Great. Thank you. Calling to order the zoning board of adjustment R and Township regular meeting March 19, 2026. Notice of meeting the notice requirements of the open public meetings act has been satisfied by the placing of a notice of this meeting on the bulletin board at
the municipal building following same with the township clerk and transmitting same to the Courier News and the Star Ledger. Roll call, please. Chairwoman Miss Cynthia Schaefer >> here. Vice Chair Mr. Sodami >> here. >> Mr. Steve Farcio he has asked to be
excused. Mr. Randy Block >> here. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero Markham is here. >> Okay. >> He's here. He's here via Zoom. >> Okay. >> Miss Lindsy Cooper, >> we have a visual >> here.
Miss Lorett Cina >> here. >> Miss Donna Drews, she is asked to be excused. And Mr. James Miller >> here. >> For board professionals, we have board attorney Mr. John Drill via Zoom >> here via Zoom. >> Township planner Mr. Jeffrey Bearella >> here.
>> And all other board professionals have asked to be excused yet. Board Secretary Taylor Vaughn here. >> Okay. Can I get a motion to approve the absence of Steve Forcio and Donna Drews? >> I'll make a motion. >> I second. Great. Can I get a vote? Roll
call, please. >> Chairwoman, Miss Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair, Mr. Sudamchi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes. >> All right. Jim is still on muted. I'm just going to skip Jim. >> Okay. We have a visual on Jim. >> Yeah.
>> Miss Lindsy Cooper. >> Yes. >> Miss Lorett Cina. >> Yes. >> And Mr. James Miller. >> Yes. >> Okay. Moving on to comments, announcements, distribution, correspondence. Seeing none, moving on to meeting minutes. We have two meeting minutes. We have the August 21st, 2025.
Any changes or additions? I just noticed I'm not on yet the 21st. >> Don't worry about that. I have a note. Okay. >> I didn't even put you on it. Got it. So, I have to put that Lindsay was >> present at the meeting. >> Okay. So, you make that change. >> Mhm.
>> Okay. Can you reapproval? Motion to approve. I'll make a motion. I'll second it. Roll call. >> Chairwoman Miss Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Mr. Damji. >> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes.
>> Miss Lindsey Kbrangel. >> Yes. >> And Miss Lorett Cina. >> Yes. >> Okay. Moving on. Meeting minutes for the September 18th, 2025 meeting. Any additions or corrections? Hearing none. Can I get a motion to approve? >> So move.
>> Second. Great. Can I get roll hold, please? >> Okay. Chairwoman, Miss Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. Miss Laurette Cina. >> Yes.
>> Mr. James Miller. >> Yes. >> Okay. Moving on for the applications this evening. The first application BA case number 17-2025. Applicant Mark and Jennifer Veto. Location is block 84 lot 31.0610
summer shade lane. Application is for a C variance for disturbance and structure within township preservation features and we're looking to have this dismissed. >> Well, here's the question for you guys. They were sent a letter and they were
told that by March 13 if they wanted an extension that the vetos would have to extend the time the board had to act on the application till December 31. Then there were a series of letters sent in by the pool company but not the
vetos. And finally a letter came in from Mr. veto today extending to December 31 which obviously the letters come in on March 19 March not March 13. So what do you guys want to do about it? The
background is the reason they need the extension is because the pool, you know, need to see variance, which is within the board's jurisdiction to grant, but it's also located in a conservation easement area, and the board does not
have jurisdiction to grant that, and they'd have to get permission from the township committee to basically either a revise or amend the conservation easement, which I doubt they're going to agree to um or at least
modify the language to allow a pool in there and they're going to need time. And the way I'm looking at it, I think that you guys should just dismiss it without prejudice. Let them, you know, investigate whatever. then let them file
a new application because otherwise the burden is going to be on Taylor to keep on looking after this thing to make sure that you don't get to a situation where the board hasn't acted before the deadline or it's an automatic approval and the the you know the application as
presently submitted cannot be granted. So it's up to you what you want to do about it. Look, the guy finally said, "I'll extend to December 31." And he wanted adjourned to not no date specific. He's going to have to renotice because he says they have to do
research. It's not really research. They have to talk to the township committee about it. So, what do you want to do? Dismiss without prejudice or grant his request for the indefinite adjournment with the extension to December 31? >> I make it to dismiss it. Do
>> you open to dismiss? I talk louder. So, someone make a motion. >> Someone then make a motion. >> Well, we're not there yet. >> Hold on. Jim, did you say you you agree with the dismiss? >> Yes. I think we should dismiss the application. >> Okay, let's go down. James, >> I agree.
>> Lorett, >> yes. >> Yes, >> Lindsay. >> I mean, I just It's because he didn't notify by the certain time of the letter, right? >> No, no, no, no. I >> We already gave him the option to dismiss and that's what he's responding to, right? >> Yeah, but Okay. He didn't respond by the
December 13th date, but the fact is, okay, he's only six days late. He responded by December 19th. I do not suggest that it be dismissed for that reason. I suggest that if it be dismissed without prejudice, it be it be dismissed without prejudice on the basis that the application as filed cannot be
granted because it's in the conservation easement area and he's going to have to come in with a new application. So why have the burden on Taylor? Put tell him, "We're not prejudicing you. who will dismiss it without prejudice. Once you figure your situation out, reapply.
That's the reason if you're going to dismiss it without prejudice, in my opinion, it should be dismissed for. >> Okay. I think we all agree. >> Sure. Hold on. >> Y has a a notice of violation been issued to him because he's got the two
other he's got the um shed, the play uh gym, the children's play area thing in there. two other existing pre-existing violations. Um, >> put it this way. >> No notice has been >> right to me. That's irrelevant. That's
not >> that's not within the jurisdiction of the BOA. It might very well be that Jeff's going to give him a violation to say, "Hey, forget the pool. You have to apply to have those other structures." Uh, well, forget about that. He can't apply there. If they're in the
conservation ement area, >> that's for Jeff. That's enforcement as a zoning officer. That's got nothing to do with the BOA in my opinion. >> Okay. All right. Do we need need to make a motion to dismiss? >> Yes. A motion to dismiss without prejudice. Second, and then a roll call
vote. >> Okay. >> I make the motion. >> I second. Okay. Well, there you go. >> Okay. Randy seconds it. Can I get a roll call, please? >> Chairwoman Miss Cynthia Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Mu Dami. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero. >> Yes. >> Miss Lindsey Kpral. >> Yes. >> Miss Lorett Cina. >> Yes. >> And Mr. James Miller. >> Yes. >> Okay. Moving on to the second application for this evening. VO case number 05-2024.
Applicant is Countryside Properties LLC. Location is block 74 lot 5.39 359 Old York Road. Application time extension request for filing a complete bifurcated preliminary and final site plan
application condition number one of the BOA resolution 25 2025-01. Good evening Mr. Gmer. >> Good evening madam chairperson and members of the board Steven Gruinberg on behalf of the applicant countryside properties LLP. Um the board will recall
that you granted our bifurcated use variance application. Um and one of the conditions and the condition that we're seeking an extension of is that we file for uh the preliminary and final site plan approval. The resolution actually
says by March 20th, 2025, but that's a typo supposed to be within one year of when it was approved, which would have been March 20th, 2026. Um, so we're asking for a six-month extension because we had to do the aquifer testing. We've been working with
the township's professionals to get that testing plan approved by the hydrogeeologist who I think needed to be retained last year. Um, since August, we submitted a plan, been working with them in September and October, got feedback in
December, met with them. Then you come to January which there was a lot of cold weather in January and February which uh there also had to be notices sent to neighbors. So it's an involved process. Um but the testing is actually either
completed or underway. Um and we expect to be able to file within 6 months for the preliminary and final site plan approval. So we're just asking to grant that six months to September 20th, 2026. Yeah.
>> Okay. Anyone you have any concerns? >> No. >> Okay. John, no. No concerns. Right. >> No concerns whatsoever. >> Okay. So, can you get a motion to provide the extension to >> Yeah. So the motion would be to modify
condition number one of resolution number 2025-01 to extend the date by which they have to submit a complete application for bifurcated preliminary and final site
plan approval to September 20, 2026. >> Yes, that can I get a motion to approve? motion. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Second. >> Who was that? >> Okay. So, Randy Randy and then Lorett
second. >> Sorry. >> Okay. >> Beat me to it again. >> All right. Can I get a vote? >> Chairwoman Miss Cynthia Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Modami. >> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero.
>> Yes. Miss Lindsey Kanguel. >> Yes. >> Miss Lorett Cina. >> Yes. >> And Mr. James Miller. >> Yes. >> Thank you all very much. John Havapina Colado and me. >> Thank you. >> Nice seeing you again. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Moving next to the third
application for this evening. BOA case number 11-2025. Okay. I'm I'm really sorry. I'm going to apologize right now. Hard Kumar Patel location. >> Yeah. 53.03
lot 22 11 stable lane application for a C variance for a proposed deck addition exceeding setback and impervious surface maximum. Good evening. >> Uh good evening madam chairwoman and member for >> just because we got two people on Zoom.
I'm just going to ask that you speak right into that microphone. Eric, you already thank if you want. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Better. Uh Erica Edwards here tonight on behalf of uh the applicant Hardy Kumar Patel. Uh the
address, as the chairwoman indicated, is 11 stable lane um in the township of Rarit. That's block 53.03 03 lot 22 on the township of Raritan tax map. Uh we are indeed here tonight seeking uh se variance relief uh to permit the
construction of a deck an elevated deck in the rear yard at at um the back of the home back of the residence uh in place of um the uh existing concrete patio um atgrade patio. Uh
we're proposing to remove that as part of our plan. We have two witnesses this evening. We have a uh an expert witness, Mr. Eric Ripner of Golden Bomb Bale. Uh I'm assuming you know Mr. Ripner. I think you've seen him uh many times
here. Uh so uh we also have our applicant, Mr. Patel, uh sitting uh directly behind us. Uh he is available as our primary fact witness. Um, with that, if we could get Mr. Ripner sworn, will we? >> Yeah, I'm going to get everyone sworn.
Can all three witnesses, including Jeff Vakarelloo, please stand up. Everyone raise their right hands. And do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? And start with Eric?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Patel? >> Yes. >> And Jeff? >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay, very good. Uh, do I need to qualify Mr. Renarrain or >> That's up to you, but I think it would be crazy not to get him qualified just
in case there's someone sitting out in the wings. >> Fair enough. Mr. Rner, would you put your educational and professional credentials on the record for the board? >> Certainly. I am a licensed professional engineer in the states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania. License or current in within both states. In 97, I graduated
from Villanova University with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering. In 2001, I received a master's from the same. Um, since graduating in 1997, I've been practicing almost exclusively in civil engineering and land development. Um, I've appeared in front of this board
numerous times and also in front of the planning board. I've also been an expert witness throughout county, Mercer County, Service County, and in other parts of the states of uh, state of New Jersey. Okay. >> We're familiar with Mr. Accept his Yes,
we will. Very good. Mr. Ripner. >> Thank you. >> So, the plan that I have, this is an exact copy of what was submitted to the board um for review. And what the applicant is proposing is to construct
an elevated deck in to replace the existing concrete patio. The existing patio that's located to the rear of the property is in poor condition and needs to be essentially either repaired or replaced. However, the applicant would like to construct an elevated deck in
lie of repairing the patio. Now, as part of that construction, the application is going to require two variance um two variances. The first being the maximum lot coverage within this particular zone, the RL zone. The applicant the
maximum permitted and previous coverage is 40%. Um the proposal by the applicant will increase the the lot coverage on site by 164 square ft which increases the impervious coverage from 39
39.3% to 41.7%. >> 39.3% is existing you're saying? >> Yes. >> And it's going to the proposed is what? >> 41.7. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Um now however there is
a net benefit to that change although the application or the proposal is going to increase the amount of impervious coverage this particular deck is not only elevated but it's not going to be a continuously solid surface. It's going to be a typical composite deck. And
generally speaking, those decks when they're built within each individual board or piece, there's a gap. And the gap varies anywhere from an eighth of an inch, 3/16 of an inch, 1/4 of an inch, depending upon the style of the decking. Typically, the way this type of deck will behave is any storm water that
falls on the surface as it flows across the deck will flow through the open joint. The applicant's proposal is to remove that concrete that sits below the deck. So essentially that concrete area is now going to be covered with gravel, not compacted gravel that you would
typically use for a driveway or let's say a parking surface is going to be loose gravel essentially to keep the weeds and so forth from growing. That gravel is recognized as being permeable. So even though we're covering up more of the property, we're actually creating a permeable surface. This deck
realistically is not expected to produce any runoff from the overall area above what the gravel would produce that will be under the deck. And gravel actually produces less storm water runoff as compared to the fully 100% imperous concrete surface that presently exists.
So overall there is going to be a net benefit that's created. Although it's an increase in impervious cover, there will be a decrease in the amount of storm water runoff that's leaving the property. potential >> the deck. >> Yeah. Not not of the deck of what you're
going to is a positive criteria here. >> Okay. So, the existing concrete area is 62 square ft. >> So, percentage what percent is that? >> Oh, so we're going from 39.3%
to 41.7%. >> Yeah. No, I got that. I'm saying this benefit is what's percentage of that? No, no. Listen, Russ, I believe what he's saying is the re in Raridan, it's maximum coverage. It's not
impervious coverage. So, the gravel they're putting down is considered coverage. So, they're increasing the amount of coverage. What he's saying is because the material that's going to
increase the coverage on the property because the water will flow through it. While they're increasing the coverage, they're going to decrease the runoff. So, it's not that what they're putting down is pvious. I mean, it's not what that what they're putting down is not considered coverage. Just because it's
pvious doesn't mean it's not coverage, hard surface coverage under the township ordinance. That's what his That's what his argument is. Correct, Eric? >> Got it. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. I got it. Okay. >> Correct. Um, so in addition to the allow
coverage variance that's requested by the applicant, we're also seeking variances for the minimum sideyard and the minimum rear yard set back. Now, within the carriage gate development, all of the buildings or all of the dwelling units are connected. Um although the connection is not or the
connected portion is not along the entire common party wall, this development when it was built essentially there was a small area that connects this property to the property to the next and it continues down for each building. Um what the applicant is
proposing is extension of the deck in line with the actual wall or sidewall of the dwelling. So presently the existing sidewall, not this connected portion that's about 6.8 8 ft from the side property line and the proposed deck is
going to maintain that setback. However, the ordinance requires a 10ft setback. Um so the applicant does require a variance for that particular deviation. Um however recognizing that the existing building is also at 6.8 ft from side
property line. Um we have spoken to the applicant in reviewing the comments from the township planner. um the applicant is agreeable to providing landscaping along that common property line to minimize the impact on the neighboring property. Um so if the board is to act
favorably on the application, future plan revisions will incorporate some vegetative screening along that common property line. >> Eric, what's the minimum sideyard requirement? What's the minimum rear yard requirement and what's being proposed?
So the minimum sideyard requirement is 10 ft and the applicant is proposing 6.8 ft which is the current building's sideyard setback for the existing unit. Um the required rear yard which is the second variance the applicant is seeking in this particular zone is 20 ft. The
applicant is proposing 12 ft. Now the existing concrete patio although that's an ongrade surface that patio is located about 10 ft from the rear property line. So the applicant the construction of the deck is actually going to pull the occupiable surface a little bit closer
to the building and slightly further away from the property line. >> So the only difference is that how high is the deck off the ground? >> Uh the height of the deck is going to be about 4 feet. >> So the only difference is and you'll have to describe to the board. Is there
any landscaping back there? Because presumably the person in the back is not going to really see a groundmounted patio, but could, depending on what's back there, see a 4ft high deck. And people standing on the deck, their mouths will be 4 feet higher than if
they were standing on the patio. So maybe it's a little bit more noisy. So, if you could just tell the board exactly what exists between the two rear yard neighbors in terms of screening, >> John, he's just talking with the uh
>> Yep. Oh, I see. I'm watching. Yep, I can see. >> Okay. >> Sometimes forget that he can see, too. >> I sometimes forget that they can see, too. >> Yeah, I do, too. You can't see me, but I can see you.
>> That wasn't creepy at all, John. >> Like John. >> Okay. So, in in reviewing the concerns of the board, um the applicant is also willing to provide not only landscaping along that common side property line, but we can also provide vegetative screening along the rare property line
to minimize the impact to the neighbors directly behind us. >> Okay. And um >> that's that's a good consideration. Thank you. >> You're welcome. And um that essentially is the applicant's proposal tonight. >> So So there's a question number six
>> 66 from Jeff >> regarding the HOA. Um the applicant >> I just don't know the relevance of that. That's why I'm asking. Oh, >> is there an HOA and and have they been approved? >> Yes. Yes. Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. I mean, we'll just need that at at
time. If if should the board approve this, we would need that as well. >> Okay. Certainly, >> John, you got that right. >> I got it. >> Yeah. >> All right. This is a unique development and a unique property. Um I drove
through it this evening. I was amazed at the connections >> and then >> I don't I I'm looking at the application and and looking what's there I you know at first when I looked at it I was like >> scary
>> I was I was like wait a minute this is not acceptable but then looking at the development and what was approved it looks like this is not you're not asking for something unique >> correct >> in this neighborhood. Um I have no question.
>> I don't think I have any questions. I think I have you think you explained it pretty well. Anybody have any questions? >> No, I'll just add one more thing. I agree uh with the chairperson, but also there will be benefit I think of doing this to the patio versus the deck patio
the landscaping. >> Yeah. >> The flow of water. That's why I was asking for clarification there. So there are more positives of considering the area and what you're going through. Okay. So I would support it. >> I do have to ask. Okay. What is
connected? Is that a closet? I have to ask. >> Oh, like how the they're connected like your house to the next house next to you. >> Yeah. What what is what is connected in the middle of your house? >> Laundry room. >> The laundry room. Thank you. >> We we st that development 20 something
years ago. Yeah, I thought it was just a way to get around certain aspects of the ordinance at the time. We didn't do it, by the way. It was not my engineering. >> All right. And Jeeoff, you have no concerns of like there's other people in the neighborhood that have done stuff that's similar. So, >> no, I've actually been on site and there
are other um single family attached units that have similar sized decks and and patios and uh more elaborate than what's being presented. Um it just so happens that they were done under a different set of regulations. >> Yeah. Um, so and the only question I had
is if there were any was there drainage easement on this. It's not it's not noted, but there is a there was a swale going down the back of the property. >> I'll have to go back and take a look at the final plat that was recorded for
this development. Um, certainly any future plan revisions, we can incorporate any easement that belongs on this property. >> Okay. Hey Jeff, what do I do about that? That's so the condition would be what? If the board approves it >> that he would have to show on the plan
if there if there is or is not a a drainage easement on this lot. >> Okay. So indicate on the plan whether there is or is not a drainage easement. Now if there is a drainage easement um can is the deck proposed over that
easement area or not? It's hard to tell uh if there I don't know how wide it would be, but um can >> can I make a suggestion then? Maybe you can straw poll yourselves. It sounds like this is like a no-brainer C2 variance situation, but maybe carry this
thing. Put off the vote till you find out whether or not there's a drainage easement because if if there's a drainage easement, then you're we're going to have to find out if it's permissible to put a deck on top of it. and it would affect >> Is there a chance that we can take a
break and we can take a break and you can find out >> um this I can take a look and see if we have a copy of the deed that's on the server. Um I'm pretty sure we have a copy of the final plan that created this whole development whether it's scanned in that I can access it. I'll take a look and see. Um
>> now >> you want to take take a break. >> Can I can I make Let me make a suggestion before you do that. Why don't you straw poll everything else and then you can tell because if I could get, you know, off the zoom and out of the hearing, I would greatly appreciate it.
I just want to get my only issues are are you guys putting putting the easement aside. Let's say that there's no interference with a drainage easement or or maybe that's the way to do it, you know. Well,
>> John John Mueller, it seems like the board is for this application, >> right? But can you just on the record straw poll people, are you in favor of granting C2 variances for both the setback encroachments and the hard surface coverage variance? as
um the the vice chair has said, the benefits of a patio versus a deck in terms of runoff and landscaping and the C2 the C2 variance for the sideyard setback because it's the same distance as the existing dwelling and there
haven't been any problems and the C2 for the rear yard. Again, the setback you're going to have a the benefit of uh landscaping. And then finally, the chair has said that she drove through the neighborhood and what they're proposing is consistent with the neighborhood. So that would satisfy the negative
criteria. Can you stupold? Do you agree with the statements I've just made? >> James >> James Miller says yes. >> What? um >> a qualified yes because um I feel that if you were to do that uh visual screen
with vegetation, it would have to not affect the integrity of the swale and in the drainage easement. So, um I would agree with the deck and the landscaping that you're proposing as long as if there is a drain easement there, the any
um plantings do not affect the integrity of the soil. >> Okay. Randy Randy. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Lindsay Jim. >> Yes. Basic based on what John's qualifiers
All right. And and also myself, do you have >> that's if that's the >> Yeah. If that's the case, >> I suggest you just carry this thing without the need for further notice to the next hearing for the formal vote and just you just have to hear from
>> Eric on whether or not there's a drainage easement that that the deck would interfere with. >> I just pulled their block. >> Hold on, Jeff. Jeff, go ahead. I just pulled their blocking lot and the drainage easement stops at lot 23 which is the adjacent lot so it's it doesn't
affect this >> boom okay then >> great problem solved >> then if that's the case someone should just make a motion at this point >> okay can I get a motion to approve >> so move second >> thank you
>> can vote please chairwoman miss Cynthia Schaefer >> yes >> vice chair miss Damji >> yes >> Mr. Mr. Randy Block, >> yes. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero, >> yes. >> Miss Lindsey Kbrangel, >> yes. >> Miss Lorett Cina, >> yes. >> Mr. James Miller, >> yes.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you so much. We appreciate your consideration tonight. >> Um, do we do have I just want to let the applicant know that there is a pamphlet down in front of the office that tells you all the steps that you need to take
after the approval. Um, I ask that you pick that up. It's It's right down the hallway. It just helps you guide you through the next steps. This isn't Just because you got approval here doesn't mean there's no next steps. So, >> thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. You too. >> Anything else? >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Um, hearing nothing else, can we get a motion to adjurnn? I'll make motion. So, move. >> Okay. All in favor? >> Anyone want to stick around? >> Okay. Thank you. Have a good evening,
everyone. Okay. Bye, John. Bye, John. >> Bye. Bye. Talk to you guys soon. >> Bye, everybody. >> All right.