Very good. >> Good evening. The Routton Township Planning Board is now in session. Call to order the notice requirements of the open public meetings act 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. I have a roll call, please. >> Chairman, Miss Arbor Gettings, >> here. Vice Chairwoman Miss Donna Drews here. >> Miss Robin Fatu >> here. >> Mr. Scott McDade has asked to be
excused. Miss Michelle Capakiri >> here. >> Mr. Dennis Concanan >> here. >> Mr. James Miller >> here. >> Mr. Glenn Solowski >> here. >> And Mr. Joseph Lane has also asked to be excused. Board professionals board attorney Mr. Joe Toriello >> here.
>> Township planner Mr. Jeffrey Bearella >> here. >> Township engineer Mr. CH Dari has notified us that he will be running a few minutes late and all other four professionals fast to be excused. >> Okay, very good. Thank you. I'd like to ask everybody to please rise for the
pledge of allegiance and a moment of silence for the men and women in our armed services. >> I aliance 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. Okay, thank you everyone. Okay, next up this evening we have chairman's report. I do not have anything to report on this evening. We've got a few things to talk about first on the agenda. Does anyone on the board have any comments they like to share this evening?
Nope. There being none engineers comments. Well, we'll ask Besh when he gets here if he had anything he wanted to bring up. So, we'll circle back. Jeff Planner's comments. Anything for us this evening? Okay, Mr. Toriello, any attorney? >> Nothing to add.
>> Okay. Thank you. First up, we have uh correspondence. This is ordinance 20 number 25-45. This is amending chapter 296 entitled land development of the code of the township of Raritan
to update and amend the township's land use development application and checklist submission requirements. some pretty straightforward changes, but does anybody have any questions or comments or suggestions on the document that was uh circulated earlier?
>> I'm just really happy we have this. >> Yes. These are some good changes, right? >> Yeah. >> Very good. Okay. So, we need to have a motion. I'll lay it out that this is these changes are not inconsistent with the
master plan. So, a motion to approve ordinance number 25-45. >> So, moved. >> Yeah, it it's it's it's a motion to find that is not inconsistent with the master plan. They the township committee will
approve the ordinance I after public hearing. >> Yeah. >> So, I'll make the motion that states this is not inconsistent with the master plan. Second. Okay. Chairman, Mr. Edward Gettings, yes. >> Vice Chairwoman, Miss Donna Drews,
>> yes. >> Miss Robin Fatu, >> Mr. Dennis Concan, >> yes. >> Miss Michelle Kavakiri, >> yes. >> Mr. James Miller, >> yes. >> Mr. Glenn Sloski, >> yes. >> Very good. Taylor, I I had sent you something about typo on on one of them. You got it. I don't know if it was this
one or the other one, but it was >> I don't remember either, but I know that email. >> Yes. >> Okay. Next up is an ordinance number 25-46. This also amends chapter 296 entitled land development of the code of the township of Raritan to amend the
township's regulation of the importing and exporting of soil throughout the township. Very very necessary. Um okay again we had this would circulated beforehand. I did spot a typo. Maybe this is the one
that you were talking about. No, I'm not find it. Can't find it. I'm looking for it. All right, we can move on from if I spot it, I'll let you tell her else. I did have one question. Uh yeah, with regard to the RTMUA, you know, we have in here
the adequate that uh adequate sewer capacity is covered. We ran into that issue. I didn't know if this is where it would be addressed that people have capacity and then hold it and then things change. I don't know if it gets addressed here or
elsewhere. >> What page was that on? >> Uh that's on page 13 C3. Okay. >> Remember we had the issue with people hold it and >> Yep. >> So do you want to explain what this is?
>> This is just um because it's changing or amending the the checklist. >> So it doesn't get addressed. >> Yeah. It's it's just listing just because it's already on the checklist. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> But we can't maybe >> Right. No. It's a concern that comes up.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. I have located the uh typo on page three uh paragraph 381-2 soil testing paragraph A. If you look at the end of that first line, it says and in
the event of there should be E there. That's what I emailed her. >> Okay. I remember my email. I remember which Jordan is >> like mine. She have that. >> Okay. So, similar to the last, we are on
board. We are looking for a motion to approve that this is not inconsistent with the master plan. >> Second. >> Chairman, Mr. Edward Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> Miss Robin Fatu.
>> Mr. Dennis Quincan. >> Yes. >> Miss Michelle Capakiri. >> Yes. >> Mr. James Miller. Yes, >> Mr. Glenn Sakowski. >> Yes. >> Okay. Next up, our minutes from our meeting of November 12th, 2025. Taylor was kind to circulate that to everyone
ahead of time. Does anyone have any problems or corrections or questions regarding these minutes? There being none, can I have a motion to approve the minutes from our November 12th, 2025 meeting, please?
So move. >> I'll second. Thank you. >> Miss Edward Gaddings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> Mr. Glenn Stoolski. >> Yes. >> Okay.
Very good. With respect to resolutions, we have resolution C06-2025. This is for the New Jersey Conservation Foundation. We had also received these in advance. Anyone have any questions or changes to
this resolution? No. There being none, I'd like to move that that resolution C06-2025 be approved. >> So move second. >> Chairman, Mr. Edward Gettings.
>> Yes. Vice Chair Miss Anna Drews, >> yes. >> Mr. Robin Fatu, >> yes. >> Mr. Dennis Connan, >> yes. >> Miss Michelle Cafakiri, >> yes. >> And Mr. Glenn Sakowski, >> yes. >> Oh, wait. I'm sorry, James. You couldn't even make that motion then. >> Oh,
>> because you couldn't even vote. >> Excuse me. Okay, I'll second it. >> Okay. Resolution number. >> Wait, we need to read it. >> I mean, do we need to read it? >> Or we could just say all those in favor or you want to do it again? >> Yeah. All those in favor?
>> I Okay, that >> on a resolution, you can't do an all in favor. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Chairman, Miss Arborghett, >> you could do minute meetings. You could do all in favor, but not not the resolution. Okay. >> Okay. Chairman, Miss Arbergettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Miss Donna Drews. Yes. Miss
Robin Fu, >> Miss Dennis McCannan. Yes. >> Miss Michelle Cafiri. Yes, >> Mr. Glenowski. >> Yes. >> Okay. Next up is resolution 16-2025 for Diamond Nation LLC. With respect to
this resolution, some information for the board. Uh there were several weekends where the parking situation that we've talked about multiple times for this application uh was very bad. And Donna, thank you. Our vice chair did
a great job of documenting what the parking situation looked like. Overflow is uh would be an understatement. >> Yeah. >> Uh so while we had our our traffic expert do an analysis, Mr. Troutman,
it was based upon weekends where there were uh baseball tournaments, not lacrosse tournaments. And it's the lacrosse tournaments that are generating far more traffic into that area. It's fair to say maybe double what the
what the baseball tournaments do. So while the resolution contains a number for parking spaces that the applicant would have to provide for that analysis needs should be redone now that we have
additional information on the lacrosse. So that's correct. And for for the record is is my legal opinion and advice of this board that when new information comes to the board, they have the right to address that new or additional information and the facts. In this case,
I believe in looking at the totality of the circumstances. And under New Jersey law, this board has a legal right to table this motion. at the traffic ex traffic expert uh could consider all information this new
information as part of his analysis. I did have a conversation with Mr. Gubenberg uh before this meeting who he had advised he would not be here tonight and he had asked me to give him the professional courtesy and contact him if there were any developments. I got that
email from him sometime in the afternoon. So, um, when it came to light that this issue, um, might be raised by this board tonight, I did contact Mr. Groomberg. He asked that if the board
tables the motion that they not ask Mr. Troutman to engage in a new analysis tonight, but to agendaize that request at a subsequent meeting so he can come and interpose his objection to that. And I told him that I would ask the board to
do that. um so that he could place I mean I've had a conversation with him I already told him I don't agree with his position but he's entitled to make it and and to convince this board um but uh so if if the board is going to make a motion to table that that's all it due
tonight and then any next steps can be addressed at a subsequent meeting so let me make sure I understand that we have thank you we have the right to table this this evening and if we the board so chooses to do so, we can't
immediately authorize Mr. Troutman to redo the study. He would like us to wait until he has an opportunity to address the board. >> That's correct. So, there's there's an there's a difference between what the board legally has to do and what it can do out of professional courtesy. This
board has the legal right to, I believe, to to table it and to task Mr. Troutman. But I I told him that I would convey his ask and that I would recommend that his ask be honored and that the motion just
be tabled tonight. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> I mean, yeah, that seems reasonable that that we table and then um put it as an agenda item >> for discussion. Yeah, I I think you know just to reinforce the board members, you know,
you got my blizzard of emails and photos from that day and it was very concerning and I was extremely concerned about traffic and safety on the road. So >> yeah, so >> it's fair to hear.
>> Yep. >> Yeah, I think so. >> All right. So motion table. I would like to make a motion that we table resolution 16-2025 for Diamond Nation LLC
and that we give them the opportunity. Did they want to do this at the January? >> We didn't we didn't discuss that. So actually the motion could just be to table and we can we can address those administrative things like at a later time. >> Very good. >> So that's the motion to table resolution
16-2025. >> I'll second this one. Chairman, Mr. Ever Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Miss Donna Drew. >> Yes. >> Miss Robin Fatu. >> Yes. >> Mr. James Miller. Yes. And Mr. Glenn So, >> yes. >> Good. And our third resolution for this
evening is resolution 17-2025. This is for the F Creek Creek development at two Forester Lane. We also have received this resolution and Mr. Toriello, I know there was a lot of back and forth on this one. >> Yes, I I worked with uh applicants
council, the board professionals and myself and we went back and forth and what is before the board is the final um version without any additional board edits, but everybody else has had a chance to weigh in. >> Okay. Any concerns with this resolution
from anyone? No. There not being any. Can I have a a motion for approval of resolution number 17-2025? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Chairman, Miss Everett. >> Yes.
>> Vice Chair Miss Donna Drew. >> Yes. >> M. Robin Fatu. >> Yes. >> Mr. James Miller. >> Yes. >> Mr. Glenn Solowski. >> Yes. >> Okay. Next up on the agenda is citizens privilege. And for people in the room, this is where the public has an
opportunity to address the planning board on any subject other than what we will be addressing on the agenda or further down this agenda. So if anyone is here this evening would like to address the board, come on up to the microphone. >> Good evening. Bob King, 7 hours court.
Uh first of all, I want to thank you for passing ordinance 25-45 and 40 25-46. Uh I think those are important ordinances and I think we won't know immediately how effective they are but I think over the long haul I think it's those are going to be important contributions to the town. So I thank
you for that. Secondly, I've attended as a resident most of the year. I might have missed one or two meetings and I'm not sure our residents really understand or appreciate what you all do for our township. So I just want to come here and say thank you. Thank you for your
knowledge. Thank you for your time, your commitment, your energy, your experiences, and keeping our township the way it is. I really appreciate it. I'm disappointed that more people don't come out, and thank you for what you do for us and our township to keep it what it is, a great place to live, a great
place to work. So, thank you. Uh, and Joe, I really want to thank you for streamlining the process, allowing me to get out in a timely manner. I very much appreciate that. a committee woman for two and committee being a great leaison to the township committee
or I guess I um good job. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Okay, there being nobody else, next up is our public hearing which is Rarit and Hill LLC and Kevin and Mary Cool.
Before you start, let's just remember to use the microphones. Please use the microphones. >> Leave that there. That's from >> Yeah. >> You speak too close to it at times. >> I speak too close. Okay. So, everybody
has to use a mic except for me. I have to take three steps back, right? >> I switched to decap. You got >> You should see me at 9:00 in the morning. >> Yeah. >> Great. Thank you. >> Sorry. >> Thank you. Is this going to be Is this
going to be A1? >> It'll be an exhibit, right? It was not part of the application. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Let's just note for the record that township engineer, Mr. Resh Dari, is here. >> Thank you. I apologize for my tardiness.
>> Not a nice not a nice evening. >> It's not a great evening and there seems to be a lot more cars on the road this time of year, evidently. >> All right. Welcome. >> Good evening. My name is Robert McN. I am uh a partner in the law firm of McN
Yos Kazinski and Lime. Uh we represent the applicant Routen Hill LLC. The property is located at 57 Cool Road, which is block 71, lot 16. Uh in addition, 47 Cool Road, block 71, lot
16.02, 02 and 61 Cool Road, block 71, lot 1603, are part of this application as well. All properties are located within the township's AR2 zone. The applicant is proposing a minor
subdivision to create proposed lot 16.04 and a lot line adjustment for lot 16.03 to create additional acreage. Lot 16.02 02 is not included in the subdivision. The use of the lot to be created by the
subdivision, lot 16.04, will be for a single family dwelling, which is a permitted principal use within this zone. The relief requested includes preliminary and final minor subdivision approval variances as
outlined on page two of the township planners December 5th, 2025 memorandum and more specifically a C variance from section 296-131 schedule one for the width of lot 16
where 250 ft is required and 221.22 22 ft is existing. I see variance from the same section schedule one for proposed lot 16.04 where again 250 ft is required and
193.25 ft is existing. And finally a se variance from the same section and schedule for lot 16.02 for an accessory structure 16 ft over
the property line of 16.02 02 into lot 16. The sideyard setback requires 15 ft and clearly there is zero feet present. Additionally, an easement from lot 16 in favor of lot 16002 is proposed as well.
The relief requested also includes waiverss as outlined in the township planners completeness review letters dated May 7th and June 20th of this year. Our planner is here tonight to testify as to the proofs required for the board to hopefully grant the
requested relief. I have two witnesses to present to you tonight. Uh first is Eric Rupner, our engineer from Golden Bound Bio, who's here to testify as to the minor subdivision plans and provide answers to questions raised by the township planners December 5th letter,
the township engineers December 5th letter, and the environmental commission's December 8th letter. Jim Kyle is our planner from Kyle Mcmanis. He's here to provide the planning testimony to support the application and provide justification for the board to
grant the requested relief. I also have Mr. Kevin Cool who's a member of the applicant and loaner of owner of lot 16.03 and Mr. Jeffrey Cool owner of lot 16.02 present to answer any questions that the
board may have. Um and at this point I'd like to start with Mr. up in the rain and his testimony. >> Yeah, if I could uh council, if I could swear everybody in, including um both Kevin and Jeffrey Cool and four professionals, if everybody could uh
stand and raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to give in this hearing is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Okay. And starting from you, Eric, if we could just state your uh name so we have a record of everybody who has just uh
taken the order. Eric Rupner. R U P N A R A I N. >> James, sorry. Go ahead, John. >> James Kyle with Kyle McManus Associates, professional planner. >> Resci with Environmental Resolutions,
planning board engineer. >> Jeff Berrera, Township Planner. >> Mr. Chairman, if I may, since I believe that Mr. Rutner and Mr. Kyle are very familiar to this board, can we qualify them as experts at this time? >> Y.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Mr. Renin, would you please walk the board through your subdivision plan and and show them the lots and how in which ways we are complying with the ordinance, please? Well, let's start with that. >> Certainly. Um, so what I've got mounted
on the easel, this is an exact copy of the minor subdivision plan that the board has in the file. And the exhibit that Mr. Kyle just passed out is a color aerial photograph that shows the property. And the property is outlined in yellow. Um,
>> mark that as A1, the color photo. The existing lot is about 105 acres and it has several frontages along Cool Road. Um, existing lot 16.03. That lot is currently fully improved with a single family residential
dwelling. There's a pool in the backyard. That lot is fully conforming to the ordinance for the AR2 zone. The lot the applicant is looking to create lot 16.04. And that lot is located at the southerntherly corner of the property
along cool road. Access and frontage to that particular property is going to be provided um directly from cool road. This lot there's an existing limited frontage of approximately 193 ft along cool road. Um the applicant's proposal
to create a new residential lot fully conforms in all respect to the township's ordinance with the exception of the lot with requirement. and that's primarily driven by the existing limited width that we have along cool road in that southernly portion of the property.
Um the second part of the applicant's proposal is to create a lot line adjustment with lot 16.03 and lot 16. The intent of the lot line adjustment is to increase the total acreage of lot 16.03. Um after the lot line adjustment, lot
16.03 will remain fully conforming. um new lot 16 which is going to be the land's remaining parcel that lot is going to be reduced from approximately 105.6 acres to a little bit over 101 acres. Um
the resulting lot frontage for lot 16 uh lot 16 will also be non non-conforming and that's going to require variance relief which Mr. Kyle will get into. The remainder lot 16 will still have approximately two locations or actually
three locations of um furniture along cool road um along the westerly section of the property southwesterly corner along cool road. Uh the frontage in that location is approximately 221 ft. Um, as we
continue easterly along cool road along the frontage of lot 16, there is a section of proposed lot 16 that's going to be a flag. That access strip is going to be 15 ft wide, 50 ft wide. And then again, as you
continue in an easterly direction, there's a third section of front edge on Alco Road. Um, that section will be about 237 ft wide. Um, in all other respect to the zoning ordinance, lot 16 will remain fully conforming again with the exception of the uh lot with
requirement. And essentially that is the applicant's proposal um in regards to the minor subdivision. Mr. Chairman, before we get into the technical letters, does any members of the board have any questions regarding
the plan? Don't believe so. >> All right. Um, if we can, let's start going through the technical letters. I have the, um, December 5th letter from Mr. Vakarella.
Um, I'm assuming you had a chance to review this. >> I did. >> Okay. Um, beginning on page two, um, there are about 10 planners comments. Um I believe numbers six, seven and eight are just statements. Um
but the first two that should probably be discussed would be uh number nine which is um discussing the west wetland investigation by Mr. Terrella. Um found that no wetlands are in the vicinity of the proposed septic system. Please
confirm if wetlands are located on proposed lot 16.04. Can you uh touch base on that question? >> Certainly. Uh so in reviewing the minor subdivision plan and also um Mr. Varela Mr. Vagarella's letter I've also looked
at the letter that Jeff Terrell provided um the applicant's environmental consultant and prim the primarily the primary area that was investigated within Mr. Terrell's letter is the area where the source testing were completed. I further looked at the New Jersey geo
web database which has information regarding where wetlands can be found and the New Jersey database did not identify any areas of wetlands on this property. The nearest wetland location was shown on the southerntherly side of Kool Road and the wetland area was
primarily associated with the Nanic River. Um, looking at the aerial photograph and at the property itself, um, this entire lot, including the area to be subdivided for lot 16.04, this is a cultivated field. Um, my experience with all of the subdivisions
I've done over the years, that typically areas where you have an actively farmed property, you generally do not have any indications of wetland or wetland areas. Typically the farmers if the area is wet which is what you would normally find in a wetland area they're going to avoid
farming or moving their equipment through that area because it generally creates a problem for them. Equipments are going to get stuck in the soft soils. So I don't believe that we have actually any wetlands on this property considering that the D information didn't show any wetlands. U Mr.
Terrell's uh investigation didn't identify any wetland although it was limited to just a smaller area of the property. And finally this site with the topog topographic information that my office completed the area has a normal so slope across the property
and generally in wetland areas there are lowlying areas where water has a tendency to ponder or pull. So I don't believe that we have any indications that this property is going to have any wetland within lot 14 um proposed 16 04.
Um, question or comment number 10 is more so a statement. Looking at number 11, um, we've demonstrated that a lot circle can be provided for the proposed lot 16.04. Um, and would you, if you would just confirm that there are no environmental
features within that lot circle? >> Again, with the information that I've looked at, um, we did not have any wetlands or streams or riparian zones within the lot circle. Okay. Um, comment number 12 is requesting that the 50 foot
setback from um, and there's a specific uh, boundary uh, or bearing um, listed here. Uh, and that side yard setback should be included. I'm assuming you can take care of that on the um, on the plan. >> That's acceptable.
>> And Jeff, you say 12.04. You mean 164? That's a typo, right? >> Yeah, it's a typo. It's I apologize. Yeah, 16 16.04. it can be um yeah if if that could be revised and then on on the plot plan um if that's shown
and then uh finally number 13 >> condition you would agree with >> absolutely um comment 13 aerials show minimal landscaping on the site please address if trees are to be removed or uh protected and this is pertaining to lot
16.04 4. >> Um, there's only within lot 16.04, proposed lot 16.04, there are a couple of isolated trees towards the roadway. Um, we haven't yet laid out the property or where the dwelling is going to go.
But given where the septic is going to be constructed based on the testing that was done, I don't anticipate there's going to be any need for tree removal. >> Is it fair to say though that there if there is any tree removal that we would obviously comply with any tree ordinance
requirement? Yes. >> All right. The remaining three comments um are just statements. Um I'm going to draw your attention to the third page which is uh comments from the tax assessor. Did you have a chance to take a look at
this? >> I have. Okay. And in this she makes a comment that she notices the acreage uh amounts are different than what she has. uh I assume on file for lot 16. Um can you just comment on why there might
be a difference to that? >> So the taxes the tax map indicates that lot 16 existing lot 16 should be about 100 I believe it's 103 acres plus or minus. My office completed a survey as a requirement for this subdivision and the
acreage that we have come up with based on our analysis and the boundary evidence existing lot 16 is about 106.6 acres. Um, I've seen differentials before between the tax maps and infield surveys. Um, tax maps are generally a
good guidance, but they're not 100% accurate. So, I don't believe there's an issue regarding our survey that the acreage that we're showing is what's correct. >> Thank you. Just excuse me just to go back to item
number 14. You agreed to provide provide that the AutoCAD. >> Yes. Okay. Thank you. >> And Jeff, that will take care of the tax assessor's issue, right? Once a new survey is put up on >> Once we get this data, it can then get
transferred to the right departments and then it' be consistent. Okay, let's turn your attention to um the township engineers letter of December 5th. I'm assuming you take a look at take a look at this and you're familiar with it. >> Correct.
>> Okay. Um I think maybe the best way to go through this is starting on um page two um under zoning. Um I don't see anything that needs to be answered there. minor subdivision review. There
are uh at number five, there are four um sub questions here. Um and I believe we can comply with A, B, and C. And would you just confirm um whether or not the subdivision would be filed by deed or
recorded by a plaque? >> Um by deed. >> Okay. Okay. Number six. Um some comments under the administrative code there are um six seven eight I'm sorry under six there are four subp parts um and I believe
there should be no issue with complying with any of these comments. Is that >> correct? >> Okay. Uh number seven are uh approximately seven comments under the recordordation law. Um, do you have any issue complying
with any of those comments listed? >> No. >> Um, general comments looking through these I think um eight and nine there is I don't believe you have any comment or issue with complying with those. Correct. >> Those are fine.
>> Okay. And um number 10, we're okay with that as well. And that's fine also. >> Okay. And then I believe 11 through 17 are all comments that you can address as >> those are all acceptable.
>> Great. Um number 18, there's a question regarding the existing farm lane. It's my understanding that the farm lane is going to remain. Um so um we will you know as as part of this uh creating access easement for your review and then
ultimately to be recorded >> and you'll extend it up to lot 69 I imagine because on the plan at least it shows it terminating on the proposed lot any issue with that? >> No we could extend it. Um, let's see. 19
20 and 1920 and 21. Uh, no issue with complying with those. >> Those are all fine. >> Okay. And then can you um talk a little bit about number 22 uh regarding regarding storm water?
>> So lot 16.03 was created I believe in 2001 which predates the stormwater management rules. So whatever construction occurred on that property is independent of what's going to happen on this property. This project will have to stand on its own relative to a major
or minor stormwater project. >> Yeah, that that's correct. As long as the uh uh the improvements on lot 16.03 were constructed prior to February 2004, um they won't be aggregated in. Uh so the the new lot which there's no
proposed development at this time when the applicant proposes development on that lot in the future uh we'll have to review that uh development to see if it if it can be if it's a major or minor storm order project and then it has to comply with whatever the applicable regul uh requirements are uh for that
development. >> So there's nothing to address now. >> There's nothing to address now. It'll be addressed uh at the time of a future building permit for the the new lot. Okay. >> I do have one quick see we're we're done with my letter I imagine or
>> um I believe we are >> okay one quick question going back to the right dedication. This is more of a curiosity than anything else. Um based off the monumentation and and the deed for 16.03 03. It appears there was a a
dedication done back in 2002, I believe, uh or 2001 for 13 1/2 ft, which was place it the dedication 30 ft from the center line of the roadway. >> Is this comment number 10? >> Comment number I apologize. Uh yeah.
>> Yes. Comment number 10. Yep. Um, so I guess my question is was that dedication, it looks like that dedication at least may have been done because there's monumentation out there at 30 ft from the center of the road. So what are we doing with the 25T dedication at this time then?
>> So I think the tax calls for a 25 foot wide rayway and that's why the dedication is shown 25 ft typically from center line. >> But but I guess what I'm saying is that appears that there already is a dedication that's 30 ft from center line. So that I would have to go back and look at the deed.
>> That's what I mean. I think we need to take a look at that because I don't you probably don't need the 25 foot dedication then because it looks like I mean let me take that back along the frontage of lot 16.03. You probably don't need it. We need to verify it along uh the rest of the property
>> sections. >> But I guess what I'm saying is back then there was a requirement for dedication of rightway such that it was 30 ft from center line. And it appears based off of the monumentation that you show on the plan that that 30 ft may have been dedicated already.
>> I think your client's ning yes. So I'm guessing that >> it just so we'll just clarify that. But if there's if there's no need for additional dedication, then we won't do it. I don't want to I don't want to muddy up the the the deeds, right? So I just want to make sure that we're we're clear on it. So, so an approval
resolution would add a condition that the applicant will work with the engineer to clarify any >> correct >> any deeds. >> Correct. And and dedication the plan will be revised uh to to clarify what dedication is required if any >> revise as required. >> Yes.
>> Agreed. >> Council, I have a question for you. uh in the beginning in your presentation you said there you were seeking various uh uh se variances and design waiverss you use the word design waivers I don't see design
I'm assuming that that was uh not with respect to this application right because it's a lot >> adjustment they're check your checklist William on a completeness review they were already granted >> okay all right but I'm just I was just listening to the and I I was I just want
to clarify for the record that there are there are no design >> your hearing is extraordinary >> there's some >> maybe I'm hearing things that weren't >> which could be the chance so >> well let's see what else we
>> okay um so engineering and then um I believe last is the um environmental um letter uh that we received to take a look at this >> I did Um
in there are comments here about um obtaining a flood hazard area determination to establish the location of all regulated waters, riparian zones, uh New Jersey flood hazard areas. Um so that areas that are restricted for
development or require a D permit can be identified. There's also a request and I believe it's specific to lot 1604 um for either a letter of interpretation to identify any wetlands or wetland
transition areas um and it also mentions the lot circle. So based on your prior testimony regarding the wetlands regarding the lot circle is there anything that you feel we need to do further with respect to this land? >> I don't think so. Um again the streams
are located on the south side of cool road. Um and based on the NJP classification of the stream it's not a C1 stream. So the riparian buffer would typically be 50 ft for that particular stream which does not encroach onto the property. And again um the area of
proposed lot 16.04 doesn't appear based on the D information, the work that was done by Mr. Terrella and the fact that it's a cultivated field. I don't believe that we're going to have any wetlands or transition areas on that property. >> Yeah. >> So,
just to be clear, I'm looking at the the geo web and and and I do agree that the wetlands that are shown on the geo web, which by the way, it's it's the geo web information, you know, it's most mostly GIS information that's based off of more like a 30,000 foot view of of hydraology
and all that kind of stuff. So, it's not as specific, but it does show wetlands on the opposite side of the road. Um, I guess the question that that they had that I have is the the transition areas that are associated with that wetland,
you don't feel encroach onto the AC reach across the road, I guess. Is it >> correct? Because the wetlands are clearly across the street or across the road with a 50ft um lost my train of thought. I apologize. 50 foot transition area. Yep.
>> 50 foot transition area and a 50 foot wide right of way. If anything, the transition area is going to be in the right of way >> and and that's that's what I guess we were looking for on on the the right of way is 50 ft wide. The wetlands are on the opposite side of the road and based off of the the type of
wetlands you you're comfortable that it would be a 50 foot wide transition area. So, it wouldn't reach onto this property. >> Correct. Okay. >> One thing I will add with regard to D permitting, however, um the proposed lot 16.04 4. Uh it you know does need a driveway to cross through the the
100year flood plane through the flood hazard area. Uh there is an existing drive that that extends onto the property. Um so the the that will have to be valued at the time of construction on lot 16.04 as to whether there's any additional permitting required for the
flood hazard area that that crosses the front of the property. >> Agreed. If necessary, we'll certainly apply to DB. That'll be something we'll we'll have to again address at the time of construction on that on that property should the board act favor this application it will create the new lot
and then when the applicant or when the you know future applicant goes to con to construct on that property it'll have to be evaluated at that time as to what permitting is required to allow that access through the uh through that uh regular area if any because there is an
existing road that crosses through there we just don't know the details of it whether it's sufficient Thank you. >> Any more questions from Mr. Repair? >> I'll ask the public. Although I don't believe we have anybody here from the community this evening. If you have any
questions for Mr. Rarian, now would be the time to do this. There being none. >> Thank you. I've been sitting all day. So, >> where's yours, sir? >> Okay. So, I was retained by the applicant to review the planning issues
associated with this. I've reviewed all the application materials. >> Lift that mic up. >> You really can't. It's really not picking it up. >> The recording won't >> Okay. Uh I've visited the site, reviewed all the application materials, reviewed the master plan and the ordinance as
well as the memos from your board professionals. Um so these are three variances that are necessary. We're going to handle these all as C1 hardship variances, all three. So we have two lot width variances and as Mr. Vakarella had noted in his review memo, essentially
the lot width for 1604 and 16 are existing conditions right now. I mean, those frontages exist today and they're short in terms of lot, but the difference is now we're turning 1604 into its own lot. So, we're going to need the relief for that. Um, and then
on 16, it's it's a very similar situation. Again, that's not that's going to remain as part of lot 16. That's an existing condition that the 220 uh 221.22. And then the third variance is for a garage that was constructed on lot 16.02
2 that crosses the boundary line of lot 16. Um, as Mr. Ruben had said, we are providing an easement for that garage on the lot 16 just to kind of clean that issue up a little bit, but we do need variance relief because it's zero where 15 is required. So, on the lot with
variances, uh, which I'll address first, as I said, I believe these qualify under the C1 hardship criteria. Um, the 221.22 22 on the west side is an existing condition. And if you look at the aerial photograph which was marked as A1, you
can see we have lot 13 to our west and then we have lot 16.03. Uh lot 13 is a non-conforming lot as to area and width. So in terms of our ability to acquire additional property to remedy that width, we we can't get it from that lot
because it would require variances for that. That is a developed lot. It has a single family house on it. Now 1603 uh part of this application as Mr. Rupner said is we're adding area to that lot to increase its size. Now we can get a full 250 foot lot circle although Jeff
says it's not required. Um however the issue with trying to reconfigure that western lot line is that we have a septic system. If you look on the subdivision plan, there's a septic system in front of the dwelling on the west side. that septic system has to be a specific
distance from the property line. So, we would not be able to move that line far enough east in order to get the additional I'm a planner. I can't do math in my head. What would it be? 29ish feet in order to make compliant um lot width there. So, I
think based on those two facts, we can demonstrate the hardship for lot 16. Now,6004 is a very similar situation because lot 16.0 01 on the left side. So on this aerial A16004 would be in the lower right hand corner
of the yellow outline. So 1601 and 18 are both developed with existing single family homes. They're both non-conforming as to lot area and lot width. So we are unable to acquire additional property from either side there in order to get the the 250 ft. So
I think we can readily demonstrate that the physical uh conditions on the property, the amount of available frontage is is really what's limiting our ability to comply uh with these requirements on the negative criteria.
Just looking um first at the impact any potential impact on adjacent properties from the grant of the relief. Um so for the portion the western side of of lot 16 at this time there is no structure proposed there. So while we do not have
the required lot width, if you look, you see the setback lines on the map. If a dwelling were to ever be proposed to be constructed there, we would still have adequate room to meet the setbacks and place a dwelling. We'd still have 170 odd feet in which in between the
setbacks where we could put a dwelling. So no no real issue there. And obviously um the applicants own lot 16003. And then as far as um 1604, so the intent is for that dwelling to be
located up in the rear of the property. Uh will not be located down in the front like you see these lots that exist there on cool road. Um so there while we're deficient on the lot width, the structure is going to be built in the back. So it's a little bit less of an issue in terms of the amount of width. We could still comfortably comply with
all the setback requirements. However, it's it's not an issue because the dwelling is not going to be there. So I don't think that lot with that existing condition is really going to have any major impact on adjacent properties. And as far as the second prong of the negative criteria, we also have to show that it will not substantially impair
the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. So uh not uncommon. The Ren Township master plan doesn't really provide any discussion about why specific lot widths or setbacks are required in specific zones. uh it's generally something that is at
the discretion of the person who writes the ordinance, something that's appropriate for that particular lot size. Um however, generally speaking, it's intended to make sure that we create lots of, you know, we'll say um normal configuration in terms of
frontage relative to the the size of the property. I think in this case, we've readily demonstrated that we're unable to comply with that. However, we're not so far off on these numbers that it's going to result in something that's out of character with the area that you see. Um, if you look at this aerial photo in
A1, you can see that many of the lots that, you know, this is a very typical development pattern for southern Hunter County. So, East Amwell, Delaware, um, West Amway, you know, you see these frontage lots that have been created over time. Clearly, this is an agricultural area. you can see the the
huge areas of farming that occur to the north and to the south. So uh in my view the grant of the relief in this case particularly since we are unable to comply physically is not going to substantially impair the intent of that standard.
Now as to the variance uh for the accessory setback again hardship this structure um is on the ground. I think in this case, you know, I've seen a lot of situations where you have um a disagreement over a property on the
structure on the over the property line. This is a great situation where we're actually going to provide the easement so that that structure can stay right where it's at. Um there's really no impact negative impact um to adjacent properties. So, if you look at the
subdivision map, there's an area that we're going to leave undeveloped between lots 15 and 16.02. uh there's no intent for a structure there at this time. Also, if you've been by the site, you know that there is a huge bank along the side of the road on
that portion of the property. So, um even if even if this property were to ever be developed in the future, access is likely not going to be in that location simply because the topography is going to be challenging. Um, all that to say that that
garage up to and over the property line has no impact on the adjacent property. It's an undeveloped portion. It's well away from lot 15, so it should not present any impact to any of the adjacent properties. And, uh, again, as far as the intent, uh, setback standards
are generally geared towards providing adequate light, air, and open space. In this case, lot 16 will continue in agricultural use. Could be for the next hundred years. Who knows? Um, so there's really no substantial impairment to the intent of that because there's no structure on that portion of the lot. So
in terms of any consideration for impacts, lighter and open space, there will not be any substantial impairment to that. Mr. Chairman, that's all I had in the way of direct. I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have. Any board questions on that testimony? No. Again,
there's nobody here from the public this evening. So, okay. I offer, if they were here, I'd offer them to ask any questions. >> Okay. Thank you all, Mr. Chairman. That concludes our presentation. >> Okay. Any guidance?
>> Is it a deliberation or questions? Nothing. Okay. So if board was so inclined, it would be a motion to approve the application with conditions called out in planners report specifically uh paragraph 12 and 14. And with respect
to the engineers report conditions 5 through 17, 19- 21 and with respect to 18, it would be that the applicant would create an access easement to lot 16 uh from604 subject to the review and
approval of board engineer as well as all the administrative conditions like outside agency approval, payment of uh all escros, all of the normal. I just want to add one one condition. It was number 10 of my memo just stating that
uh zoning permit, driveway permit be reviewed by the township engineer as well as storm water and grading. It's pro it's >> procedure but >> yeah I would say it's yeah which is fine. I mean that's just stating the what would be required right. I'm assuming you haven't problem with that.
Okay. So with that addition that would be the motion. So with that summary from Miss Vtorio, can I have a motion to approve minor subdivision and lot line adjustment with C variance relief for Ritton Hill LLC and Kevin and Mary Cool at block 71.
>> Okay, >> move second. Thank you. >> Chair, Mr. Eric Gettings. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> Miss Robin Fu. >> Yes. >> Mr. Dennis Panon. >> Yes. >> Miss Michelle Cavakiri. >> Yes. >> Mr. James Miller. >> Yes.
>> And Mr. Ben Sloski. >> Yes. >> Um, are we adjourning or what are we doing? Wait, we have guys. >> Well, we don't. Are we adjouring or? Yeah, we hit the >> adjourn. So, for our next meeting, which
hard to believe this is the last meeting of 2025. Thank you everybody for your service and all that you do to support this planning board and our township. I think Mr. King said it very very well and uh it was very nice of him to come by this evening
and say that. So, um, >> well, we'll see and we'll deal with that >> at our reorganization meeting on the 14th and then that evening we also have extra space storage is coming back. >> That's if they put their plans in on time.
>> If they do, right? Right. >> I've already >> Yes. So with that, I think we are adjourned. Happy Hanukkah, merry Christmas to everybody. >> Happy New Year.