if there's no further deliberations the motion would be to pro
to approve a design wa waiver from section 29675 a C variance to uh section 296 153B2 for an aisle width of 18 ft where 25 ft is required and a C variance to
section 296 153B2 for an aisle width of 24 ft where 25 is required that is a pre-existing condition the applicant has stipulated to comply with the uh fire marshals uh memo which I would incorporate into any resolution as well
as uh all of the conditions in the um um planners report dated December 12th 2024 as well as the engineer report of November 12th 2024 and as well as
the as well as the um landscaping architect report dated 2123 can I have a motion to approve as outlined by Mr toriel motion second chairman Mr edward Gettings yes vice
Chair Miss Donna Drews yes miss Robin Fu Scott McDade yes mr glennoski yes thanks okay thank you thank you council once I get a draft of the uh once I get
a transcript I will get you a draft of the resolution for your comments before I circulate it to the board you want the letter to you as well from the MUA be great just to have it in my file yeah thank you you're welcome likewise [Music]
and may I suggest we take a a break a bathroom break okay ladies and gentlemen we're going to take five minutes let's really keep it to five i wasn't expecting that thanks go all right everyone we're back in
session next up on our agenda this evening is the second application katherine Janowski a minor subdivision good evening Mr chairman members of the board Steven Gruinberg Gruinberg Law Office on behalf of the applicant Katherine Djangowski um we're
proposing a one lot minor subdivision um which has some uh C variance relief this matter was transferred from the board of adjustment but it's a fully conforming use um I am going to kind of make this quick I think because I know
you have a lot of business later to go to um so I'm going to kind of cut my statement short and I'm going to remove one of my witnesses and just go right to engineering and planning because really that's what this is all about is what the plan looks like and what the
variances are so um I provided proof of service and publication of the notice of hearing in advance of the meeting and asked that the board attorney confirm jurisdiction yes thank you and I have two witnesses Eric Rupner
engineer and Elizabeth McManis our planner okay and I'm going to do the same thing as I did in the last application if everybody's going to testify you could raise your right hand do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes okay please uh starting with
Miss Mcmanis uh from left to right please state your full name for the record elizabeth Eric Ruben uh the applicants engineer Rakkesh Dari with environmental resolutions for engineer Jeff Bear
Township Planner thank you you can see council thank you thank you Mr rubar mr root Nra has been before this board multiple times so we can skip thank you your licenses are still in good standing yes thank you just make sure you're on
top of that microphone Eric sorry she she he even got warned um if you could please um tell the board what our proposal is for a one lot minor subdivision actually before you do that I just want to clarify a couple of
things um the lot numbers the tax assessor had a um a notation that our lot numbers are incorrect and what the remainder lot will be will be 5.06 and the new lot will be 5.07 so when we refer to the lots let's
refer to 5.06 and 5.07 just to make it easy the and the other thing is one issue that has been raised by um Mr marella in advance is whether the uh property owner of lot
5.05 needed to be part of this application i had conversation with Mr toriello yesterday and we conferenced the matter um and that they don't need to be part of the application because this is a subdivision application but I
did supply in advance uh correspondence from the adjoining property owner indicating their consent to the application and urge support and consent to the plans as submitted by the applicant and urging the board to approve same and I'd like to mark that as exhibit
A1 and I have bunches of copies for everybody if you want to see it yeah and just I believe um Mr varela's uh report had referenced a conversation that the two of us had and I said that the property owner had to had to be
noticed but I was I had misunderstood the layout and once we had the conference and I was able to see the visuals the picture is worth a thousand words i I changed uh my my opinion on that and we appreciate um working with
us to have that conversation in advance to streamline the application uh should this letter be marked as an exhibit yeah I asked for it to be exhibit A1 if we could not m and Mr brookner can you take the board through our proposal on the map or are
the plans that you have uh on the board and these plans are the identical plans that have been submitted to the board and not colorized or changed in any way so that we don't have to mark them correct correct correct oh I thought you were asking about the mark is that that they were in the same
[Music] like school so the first sheet that I have uh this is the aerial photograph that's been included within the exhibit that the board has and the primary purpose of this is to just show the property in relationship to the surrounding areas um the property is
highlighted in yellow and it's a somewhat irregular sh irregularly shaped property um it's a flag lot access to the property is provided from O York Road uh Olark Road is to the west of the property and the property also has I
guess what appears to be a tail that goes in a northerly direction that is located along the rear of the lots to the north that also front the adjoining properties to the north that fronts on Old York Road um the property is
surrounded by all existing residential um dwellings the applicant's proposal tonight is relatively simple um what we're proposing to do is to subdivide the existing lot um the existing lot is about 5.98 acres and it has front
footage on Old York Road again the lot is located on the easterly side of Old York Road the access to Old Road is 50 ft wide um our proposal tonight is to subdivide this existing flag lot into two flag lots um the lance remaining
will be is identified as 5.06 nope my apologies 5.07 nope lance remaining right 5.06 506 lot 5.06 uh contains an existing one-story residential dwelling uh that
the existing dwelling in its current location does require uh two variances one is for the minimum required front yard and the other variance is for the minimum sideyard that's required our planner Miss Mcmanis will get into more details regarding the proofs of set variances those are existing correct
correct those are existing non-conforming conditions that is not being proposed to change in any way um in addition to that both proposed lots will require variances for the minimum lot width and lotages um in the R3 zone
where the properties are located the requirement is 200 ft for the lot width and lot frontage um given that this is a flag lot and the way the ordinance defines frontage and where the lot width has to be measured essentially it has to be measured within that flag staff so
for any flag lot it's going to be impossible to conform with those requirements um so the applicant will require variances for both of those conditions on each of the two lots eric the the um the remaining lot is going to be approximately
100,600 square ft correct um lot 5 actually I think the zoning table on the map is incorrect the land remaining will be approximately 78,937 square feet um and again that lot will be located along the southerntherly
side of the property and proposed lot 5.07 that will be 178,956 ft the minimum um area requirement is 50,000 square ft correct
so for the proposed flag lot we're over three three times that requirement correct correct and the um the remainder lot is actually almost well it's it's a
size and a half yeah requirement correct correct um the intention of the new lot or lot 5.07 that the applicant is proposing is to construct a new single family residential dwelling um the actual design of that new residence or new
structure has not yet been finalized and certainly if the board acts favorably on the application all of the necessary zoning permits and soil conservation approval health department approval and so forth will be supplied to the township once those plans have been uh determined in addition to the
subdivision this particular property has an area of wetland along the rear or easterly property line that's located in the in this um bottom right hand corner of the parcel um we applied to NJP for
an LOI i would say it's going on almost two years now um we've had communications with D the last communications with them um was in the I believe it was the summer of last year where they essentially asked us to
revised the plan to add their transition area that they're going to apply to this wetland which is 50 ft we've revised the plans they were submitted I would like to say October November of last year i've reached out several times to the um case manager just been assigned i've got
no response i expect the LOI to be issued at some point um I don't expect the boundary to change nor the transition area to change based on the comments we've had so far from them uh typically once they ask you to revise the plan and add the transition area they're in the home stretch in terms of
issuing the LOI as of right now um I don't know um I'm hoping it comes soon um but with the wetlands and the state of water and the transition that's shown on the property the township also has in
the R3 zone the ordinance requires a minimum improvable area of 40,000 square ft um both lots exceed the minimum required improvable area um lot 5.07 the improvable areas over 54,000 square ft
and on lot 5.0 not 5.06 the improvable area is 65,000 square feet in excess of um in addition to those requirements there's a requirement for lot circles that have to be inscribed within that improvable area um we are showing two lot circles one on
each lot and the lands remaining track that's unencumbered by any wetlands steep slopes flood planes or any of the environmental features that have to be that the lot circle have to be excluded from um the proposed
lot where the lot circle is shown it's again it's also not encroaching on any wetland wetland transition area flood lanes or streams um so in terms of the lot circle requirement both lots are fully conforming and complying to the ordinance the
um some of the benefits of this application are there's an existing greenhouse shed um both of which are proposed to be removed correct correct and um also can you talk about the existing driveway that straddles
um the existing our existing lot and the adjoining lot 5.05 and how we're going to improve that situation by relocating the driveway onto our lot and the exhibit that I have this is sheet number three of the set that the
board has and this exhibit shows the applicant's proposal as part of the subdivision um what will have to be done the existing access to the property is currently located within the flag staff but it's also partly located on
the adjoining property to the north um the actual driveway apron straddles that property line um what the applicant is proposing to do is to relocate the access entirely within the flag staff within the 50oot portion um that relocation will serve both the existing
lot and the new lot and in addition to that we're going to extend the adjoining driveway to connect into the new loca relocated driveway but that that uh existing driveway already connects to the driveway that's there now correct
correct for lot 5.05 5 that connects to the existing driveway that goes out to the main road correct um and on your plan there you show a big gray rectangle building on lot 5.05 can
you explain to the board what that is so this rectangular this is an existing one-story block building um that currently exists on lot 5.05 um that building it's a block building there is are some trees um not in the greatest of
shape it's located along the southern side of that building um that building naturally provides screening given where it's located it screens the proposed development our driveway from the adjoining properties to the north so um I think we can go over Mr
bakarella's report and then Mr dar's report if that works for you unless you have anything else um and I think we can skip we'll do everything here and I'll go to the items that I think we either
need to present testimony to elaborate but we're going to do everything that's in all of these reports so any any called out condition the applicant stipulates to is what is what you're saying correct but there's certain things that we might need to address testimony so I think all of this is just
identifying the variances until you get to the planners comment number 11 um testimony shall be provided in accordance with those two ordinances regarding the 40,000 square ft i think we just provided that um number 12 on
the lot circle i think we provided that as well um 13 Miss McManus is going to provide that testimony number 14 with respect to the county review we have not yet filed with the county and that would be a condition of approval
um has there been discussions at least or just no filing no there there has not been a filing yet um because we really wanted to get through this before we address the county um don't think it's going to be an issue because you're just
relocating the existing driveway onto our property it's probably something that they're going to actually like but we'll address them and it would have to be a condition of any approval and the adjoining property owner is going to have to be involved in that as well for
their relocating to sign off on that um and I think I just answered number 13 [Laughter] uh uh 15 I'm sorry [Music]
16 all three of those things are we removing correct okay which is the 150 ft shed the 238 ft greenhouse and the existing garage will all be removed yes 17 i
think you already testified as to steep slope provisions for the net buildable area and that we conform correct correct 18 uh provide testimony regarding the proposed septic and well on site that I don't recall you saying
so presently the existing dwelling is served by a septic system um the septic system is located along the southerntherly side of the existing residence um it's in this ovalshaped area that's shown on the plan um what we have done as part of the subdivision
application we completed witness soil log testing um for not only the new lot we have both testing for the primary and the reserve area is required by the ordinance but we also completed additional testing on the lands remaining so if in the event that septic
system needs to be replaced or a new system needs to be constructed the applicant has a suitable area within the lands remaining that we can build a septic system all of the testing have been witnessed again and they are acceptable for construction of a new sewage disposal systems did you get
board of health approval of this uh we have not the board of health um there is no approval per se uh normally when the testing is done it's scheduled with the board of health so they can provide us with a witness uh that was done the testing was completed a few years
ago and two logs and two tests were performed uh we've got definitely two soil logs and I will have to check to see if it's two permeability test um NJC 79A only requires two profile pits or soil logs
and one permeability test but our township ordinance requires correct and we could certainly provide those the results were very good on the property so completing another test um I don't think will be an issue yeah it's
two two logs and two test two tests and two logs yeah and is that what you did no we I believe it's two soil logs were excavated and one permeability test and if that's the ordinance requirement
we'll have to do that correct um number 19 landscaping um this is a subdivision application and not a site plan application but why don't you discuss with the board the the status of any trees that need to be removed um and
what we're going to try to preserve so earlier today I inspected the property it's been a couple years since I've been there um and there are some mature trees on the property most of which will be preserved um primarily towards the
conceptual layout that we have for where the proposed dwelling is going to go and where the rain garden to address storm water control in accordance with the minor provision for storm water management in the ordinance there are two existing trees um towards the end or
along that west easterly side of the rain garden um those trees we're going to preserve there is a pine tree along the southerntherly side of the driveway the proposed driveway the pine tree is not in good condition um that pine tree is going to be removed it's about 23 in
diameter at breast height there are a couple of other trees on the property um that will be removed that do not appear to be in the best of health um primarily there is one tree towards the front of the proposed dwelling as shown here um when I looked at the tree today there's
a lot of dead branches on the trees it doesn't look like it's starting to bloom um the way you would typically trees see trees in the springtime um as we get deeper into the spring and certainly into the summer if there are no leaves on the tree it's dead um but that tree will have to be removed
um there is another tree that's located towards the south of the proposed dwelling i do believe once we have a final design of the house plan that that tree will be it's a tree that's in acceptable condition and we should be able to keep that tree depending upon how we locate the house in regards to
the septic system um we do have again the primary and the reserve area the applicant will utilize the primary area which is the basically the easterly most um septic field construction of that field doesn't require removal of any trees um so at this point we anticipate
three perhaps four trees that would have to be removed in order to construct the dwelling and to relocate the driveway none of the trees that are being proposed or over 24 in in diameter um given the layout of the where the proposed
dwelling is going to be um in relationship to the neighborhood and that building on 5.05 do you see any need for additional screening other than the normal residential screening that people do when they build a house no
the other reason why I had that comment is because of the tree removal and replacement ordinance that would have to be complied with certainly and the applicant would comply with those and again um once we get into the summertime and we know whether or not some of these trees are alive um any removal will
certainly comply with the ordinance and and we'll agree to that as a condition of compliance with that ordinance um rain garden I think number 20 um we'll wait until we get to Mr dargy's correspondence 21 because Jeff's
deferring to him 21 i think we testified as to the environmental fe features and we agreed to incorporate all of those including the townships in a conservation easement as requested correct 22 we provided the
status of the LOI 23 um I I I understand where you're going with 23 where with the temporary with the shed if we create the subdivision it becomes a principal structure but I don't know how you want to deal with
that you say temporary relief may have to be required so the shed is going to remain um or proposed to be remained it It's You're correct it would be a principal structure so I don't know how the board would feel comfortable of a temporary
or I mean there's a temporary use permit um but I mean I honestly folks I don't think it's a real this isn't like a you're anybody's going to be occupying this as a smoker room or anything it's a
shed so until the house is built I don't know whether we can really need any relief from it um but you said it would be it would be a principal structure i'm saying that's what your argument is i was trying to figure out where you were
going with it but how big is the shed how soon will a house be built here as as soon as they can the the old I mean folks the they want to move the parents into a house on this lot so the the goal is to get them in as soon as
possible so it's not like you're selling the lot so I'm waiting for something eventually it will be a house you know a residence that can be sold but the right and this is why I didn't want to get into all this because it really doesn't matter but no uh you know the family
plan right now is to have their folks move in as soon as possible on and eventually it's capable of being sold to somebody else and the shed scale is about 160 square feet by 10 16 by And
yeah I mean I I don't have as long as the board feels comfortable i don't I don't really if it's if it in lines with the with the time limits provided then can we acknowledge the existence of it so that yeah we we'll acknowledge the
existence of it and that the applicant has indicated that they're not going to be using it uh for anything other than its intended purpose which is a shed thank you appreciate that um 24 we will do the AutoCAD and all the
rest of the good stuff that's in that letter um and then unless there's anything else from uh Mr varela I can go on to Mr dargy's correspondence what about the reviews the the agency reviews um we agree with the tax assessor as to
the the tax lots numbers as I said and as to the environmental commission uh we're agreeing to get the LOI but can you talk about flood hazard area and whether that's applicable uh so we don't have any flood hazard area on this particular property uh the on-site
stream drains less than 50 acres so in accordance with the flood hazard area rules um no flood plane exist so we'll we are getting the LOI yes and those are the only two that I saw attached yep
okay then on to Mr darges and again we'll do everything here and I'm going to skip over to what I think we need to provide testimony on which may not be much now I'm skipping to 5 which I think we provided testimony
on about specimen trees but we're going to comply going down to the question under 7C whether we're going to record it by plat or deed it will be by deed okay um going down to number
11 can you talk about the electric line and whether easement is required so right now the existing electrical service uh to the current residences overhead and that service comes from Old York Road across the neighboring
property to the west of us um I we don't have any title work in that neighboring property that service has been there for forever um and I believe without any deed work that the lot that we're proposing to subdivide
might be the lands remaining after all of the other subdivisions in this area occurred um and that's probably why the overhead service remained without any easement um but again we don't have any title work on the neighboring properties
so I don't know if there's a recorded easement certainly the line has been there it's existed forever um and it can certainly remain as it is and we're going to have to work with JCPNL I think it is to to get to next correct um there's an
existing utility poll uh that we will tie into to provide service to the new lot but any any approval that's necessary from JCPL certainly we will abide by those so the service is a new lot what's your intention for running ser is that going to be off the driveway
ement the common driveway um we haven't quite decided yet how we're going to bring the service in i don't know how else you would do it unless from that line right from that line i guess my question becomes deep what happens if that line you know falls the pole falls
something gets cut like is there you know you're basically going across an adjacent property for your for your service is that I I don't know if that's I'm not understanding is there is there some sort of a like a permission that you
need from that property for that to happen i guess is the question yeah if it is it's something we would have to get but I don't know if it's an existing line presumably with an existing easement that we can't why we wouldn't be able to tie into it where it goes on onto our That sounds like it's a legal
question to me more than an engineering question so I can jump off the train at that point but we'll have to deal with that situation if it becomes an issue but I appreciate you raising it i know um 14 um as to the
county um um to offer for dedication to the county that's going to be up to the county what if and what they want so we'll deal with them is that Yeah that's fine it's just like I said it appears that it goes out uh further into the rightway so we just if there's a
dedication that would obviously have to be put on the plan and you noted and everything um skipping to 17 i think we provided the testimony as to the trees [Music]
um we're going to we'll do everything else on that page i think that's we'll we'll do everything else unless there's something else you need testimony on um no no i think when you do submit should the board act favorably um I would just
request a written response to to the to the memo so that we know exactly how you address it i addressed it that's his job make things easier and cheaper great i appreciate that that's all the questions I have for Mr m
any other board questions we're not approving like the house the location of it any of that kind of stuff i'm sorry say that again i was just clarifying that we're not approving like a house and all that kind of stuff we're just saying this is where the property
line's going to split yes but but we would be a just so it's clear we'd be able to build a house on that lot um within the footprint right within that area it's not come back before the board to
get approval to put the house on no no no but you could you'd have to get building permits and all that kind of stuff that's separate but Right correct just trying to see what we're saying drawing new lines okay and if there's anybody here with us
this evening who has any questions on that testimony nope then I absent that I'd like to call Miss Mcmanis up and I know Miss Mcmanis has presented testimony before this board numerous times till she's acceptable thank
you your licenses are still in good standing correct yes absolutely i'm just going to press play and if you could give the board your um professional opinion with respect to the variances that we Sounds great so folks uh I'm
here we have a handful of variances that I to address uh we have excuse me lot frontage and lot width variances for both of our lots 506 and 507 they're essentially the same they're two separate standards to be clear but it's
essentially the sta the same same variants in the sense that those standards require 200 ft in this zone district which is the R3 district and we are proposing 24.89 ft that's the same number for both
lots and for both of those conditions the lot frontage and lot width and uh I'll provide testimony but as a result but that is as a result of our existing lot shape if you recall we have a bit of a flag law and so that's essentially
that flag condition that necessitates the variance we are also seeking relief for uh two other variances however these are existing conditions that was the front yard setback that Mr ruben Ruben
referenced at 35.3 ft whereas 50 ft is required and if you recall from the plan that is more specifically not not uh not the condition of a building that is too close to the street but rather it's a building that has an undersized setback
to the lot line that is parallel to the road but is not actually along the road and then the last variance also for an existing condition is uh again for that exist that same existing dwelling where we have a 16.6 sideyard setback whereas
20 ft is required those last two variances are as I said existing conditions from the existing lot lines we're not making them worse correct no change whatsoever to those two conditions so uh starting with those uh I I would
urge the board to think about those existing condition variances as C1 variances and I I think that the board can find for that front yard setback and that sideyard setback that they are they can be justified due to the
extraordinary and exceptional situation uniquely affecting the specific piece of property those unique situations uh or exceptional situations is the presence of the existing home that has been there for for decades and the presence of those existing lot lines that have been
there for decades decades and so we're unable to relocate those two features of the property uh as a result I do think that those existing conditions can in my opinion easily be found in favor of the the C1 criteria for the
positive criteria and I'll address the negative criteria towards the end of my testimony for that lot width and lot frontage for 506 and 507 i also think that the board uh should consider the C1
uh criteria as well for that positive uh for that positive criteria although I would uh rather than that specific citation I provided regarding the exceptional situation usually affecting I would I think that the board can think about one of the other components of
that which is the exceptional narrowness and the shape of the specific property so as I said at the outset those two uh frontage and width variances of about just shy of 25 ft each 24.89 89 and
24.99 ft are as a result of taking our existing flag lot and simply uh splitting that that the flag pole portion in two in order to accommodate the two driveways or excuse me the driveway for the two homes i'm sorry I
saw a couple folks look up me when I said that so one driveway for two homes um and so it is the narrowness of that existing of that existing lot the shape of that existing lot that is uh that is creating the need for this variance and
and I also uh uh as I review the area I think the board can also consider the fact that this is uh this is a unique situation uh and it's actually I would say in regard to both the front yard and sideyard as well as the lot within lot frontage uh variances that for
requesting it's a unique situation in the sense that as you look at this area of Old York Road and and in the the larger surrounding area there are uh very few flag lots and so this is not a condition a variance condition that can
simply be repeated over and over again as we have this existing flag lot for a far oversized lot that we're seeking to subdivide but uh notwithstanding uh the C1 criteria which I do think fits uh the
board can also think about C2 criteria that's the uh benefits versus detriments for for just the lot width in the lot frontage um and in that regard I think there are a few purposes of of the municipal land use law that are
supportive uh the first one is purpose G which is to provide space in appropriate locations for residential uses as well as other uses but here for residential uses according to their respective environmental requirements we also have purpose E which is to promote the
establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons preservations of the environment communities etc and then lastly purpose J which is uh to promote conservation of
historic sites open space etc prevent sprawl and degra degradation of the environment through improper use of land and I cite these three purposes of the municipal land use law uh first uh as we think about the the lot width and the the
frontage most of the time when I'm arguing in favor of one of these variances especially where we're looking at such a significant deviation compared to what the ordinance uh requires it typically comes with other forms of
relief most often lot area and perhaps other uh variances that relate to intensity like uh perhaps improve improvement coverage perhaps even in F in other municipalities but here these undersized lot conditions are in no way
shape or form a reflection of having too little land to accommodate what's in this case the two lots or the eventual two homes instead we have a lot that is uh more than two and a half times the size that is necessary for our two
proposed homes where we've got uh one lot that's about twice the size or excuse me 1.5 times the size and another that is about 3.5 times the size of the minimum required lot area and so we've got more than enough additional land
area to accommodate these two two homes except in in the respect of the lot frontage and the lot width uh and but notwithstanding that it's it's clear that our property is able to accommodate the two homes even though we have the
undersized lot width and we're able to do so through uh or rather without having any other variances related to intensity so for example we don't have the improvement coverage and in fact we're well under the maximum improvement
coverage we also are not seeking relief from the lot circle requirement or from the environmental requirements set forth in the ordinance involving lot circle or perhaps uh riparian area setbacks etc
um and so for those reasons what I see is the ability to accommodate an additional home in the in the township one that will yes help serve the the family's needs as as we as we heard testimony about uh about the need to
provide uh additional family in the area but but really about providing an additional home for family here in Ritton Township it's able to be accommodated without having any environmental impact and to do so in a way that still is well under the density
anticipated in the district as measured by that uh 50,000 square foot lot size and so uh because of that um and because of the uh the undersized lot frontage what what's ultimately provided as you
can see from the plan is a single driveway and I actually think that that is a benefit to the community in the sense that you're able to provide the additional home with having essentially no impact on the visibility
on the on the road frontage yes we're proposing to to move our driveway over and to regulate it so that it's it's simply on the subject property but what we're not doing is adding an additional driveway so it's it's maintaining one
curb cut and what we're also not doing is placing another home along the road frontage which I think is a benefit because it helps maintain uh maintain the corridor here of Old York Road and and maintain its existing existing conditions from the perspective of being
largely uh a rural uh uh a rural corridor through Ritton Township and so because of those three uh the way that we relate to purposes G E and J I think that the board can find in favor of the positive criteria so turning to
the negative criteria I'd like to start with the zone plan uh whether there's any substantial detriment to the zone plan and I I think the answer is uh is certainly no for a handful of reasons the first thing I want to do is recognize the fact that
flag lots are acknowledged in the township land use ordinance we have a definition that was adopted not not uh uh somewhat recently uh in the last few years that defines flag lots and specifically recognizes as a result of
that definition recognizing their uh their existence either existing or future as part of incorporating that uh definition into the ordinance um additionally in terms of the intent of
the lot width and the lot frontage standard those uh those two standards are typically done to ensure a regular or a certain rhythm of homes or lots along uh along a road so as you think
about the the 200 foot lot width and and lot frontage requirement what that says to me is that the township is expecting to see uh home or perhaps a building if this were not a residential use but homes every 200 ft along the road um but
here we are while we're not proposing an additional home along the road uh we're able to maintain that existing rhythm so this is not the story of where we have undersized lot width and lot frontage that's going to disrupt the existing
rhythm and go from what could be in an alternative scenario every 200 feet down to uh every 25 ft here the lot frontage and width variances are really in reflection of trying to uh accommodate
an existing condition through uh revised lot lines but it's essentially a hidden change from the perspective of those that are driving along the road i'm pretty certain nobody will drive along Old York Road and go "That's a new subdivision." But as because of course
the lot lines are invisible to all of us it's just going to be the only evidence of this uh of this change along the road will simply be the improved driveway and moving the driveway firmly upon our subject property
and so because of that I do think that we are maintaining the intent of the ordinance by not disrupting that existing rhythm along Old York Road um but in addition to that I also took a look at the township zoning ordinance as
well as the master plan to see how it is our proposal aligns with the policy set forth in there and so the first thing I'd like to cite is the purpose of the R3 district that's cited in the ordinance it's section
296-98 and it is to preserve the open agricultural character of this section of the township and at the same time provide for lowdensity single family residential development and related uses we are we are quite in in my
professional opinion we are exactly in line with that purpose we are preserving the open agricultural resident excuse me open agricultural character of this section of the township by virtue of our new home will have little to no
visibility from old York Road it's simply set back uh well behind the road uh more than I I'm sorry I would say more than 350 ft we're more than 280 uh more than more than 200 feet from the
existing homes along Old York Road and so as a result uh that uh character of open space in this area will be undisturbed by the proposed subdivision and then the second component in that definition or excuse me in that purpose is the lowdensity single family
residential development we're clearly in line with that is our one lot is uh is about 1.5 times the minimum lot size and the other lot is about uh 3.5 times the minimum lot size so again we're we're supporting that uh that that component
of the purpose of the zone district the R3 district uh and then the the other thing I wanted to site uh as uh as I look through your your zoning ordinance there are general purposes of the land development ordinance and I thought a couple of those were instructive for the
application tonight the first is to preserve existing natural resources and give proper consideration to the physical constraints of the land i that's consistent with what we're proposing with minimal tree removal uh and no relief sought uh that references
environmental constraints so again no improvement coverage relief and in fact we're well below it no relief from the lot circle or other environmental standards and then in addition there is also uh item K in that same section
which is to ensure orderly growth and development the conservation protection and proper use of land and adequate provisions for circulation utilities and ser and services i think we're clearly in line with that for all for similar reasons the orderly growth and development again we're we're well
beyond the minimum lot size and the the application the if if we are able to gain your approval we'll have little to no will make little to no difference in terms of the appearance of this section of Old York Road and then lastly in
terms of negative criteria for the zone plan as a result of this application we're going to be removing three non-conforming structures the greenhouse the shed and the garage um and removing those will will not only bring the property into conformance but it also is
going to remove some of the clutter on the property and will improve the appearance of of the site as well and of course we'll remove some of the impervious cover from that uh from that existing lot and then uh uh of course
one of the other benefits to the application is that the existing driveway will be relocated such that it is only on the subject property and not split between the the lot serving the uh the portion of the lot serving the home and the adjacent property owner and so
we'll have a more uh properly regulated driveway for for residents of this area to use and then uh the last component of my uh testimony is in regard to substantial detriment to the public good uh I I would also say that there is not
substantial detriment to the public good in part uh because the the changes that we're proposing will have little to no impact on on how the public experiences Old York Road in terms of how uh the lack of change that will occur to
motorists along the road uh in addition for our residents that we or neighbors I should say that are uh approximate to uh to our to our uh property our homes are uh either the existing home or the
proposed home on the plan we have existing vegetation that will provide screening and we have setbacks from area homes that exceed uh in many or all cases 200 ft and so we have very limited impact upon our neighboring residents as
well as any folks that are traveling along Old York Road um and of course the lastly I want to highlight the fact that we're again we're not requesting any new relief for the proposed home it's it's just about existing conditions and the
lot frontage and width i have no questions any more questions oh thank you i have two questions gota I just have two questions so um the existing lot is a compliant lot correct
i'm sorry the existing lot is a compliant lot the Yeah it far exceeds the uh the minimum lot size it's it's uh several times greater of four or five times greater than the minimum lot size
and the um the proposed driveway is not going to create any variance relief uh not that I'm aware of no no um I mean certainly the uh the driveway is in is in the portion of the lot that has the undersized frontage but the I'm not
aware of any variance relief necessary uh by virtue of the driveway itself i'm sorry i'm not aware of any variance relief necessitated by the driveway itself no further questions okay thank you Jeff anybody from the public who might have
questions from Miss Manis's testimony no thank you yeah i'm going to keep my closing statement that we ask that you grant our approval that was my stellar legal order yes there you go so um there's no question
so the the uh the motion is to approve the uh C variance relief uh with respect to the the bulk variances the side and the um front lot area the existing
there's there's two existing right it's the side and the front front yes and then the two um additional C variances that have to do with the front lot so there's
technically four there's four two two um lot frontage right and two lot width okay so it's four on that and then so it's total of six then is what you're saying okay got it yep with uh with all of the
conditions the applicant has stipulated to all of the conditions called out by the board professional report uh there is a general reference to outside agency approval i did speak with council given the fact that the driveway is going to have to be relocated on a county road
it'll obviously be subject to county approval to the new um cutout the new driveway cutout correct and I believe there was a they agreed to comply with the tree line they agreed to comply with the tree the new tree removal ordinance
which wasn't explicitly in there and then also the permability testing yeah I made a note i have a note to that and because it is referenced but not but not yet but I did I did make a note to that so that wouldn't be in there and we
agree okay motion to approve [Music] second chairman Miss Gettings yes vice Chair Miss Donna Drews yes miss Robin Patu yes scott McDade yes miss Michelle
Cavakiri yes mr glenn Solowski yes thank you all very much much appreciated can I have 10 seconds sure um since I appear before the board a lot and I know you had discussion about the conditions dealing with the time periods my only
input would be that it should mirror the municipal land use law so that if you're going to have conditions for site plan approval for preliminary my recommendation would be that it would be for the three-year time period plus two
extensions and if it's for final it should be the two-year time period for three extensions that's consistent with the municipal land use law and it prevents the situation where an applicant has a resolution that's different than the municipal land use law and you have to come in and say
"I've got a one-year extension one year to perfect my variance but two years under the municipal land use law or three years under municipal land use law." It tidies things up so it's consistent and you don't have to worry about different time periods that's my only input on that thanks for those 10
seconds thank you no [Music] it's there she just It wasn't close enough i'm sorry we need to go into executive yes yes we
do we have a motion to go okay motion to go into session first if Joe would like to just make the motion and just announce what we will be discussing in the clos I don't know that I know all of it okay so okay okay well and I think it's safe
to say that the board will go into a close session for attorney client privileges to speak about um board personnel um board procedures and um the Flemington Junction 3 the resolution matter
and diamond are we going to speak about that the memo the diamond nation memo yeah hydrogel and the diamondation memorial i would have missed that memo from Jeffrey okay close session sir see you i like
I'll be right are we going down oh yeah oh yeah we need to stay here we just have to make sure the microphone Yeah the mics need to be off