##VIDEO ID:nd42IWXDLE4## Township planning apologize for the delay 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 Hun and County Democrat The Courier News The Star Ledger and the treaten times we do the roll call please chairman Mr Edward gettings here Vice chairwoman Miss Don Drews here miss Robin Fatu here Mr Scott McDade here Miss Michelle kavaki here Mr Dennis conanan here Mr James Miller he is asked to be excused Mr Glenn Sosi here board professionals board attorney Mr Joe toriello here Township planner Mr Jeffrey ferella here Township engineer Mr reesh Dari here and all other board professionals so pass to be excused okay very good thank you I'm gon to ask everybody to please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a moment of silence for the men and women in the armed services I to the flag the United States of America and the repblic for it stands one nation God indivisible Li and justice for all thank you first up this evening our comments and reports I don't have any report this evening does anybody have from the board have any comments they would like to make this evening I will just give an update regarding the um affordable housing the township committee is in the process of um moving towards the deadline of January 31st to respond with on the obligation very good thank you thank you Engineers comments I have time Mr chair okay next comments I just wanted to add um that there are four um Professionals for idog geologists that I will begin to reach out for uh to get more information and then I'll update uh the chairman and vice chairman as far as how they want to proceed but that's that's the next step does that need to be an RFP it's just for services right so it's a Township decision it's Professional Services well it it's it it depends you can do a non-fair and open process and then there's just different uh forms that need to be filled out so you don't have to go out to RFB you do not okay that's good to know so work we'll make sure we're working with the right Professionals in the township right okay hey you've got four candidates y That's this goodness we'll start with that goodness okay great thanks att's comments nothing to add okay there is no correspondence um this evening and we do not have any minutes or resolutions to approve so next up is Citizens privilege if there's anybody in the room this evening who would like to address the planning board on any items other than what we will be discussing with the public hearings now is the time to do that if you want to address the board please come up to the microphone give your name and address there being none we can move on so we're on the public hearings for this evening the first up is New Jersey conservation Foundation this is a minor subdivision lot line adjustment attorney come on up uh good evening Mr chairman good evening M Vice chairman members of the board my name is Curtis culbert I am here on behalf of the New Jersey conservation foundation in his application for a minor lot line adjustment subdivision um being known as 30 rake Road or the Holland property is owned by she Le Holland who has passed a power of attorney to her grandson Sean Holland who is in attendance tonight and lot 12.02 is owned by the New Jersey conservation Foundation Uh current lot 14 currently contains uh I know that the measurements and the acreage is going to be revised as per the engineers and planners most recent reports uh but currently it stands at 31.0 n6 Acres will contain 18996 and that subsequent to the lot line adjustment current lot 12.02 contains 17.8 91 acres and will contain 29.95 s acres in that adjustment at this time there is no current or future development plan for either property uh actually to the contrary uh the validation purpose is to maintain and preserve the property as is as open space so first off I would like to call up Timothy BR uh first in his capacity as go ahead person's capacity as a member of the conservation Foundation to give uh some background on foundation and its purpose um and a little bit of background on the property itself and then I will qualify him in his capacity as a planner to provide testimony as to this application Council before before you proceed all of the witnesses that you intend to call can you bring them forward I'm going to swear everybody in at once including the board professionals and then after I administer the oath for the record each individual who was taken the oath just please state your name for the record okay but um can I just I'm I'm gonna need you to come up to a microphone and identify yourself open space committee I have some testimony that Amy Green drafted and I want to just present that when I get a chance I'm sorry toce myself uh well you're going to be public comment correct so so let them go first and then right right you you do public comment and then if there's public T you would be sworn in at a later portion of the proceeding if you want to provide testimony but that would be later on because you you would have two shots to speak um there's a comment and testimony section so again with that can I have uh all of your Witnesses applicant come forward if it's just going to be one okay so please stand up and and come forward whoever intends on testifying and the board profess if everybody can raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to give to this board in this proceeding will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes yes okay starting from left to right if you could please state your name and spell it for the record certainly Eric r n r i Timothy t o t h y b r i l l brast darg r a k e s h d a r j i Bo Jeff Vella T planner okay thank you all Council please proceed uh and again if I can as we discussed beforehand I would respectfully suggest that you utilize the board professional reports and informing uh the way that you present your testimony so that we can all follow the boun the proverbial bouncing ball before you go any further anybody that's testifying or speaking tonight please speak into the microphone we have our stenographers but we need to hear on the recording sir if you'd like to have a seat next to the attorney you're more than welcome to but please just speak into the microphone good evening my name again is Tim Grill I'm Central Jersey project manager with the New Jersey conservation Foundation my colleague Richard do is the staff member so I'm here representing found I am a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey since 2002 also a member of the American instit certified worked previous to my conservation foundation with the state Farmland preservation program and we enjoyed a good working relationship not only with Hunter count newy conservation Foundation is a Statewide well I think first we need to accept you and those sounds fine to the board you can proceed Statewide nonprofit organization we've been active since 1960 so we have quite history in the state of New Jersey our mission is to preserve land and natural resources throughout the entire State for the benefit of all and New Jersey conservation Foundation has preserved more than 140,000 Acres of open space and F today par in many parts of the state including more than a dozen involving more than 24,000 AC that we own and man public preserve land through b acquisition as well as East and uh we are active in both open space and forland most of our work is done in partnership with Municipal County state federal agencies as well as other nonprofit organizations and we enjoy many great relationships with our partners uh in extraordinary project areas like the wi Creek with respect to this particular application uh we see this as a very simple lot line adjustment there are no new blocks created uh with this um line adjustment subdivision application simply transferring a little more than 12 acres from lot 14 to our property Lot 12 .02 for conservation purposes we expand our existing preserves in this important streem Corridor and as your planner noted uh we have many other properties within the township that we uh hope to continue to add to in in future years here um we have a longstanding commitment to this particular stream Corridor in both Del Township and am Township and we acknowled it significance as a category one scen the 26 structures that are included um in this application along the property lines are pre-existing non-conforming structures uh they really have no active uh role in the proposed AC here the subdivision that we're um proposing this evening um but we acknowledge their existence close to the property uh the preservation of this particular portion of the property is very consistent township open space plan Ling open space along with choke as well as your R1 classification for this District here as I say no F development plan here for conservation purposes here uh the V variance request associated with these pre-existing sheds really involves no harm to public welfare for the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance plan my and njcf and the land owner are anxious to move forward with this transaction as soon as possible here um the granting of the variances will benefit the community in advancing the preservation of this parcel substantially outweighing any njcf currently owns thej property as we say and we're also working with other Landers to preserve additional lands in this particular area in conclusion the benefits substantially outweigh DET you no substantial detriment to the public good is associated with this action and no subst can you address uh Mr Fella's letter December 6th so um as mentioned uh in the letter M that Mr beell provided there are the 26 accessory structures on the property located on the most along the northern side of the property U that lie within the uh the setback requirements in the R1 Zone um his letter provides that uh structures XV and W which are the uh barns that are located on the property uh don't create any uh variance relief for those structures however structures a through S are located as close to as close as 6.4 ft uh and for these structures um I believe it is our position that they are non-farm structures as they are not in use they have not been in use on the property since 2010 when Mr Holland passed away um they are uh they are simply uh uh they were built in 1999 and have not been used since 2010 and uh they are okay I'm sorry are you testifying to this or I was just providing a little background information this is more testimony so would really like it to come from absolutely absolutely um for uh for structures um a through S that are on the property that lie within the setback do you believe what is your standpoint on the VAR vares requested for those accessory structures I mean they're clearly within the setback side setback line but the action requested does not the location of will not do any damage as forward so we do acknowledge that their existing structures they have not been Mr Bella mentioned in his letter I just want to address this one point um that in section uh 296 d131 uh this schedule one for the uh setback requirements for uh four accessory structures uh that uh structures housing animals uh cannot be within 100 ft of the setback um could you just provide a little more testimony as to the uh current status of the structures that are on the accessory structures that lie within that uh setback uh whether they're in use or not I was able to walk the property in the last few weeks and there's no evidence that are currently ored so for the structures that are within that uh as you testified before that um they are not in use uh for the ones that are are within 15 feet of the minimum side yard setback for non-farm property uh non-farm structures uh is it your uh is it your belief that uh the structures that are less than 180 Square ft should be permitted within the 5 set back yes I will also note that structur Z structures z and y uh noted in Mr vella's letter are in the front of the dwelling and that structure Z actually lies uh 67 feet away from the setback um from the front yard can you provide a testimony as to the variant Ed for the um the structure Z at the front of the property line if the structure was being built today it would clearly not be consist with it's also noted that there is a currently existing fencing I believe two of the structures encroach onto the conservation foundation's property uh along the I believe it's the east side of the property um could you provide some uh some testimony as to the conservation Foundation standpoint a stance on the encroachment of the fence and the structure I believe it's the two or three structures uh The Pavilion approaches uh 3.0 ft over onto the conservation foundation's property could you just provide a little more testimony as to the foundation's uh stance on the encroachment onto the property and whether they uh accept that encroachment we U when we acquir the property and I was not with and uh we have a good relationship with the current land owner and there isn't much of a structure also noted and realized that there are trailers located on the property as well uh out of view from the front side of the uh property uh could you please uh provide some more information in uh regarding the status of those trailers and whether or not they are movable there is also noted in Mr vella's letter that um wetlands are not shown on the survey as you mentioned before uh the conservation Foundation does not intend uh to have any plans for development with on uh on the new property uh either lot 12.02 or lot 14 could you provide some testimony as to um the status of the wetlands and the um potential analysis that would be needed in in connection with uh development we do acknowledge that there definitely are wet lanes and there is a very high respect to soils on the entire proping here the purpose of the application foration we don't believe it's necessar important to do formal um as I looked that through Mr vell's letter I believe that all of the highlighted items that Mr beella made note of have been addressed and so if the board has any questions for Mr [Music] Brill Jeff I'm going to throw it out to you for a minute you satisfied with that testimony on your letter so some of the testimony refers to pre-existing non-conforming right um to the best of my knowledge that's more of a board of adjustment decision um I don't know when when the structures were built uh but as far as them being vacant or not used that is correct I walk the walk the property uh there's multiple distinctions as to the setback and the use of it if the residential um is correct it could go up to five feet from the property line if it's 180 square feet or less um if it's a farm structure which many of these were or some of these were at one point it's it's 50 feet and if it it's housing animals it's 100 ft um so which we know it's not according to the testimony it's not housing animals right yes that's correct is not um and then uh building T and then there's a pavilion are encroaching onto that um onto their property the lean to is not labeled and not provided under the chart but it is an additional structure so the T is up front by the trailers by Road T is on the Eastern portion of the property and it's and it's uh labeled as 3.08 over and then lean to the lean to is uh north of that structure there you go highl game so my my only con my only concern is that the testimony is that it's not being used but what if in the future it is being used and trailers in front yard are not allowed period correct correct yeah and the trailers are they are they storing anything or I actually do not know well let me ask the applicant and light of the testimony that the trailers can be moved you would have no objection to a condition being placed on any perspective approval that you remove and relocate all of the trailers agreed so that a yes I believe that is agreed yes okay I guess they're the things that because that is closest to the breake road and it's not adjacent to njcf property line so that's where I'm trying you know this is do you have the order of the property here we do yes are they jying yeah yeah respons that would be 14 yeah so do we need do they have to have a variance for structures that are falling apart and not being used anymore like where's the cut off it's more of the it's more of the location of it uh with the use I mean if if they're if they're testifying that they're used for nonfarm then would that would go with the I'm assuming that would go with the with the approval correct uh what would go with the approval that the or the that as a condition yeah yeah you could do that yeah absolutely they don't need the variance for it no or they still need the variance yeah yeah there's both variances that are yeah yeah so so I had this conversation with the applicant the first time they came and uh just as like a little bit of a a a primer uh under the ml um minor subdivision approvals are shall be deemed final and and um this board is a shall Grant if the application the drawings the specifications all show complete conformance with the standards of all all applicable ordinances and that's not the case here so that then under the ml flips it to the opposite this board must deny the application it's not you go from a must Grant to a must deny unless and one of the unless is is what we're here tonight that if if through the granting of variance relief if the board is satisfied in other words if the board imposes all of these variances and it's agreed to I'm sorry not variances uh yeah see variances so here we're talking about bulk variances in terms of the locations of these of these properties if the board grants that bulk variance then they get the application but if you don't want to Grant all of all 27 of these variances then the board must deny the application they would then have to remove the 27 structures bring the property in strict conformance then they come back and this board can't deny it so that's that's All or Nothing proposition is what I'm hearing they're goingon to have to agree to all of the uh in other words if you don't Grant all of the if you're not willing to Grant a variant on any of these 27 applications you must deny it you have to deny it it's an all it's it's an all or nothing so that's why we're going to have to go through this and and I know there was some quick testimony about structures a through S but I I heard other members here on the deis and I heard our our uh board professional talk about the fact that if the structure is within in if there's a five foot uh setback and it's less than 180 uh square feet I believe it is then you're okay but I didn't hear testimony as to a through z as to the square footage of every structure you're going to have to go through all 27 and you're going to have to testify to the exact square footage of all of them because this board can't we don't even know we don't even know what's it what's on the board and what's not on the board so that's the starting point uh we're going to have to go through all of that and also at some point um while I heard you say that there's that there's there's no detrim we're going to need specific testimony under 40 55d uh-2 specific positive criteria and I'm referring to items a through Q in the ml as to exactly what the positive criteria is specifically with respect to this board granting the bulk variant relief that you seek in terms of the the positive criteria and then get to the negative I I didn't hear any of and I was listening to you your testimony carefully and I went through items a through a through q and if I'm Mis if I'm misspeaking or misrepresenting I apologize I don't think the testimony addressed uh the the positive criteria as set forth in the mlu if we can Contin we would uh we would be happy to provide some testimony as to that um so it from what I understand it's the board position that we would like to go through each uh accessory structure individually um provided on the revised plans I see that there is a box with the measurements uh for the setback the height as well as the square footage of each structure have the r pling should we take a break or something we have um revised plans from the 23rd of January okay we're gonna take a break for a minute to double check what we have from you make sure we're all looking at the corre plan you want to do that check back into session okay sorry for the delay there's obviously a lot going on here have the right plans all right we do have the right plans okay great so it's my understanding now that in light of the discussion we had before we took the five minute break specifically with respect to the board planners comment number five uh referencing structures a through S and the situation where if there are 18 square feet or less they are permitted with a 5 foot setback I believe the consensus was that we're going to need testimonium structure sizes all structures a through S earlier before this proceeding started you presented to the board secretary a very large stack of photographs that Council and I we had a discussion about initially um presenting them as a collective exhibit a for the sole purpose of showing that the structures were um not in use I think in light of what is transpired now the preferred course of action would be to Mark the photographs uh in direct correlation to the alphabet number as they appear on the plan so that structure a is introduced and and go do it that way Mark each individual photo a through S and and so on and then provide the testimony in that regard once we satisfy that and we know what is permitted with a five-foot setback and what isn't the board will then be informed in terms of what bulk variance relief is needed when we identify that I think you're going to have to go through the mlu positive criteria uh of 55 D2 specifically a through q and identify what is the positive criteria and then also provide testimony on the negative criteria absolutely so to begin um as mentioned uh in regard to the uh setback and the exception of nonfarm structure rures uh in relation to the setback uh the 15t required setback there I it does appear that there is an exception in section 296-3496 D13 4B it reads that in any residential Zone on Lots on which a single family attached or detached residence is in the principal use utility sheds of less than 180 square feet in Gross floor area and under 10 fet in height and any unroofed patio or deck which is no higher than 3 feet above existing grade and any residential drive or parking area other than a common Drive may be located within 5T of any side or rear lot line so with that in mind we will begin with accessory structure a which is a shed distance from the boundary of which being 6.4 feet hold on second coun do you have the pictures to put up as oh okay yes yes absolutely so we uh we provided uh pictures of the structures to be initially be used as visual support uh as one exhibit but uh we will go through and Mark each as an individual exhibit thank you so much Taylor I believe there was there was the other package that we had discussed as well the other set of pictures with the yellow labels I'm actually going to make a request that the first packet that was just handed out uh can be disregarded this do we have a full number of packets with the yellow labels we're going to do those instead if that's okay so each packet contains uh the same photographs uh the one actually contains a few more this one that Taylor be handing out right now for so this packet of photographs uh as we mentioned we will go through and Mark each as a separate exhibit for each uh corresponding structure so as we start with accessory structure a is a shed with a height of uh with a distance from the I'm sorry so for for the purpose of the record you said shed a so that's going to be exhibit a correct yes correct and then before you go on and then shed C we're going to mark that as Exhibit C right there are buildings listed wait we're on this package here yeah please disregard the uh the initial packet okay hold on I got it okay so these are I see so they have the they have the yellow in the pictures yeah so um all right so for the record there's been a stapled package of multiple photographs and there is a insert in yellow that says accessory structures and they're quoted a b c d e Etc um so through it looks like s is that right now it looks then we have V we have V we have two v's so we'll do V V one and V2 and then we have accessory structure w x y and z uh and there's a trailer that we will Mark as Z1 and then you as you reference each structure by the alphabet that will correspond to the exhibit number please proceed thank you so the first picture is accessory structure a which can be marked as exhibit a it is of a shed with a distance from the side boundary of 6.4 ft with a height of 11.1 ft and a square footage of 368 ft um yeah uh you are test you have to have why don't you have the property owner of the other come up and testify as to as to that because you are not a witness sure absolutely you can't you cannot provide factual information with respect to this application you can you you can only a list yeah you weren't sworn in okay I asked before okay um can you please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to give in this matter is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth can you please State your full name and spell it for the record okay and Mr Holland even before you begin you've been here for uh listening to the uh the first part of the application this evening correct and you've heard representations made uh in connection with this application which uh involved and implicated your your lot correct okay yep very very good and and and for example you heard representations that trailers uh if required would be removed from the property and that representation was not made by you but to the extent that those trailers are on your property you agree in consent to anything that is said or stipulated to hear tonight applies to both properties equally without exception Fair statement yes okay thank you SE uh accessory structure a on on the property is uh what can it be classified [Music] as um I'm gonna need you to just speak closer to the microphone please thank you sorry the paper that you're reading from did you prepare that I did not it is just the plan who did prepare that the engineer the engineer yes so can you speak to this yes okay is the engineer here the engineer is here yes that's who should be testifying if that's his document he's reading off a document that he didn't prepare so he doesn't have any firsthand would you like me to have him testify just to the uh the the structures themselves and the the um current state that they're in to begin with and then we can go into the uh technical measurements for the uh for the structure I I I think I think what's particularly instructive for the board is the size so I think we should stick with with what our professional called out in paragraph five right do you agree or no does the board want to hear that's the important I would agree yeah I guess my only question is you affirm that the structures are not currently being used for for animals or that is correct and for a number of years they are not definitely not inhabited and have not been used for a number of years uh so to that end I I can I ask uh Mr rupner to uh come up and testify as to the setback distance the square footage and the height of the structures one one picture e does look like a dog structure e ech there's a that dog pen say you know a fresh blanket in there there's this is from December but it looks like it's been utilized at least in December that there's that everything else is dirt you most of the other ones you can see the fines and the dirt that one is looks like it is being used would you like me to have Sean come back up to uh just provide some testimony as to the current status of accessory structure e just to address that before we get into the well he testified it's not being us so I don't know do we need that I mean he just said none of them are being used and I'm looking at it it looks like it's that's my question that's all I tell you what let's go specifics of what's on the spreadsheet okay and just for form you're your engineer and I I'm sorry I'm not going to pronounce your name correctly but why don't you you need to give us some background I know that you've testified before this board before but certainly um so I'm a licensed professional engineer in the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania um I received a bachelor's degree from Villanova University in 1997 um in 2001 I received a masters from the same University uh since graduating in 1997 I've almost exclusively practiced in civil engineering and Land Development projects uh throughout New Jersey um in front of this particular board I've probably been here in my career over a 100 times okay um you're acceptable to the board you just clearly been here many times thank you and we won't hold you responsible for Villanova's basketball team falling apart Mr uh as to accessor structure a uh can you uh provide some testimony as to what type of structure it is uh it's setback from the side yard structure it's height and square footage so accessory structure a as identified on the plan that the board has in front of them um the chart in the lower left hand corner that's a shed um that particular structure the square footage is 368 square fet and it's approximately 11.1 ft in height and that structure is located 6.4 ft from the property line so Mr rupnarain as previously mentioned uh section 2961 134b uh as mentioned if it uh if a structure within um 15 ft of the side yard setback in the R1 [Music] Zone uh is less than 180 square fet and less than 10 feet in height um if it meets those requirements uh it would be exempt from the setback requirement of 15 fet and be allowed within 5et of setback line uh is it your uh what is your position as to uh the variance required for this structure would it meet those exceptions yes excuse me go ahead so the ception is if it's less than 180 ft no uh so uh Mr RAR can you uh can you please uh address the board again as to whether or not uh shed a accessory structure a would uh fall within that exception no so this particular structure exceeds 1880 Square ft so it will not meet at exception so is it your position that can you provide testimony as to which type of variance uh accessory structure a would require so we believe that this particular structure is going to require a c variance um it's an existing structure uh that currently I'm not quite certain of the age or when this structure was built um but it's certainly an existing structure on the property right now would you like me to go through the technical aspects of each of them I'm gon I'm gonna pose a a a draft question and look to the board's professionals to see if I could Streamlight this in light of the comment of uh number five in the board's planed report dated December 6 2024 with reference to exhibit a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s v V1 or is it the same it is it's the same so I'm going to there's two pictures so it's still v w x y z or Z1 the the actually we're going to skip the trailers because there's already agreed to move them if there's an approval so with respect to all of those structures that I have just identified are any of them less than 100 square feet 180 square feet F feet Yes yes identify any that are less than 180 sare ft uh Mr rner could you please identify any structures that are less than 180 square feet s Sesame Street for a second what's that I said it sound like we were on Sesame Street for a second know put that on the certainly feel by the way nobody has ever said that about anything that's come out of my I thought you would start counting [Music] I make a request for uh one quick break because uh Mr rutar would like to uh just retrieve the square footage for these structures that do not have square footage included on the plans so that he can provide testimony as to the square footage as to whether or not those structures would qualify for the exemption yeah that's f 10 minutes [Music] okay thank you Mr I know welcome to New Jersey yeah yeah yeah um Eric as we mentioned earlier um there is an exemption under Section 296 134b that is uh on the record however I will state it again for um purposes for ease of purposes um any structure any nonform structure that is not uh that is uh greater than closer than 15 ft to the sidey yard setac in the R1 Zone um is less than 10 ft and is less than 180 square feet um Falls within this exception and can be up to 5 feet from the side property line have you been able to identify any of these accessory structures that fall within that exception yes can you please name them structur HCT j k l m n o p q r s those are and structur and those are also that so with respect to the application the the applicant is seeking bulk variance relief for structure ACD T is in Tom YZ correct that is correct yes that's correct um if you can I would like the planner uh to uh I I think to to expedite this the the one piece of testimony that I think the record still needs before the board is in a position to to Grant the relief I is the planner to provide uh testimony under the ml as I indicated earlier specifically 40 col 55 d-2 with respect to the positive criteria a through Q you could provide testimony with the positive and negative criteria with respect to items ACD e y and z and I think the board will then be able to to take next steps great thank you Tim as it's been [Music] determined there's I don't think there's anybody here is there oh okay is there any are there any questions from the public from any of the witnesses that have testified no seeing none thank you uh Tim it has been determined that structures a c d t y and z require C1 variance relief can you please provide testimony uh this question could be for Mr can you please address the the required positive and negative criteria under the mlu as a condition proceeding to this board having legal authority to Grant a bulk variant relief that you seek uh for for um purposes of um Expediting this would you like us to address uh the six structures as one or would you like us to to the extent that you can do that yes I think that's fine mhm great uh Tim as the board has noted uh structures a CDT Y and Z require U both variance relief under the under C1 of the ml um could you please provide uh the negative and positive criteria for these structures um that would qualify them for uh variance relief under the mlul I mean it's a little difficult to provide criteria for structures that are not currently or proposed for any use uh at at this moment these are existing structures um that have been in place for many years and uh are not planned to the best of our knowledge to be put into any active use if and when they would be put into use uh it's my contention that that would be the moment that the planner and countship officials let me let me ask you this under 4055 D2 would you agree that item D might be applicable to this application as a positive criteria you not have it in front of you you not have it in front of us I apologize would you agree with me would you agree or disagree that a positive criteria might include to ensure that the development of individual municipalities does not conflict with the development of the general welfare of neighboring municipalities the county and the state as a whole yes okay uh uh would you agree that F would be an appropriate positive criteria to encourage the appropriate and efficient expenditure of public funds by the coordination of public development with land use policies would you agree that that would be a positive criteria yes would you agree that item I would be a positive criteria to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good Civic design and Arrangement would you agree that Jay would be a positive criteria to promote the con conservation of his historic sites and districts open space energy resources and valuable natural resources in the state and to prevent Urban sprl and degradation of the environment through improper use of land [Music] yes okay thank you and please address uh the negative criteria would you agree that in light of the positive criteria of items d uh I didn't I didn't Circle these uh items items previously stated yeah yeah the items thank you oh you're good it items d i j uh and I think that's K uh that that these items outweigh uh any negative criteria because they this application can be done without any uh detriment to the master plan or any degradation to any adjacent Properties or any other neg negative impacts within the community okay thank you okay in light of the testimony of positive and negative criteria is uh does you have any comments do you want to add I do not okay Jeff anything I just have one comment on page seven of the of the 2008 master plan there's actually goals for open space um to protect environmental resources provide area for future Ive and passive Recreation and provide linkages to existing open space that's a postive yes thank you thanks CH uh my question is this and I don't know I don't want to speak on behalf of the board but I want to cue this up just to to move this along uh would the applicant be agreeable to the extent that if the board would Grant the application on the following conditions with respect to board planners report dated December 6 2024 as a condition of approval item nine to provide GIS shape file reference to New Jersey state plane coordinates uh item 10 uh to include Wetland uh identification and with respect to the board engineer report uh dated January 20th 2025 item 3B 3C 3D 3j and 3 n as a conditions of approval as well as item four and and also conditioned on any required Outside Agency approval which I put in as a matter of course but the engineer called out the Hun County planning board as one as an example if you're okay with all of those conditions and and moving the trailers and moving all of the trailers item are we 13 as well and item 13 as well I was just going to comment for item 10 um they did provide some Wetland approximate Wetland um okay you're okay with removing that okay so that's fine so so delete item 10 but all the other conditions that I read into the record is the applicant okay with uh I have discussed the we discussed previously the the trailers uh which the applicant does not have uh issues um moving or removing from the property uh items 9 and 13 on the plannner report um I don't believe would be an issue for Eric and then in terms of the items in the engineers report uh I don't believe uh Eric Mr R maranian had uh relay to me uh earlier this week that it would not be any issue to come in conformance with items uh B CJ D too excuse me d as well yes D JN and item four j n and item four would not be of issue okay and and you've already said the trailers any did the board have any other conditions or concerns okay so just that we had said if we Grant those bulk variance thank you yep thank you yep so the other three conditions are uh if the variance relief is requested there can be no reconstruction if any of the uh items are destroyed no expansion of use of any of these items and um no you testified that these structures are not in use now and that you agree not to use them it is the applicant's position that none of these structures are going to be uh altered or expanded or um in any way shape or form altered or expanded okay uh the purpose of the application is to preserve the property in its current state uh with no current or future plans of development and uh the property will be so it's an agreement on those additional free corre is an agreement yes okay so that's the that's the motion for approval but yet again we didn't put it up to the yeah once again if there's any members of the public who are here who have any questions on that testimony now would be the that we're test is any do any member of the public want to testify it appears that gentleman from before has leftt so unfortunately I believe he was GNA read in the letters we have from Amy green and supported this kind of thing which that's my guess yes I believe that the case him uh we have a copy we've read it that and I mean technically he's not supposed to read on behalf of her so gocha everybody's information that was the open space committee I please everything that was already stated on I have it for the chairman Mr Edward gettings yes Vice chairwoman Miss Donna Drews yes Miss Robin Fatu Mr Scott McDade Miss Michelle kavaki yes Mr Dennis conanan yes Mr Glen soosi yeah all right thank you Mr chairman thank you members of the board for your patience and uh understanding during this process next up on the agenda is Joseph and despa mcel a minor subdivision lot line adjustment uh for the record I need to recuse myself from this uh application so Vice chair D Drew will take the meeting take the application and the end the meeting you go or if you want to take another quick minute or two up to you sure we'll take a a two minute recess till the court reporter is [Music] found ready okay the next application is uh the wrong is Joseph MN mcnalty uh application number s1450 M minor subdivision and Jo and Jack Le do Santos lot two uh it's a lot line adjustment for lot five and lot two in the AR3 thank you um uh good evening U my name is Robin Wright I'm an attorney with Lanza and Lanza here in Flemington New Jersey and I represent Joseph and despa mcel who are the applicants for uh for this application um the MCN own six Rolling Lane R and Township block 614 lot five they're seeking a lot line adjustment with their neighbors uh jaia and Jacqueline do Santos owners of uh three William Barnes Road Block 614 Lot 2 um the Dos Santos have consented to this application um they have an attorney uh Tara St Angelo who's uh represented them in their discussions with the McNelis um the MCN seek to transfer 2,436 square feet from the Dos Santos property which is currently about 2546 acres to the mcel property which is currently 1.77 Acres um the area is to the rear of both Lots um both properties will still be conforming as our our expert will explain um there's a fence in the area um no new structures are proposed uh we are not seeking variances um I have two witnesses uh my first witness is Joseph mcel he's the the applicant he's going to explain uh the background and why he's here tonight seeking a a lot line adjustment and my second witness is James weed he's a surveyor from control Point Associates and he prepared the um the minor subdivision plan so he'll explain all of the technical aspects of the application if we could uh swear the W Witnesses in first yep if everybody could stand up including the board professionals do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give in this matter is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes yes please State uh I got two oh that's it I got it never mind we got you so it's Joseph mcnalty and James weed brast Dar Jeff Vella okay thank you please proceed counc um Mr mcel you're um you're the applicant in this matter correct yes I am and your wife thepa is also the applicant yes and you're the owners at six Rolling Lane yes we are which you own correct yes and that's a single family home correct correct and how long have you lived at that home uh since 1989 okay and your uh your neighbors at William Barnes uh Road are the do Santos right Jo and Jaclyn D Santos and you're seeking to modify your rear lot line a portion of your rear lot line with the do Santos correct correct okay I'm going to um I'm going to provide an exhibit uh that I'm providing to uh allow the board to kind of visualize the the general area that we're talking about it's exhibit a and I'm going to give a copy of it to the witness and I'm gonna ask Taylor to just hand that out um it's a um a photograph downloaded from New Jersey geow web thank you she said and uh Mr mcel did you recognize the photograph in front of you I do what is it a photograph of it's an aerial photograph of our neighborhood um our property is on on the low I on the Lower Side um the lower portion of this Photograph the number six you can see that is our property and the dantos property is the one directly behind which is partially wooded with the uh the house that is identified with uh what appears to be B colon 8.1 so uh if if we're looking at the photograph there's a road and if you can towards the bottom two spaces in you see a house with a pool on the side and that's your property correct yes it is and then if you go to the rear of that there's a larger lot that uh borders both your property and the property to the right and that's the dis sentence property correct that's correct and uh while I'll have our expert you know actually talk about the specific area um you're seeking to um add a small portion of the property beyond that wooded area to your property correct that is correct and you can can you explain why you want the lot line adjustments yeah the reason is that um back in 2010 we installed a pool and obviously we we needed to put a fence around the the backyard because of the pool there had not been any fence on the property before that um we we obtained a permit to to have the fence put in along with the pool we were not aware at that time that the fence actually encroached on the wooded property that was that is directly behind our property that we had always kind of maintained it was the natural the natural line between our backyard in the wooded area seemed to be at the there's a little bit of a hillside there and at the bottom of the hill was kind of the the natural line if you will um so the the fence was installed and it was approximately 3 or 4 years later that the property that you see to the left of the D Santos property they had a surveyor come out uh because they wanted to put a fence of their own along the the vertical side of of their property and uh they brought to our our attention and to the dantos that um our fence line encroached on the Santos property around a year and a half ago two years ago I guess it was I uh approached the D Santos uh and to talk about some trees that some ash trees that were actually going to fall onto our property and did they have any objection to us removing those trees they didn't and and we took care of that during the course of that conversation I mentioned to the Des Santos that we had a boundary issue that had been brought to our attention and the D Santos told us that they they knew about it I said well if you ever want to do something about it you know by all means just let me know um since that time we have worked out an agreement to adjust the lot line and obviously that is the reason we're here tonight so that the fence that is in place will become the boundary line um of our property it in no way encroaches on their use of their property because the area where the encroachment is is this wooded area um that has never been used in the 36 years since we've lived there um and the dantos had no objection to this flot line adjustment based on the agreement that we reached and the agreement uh that you reach by the compensation and if the board were to approve this application correct yes it does and I I'm going to introduce two more exhibits um Taylor has them uh there these are um can you pass out the other two these are again just to allow the board to kind of visualize the area okay okay yeah all right yeah I emailed them last week do you recognize the photographs in front of you Mr MC I do the these uh two photographs depict our backyard and the uh the fence that we're discussing okay and there's a photograph that you took correct and so um there's a the uh the board can see the wooded area behind the fence and the fence is is open correct it is it's an aluminum fence I I think it's 8 feet high um with partitions every probably 12 in um and that fence has been in place since 2010 and that's Robin if I can I'm sorry I want I was waiting for an appropriate time we Mark in b as the picture of the fence without the wooden chair and then C will be the with the fence and the chair yes thank you y excuse me it's labeled as as six feet on the plan defense yeah it's it's it's it's a little higher than 6 feet um because I'm thinking I'm 6 feet it's it's it's a little higher than that I I would maybe 7 feet um and I did see that the permit called for a six foot high fence uh I cannot explain why it's a little higher than that um but that is true and seven s feet is the max okay [Music] um uh you um you said that you applied for a permit you hir a contractor to put the fence in to do and in connection with your pool and the permit was uh granted by the town and closed out correct correct okay um uh you're aware that a part of this property is a part of the area that we're seeking to adjust is um in part of a drainage easement correct yes and you understand that that drainage easement runs with the land correct I do and so that you will be bound if the board were to approve this application you are bound by the conditions of that drainage eement Andor correct I understand that yeah okay um have you um have you changed the location of the fence since it was built no so it's exactly the way it was when uh when you put in your pool and it was inspected by the town and all of that is the same correct correct um uh have you ever noticed uh any um material being backed up by the fence or does water just throw through it the water flows through it um the only time that the water really drains it all is when there is is a very large uh very heavy rainstorm um but no we've never noticed any problems in terms of the fence okay and um uh the board planner Jeff Vella when he was reviewing this project um he pointed out that there's a um a small part of this fence encroaches uh on lot four which is owned by the um what was name the Walter DF the Walter D correct yes uh they live directly to our left and uh when when our survey was done it was brought to my attention that a portion of the fence running alongside um the left side of our property encroached on the Walter stores by I think a foot and a half at its widest and then as you get further back towards the uh the far corner it that foot and a half Narrows down to no encroachment whatsoever um so I I did bring it to Ken's attention Ken Walters DF and um U we will move the fence so that there is no longer this foot and a half encroachment if the application is granted that should not be a problem okay um I um I don't have any further uh questions for this witness and I turn over to the board do the board members have any questions for the app I have a question for just in general is there a problem having the fents in the drainage eement um can I respond please U the the drainage easement um which we did provide with our application prevents um buildings yeah and uh according to the the T the definition of a building in your ordinance that's um it's uh um a combination of materials to form a construction adapted to permanent temporary or continuous occupancy in having a roof uh which this is not and um the uh the presence of the fence as our expert will explain doesn't really uh impact the drainage easement um as far as the lot line adjustment goes um Mr Mr mcnolty and any succeeding owners of his property will be bound by the terms of that easement have you seen the the language for that easan on the we we have not we've asked for that I believe yeah the only language we we did both a title search um and we uh open the board and I I did provide the language of the easement which is set forth on the final plat for Rolling Hill section one easement restrictions yep so um you should have that I have a copy of it here yeah I I have the the final plat in front of me U I was looking to see if there was an actual verbage for the actual file these that but that's okay our Title Company didn't come up with any and we we uh asked for uh we opened the the to uh you know the to and that's that's all that we were able to come up with so so there are specific conditions on on the drainage easement which are noted on the on the file plat um which gives the general restrictions of no buildings and and and and the like um and not removing any shrubs or trees um no excavation of of the material within the drain easement except as authorized by the township uh no buildings no fill of any kind uh and where such easement contains storm sewers or open Channel improvements the town deserves the right of access through the easement for the purpose of maintaining or replacing the repairing the set improvements so our question um was really to provide some testimony uh as to what actually is in the easement um a lot of times the you know drain easement will be for it will Encompass a a swell where you have Overland flow uh and a lot of times the drain easement will Encompass an area where there's an underground pipe um so is there a swell there or is there underground pipe do is there an idea of what what actually is there uh it as best I know it appears to be an underground U for a pipe that goes through the area believe so yes so uh in in those cases uh the the idea is to make sure that the construction doesn't impede the naturual pipe doesn't damage the pipe and and so on so forth and then also an acknowledgement by the uh property owner that that if there is ever a need to maintain those pipes replace the pipes that the township is not responsible for relocating uh or replacing the the improvements that are constructed within the East so if the fence ever does need to be removed the applicant would have to do so at their own expense uh that the township would not be responsible or or whoever the entity is that's performing the maintenance who has the right to perform that maintenance and then if there were surface flow then the requirement would be that the fence would would not be should not be constructed uh so as to impede uh surface flow but in this case there is no surface float so that's not really uh the big concern the concern would be when you when you dug the foot footings for the fence did you happen to encounter uh can you testify to the board whether I don't know if you were president you had a contract or install the fence we had a contract or do you have knowledge as to whether they' encountered uh the pipe when they dug down for the fence fittings not that it was ever brought to our attention so don't believe they did and how long's the fence been there I apologize uh since 2010 since 201 so it's been almost 15 years or so the pipe's been in place a lot of times if the pipe is damaged a lot the areas where it is damaged will exhibit sink holes and things like that after a period of time so it would become a bigger nuisance to the applicant than than anybody else um so have you notice any sinking or anything like that around the areas where the fence is no no whatsoever so it seems to be functioning so it looks like the fence was I guess we got lucky um and and the it's the fence is within an easement but as long as there's the applicant um attests that they will be responsible for any replacement or removal fence I don't I don't have an objection to the fence remaining where it is um one of the things that we did ask is that the uh this easement now falls on the op's property so we'll need new legal descriptions and everything for the easements because now you have the easement on both Lots as opposed to being just on lot to I would assume that's for her other witness the land surveyor I'm sorry Mr I said I would assume that was that would be for your other witness to testify to the L surveyor so yes any more questions for thisness all right thanks oh any anyone in the public uh questions for this witness see seeing no questions technically you're public Mr we can you um Mr we can you um provide uh some the board um some information about your uh your licenses and your professional backgrounds and your uh expertise as a surveyor sure uh so I've been actively engaged in the practice of land surveying for about 27 years I hold a bachelor's degree in surveying engineering technology from the New Jersey Institute of Technology I graduated in 2007 I'm a licensed professional land surveyor in the state of New Jersey as well as Pennsylvania uh New York Connecticut and Vermont um I'm also uh one of the principles of control Point Associates uh the company that prepared this survey we we will accept them as a professional engineer or excuse me surveyor thank you sorry thank you no offense taken I was gonna say that but like a great surveyor so um Chim can you show people I think you brought a of your plan um I don't we have a I EAS they just put it over there um I think the board should have a copy of it yes anyone that work for everybody you're the one who that uh created that subdivision plan correct yes that's correct and um um does this lot one adjustment create any U non-conformities or require any variances in your opinion it does not both uh both Lots will remain conforming um after the subdivision is perfected and uh could you just describe the uh you know in your own words the the lot line adjustment in The Proposal so it's it's really pretty simple um so basically um the application is to change this rear lot line and take um the 2,436 F feet from this slot and meld it into this slot to accommodate the existing fence I mean that that really is the application that's that's what we're doing um we're not creating any uh variances they're there nothing that's going to be non-conforming it's simply a land swap uh to to accommodate the fence it's it's it's really truly that simple and um Jen you've heard the um the board engineer uh discuss uh the the requirement to create a new meets and Bounds description for the easement is that something that uh you can do yes we'll do that no problem and um you reviewed the uh the engineers memos and the planner memos correct I did and did you have any um issues or concerns with any of the things that they requested not at all okay so uh you'll set the property Corners um we will and uh with respect to the drainage easement do you have um any comments about that I mean I I believe the testimony that's already been given uh pretty adequately covers it um other than then we will uh create new meets and bound descriptions for recording um so it's it's memorialized who has uh uh responsibilities as far as that ean's concerned um beyond that I think the testimony that it's been in place for 15 years and is functioning fine is I don't know that I have anything to add to that right and I I think we uh we we did address the engineers memo in our letter I don't know if you want us to go through everything or I mean if if it please The Madam chair um the app we do have a memo that's dated January 17th 2025 uh that's our review number two we had an original uh memo that the applicant did address uh and our most recent memo um basically goes through and points that points out areas where it was addressed we only had the one one point that uh regarding the drain eement which the applicant did address uh through testimony and will provide the uh required revised legal descriptions uh other than that uh everything else has been addressed by the applicant through the revised plans and additional documents they've submitted I don't have anything else that uh for the witness any questions from the board any questions from the public for this witness just one comment um sorry are you able to provide a GIS shape file yes not a problem okay this survey was done in state plane natively so it's I could have it for you tomorrow thank you is there anything else Jeff that you needed from your memo uh just that a new zoning permit would have to be submitted just um confirming the the approved location and relocation of the vence respect to the encroachment on correct you would agree to that oh the applicant would agree to that and the only thing I wanted to discuss Robin and I had a conversation in preparation for tonight's meeting and I know there was a revised plan submitted in response to addressing your concerns but that was done nine days before and technically under the ml you have to get it in 10 days before so what I suggested with Robin was even though a lot of these items were addressed I'm going to do the resolution as it based off of the first one even though you recognized it so I will set forth and call out as the conditions if you will all of the items that you've already addressed but so when you read the resolution it's just it's procedural but we need to belts and suspenders that's the one that was timely submitted so we'll go off the original even though you've addressed mostly everything already with the exception of these few other items thank you I appreciate that yeah that's fine and for for the record the plan that I put up is the original not the revised okay so there you go perfect so there you were feeling it you and just to address the the drainage easement issue just one more time as far as the the whether there would be any kind of conflict with a drain pipe or anything the the pipe is actually just at the edge of the drain eement it's a 40 foot wide drain eement typically the pipes are closer to the center of the drain easement so it's very unlikely that there was any uh issue with with the pipe with when they installed the fence uh but the easement does encroach onto the new lot um or I'm sorry into the area that's being conveyed to the to the MC so we still will need the easements but I don't have any concern with regard to the fence encroaching into the pipes or anything so if a if language in as a condition said that if you know just reinforcing that if the township needs to perform any maintenance on the drainage agement then it's a that applicant expense and responsibility to remove if the fence needs to be uh removed or adjusted in any way that's at the Up's expense it's unlikely like I said because it's just just you know a couple of maybe a feet a foot or two into the into the eement but yeah just to be safe that's what language and the new legal description yes correct yeah okay that's what I that's what I had whatever else was in the original report okay so that along with the I think the other the conditions that have been cited along with the agreement to move the fence on the western side yard so it can fly anything else that anyone else any any summary solicitor or you um I would just ask you to approve the subdivision um both Property Owners want it and um you know it's uh it kind of flows with the natural look of the land and that probably makes more sense than C boundaries so I would ask the board to approve it thank you like to offer a motion so moved second with all the with all the things that were and stipulations that were referenced for our attorney and our planner and our engineer yes okay Dennis that was you right yeah okay Vice chair Miss Donna Drew yes Miss Robin Fatu yes Mr Scott McDade yes Mr Dennis conanan yes Miss Michelle kavaki yes Mr Glenn Sosi yes thank you for being a prepared and Oran to say I was just about to say I didn't have to have to put through two applications tonight so really appreciate it appreciate it it's uh so so nice to have things go smoothly and organized so got follow the right just additional there's a notice in the agenda forming the of additional think so plans that are coming up oh the additional applications that are coming up yes the next meeting will be Woodmont B and flex so it's the subdivision over by the Woodmont where the um newly approved Warehouse will be going and then the following meeting will be umt flomington concrete products right can I have a motion to adjourn second y yay