riperian buffer as per nj rules uh where the dwelling is located it will be outside of that riparian zone and also by demolishing the existing dwelling we will be able to locate the proposed driveway outside of that riperian buffer
the other two dwellings on the site on lot 14.01 um that dwelling is going to remain uh and the second the third dwelling on the property which is located on lot 14.03 that dwelling will also be
remained uh there's no improvements proposed to either lot 14.01 or 14.03 uh the only construction that's somewhat anticipated would be trying to get an accurate location of where the existing
septic systems are on both of those properties we have checked with the health department the health department does not have any records as to where the septic systems are an infield investigation completed by our office could not find the typical clean outer inspection ports you would normally have
with septic systems what we have done in preparation of this application for this application is we've completed soils testing on the property and we have acceptable results and locations to construct a new septic system if necessary for lot
14.01 and a new septic system for lot 14.03 if that's required um the only anticipated d approval that we believe would be required for this project is associated with law 14.01 and that's
primarily due to where the septic system is being proposed it's being proposed within a wetlands transition area and njb does have a general permit that's available for constructing of construction of a septic system within a wetland transition area we believe that septic system will meet all of the
typical conditions associated with that permit and that would be an application that would have to be filed pending any action by this board how do you plan on building a septic system within the 300
ft stream buffer for the c1 so the flood hazard area rules does permit construction of a septic system they limit the amount of square footage that can be disturbed the amount of ground which is 5,000 square feet for a septic system
that's flood hazard isn't that different from the c1 stuff no so the actual flood plane is the gray area on the map the septic system is located along the northerly portion of the dwelling that's not being impacted by any flood planes
i guess i have a more fundamental question how did three houses get built on this tract when it's only a one single family residential lot uh these um residences are um believed
to be u old uh to very old um i i guess i'm just curious about jurisdiction here because uh isn't this board of adjustment no we're
not we're not seeking permission to have multiple uh principal um structures on a single lot we're here to seek subdivision to to address that issue in fact the handling this matter was brought to our attention
by way of a notice of zoning violation for having multiple structures on a single lot we're not seeking to keep uh this as a single lot with three residential structures on it we're trying to address the dumbing violation
by some that is correct there is a summon pending for multiple dwellings on the property um it was not this is just one option um word of adjust there wasn't a certificate of non-conforming use
applied for there we have no records of the house so um that's just from the township um files so there's no record no zoning record no zoning record that the other two houses that were built at
some point at some point and typically when this happens it's um there's an application for a non-conforming use certificate to prove that there's some grandfathering in before 1956 um that's been that's been done in the past in other town other areas of
the township has that been done here jeff it has to be to the board of adjustment um to even for the determination yeah and and i would i would say this um to the extent and again i'm not i'm not
prejudging this application i'm not suggesting how the board should rule but to the extent that the board doesn't um this is a may grant not a shall grant because of the multiple c variances so the board has no legal obligation to
approve this application it's if the board believes that its concerns are satisfied it can grant it if the board was not to grant a relief then there's no question that there would be a a nonconforming use and they would be
required to go before the board of adjustment they would have no alternative they would have to go and seek relief either for pre-existing non-conforming or if they could not meet that they would need to to uh satisfy
the dar d1 to d1 variance uh you know proofs okay so those those would be those would be the choices but that it it depends upon the application and and how this board proceeds whether or not um the d1
variance is mooded by the relief granted or required okay i'll i'll just do some followup questions regarding the lot circles um i guess are you familiar with our ordinance where it says the lot circles have to be free of all easements
and encumbrances wetlands road rightways um and how can you explain where your three lot circles are and if they're encumbered in any way just so i am aware of the lot circle hold the button till it's green um so to answer your question yes um i
am aware of the launch circle requirements however this particular property given flood planes riparian zones wetlands we're showing three lot circles the first circle is located on lot 14 starting left to right on um
sorry right to left on lot 14.03 this particular lot circle is partly located located within the c1 um riparian zone for the tributary that runs along the easterly part of the property um on lot
14.02 again this lot circle is also shown but this circle is partly located within the second tributary that runs through the property it's located within that riperian zone the lot circle is not located within any wetland or transition
area um and the third lot circle on lot 14.01 that lot circle is located within the riparian zone and within the flood plane it's the the property is encumbered by wetlands riparian zones streams wetland transition areas it's
just not possible to create three lots where the lot circle wouldn't be encumbered so how many would you estimate you could draw that would conform that wouldn't have any of these encumbrances estimating probably just one lot essentially between the two
riparian zone between the area that's only encumbered by the riparian zone okay do you have any director or will the estate have to testify about when these structures were built and how they were built do you have any you do you have
any information that you found in your records while you were researching for this property i think we were able just through aerial photograph to trace it back i think to somewhere in this early 60s or late 50s that i don't have there are no permits or documentation that
we're aware of that actually indicates when permits were issued for any of the structures um are you when you did your um testing for your septic system um the township currently requires and has for a number
of years two soil logs and two permeability test for each um proposed septic area is that what you submitted to the board so we submitted two soil logs and one permeability test we are going to have to provide the
second permeability test were those the tests that were done were they i noticed on the submission that there was no witness signature were they done with witnessing from the township yes okay and they were done for each of the properties where you're identifying
septic correct sorry were they done were the tests done for each of the properties and the septics where you believe they will be or or just over the single property technology is great when it works
uh the testing was done for each individual lot um it was okay correct yeah i guess i'm i have a little heartburn because in the past this board has said unless there's compliance and proof that septic systems can be built
on lots that we hold an application until we get that documentation so i'm i'm very concerned about this given that the testing that was done shows extreme modeling and challenges to
put it mildly so that's just something i'm going to bring before the board because in the past we've said finish your testing and then we can act knowing in good faith that this really will work correctly i'm just and that's septic systems huh
and that's only the septic system issues usually we haven't allowed lot circles to have this much yeah set either in the setbacks or in the buffers and all that kind of stuff what i can offer relative to the septic
system uh the testing has been completed in accordance with the state requirements uh the only difference between the states and the township's requirement is that we need two permeability tests the state regulations only require one our ordinance is agreed and acknowledged
the ordinance has the right to require more yes yeah yeah i'm just somewhat i'll put it mildly disappointed that you didn't do the correct testing because this ordinance with the two has been around for years
so you know we do it because there are lots we know that have challenges and we want to make sure that that you know an adequate system can be put in so okay could you comment on the i assume you saw the environmental commission report
that was attached to mr barell's report yeah could you cover all the reports on the engineering in the plan but i'm i'm raising this now because it speaks to these
they've raised some real concerns so seems to be the appropriate time okay i'm i don't know if this mic works yeah it does sorry so we do have a copy of the environmental commission's report and
the comments that they have are under normal circumstances if we were dealing with a property that didn't have any structures on them i don't think we would have any issues either trying to create a different development or a different scheme that works um we're essentially trying to create a
subdivision to permit or to place each of the existing dwellings on their own respective lot that is the reason why the lot lines are drawn the way they are and that's essentially what's driving the variance relief that the applicant is going to be
seeking tonight from the board it's not that we're looking to build something new there are three existing residences on this property and we're just trying to create individual lots so it's not having multiple single family residential dwellings on one property which is not permitted in the zone we're
not looking to build a new structure the only new dwelling that's proposed is one that's going to replace an existing structure that's already on the property and that existing dwelling is going to be in a more conforming location but but wouldn't you agree then just based upon
what you just testified to that that the hardships are self-created and therefore it's not appropriate for this board as a matter of law to consider the variance relief that there in lies the problem in terms of maybe the appropriate relief is a d1 variance before the board of
adjustment just based upon what you just what just what you testified to i think you have just in your testimony confirmed why this board should not grant a the c1 relief because it was self-created
so we also have to look at the fact that these properties could be sold in the future they have to be maybe somebody knocks the house down and needs to be able to build in the future you don't know what's going to happen they're not going to necessarily own them forever and it's not locked to just that
particular whoever owns them right now so if we grant all these completely non-conforming things we're kind of stuck with them for yeah here so i think you might have gone the wrong direction and it sounds like
you needed to get your non-conforming approval for the three house for the three structures first are all three lots are all three dwellings are they vacant maybe we should have the
the owner trustee maybe you should well you can come right up to this mic here you can pull it out of the chair or you could go to the one that's standing whichever you want you can pull it out of the chair up sir maybe they're all connected
okay how are you my name is brad russo i'm a i'm an attorney in philipsburg new jersey um i have no history with the property um it was owned by the lipka family who owns several properties in ritan and throughout new jersey um i was
courtapp appointed because of ongoing litigation with the estate and the beneficiaries um so this is my final property there was about there was a lot of them right so um when this one got violated for and i know nothing about
land use i will state that upfront um i don't practice land use um but when this was early in my tenure um i was served with the non-conforming use actually it was before my tenure i was given it to him by the previous
execut um and you know i'm looking at this for the first thing i did was talk to the family right and some of the distant relatives were like it was absolutely there before 1956 the problem is this
was during covid that started um it was very difficult the only individual who had solid knowledge was was from like california and was very old and it was determined and that it it wouldn't be good for him to testify um so i didn't
know how else i could possibly prove i have no attachments to the property i'm not the owner you know i'm trying to do the best to make this you know a a a a usable property again um and so you know to look at the two buildings that were
built and the options being you know tear it down or or try to get some relief as far as a subdivision or that sort you know so i hired a land use attorney to to handle it um way back when there was discussions uh with with the town and
the town attorney and things like that and and this was the recommended way um and this is you know so this is the path we took um i wouldn't be able to prove uh based on obviously my own testimony or anyone that i know within the family
now uh that it was pre-existing to 1956 um but that's that's the strong belief as to why these buildings are where they are and why there's no compliance with zoning mr how many um uh on the property taxes uh how many how many dwellings are
being taxed by by the township i'm not positive the answer to that i would have to check my records yet because um uh and again it's it's not my place to kind of dispense legal advice but there are uh and again i'm not i'm not speaking
for the board but i think you know there are there have been various concerns raised with the um the the environmental constraints on on the property um coupled with the the candid testimony of
your engineer that this is in essence self-created self-created people are not entitled to relief for their own for situations that they've created the land use the the ml makes that clear in terms of now that doesn't mean that the board can't can't grant a revent anyway they
can you know they can they can come to their own conclusions but i'm just stating from a 10,000 foot level um but if there's if there's been multiple dwelling that property taxes have been paid on since like 1950 say or there's aerial photographs that can that can
document three structures that predate 1956 you know you could certainly confer with your planner an engineer there are multiple ways uh of proving pre-existing nonconforming um without someone who lived in those
premises since 1956 that was the only way to do it an applicant would in many instances have significant difficulties in providing proof i'm just again questioning out loud whether this is the proper board to be before for the relief
that you need yeah i'm in agreement with that 10 minute break so we can sure sure thank you so we'll pick it up at quarter two is edwards we're back in session we'll
throw it out to you microphone we need you on the mic okay all good you can hear me okay thank you um so in um recognition of the board's uh concerns and comments about the
prospect of the subdivision we would like to withdraw our application from the planning board and we will reapply we'll apply to the zoning board for a certificate of nonconformity or in the alternative a d1 use variance so we'll apply for
alternative relief to the board of adjustment good that makes sense okay thank you all right just follow up with a letter to taylor that would be great we'll do we'll send a letter appreciate it thank you thank you for your time appreciate
it okay before anybody says anything let's just close the papers why don't uh sir why don't you come on up we have a person here from the community uh and you can come up to the microphone please give your name and uh
hello my name is mark peard and you need to comment on the testimony that was given wait wait wait wait is this still tors the application yes this is do you this is not a general citizenry yes yes okay i live and own uh i'm so
sorry mark pecard pic ad uh i own and live block 12 lot 19 which is the lot right behind the ones being discussed and my only concern moving forward i see there's a lot of moving parts and a lot of girations with
this my only concern is that i don't end up with a dwelling between my house and the street i just wanted to go on record by saying that it doesn't show that now but i know a lot of things are changing i just want to make sure that that doesn't happen moving forward and that's all i have to say okay thank you thank
you okay and with that i don't think we have any other business for this evening uh we are returned thank you