Okay. >> Recording in progress. >> Good evening. The Raron 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 to the Hunton County Democrat, the Courier News, the Star Ledger, and the Trenton Times. We have a roll call, please. >> Chairman, Mr. Edward Gettings, >> here. Vice Chairwoman Miss Donna Drews >> here. >> Miss Robin Fatu here.
>> Mr. Scott McDade here. >> Miss Michelle Cavakiri >> here. >> Mr. Dennis Kung Cannan has asked to be excused. >> Mr. James Miller has also asked to be excused. Mr. Glenn Sakalowski >> here >> and Mr. Joseph Lane >> here. >> Uh for board professionals, we have
board attorney Mr. Joe Toriello >> here. >> Township planner Mr. Jeffrey Bakarella >> here. >> And all other board professionals have asked to be excused as well. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll invite everybody to please rise for the pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence for
our men and women of the armed services. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Next up, chairman's report. I just wanted to make a comment for the benefit of everybody on the board and vice chair Miss Drews and uh and James Miller who couldn't be with us here tonight have
been involved in TRC meetings. Jeff, there's more and more of these getting scheduled, which I think is a really good thing. Uh I know that's more work for you guys trying to schedule these things, but I think they're very beneficial and I think the applicants
see them as beneficial as well. There's no decisions made at the TRC meeting. It's just an exchange of ideas what it is that we're looking for in their application for when they do come before the board. But I think we've had some pretty good responses and I I know this
what there's two more that you're trying to schedule now, right? >> Yeah. Two more this year. >> Yeah. Okay. So, I just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of that. >> Are there any lessons from it that we can learn? Like what are what are people not understanding well enough? like you know and maybe we can pull that into
some sort of like overall annual summary that can help articulate for at least the township committee some insights into when you have these TRC's because they're effective they streamline things when we get here >> right for the formal review >> most definitely >> but like again anything that would be
lessons learned that we can help support >> yeah I I think one of the things it allows the TRC members to kind of say these are the priority things that we're really concerned about the aesthetics of the buildings, the visual impacts, the
storm water management. And we keep talking about those things that you know, we don't tell them how to do it, but you know, the good example was for the the warehouse. I keep saying I call it the warehouse. the gigantic
>> woodb you know come back with perspective drawings so that we can see things you know where they they wouldn't have shown up with that. So that's where, you know, we're trying to help the board members and the public understand these
applications better as well as just saying these are the things the type of questions the board routinely will be asking about >> for impervious coverage and >> Okay. Sure. >> Yeah. Some of the variances are also called out. So it kind of preps both
both sides of what what kind of reliefs are necessary. >> Yeah. I think one other thing we probably should push and Joe did a nice job a couple weeks ago in our last meeting saying, "Hey, when you're doing your presentation and your testimony,
use the professionals reports as a guide. Let's go through that >> and maybe we should I think we should stress that that this is what the expectation is when you come in so it's not a surprise." >> Yeah, that's actually a good idea. Yeah. And I think there's a balance too bes
with that um where we need some overarching kind of description kickoff discussion but then yeah dig into the reports. >> Yeah. No, I think that's been beneficial and chairman you've always said like that makes it more effective
>> and efficient. So line by line. God knows what direction. >> Yeah. And and and if they agree to it Yeah. even if they agree to it, just say number four, agree and move on. Right. Right. >> That helps everyone. So, I appreciate that approach. >> You know, the other thing is um I
thought I heard that the board of adjustment has a rule where if if it reaches so many conditions, then they have to go back and and submit revised plans. And I don't I don't know if if we need a hard rule, but like that one that we're talking about a couple weeks ago,
it was over 38 conditions. like that is primapacia. that application was not properly put together and now looking at your report now for this there's like four conditions like everything is like it's streamlined you know finally got it >> yeah they finally got it and I don't
know at what >> no never mind we can talk about >> yeah it's a little little >> yeah and I I think that's something we'll have to continue to reinforce because we're just getting into the cycle of helping the applicants understand
you know at at board of adjustment there's no hard and fast rule that they're going to um suggest strongly suggest you consider rescheduling till you clean your application up is the way it's handled. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Who is generally at a TRC? Just so I
have education in terms of who has to commit that extra time and energy. >> Well, the three of us are Donna, myself, and James, but then Jeff is always there, >> right? And Rash is always >> Rash is typically on a Zoom meeting. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. We can only
have three, >> right? >> Right. For the quorum. Yeah. Okay. >> All right. That's helpful some. >> Well, thank you for the extra energy. >> You're welcome. Anybody from the board have any comments this evening? Oh, I'll just I'll quickly share we did get a
response uh RFP for the update to the stormwater management plan and the subcommittee is going to have a call next week um to just discuss it and then we'll come back to the next planning board meeting with our recommendation about
moving forward or yeah whatever the recommendation is. Um last evening at our township meeting the uh traffic element um we move forward with um the recommendation that folks made to have that group work on that project. So that'll help with the master plan on the
circulation element to be specific. I think traffic, >> you don't call it a traffic element, it's circulation element, right? >> One point of clarification that they were seeking those to understand does that mean it will be because we have the old one, right? So the township committee members were given a copy of
the current or old uh circulation plan and it maybe lacks some specificity. I know there's one page that gave some pretty explicit like, hey, you might want to consider this, like a circle here and a speed bump there, but um given the maturity of our township now
and some of the concerns around um truck traffic explicitly, things like that, I think um would it help somehow to engage with the um I forget what crashes companies use, but engage with them to be very clear about what we want out of
that report to ensure that >> once we have a kickoff meeting that's those are some of the things that >> perfect okay I kind of alluded like yeah don't worry about it like that'll all be included and then the public also commented they wanted to make sure that they had a voice in it and we were able because we had an audience last night
fortunately and so we were able to say yes the public will have an opportunity to weigh in on it we're not doing it in you know in a in a vacuum without the public's um ability to comment so we clarified that concern as well. >> Um, >> that's great. >> Yeah.
>> The other thing, last night we did table the lighting ordinance, so put that on hold. So, no enforcement of it. So, >> yes, >> not that anyone's heard about it, but >> So, I I appreciate that the mayor chose to characterize some of the um
unfortunate keyboard warriors that chose to instead of understanding and reading it, maybe in more depth um just react. And so we actually did have a couple of residents who are on on different sides of interpretation of that and I know
that we had um a couple of our officers involved in responding to some concerns in the community. I think two things we were able to clarify last night. One is we did pause it to commit Mcmate's point because I think the way we wrote it lacked the specificity to be able to
effectively enforce it and empower because it's a nuisance ordinance empower our police force to not have to be judge and jury in the moment. We were not intending to put them in that position. That is not the intent of this. I did make the clarification that
one, we do not create legislation to address individual issues, right? We do it for the consistency and the holistic approach for what's best for the community. Meaning, and I specified, we as a planning board are consistent to
follow any new applications for new construction and we have lighting recommendations that we follow and adhere to. The purpose of the light nuisance ordinance was to ensure that any aftermarket as an example to
existing structures complied equally and equivalently to what we follow as a planning board with lighting as well. So it was not meant to help to intercede or solve a residentto resident issue because that's not what we do. That's
not how laws are written, but instead be consistent. And so we recognized that maybe it wasn't written well enough to ensure enforcement was clear and simple in its enforcement. And so we paused it. But that doesn't mean that we don't
still have a necessity to maybe understand how we can do a better job. Um, a resident even came forward and said, "Hey, I installed a spotlight on my house and I know LEDs are better, but I didn't realize that the LED is really bright and I didn't understand that and
now I have this LED light that I installed." So, I'm, you know, taking into consideration what that means for my property, etc. So, just a little bit more context to kind of what happened last night and some of the resident feedback and what we can be mindful of as well. Okay.
>> Thank you. I think it does go to show the things that even like what we write, you got to make a common man can understand it. Yes. >> Because if you don't and we're getting too much legal ease and things are backwards and confused, you could have three people read it and it means something different to each. So, it's
got to be clear and we said you can't be making it become subjective and words are subjective. They're very subjective. I have people that I thought they was going to get hit with the pitchfork and saying, "What about this lighting?" That's not us. That's fair. That's okay.
>> So, but you got we got to and it's the same thing. We're servants of the residents. >> Yeah. >> The same things with these. We can't be making nuisance ideas about and making it hard for people to do business when you know they could go to the next town
over whatever, right? We want to be a welcoming. So we did offer the two residents who seem to have concerns with each other the opportunity to have mediation and whether or not they choose to mediate amongst each other is their prerogative. We have a situation last
year different neighbors they chose to go into civil litigation again that's their prerogative. So we will continue to evaluate what's best for the greater good. Right? I I'm actually at my personal home guilty of installing a light that was a nuisance. And my
neighbor was teasing me, but I said, "I know your tease is actually a complaint." So like and and my husband admittedly like was fixing the whole angle of everything and I said, "No, just take the damn thing off. It's horrible." Like this is just so I get it. Like I personally experienced it too. So we'll we'll figure it out. But
that's what we decided to do was to pause it, right? Just take a step back. Yep. Think twice and >> smart. Yeah. Thanks for sharing that. >> Okay. Excuse me. >> Somebody scored. >> Yeah, that might be what it is. Hey, planners comments. Jeff, you had
something you wanted to >> Yeah. discuss with the >> based on a request from the last meeting. I just gathered a bunch of uh bullet points. I wasn't able to send it out in a memo, but I could go through some of the suggested ordinances based on um the overall developmental uh the
development ordinance from two years ago to then some issues that are being brought up to the planning board and the board of adjustments. So, I'll go item by item and if there's any comments then we could discuss. So, the first one is uh the accessory apartments. It was permitted in all zones, but the AR2
zone. It wasn't included in the AR2 zone for some reason. So, that's one of the um one of the catches that has been caught. >> Accessory what you said? Apartments. >> Accessory apartment. Um it's a permitted accessory use in all the residential zones except for the AR2. It was
probably a mistake. Um cottage food permit permitted accessory uses. it was something that was um established. It's permitted, but it doesn't incorporate any of the zones that it's permitted in.
So, it's it's it's within the administration zoning permit, but it doesn't there's nothing referring which zone it's actually permitted in. >> Do you get many applicants for that? >> Yeah. Yeah, we were. And I I thought at
I think at some point it had language, but I I have to look back, but I pretty sure there was language for single family residential, but it's not populating in the in the e-code. I I have to do some more research, but I think there was at some point the reference to residential zones.
>> Okay. >> Um corner lots. Corner lots have always been kind of a a tricky subject and I know that the committee passed an ordinance about generators and AC's
>> but we're getting a lot of other structures like sheds and um propane tanks that really >> propane tank >> some. Yeah. the oil tanks. Those are some of the things that they they go in front of the board of adjustment and I think a
couple times this year they were like, "Oh, I thought we we we >> got clean this up." So, that was something that um a couple Yeah, I think there was a fence variance and a a shed variance that it was in the in the corner lot that they had to they had to
get relief. And usually there's no no conditions, nothing that's being forced upon the resident. It's just something that they have a corner lot and there's nowhere else for them to put it. >> Do we also want to look at based on the application we had recently
where in essence they had three front yards. >> Oh yeah, that's right. >> You know I mean at this point we don't allow I mean I've seen other ordinances where it allows you identify two of them maybe but if you have three you're really
put in a tight spot. So I this might something we might want to discuss and see if there's some options. >> Yeah, that they wouldn't be able to fit anything unless >> Yeah, >> they fit on that small portion technically the side. >> But that's what the C1 is for.
>> That's the other Yeah, that's right. >> But if it if to be blunt if we end up granting relief for it anyway because it is kind of crazy to make them have three front yards. Um what's what's the the
>> is there a rational way of saying if a if a lot has three you would designate you know certain ones as the two front yards and your third one can be a a sideyard or a rear yard. you know, something. It's just something to think about.
>> Or if if the structure is because there's the difference between the the location and the setback where if they meet the 50 foot setback and still is technically in the front yard, that's that's also part of the review. >> Sometimes they encroach into the front
yard setback and is in the location of being in front of the structure. >> So, just maybe a couple things there to kind of think through. Um, one of the other ones that came up as part of one of the the the
uses, we tried to kind of streamline uh certain you the retail and service use was meant to kind of an all-encompassing definition, but there was some other definitions that weren't included such as fast food restaurants
and restaurants weren't included in that definition. So now if somebody came in for a fast food restaurant, they would actually need a D1 variance. It was something that happened with the with the seven Brew application that recently went to the board of adjustment.
It wasn't interpreted as being a retail service use because fast food restaurant is actually its own use. So they actually had to get a variance instead of it be so it
>> and as I recall in discussion it wasn't our intent to take >> that wasn't the intent that was not the intent just somehow slipp through the cracks. >> Yeah. The interpretation wasn't exact because it needed to for that to happen it would had to been included in the
retail service definition. So some of what I'm hearing in this list so far is related to when we revise the chapter 296 land use, right? >> So we just have a little bit of cleanup now that we understand the implementation and the effect. I'm hearing just a little bit of tweaking
here and there that we can pull through, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um I know signage was kind of brought up recently. >> Yes, it was. That sounds familiar. >> Yeah. You know, I think we need to have a variable size
standard. You know, that if a building gets over to be what I don't know what the square footage is, >> right, that our 150 square feet kind of gets a little or whatever it is gets like the 5% or the 150 >> then you pivot to something. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Yeah. I tried to look back on previous applications and there really wasn't a variance that was granted for the over the 100 square foot. It was more of the of the percentage >> percentage. Yeah. >> Um but in this case for single because it was a single tenant it got capped for
100 square feet. I I don't know what the reasoning is for that but >> um >> you mean it says if this is a single tenant it c it holds to the 100 square feet >> for but for multi- tenant like target they they needed a variance but it was
just because of the percentage. It had nothing to do with >> the 100. >> The 100. >> Yeah. >> Right. What do other towns do, Joe? Do you know our partner might >> I mean, I don't know. I'd have to I'd have to I'd have to look at I'd have to look at some of the other towns. I would
imagine I could ask John's partner, Mike. He's in um he is in Montlair. So, like I'm sure there's, you know, a lot of sign, you know, signs there off
of a Bloomfield Avenue that, >> you know, I'm sure they could deal with. I could take, but I I like I like what your suggestion about just taking into consideration >> the mass of the building. >> Correct. Correct. because you want it to be proportioned to that and that that
should that's >> I wouldn't be surprised if Brentburg Hillsboro some of those have some >> creative ordinances so that's something I'm sure you can pull some of those >> uh the other thing on on signage I know
a lot of temporary signs um businesses come in and they comment on the 8week duration for for feather flags and banners That's something that >> they're always asking for. >> They're always asking for it. So, that's
the only thing I could tell them is that um you only have you have eight weeks throughout the year. You can take it down, put it back up, but you have to for that one sign. You you can only do it for eight eight weeks. You'd have to come back with a separate banner sign. >> What are they asking for to do it more
often or >> they want to do it more often? Yeah. So, if someone's just starting off and they want >> they wanted >> like grand opening. >> Yeah. >> Woohoo. Two months. And then they use their eight weeks and they can't do it >> and they can't do it for the rest of the year. They have to wait until next year. Yeah. >> I don't know.
>> Who's monitoring that? >> When you get a complaint, right? Is that >> uh Well, >> most of the time they do know that they need a permit. So, then we'll we'll put how long are you going to put it out for? Are you going to do it eight weeks? Are you going to >> Yeah. >> do it in phases? So, we kind of have a
checklist. Um, but most of the time it's it's complaints by the by some of the other tenants. They kind of get >> they know which ones are are >> that's again another one of those balancing ones because it could look really tacky after a while. >> Yeah, that's been our major thing was it
gets really busy when you're driving around. There's a lot of stuff lying around and whatever. And that's not what we want our community to look like. And then secondly, if you're in a strip mall, well, why do they get to do it? And then And then please, you know,
>> but it may be the kind of thing that we look at that it could be where the weeks could go up but no more than so many, you know, maybe we let them go an extra four weeks in a year or something like that. So that if they have a special event, they want to put a sign up. So it would be no more than eight weeks at a
time, but a total of 12 weeks in a year. so that they could do six and six or they >> like we got complaints when 7-Eleven had a giant slurpee on top of it. Why is a slurpee? You know, oh my gosh. >> Oh yeah.
>> Or when the flag sign, you know, the flag signs when they get tattered and torn because the business owner hasn't replaced them so they look shredded and kind of not aesthetically pleasing. We get complaints about that. >> Yeah. So there are people in our community that find that
>> Yeah. No. Well, there Yeah. Okay, we hear you. >> Go see Jeff. >> No. Yeah, there there has to be simplicity to that. >> The the TRC meetings. Um
it's mentioned that it's required. If once it's complete, it go it gets forward to the TRC meeting. But when looking at the definition, it actually shows that it's for subdivision review, not for site plan review or any other review. So
>> Oh, really? Right. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Mr. Grubenberg. >> Yeah. >> Are all these things require us to legislate change or some of Right. every single one of these things that you're suggesting. You ready? You ready for
this? >> I was gonna bring it to the table. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Keep going. >> These are the fun things I think Jeff can you know that some of the stuff that has to get changed Jeff's going to know the word and the >> No, no. I I know. I'm just thinking
through like put it on the do one big uh you know >> Yeah, probably one >> one big change. He can >> That's the only trust me in detail. We're having people review everything we pass nowadays. >> Yeah. >> Nowadays,
>> Scott has dry humor. That was an example. I >> had a rough couple months here. >> Yeah. All right. TRC. Good. >> Uh conservation easements. It's something that's it's always been um treated as wetland
the wetlands and the wetland buffers but our ordinance doesn't specify the areas in which it our ordinance says wetland areas. So a lot of engineers and attorneys are arguing whether that includes the transition area or just the
wetlands. >> Oh boy. >> That needs to be it's regulated by the state so it needs to be in the con. So that's just poorly written because it's outdated. >> It's some engineers are used to it and and follow through, but some that are
that are newer are like are arguing it. >> So it needs it needs to include the transition areas is what I'm hearing you say. >> It's a state mandate for historically >> and even under our stream ordinances and stuff, it says those are considered critical areas and
are removed from the net calculations and all that kind of stuff. So, so we treat them as a package. Okay, the wetlands and the mandated if transition. >> Yeah, the transition area >> maybe reference the state Greg in the definition. >> Yeah, mention that. And then as well as
the township buffers should also be and then that uh it should include a township sign and cap pins. Th those are things that have always been kind of the normal regulations, but now it's it's becoming more of a an argument within
with the applicant and their professional as to what's really required. >> That was one thing that I found interesting reading the old resolutions for which one was it? Let me just Oh, I guess it was board of adjustment
>> in storage. Yeah, the all the old resolutions, we had resolutions back to the 80s. And some of the conditions like the standard conditions like the light test and the fees and >> some of the ones were >> pins and corner set an inspection, you
know, some of the things that we add in, but they had them as as like a standard condition that must have been dumped in at the end of all the resolutions. So I'm just wondering so the pins and corner things we talked about like let's just put that in our ordinance that you
must do >> you have to do. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Because there are engineers that just include it because they're just so used to it. >> No required. Yeah. >> Yeah. But we do we do see a couple new engineering firms showing up. >> Yeah. >> What you're going to see is that old guards going out
>> and the new people are going to be very specific on the wording. So you have to clarify your words. Yep. >> Okay, >> it's all set. >> You have a nice list here. Oh dear. >> Um, the structure definition also kind of got brought up. It's an
all-encompassing definition which includes buildings, curves, streets. >> Um, it's something it's a good definition, but when it applies to zoning regulations, it sometimes doesn't make sense. Um, for instance, there was
one applicant that requested a a zero foot setback because they they treated the pavement as being a structure. >> Is this >> that would not be that would not make sense because everybody would need a variance.
>> Is this board of adjustment then or was that >> both? Yeah, it would be it would be both. So that's that's a one that only happened one time, but there's other instances >> um where they're >> remember they've already like signed monument signs and stuff. >> Yeah. As being a structure and it would
have to meet certain setbacks. So it's something that it's >> Mhm. clarify that >> clarified >> streets are not >> well and there may be like a subcategory like one category it you know this kind of structure or if it's like auxiliary uses that are structures like the the
base of the signs for the car dealership >> we made him call it a structure >> but it's a sign in one case it was a sign in right in front of their building telling people which way to go. Yeah. >> Versus like the one that's the stone.
That's a structure. >> That's a structure. >> Okay. Just to be clear. >> Yes. >> Tomahawk statement. >> Does it have a foundation? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Uh I I wrote down soil importing
exporting, but I think that's it's kind of in the works. Oh, that came up last night, too. You missed out. Um, right. >> We Yeah, we It's tabled, but it >> But yeah, we tabled it, but it actually
came up from somebody in the audience. Again, we had like 50 people here last night, so it was wonderful. Um, but then you get, you know, feedback. So, some somebody brought up it was actually a gentleman that represents um was it the guy from the a board because he said,
"Oh, no, it was the tenant." It was the resident. There was a resident here who has expertise in all things. And I said, "Well, then you just need to volunteer because I'm tired of hearing feedback. When are you going to join one of our environmental commissions? You're welcome to join." Like, I invited him to volunteer, right? >> Yeah. We got his business card.
>> Yes, we did. >> He was real tight. >> Yeah. He He's like, >> I have expertise. So I'm like, "Well, then welcome aboard because we need >> He lives in Madison Avenue, I think." >> Yeah. So So we tried to recruit him last night. We'll see how that goes. But he actually has a background and so he referenced this whole soil thing and
that's what prompted me to say, "Well, then you need you just need to join our environmental commission or wherever to provide some assistance." But yeah, it did come up last night. So are the >> So we don't even know which direction the soil ordinance was going. Was it going to just be non-sight plan and
subdivision and just under the police power rules or was it going to be under planning and zoning land use reg I can't speak to why we tabled it. I will say that this gentleman said we said in our ordinance the way it was written to help answer his question is that we don't
provide specificity because that gets in the weeds. We point to the county and he said well that's good because I oversee the county. So if you're pointing to county >> Oh, I know. >> Yeah. See, I'm being Yeah, >> he's on the I mean, he's on >> So, yeah.
>> So, so he said, "Well, as long as you point to county and you're not making up your own rules about soil, that's good because you're just pointing like logically that if the county made changes, it applies to us. You don't have to rewrite our ordinance." And we said, "Yes, that's exactly what we're doing." He said, "That's great because
then I oversee the county, so then that works great." because what he was advocating for was let's make sure everything links together and we're not creating some weird nuance. But we did table it. I don't know why. >> Do you knowfully ask that if it's is it coming in through
land use? >> Uh it will be a checklist item based on um >> respectfully ask maybe share it with the board planning board. Um I know it's we will get it for review officially. Yes. But
um I think we have a good feel for where we've seen problems with it from a practical perspective. So again to your point, you know, it's like >> the trench people may see like where some of this language is like
>> Yeah. So you just reminded me last night when I was thinking of things like the soil ordinance and then we had farmers and all this thing. I said, "Can we create a process where, to your point, like a soil ordinance, maybe the environmental commission wants to give us a perspective, maybe the planning
board wants to give us perspective, to your point, we have formal where it says is or isn't inconsistent with, but um getting people to vet through it in draft form so that when it comes to it's a little grounded in a lot of >> Yeah. And I just think, you know, I go
back to the chicken ordinance, you know, it's like, >> yeah, >> how many times did I I mean, I had helped rewrite that so it was better. Yeah. >> You know, so there are there's expertise with folks on all the boards and commissions like you said that >> you know. Okay.
>> Again, it would be it the advisory. It's up to the council committee. Yes. But you know, sometimes I think >> we want those different perspectives and expertise weighed in. >> Okay. soil. Great. >> Anything else?
>> No, there's only one from the board of adjustments recommendation about stakeouts. >> Yeah. >> Um that's something that >> talked about that. >> Yeah, >> it's difficult when somebody constructs like a deck or a pool. We do have an
internal policy if somebody um constructs a pool within 30 feet of the property that we require an asbuilt but that's after the construction and sometimes that's >> that's when we've had the problems too we get the problems. Yeah. where they come in and the pool's in the wrong
>> and the pool's or deck or or Yeah, they only check if if they do a stake out by a surveyor and they supply us with the with evidence and then we we're comfortable with the fact that that's that's being constructed in in the location that got approved. >> Does stakeout apply to the other more
commercial situations where they started moving dirt and taking down trees and it hadn't been approved yet where they were allowed to. Is that also is that different? >> But that's a that's an that's a engineering
policy and uh inspection procedure. >> That's an US problem that we didn't do versus like a law with stakeout. >> Yes. >> Okay, that's fine. >> Yeah. But hopefully now that we have firm
>> Yeah. Resh requires that requires a stake out. he would requires a stake out and an inspection before they even disturb. Um, so that's something that he >> that's something he requires. But for for a zoning permit or any other >> residential, this is more for res.
>> I've seen a lot of >> we don't want that. >> People that build their pool in the wrong spot and then put a gigantic patio around it with a pergola and this and that and seized their purpose and >> and then they ask for forgiveness for forgiveness >> and what are you going to do? Make them take down their $30,000 per
>> sometime. There was I mean >> we made them take some sidewalk away in one of them and put they have to do >> enhanced recharge because they >> blown their impervious >> cover. >> So they're putting in rain gardens and
>> that's a lot of rain gardens. >> Do it. >> So all of that that you just listed was that that was the last one. >> That was the last one. All of that can be revised in one shot through chapter 296 for us.
>> It'll take a lot of review with with Joe. But yeah, >> both Joe's >> he's Joe and Jose >> be nice to us. >> I heard but yes. >> Yeah, of course. >> Okay. I think that and I unfortunately I
forgot we were going to talk about this tonight because I have a cheap list at home. Think you got most of them. >> Well, send it along >> of additional of additional items. >> Yeah. Where we like I'm sitting there in a meeting like tired of arguing with attorneys and engineers.
>> Me too, by the way. I'm tired of arguing with attorneys, too. >> So, so the faster we get this done, the easier it makes your life, right? >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. But I I worry every day they're in this building.
>> Yeah. So, so it's up to you the speed at which you do this and get it to us to review and do our thing. Then that's how fast your life will get better. >> Okay. >> That's the hope >> with an explanation on each.
>> Yeah. Well, I'm assuming since it takes two two meetings to do this, plus you have to write it, we're looking at early 2026, right? >> I I can create buffer with Scott. we can make sure that we inform and advise the committee like what's coming because I
can do that as an update on the planning board when we have our meetings. I can just signal that we have a lot of nice recommendations and we will incorporate that. We had the BOA provide some recommendations to pull all that through and do one holistic change, right? Because those BOA recommendations does
some of those also apply to this kind of thing? >> I think well they they did the the soil importing exporting uh some of them were were landscaping. It really wasn't specific. >> Yeah. You know what? That's what the other one is. So, >> the issue with the landscape provisions, traditionally applicants come in and if
it's a large commercial, they do the the little three foot or 5 foot wide by 20 feet double park. And we've had people say that's designwise a very rigorous way of doing it and that maybe there
could be some more flexibility around you know providing guidance to them about how to get the landscaping in. >> The second thing is >> you talking about in the parking lots. >> Yeah. The other issue becomes they always seem to be confused about what
counts as the landscaping that's required for the 15% or whatever. >> Oh, for the internal parking >> the internal parking versus what counted as part of the outside of the park and not included in it. So just always
having or John Morgan Thomas was always asking them to provide their calculations because they do it wrong. So that's a a place where the ordinance could give some practical examples to follow because they can't follow the narrative.
>> So clarification on the landscaping calculations of what's internal versus external. >> Yeah. >> And give an example so they could see it. >> Yeah. >> In use. >> Yeah. I I think that would because I know Dr. John Morgan Hopkins has some
internal things that he'll send to somebody if let's just get them in the ordinance so that we stop this confusion. >> Okay, >> this is all good stuff. >> Yeah, >> nice having just more work for Jeff.
He likes it now. >> More work in the short term like Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> In theory. >> Don't worry. We'll come up with >> new ones. Yes. Yes. >> Just assuming the applicants attorneys can actually read it.
>> Well, thank you, Jeff. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Attorney's comments, Mr. Toriel. >> Uh, nothing to add. >> Oh, can I just mention affordable housing? >> Sure. Um we uh the mayor and I attended a call and um our our plan that we
proposed was challenged. So we had to have a conversation with the judge and some other people and we talked about the specific lots that they had questions about. We gave them factual objective detail that they needed. And then the last issue was that
we had applied for durational adjustment given the RTMUA has zero capacity for sewer. Um, and we have a developer who's interested in a lot that they own and they are also going to the RTMUA and so we directed both this individual
developer who has interest in building affordable housing which is a great project if they can get sewer and also this other party who wants to clarify and validate that in fact we do not have sewer capacity with RTMUA. So both parties have been directed directly to
the RTMUA. will have a conversation with them to validate that in fact our averages and numbers for our capacity that we have with RTMUA substantiates that's our belief that we do not in fact have capacity therefore validates our
request to have >> durational adjustment for affordable housing I tried to use lingual ease I don't think I did that well >> you did >> which mean >> you did I mean >> see you teach me well so that means that if we we have another meeting in um
third week of November. We will again convene with the judge. We will see what everybody says in which case we will end up meeting the December deadline. Is it the 31st or something? Right. Um so that our plan is then approved. Um I expect
given what we know at the RTMUA that that in fact will be granted. That's our uh belief. And then that means that um one of the policies RTMUA has of granting any applicant an additional .edu will likely have to be revised
because any .edu that comes up just for our education here, right? Because we see those letters from RTMUA come through about EDUs, right? Do they have it? Do they not have it? Right? So just education point for us here in this purpose that any future edus that become
available will be pulled per durational adjustment in affordable housing for the purpose of affordable housing. So that's just like an FYI understanding. So once our plan is actually formally approved and granted then we will move forward with the whole overlay zoning and all of
that kind of stuff that pulls through on the plan. But that's kind of where we are and how it's going. >> Great. So I think it's therefore is it even more critical that we make sure like there was an application that I forget which board it was now that
didn't have it wasn't clear if they had their edu. >> Most of most of the correspondence isn't clear. It says if available yeah you can have one .edu you it doesn't not guaranteed but it >> yeah so that's where I I I think there might be
an opportunity to discuss for the township committee to discuss with the RTMUA the clarity of their review responses >> that will be happening >> because it you know we had everybody's favorite project that's trying to get
built out >> while they're planting all their trees um They admitted on the record that they may not be able to outfit their whole building because of the tenants they allow to come in it. They might run out of edus. >> So the township committee isn't aware of
that. Is this something that we need to address? >> No, it's just the um it just I guess the reason for bringing this up is that's the type of applicant I could see going back to RGMU saying, "Can we have another?" >> I got it. >> Because of their poor planning.
>> Yeah. The policy is they will only grant one if requested, but there isn't a lot of like review. It's like, you want one? Okay, fine. Here you get one. They don't actually have one to give. Just so we're very clear, the quarterly numbers and the reports coming out, they don't have one to give. >> Um,
>> and they're giving them anyway. >> Yeah. >> So, I pushed back on that. And so, because RTMU is a separate entity, it's not ours, we cannot direct, but they need to be in partnership. And I explained that to I didn't explain to
the judge that they have a policy of doing that, but we explained to the judge and the other party that RTMUA is a separate entity and they know how much capacity we have or don't have and you're welcome to speak separately with them because they are a separate entity
and they will explain that. But then they need RTMUA needs to be a party to helping to support our affordable housing durational adjustment approach. And with that, they will have to re-evaluate their current way of issuing
an extra edu for a simple request. >> They're going to have to evaluate that. technically the the completeness um requirement they must an applicant must provide us with with a letter stating that they have sufficient capacity.
>> So what happened to that applicant? >> Which one are we talking about? >> Can we say it or no? The >> the one Donna is talking about was in front of a board of adjustment. >> Yeah, it wasn't here. >> So how do we address that? Well, some some of the letters that just I think
for this application it says that they it's it's acceptable, but then it says if they need an additional then they have to apply to the RTMU. >> So then it's it's backwards. >> So at the board of that's what tonight. >> Okay. Yeah. But at the board of
adjustment cuz I don't I'm not privy to that. I'm not allowed to be there. But like what how does that happen? >> Yeah. for that application. It was very they didn't because they didn't know the tenants and they didn't know the the the edus for that use. There was a condition
that said you won't at the time of a CCO, you have to supply the the zoning officer with a with a certification from the RTMUA that you have capacity for that tenant. >> And were they able to provide that? >> They still haven't gotten the CC up.
They they still haven't gotten the CO. They've been >> build a building. >> Yeah. Really? That that that's a condition. If you can't show that everything I agree with you. It's a waste. >> So they have seven I think they have
seven. >> They have seven EDUs. >> They have they have no Hold on. Hold on. They have seven. What they testified to, which is not correct, is that they they could use the the capacity on a different site to then transfer to this site.
>> Is that allowable in your opinion? >> Okay. So, >> it was a board of ad it was >> what do we do with the board of >> wasn't it something where they have to put it back into the pool for everybody or something? >> Yeah. Like you can't sell anything. >> Correct. You can't you can't move or trade or sell amongst yourselves. It has
to go back to RTMUA for RTMUA to distribute. >> Right now, they only have seven. >> They only have seven for that. >> Taylor, >> what I'm saying is as the tenants have come in because they've filed for the paperwork, Jeffrey, they already have the letters from RCMU stating, "Okay,
you're good." >> Yeah. >> But is it clear? >> Yes. On that letter, >> say if available. >> No. on that letter it says specifically for this tenant that you're proposing there's sufficient capacity and I've noticed many times as new applications
are coming in like Jeffrey has said yes they'll say okay you got capacity but then when we send it out that it's complete and for them to review it they'll have a totally different answer from what they originally said. >> Yeah. And I I think I think I think when there's Yeah. I think when you're when
you're doing your your review for completeness, >> if it's that BS letter that says you have it, if it's available, your response is you're not deemed complete because unless you can definitively and conclusively show with a 100% certainty
you have the exact sort capacity for this project, you're not getting agendaized. You're not getting deemed complete. You're going to have to go back to the to to the to them and have them rewrite their letter. That's it. That happened actually with Diamond Nation a few years ago. That would be my
>> and then they reversed it. >> Are you comfortable with providing that response in a completeness review? >> Oh, I do. That letter is useless. We get it. So, we get the the letter, but then the agency review will send to the RTMUA and then they'll send something saying,
"Oh, well, >> if needed, you can apply for >> acceptable from the RTMUA." The RTMUA has to be told that's not acceptable. >> Correct. Correct. Yes. You could just say under legal advice, this letter goes on a bottom of a bird cage. It's unacceptable. >> It's useless.
>> It's useless. >> It's literally We just said it is. It It is It's useless. >> Are you comfortable telling RTMUA that their letter is useless if the language >> I've told them look this? >> Okay.
>> This needs more clarification because we have a meeting in two weeks and if they don't have capacity, then this is a waste of time. Do you have clarity and support from us and John that no more vague letters from RTMUA? Like you're good with that? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, he's been going after him, but then
>> I don't doubt it. >> It's like two or three letters later they'll change course. John who? >> It's >> Huh? John. >> You said you're also separately. You're you're going to be having that communication. >> Yes. But I I don't know. I Yeah. I hadn't thought about the BOA having that
understanding. So now it triggers in my mind that there's an education point with them to understand >> that was just this one application that that was >> and you're hearing it. Yes. No, we we yeah >> have been hammering that they're not even getting scheduled because >> and I'm sure drills
that infamous. >> Okay. Well, no capacity problem. >> You have you have our back to stand your ground, right? And we have obviously people that sit on RTMA. But again, what what happens is when RTMUA changes course, >> okay, let's not let that happen, right?
You have our support for that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Sit on the microphone. >> Tell the commissioner. Yeah, I know. >> Okay. >> Great. Okay. >> Is it on the RTMUA to keep track of these .edus that are going into the
affordable housing? >> Absolutely. And then are they determining which developer has first access to any of the edus in that pool? Because we spoke with LAR, remember? >> Correct. >> And then there's another one as well.
>> What if they both come in looking for access to the same pool? Who who goes first? >> Who gets it first? >> I don't know that yet. >> I don't know that now. >> Behind the curtain. >> Yeah. >> I I don't know that yet. Okay,
>> that's where we are. That's why we're there. And I will keep everybody updated as things progress. >> I just have a question about like durational adjustment. I know in some of the other towns that I'm involved with um their affordable housing is relying on
durational adjustment. And I've heard from planners there, and I don't know what the term is, Jeff, but there's these new like super septic systems that can support like high density units. And I don't know if that's something that can throw
a monkey wrench here or not. >> You need a gypsies permit from this. What is it called? >> An a gypsies permit. >> What is that? >> It's just a state regulated instead. the the county usually reviews it, but then this would also need a state. >> Can you say that again slowly? What is it?
>> An Egypt. >> Say the letters because I don't know what you're saying. What >> NJ Essex, >> but it's basically for when you go over 2,000 gallons a day. A thou thousand. Okay. 2,000
>> 2,000 gallons a day >> septic generation you get need to get an individual permit to develop that type of a soilbased system. >> So >> yeah and I don't know if any of the any of the lots or the properties that you
have designated are they large enough that they could support this and can a developer come in and say no worry about no EDUs we're ready to go with one of these. our our plan that we came up with, right, was that you had to have the ability to connect to the sewer,
right? And obviously you need the sewer then. Um, so everything that we kind of highlighted on our plan was sites that fit that a certain parcel size, a certain acreage and had the ability to connect to sewer. I see. Right. So with
that methodology in narrowing down well what possible sites and we came up with our plan and that's what we submitted. That doesn't stop anybody from saying, "Well, I got 20 acres over here in the south part of town in the middle of nowhere and I want this end Egypt thing, >> but not the ones you designated because
you specifically selected them where there's >> how we said we can meet the number. We can address the the number you designated to us by these properties." >> But is it realistic if there's no sewer?
>> Well, that's why we did durational adjustment. But it doesn't stop a developer from saying I have 20 acres in the middle of nowhere and I'm going to do this system and the state say that's fine. It's extremely expensive and >> so so that would prevent a developer
from using it because the ROI >> it's not realistic which is why our plan used more of the realistic logic to say where is our sewer line what properties could connect and even with some of the overlays where they have existing
development it could be redeveloped to be housing and that's more the overlay approach. So yeah, just doesn't make business sense for them to do that. They could, >> they'd be stupid. >> That's good then. That's good to hear
for others. Going to dodge a bullet there. >> Okay. Lots of good updates this evening. There is no correspondence that I'm aware of. >> Minutes. We have the May 14th, 2025 minutes. Everybody received a copy of
those for approval. I I have a change. It has me as present and absent at the same meeting. >> Oops. >> So, I was I checked. I was in fact there that night. So, I should be moved from absent to uh member present.
I think where it might have gotten confused, Taylor, I recused myself from the Doughboy operation. >> Oh, sorry. >> That was the same evening. >> Okay. Any other changes or comments?
No. Okay. I have a move a motion to approve the minutes from May 14th, 2025 >> with that with that adjustment. >> So move with the adjustments. >> Second with the adjustment. >> That was Well, chairman, Mr. Edward Gennings, you
can vote on them because you were there. I was there so I can vote. So I'm going to say yes. >> Vice Chair Miss Donna Crews. >> Yes. >> Mr. Scott McDade. >> Yes. >> Miss Michelle Capakiri. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Glenn Sokowski. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Next up is the minutes from the August 13, 2025 meeting. And we had all received copies of this. Are there any comments or suggestions regarding these minutes? >> If not, can I have a motion to approve
the minutes of August 13, 2025? >> Motion. >> Second. >> Chairman, Mr. Over Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair, Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> Miss Robin Fatu. >> Yes. >> Mr. Scott McDade. >> Yes. >> Miss Michelle Capakiri. >> Yes.
And that's it. >> Okay. Thanks, Taylor. There are no resolutions before us this evening there. Just for the record, there's nobody from our community in the room, so there's no citizens privilege and the public hearing for Extra Space Storage,
Inc., just for the record for their preliminary and final site plan with bulk variances. Uh this morning, Mr. Toriela received a letter and Taylor received a letter requesting an adjournment to the next available hearing date which is when we need to
announce it now so that they don't have to advertise. So you pick the date and if it's not good for them they'll request an adjourment but we need to set that we need to set the date now. And I told the attorney that since he couldn't provide me with a date, I was going to
pro we were going to provide him with one and if he doesn't if he has a problem with it, it'll we'll on that date we'll carry it again. >> Well, we only have two meetings left in January. >> It's January. >> The second meeting in January.
>> Yeah. And he carried us to January 15th. So if we need to ask for additional time, we'll uh >> Sorry. They have a lot of work to do. >> Yeah. >> So that would be January 28th. >> Does that work for you that time? >> Last time we did do something at a reorg
meeting. It's up to you. >> You just got to give me one minute. >> Which is which is when, by the way, >> August 14th. >> I'm okay with that. We've been trying not to do >> I was unprepared for this part.
>> That goes pretty quick. >> Yeah. >> Holy. >> So the 14th >> Well, I just want to be sure because last year >> because last year it got all messed up with
Okay. Yes. I just want to be sure. So, our first meeting, the reorg is on January 14th, 2026. That's what we said at the beginning of the year. So, I just want to be sure last year it got messed up. >> Yeah. And I The 14th makes sense, too,
because he's only extended to the 15th. So, if he doesn't want to extend, you know, like if we I mean, if we make the decision that night, we're fine. they get 45 days from them. But if it needs to be car, if they're not completed, they'll either have to extend it or
you'll vote to deny that night. But if we go past the 15th, that's a >> that's a problem. Unless he extends, you know, additional, but >> I would think they'll be motivated to get everything in. >> I would think so. So, >> yeah,
Jeff, thanks for your thoughtful recommendations. >> Oh, you're welcome. >> Oh, we're not done yet. Okay. Okay. >> Can I have a motion to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing how recusals >> for attorney cl at attorney client
advice? Yeah. >> A motion. >> Second. >> Okay. >> I'm moving too fast. >> Do we turn off the online thing now? >> Yeah. I give me >> Is that how it works? >> I got to do roll call and then I will set it up.
I'm not used to that being called. >> Okay. Chairman, Mr. Edward Gettings. Yes. Vice Chairman Sona Drews. Yes. Miss Robin Fu. Mr. Scott McDade. >> Yes. >> Miss Michelle Cavakiri. >> Yes. >> One, two, three. >> Seven. Okay. Mr. Glennowski. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Joseph Lane?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Now, give me a couple minutes to close everything and then we will begin. Is our equipment working