Following the order of the board of adjustment, Ronin Township regular meeting June 18th, 2026. The notice requirements of the open public meetings act has been satisfied by the placing of a notice of this meeting on the Bolton board at the
municipal building filing 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. Suami here. >> Mr. Steve Farcio, he has asked to be
excused. Mr. Randy Block here. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero >> here. >> Miss Lindseay Kbringell >> here. >> Miss Lorett Catina >> here. >> Miss Donna Drews >> here. And Mr. James Miller >> here. >> Board professionals board attorney Mr. John Drill >> here.
>> Township planner Mr. Jeffrey Vakarella >> here. >> Township engineer Mr. Aesh Dargy >> present. >> Traffic consultant Mr. J. Troutman via Zoom. >> I'm here and apologies for the virtual appearance. >> Uh, board planner, Miss Jessica Cowwell,
has asked to be excused. And Township landscape architect, Mr. John Morgan Thomas. He should be here momentarily. >> Not here yet, but planning on >> Okay. Can I get a motion to excuse Steve Forcio? >> I'll make a motion. >> Second roll. >> Call
Okay. Chairwoman Cynthia Schaefer. Yes. >> Vice Chair Mr. Sodomi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero. >> Yes. >> Miss Lindsay Cpr. >> Yes. >> Miss Lorett Cina. >> Yes. >> And Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> Okay. Moving on. Comments,
announcements, distribution, correspondence, and needs. Having none. Moving on to resolutions. Having none. Moving on to the applications for this evening. BOA case number 19-2022. Applicant was Fieldstone at Flemington
LLC. Block 40. Block 40, lot 3-57-59 Voice Corner Road. Applicant time extension request for conditions number 12 of BOA resolution number 2024-04
obtaining filing certificate of occupancy. >> Good evening members of the board. Matt Flynn from the law firm of Savo Shaw on behalf of the applicant Fieldstone of Flemington LLC. This applicant was granted preliminary and final major site plan approval with variances to
construct a self- storage facility on the property uh known as 57 to 59 Vorhees Corner Road, block 40, lot 3. We're here tonight for an extension of time. Condition number 12 of the resolution of approval mandates that the
applicant once they pull construction permits uh be apply for and obtain a certificate of occupancy within one year for pulling construction permits. We're asking for an extension from that. We're in the middle of construction. If the board knows the site, the building's
under construction presently. Um a few reasons for the extension. Um a difficult winter uh during construction led to uh issues with snow removal on the property. We've had delays getting electric hookup to the site from JCPNL.
Um we believe that we've secured their approval and that they can install electric on the site and um just again just the difficult uh frozen conditions during winter uh delayed our construction. So, what we're asking for is a modification of that condition.
Whereas, instead of giving us a year to complete construction uh and apply to the board or the township for the certificate, we're asking to the end of the year, December 31, 2026. Again, the project's full speed ahead. It's under construction. And I do have a representative from the applicant here
if the board needs any further explanation. But again, I'll represent for purposes of the record that we ran into significant weather related and snowreated delays uh this winter. And also again, we we did have an issue uh getting electric to the site from JCPNL
which we have since cured and we will have electric on the site. >> Do you think that's sufficient time the end of the year? >> I I believe yes. >> You don't want more? >> You don't want more? They say you don't have to come back. >> Well, I don't I don't want to push my luck. I mean, if you want to gift us
till March 31st, 2027, that'd be even better. I mean, >> I mean, that way they don't have to come back. >> Yeah, >> I agree. So, >> I just wanted to add the other part of that condition is uh obtaining zoning and construction permits. They've
mentioned that it's ongoing construction, but we have yet to see a police sign package and there may be other permits that are still outstanding. So um before that it's it's a two-part uh condition. >> What other
I guess in which my resolution ades what other condition are you talking about that they have to comply with >> the that that condition it states that they have to obtain a zoning and construction permit by March.
No, they don't have a a sign package. I'm talking to a a representative this week about signage, so that hasn't been completed. >> Okay. So, this bear with me for a minute. >> Mhm. >> Be another reason to sign to give them
till March 31 of 2027 rather than December 31, 2026. But it's >> I guess uh given what it's been represented by Mr. Vakarella, I wasn't personally aware that there was a specific sign package that had to be
submitted. We certainly can do that. Um I would ask then for the entirety of that condition be extended to March 31, 2027. Yeah, I would think so because the I I lost out at the beginning of the conditioning giving them until March 21,
2020 fix to get all their permits. So let's say condition B modified to extend to March 31, 2026
>> 27 27 sorry 272 the time remaining obtaining the building permit and construction permits and to obtain
the permanent the >> sounds good >> acceptable. >> Yeah. >> Anybody from any of the board members have any concerns? >> No, just a comment. Uh the site is looking pretty good as you guys had uh
shown us the plan. It's impressive. And uh I I do see pass by quite often and I do see how hard the team works for you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> All right.
>> Someone want to make a a motion to uh grant it as we make the motion. >> I second it. >> Okay. Can I get roll call? Don't call. You have move second. >> Randy,
I second it. >> You almost called 911, but >> yeah. Cancel. Cancel. Cancel. >> Okay, I'm going to do roll call. Chairwoman, Mr. Thea Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair, Mr. Sodom Gi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Blog. >> Yeah.
>> Mr. Jim Ferrero. Jim. >> Yes. Yeah. Jim, you're another one not to talk loud tonight. Miss Lindsay Cbringel. >> Yes. >> Miss Loretta Cina. >> Yes. >> Wait, I'm sorry. Wasn't me. >> Yes. >> Miss Lindsay Cool Bringel.
>> Miss Loretta Cina and Miss Donna. >> All right. Let's pull together, guys. >> All right. >> Is he okay? >> All right. Take it. >> We're good. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Any dialogue?
>> Don't worry about an issue. I'll call Frank Chief. >> I don't know. >> You need to see if he'll have to break it. >> No, not >> Okay, moving on to the next application for this evening.
>> Case number 16-2025. Applicant is a >> Aboriginal reservations LLC. Location is block 4, lot 5.07, 143, highway 202. Application be
bifurcation use variance for a proposed tennis facility and two-bedroom apartment. >> Before you get started, Cara and everybody who's going to be testifying tonight, red means stop, green means go. So, please make sure your device in front of
you is green as you're talking. >> And that goes for everybody else on the board. and >> you guys over there. >> I got to see you. >> I get it. Can you hear me? >> I really How about now? >> That's pretty good. >> How about now?
>> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. >> That can't be very [clears throat] >> I'll think of that. >> That was a good one. You put that in the record >> here. Put that in the transcripts. We
have it on video. >> That's great. Thank you very much. Um I don't know if there's anyone any members of the board that need to recuse themselves since we are with the devarians. Everyone that's here is eligible. Okay. >> Okay. First of all, you got to speak into that microphone. Sorry. >> Okay. Um I just before we started just wanted to make sure that there wasn't
anybody that needed to recuse themselves. We're saying no. Everyone here is eligible to vote. So was that >> do you know something that some of them might have to recuse themselves? >> Uh no. I just wanted to make sure that okay, you know, wasn't >> not to my knowledge. No. >> Okay.
>> Uh good evening, Madame Chair, members of the board. Uh my name is Cara Kazinski with the law firm of McNal Yaros Kazinski and Lime. And I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant with regard to the property located at 143
Highway 202, also known as block 84, lot 9. So, this is a pretty exciting application we think that we have before you and you're going to hear a great deal of uh testimony from the applicant itself uh himself uh with regard to the
operations of this facility. Uh this is going to be a recreational tennis facility at this location. And fortunately or unfortunately, the property was previously zoned for this exact use. And prior to uh my client's
purchase of the property, uh it was zoned for this use. He purchased it and then between then and now the zoning changed. >> When when did the zoning change? >> 2024. >> What was it before? We know what it is now. >> Yeah. So, previously a lot of the uses
continued. There were certain uses that were struck. Um particularly I'm looking at section 296-17. Uh this property is located in the B5 low inensity highway district and the
particular use indoor recreational training facilities uh were permitted in this zone previously. >> So they were indoor recreational facilities were permitted up until 2024 when the B5 zone was amended to take
that off the permitted list is what you're saying. >> Correct. along with a number of other permitted uses. >> Got it. >> So, due to that, we are here tonight in a uh situation where my client owns the property. My client's ready to proceed to develop the property as you're going
to hear, but now we're here asking this board for a use variance. uh we have decided to bifurcate the application in order to get some feedback from you as to whether or not this is a use based upon that change you feel would be
appropriate and permitted at this property. Uh we completely understand that should the board allow this use, we would be back here before you for preliminary and final major site plan approval along with a number of other
variances. Uh we have some very good comments from your board professionals which we will address tonight. Uh some of which also refer to um those uh future applications and considerations that we should take into account should
we get there. So we're already looking forward to some changes that might need to be made. But for tonight, we're just focusing on the use. We need three D1 use variances. The first is for the actual training facility itself. The
second is for the residential component of the pro the project. Um the residential component, you'll hear testimony, will be for the instructors that will be training the uh students at this facility. Uh much like I would say
a superintendent that would function in connection with a residential apartment building. um they're invested in the property, invested in the proper operations of the property and would uh make sense and be beneficial for them to be able to reside there as well. >> These people that are going to be doing
the tenants instruction, they're also going to maintain the building and that's why they're there. Are you going to go into why they have to live on site? >> We're going to go into into why. Um, and the third D variance that we need is
because although your ordinance permits multiple permitted uses on this property, we're unfortunately not dealing with permitted uses. So, we need multiple non-permitted uses, which is the third D variance. >> Just for the record, there's more than
one use on the property. >> I think that's what I said, right? >> Okay. >> Yeah. the residential >> one nonp permitted use on the property. >> That's what I said. Yeah. Thanks. Uh so those are the variances we're asking for
tonight. Again, we understand that there will be additional variances should the board approve those that we would have to come back and get. But >> what what are the additional variances that that you know you're going to be seeking at the time of site plan approval? Well, we know that there will
be an F variance that >> that's a D4. >> That's a D4. Um, we may need some other bulk variances, but they are there is a possibility that they may change. So, I don't want to specifically
outline them. And the reason I'm saying that is because again we are open to in addressing some comments from the board professionals making some changes to the design of the building should the board find that that's necessary in order to grant the youth varian.
>> But as of tonight if someone said based on the plans you submitted what C variances would you need? Is Jeff correct that it would be a front yard setback of 25 feet where 75 feet is required and a rear yard setback of
approximately 35 ft where 50 ft is required. >> We had a question with regard to the front yard setback and if it was definitely a 25- ft requirement as opposed to it being in line with adjacent properties. I will be honest, I have not specifically looked into that
issue. Um that was raised by my client. Um, but since we weren't again addressing those tonight, um, that that's why I hadn't specifically looked at it. That was the only question. >> Not that I don't know where the the 25 it's 75, right?
>> Yeah. Per the zoning code, it's 75 ft is the is the minimum. I don't know where 25 foot is located. I tried to look if there was any footnote or any reference to the section. I couldn't find it unless you guys were able to. The reason that I'm asking is because some board
members might think that if you need additional relief that that actually goes to the negative criterion of the use variances. So I don't, you know, we'll we'll see. That's why I wanted to see at least from a starting point
you could say it may it may change. But is Jeff right or wrong? And if if you can't answer it right now and you need your planner to answer it, I just want to know if 75 ft is the require the required front yard setback in the B5
zone and if 50 ft is the required rear yard setback in the B5 zone. >> Again, we can confirm that for purposes of proceeding. We'll >> concede to what Jeff's comments are in his letter. Um, but we can clarify that
with some planners testimony. >> If I may. >> Yes. >> Um, and sorry for the interrupt because it's a confusion for me. I need John's help here. Uh, John, uh, you know this, uh, Jeff's report item one, which is in
bold. Can you help? At least I can't understand what that means. So this why because we're talking about variances and whatever it is. >> Okay. So you mean planning comment. The purpose of the B5 zone is specifically noted for section 296-17A.
That's the comment you're talking about. >> Yes. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. I believe that Jeff put that in there to let the board know this. So let's assume just assume for argument sake. And if anyone is out there in the audience and is opposed to the
application, don't get nervous that with me saying this, but I I think thickening things out. Let's assume the board thought that special reasons existed to grant the three D1 use variances. You still wouldn't be able to grant them
unless the negative criterion is satisfied. The negative criterion has two prongs. The first prong is that there can't by granting the application you can't have any substantial detriment to the public good. That's like your typical traffic, um,
noise, that sort of stuff. The second prong is that by granting the application, you can't have a substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance and the master plan. I think Jeff's comment
about the purpose of the ordinance goes to that second prong of the negative criterion. And he says, I'm just going to read what he said. It's the purpose of this zoning district, and I'm going to paraphrase it. U
to provide for transitional uses between residential areas and the state highways. As an aside, that's the paraphrased first sentence. I believe I saw later in his report that Jeff actually believes that this is a and we're getting way ahead of oursel, but
being finished by opening it, >> but Jeff believes that this is a transitional use. But then it goes on, it says these uses, meaning these transitional uses between residential and state highways are to be limited
and the floor area to limit limited as to type of use, developable areas, hours of operation and floor area to limit the overall negative impacts associated with such development. Paraphrasing again, within this zone, no
lot structure or accessory structure shall be used in whole or in part unless it complies with schedules one and two attached to this chapter. So I think what he's saying is that the the stated purpose of the ordinance, so the intent and purpose of not the master plan here,
but of the ordinance itself is to limit floor area. And right now at least they're showing that they would need a D4 floor area ratio variance, but they're not applying it for it tonight. And that
everything has to comply with schedules one and two. Schedules one and two, which is this these zoning schedule? >> The schedule one is for any bulk uh standard and schedule two doesn't apply. It's for cluster development, >> right? So I think Jeff is laying this out at the beginning of his memo to say,
"Hey, listen, this is a bifurcated use variance application, but you should keep in mind that the purpose of the zone if you do believe that special reasons are shown for the three D1 use variances, you know, that's why I said
in the beginning that the board might believe that [clears throat] the F variance cuts against the negative criter arian and the C variances. So basically the municipal land use law says in 40 col
55B-76B that the the a developer can elect to submit a bifurcated application for a devariance. So the MLUL says that that the developer
has the right to submit it. There's three published appellet division cases that say okay they can submit it but the board doesn't have to accept it. If the board believes that there are negative criterion issues which are intertwined with the use variance the board could
say no you know what we want to see some more detail on the site plan. So the way I look at this the board can go about this one of three ways. One way is to say, "Listen, if they're only applying for the the 3D1 variances, and after hearing the testimony on that, you think
that special reasons have been shown, you could say that we'd be willing to grant that tonight on the condition, you don't seek any other variances. You don't seek D4 variance. You make the building smaller. You don't seek any C variances. You comply with everything."
That's one way of doing it. The other way of doing it, if the applicant, well, no, listen, we'd like the opportunity to present. Then you say, okay, well, if you feel uncomfortable without seeing those details, then you tell them, submit a more detailed conceptual site plan. Show us, you know, let's see the
floor area ratio and then give us one that shows a compliant one so we can see difference in size of the buildings. show us a compliant one that complies with the setback so we and and then show us the one you know that you're proposing and so we can compare it. That's another way. Or the third way of
doing it is just let them present what they want to present and just wait till the end. I I always like if you have feelings after looking at the application even though she hasn't finished her opening give her feedback.
If you want to give her feedback now or if you don't want to hear any feedback, just plow ahead. >> Yeah, just finish your opening. I was just I want to tie your Jeff >> your talk with this, right? >> That's correct. I didn't understand that. So, >> yeah. >> Yeah, you got to finish. >> So, if you want to if you want to finish
your opening, go ahead. I just wanted clarity this way. I know what I'm listening for. >> Understood. >> I said to Jeff, was I correct? And that's what that's why you put this in the report right up top. >> Yes. And that's correct. And that was a very large part or or a
significant portion of what my very first witness was going to testify because that is a very important part of your revised ordinance. That is what you are being guided to look at tonight in connection with your consideration of the use variance and Mr. Drill's also
correct in what your options are. Um, you heard me say that one of the reasons why we weren't going into each one of the other variances is because we are open to feedback from you as to what may make you comfortable with granting that
use variance. And if the use variances and if that is no further variance relief then that is certainly something for my client to consider moving forward because the reason for the bifurcation is again to get your feedback on the use
itself with the understanding that there may be conditions imposed on that. So that that's our plan for tonight. That's what we would like to present to you to get your feedback um and and hear what you have to say as a result of our our witness's testimony.
>> Since you mentioned that as far as I'm concerned, I don't know. I'm not going to make that option for you. But you need to think about of those three what makes sense to you guys. Then it will help me understand. I don't know about
my colleagues, but at least that's where my head is. I want to add one more thing because John Thomas is not here for whatever reason. He must have be having some automobile issue or whatever. But if he was here, I'm sure he would say, "Hey, I also wrote in my report on his
second page." He says, "In my opinion, if the board believes that the positive criterion of the use variances have been proven as part of the satisfaction of the negative criterion, he says the board should consider imposing a condition requiring
that ordinance section 296- 73 PN B and PN 16 Np1 and PN complied with and no variance relief be applied to allow a deviation any deviation in the requirements of
that ordinance. And just to that ordinance is the ordinance that says you can't remove above 55% of the trees on a site. >> That's correct. We read that report and
again that in light of your professionals comments, recommendations, we would like your thoughts on the use variance portions of this application and whether or not those recommendations
would be incorporated and could be incorporated and enable you to approve the use variances with those conditions. That is what we are asking. >> That's option one. >> That's option one. Yeah, that's what that's the easy quite frankly that's the cleanest option. Okay. Okay. Do
>> um anything else? I just have a little bit more of the opening just to lay out what we're going to be doing tonight. >> U Okay. Uh so unless there are any other questions. Um I have five witnesses here with me tonight and they they will address various aspects of the
application. I have the applicant's representative, Mr. Brandt Switzler. He will very extensively outline for you the operations of the proposed facility and how these proposed residential apartments will be utilized. Uh he's
also obviously going to be open to questions and he will also address the comments within each one of your prospective board professionals reports that relate to the areas that are within his wheelhouse. We have our engineer, Ted Bear, who will testify as to the
engineering and the floor plan exhibits that have been presented to you. Our landscape architect, Jim Mazuko, will testify as to the landscaping plans um and the report that Mr. John Morgan Thomas has provided. Our traffic
engineer, Rihanna Kirchoff, obviously she's going to testify as to the traffic report that was prepared. and our planner Beth Mcmanis and she will lay out the criteria that is required uh you've heard some of that already uh for you to grant the devariances that have
been presented to you tonight. >> So let's have everyone that whose name was just mentioned come on up to that microphone so I can get you all sworn in. And we have board witnesses here tonight. We have the board engineering
expert, the board planning expert, and on Zoom, the board traffic engineering expert. We don't have Mr. Thomas. Hopefully, he'll show up at some point. So, everyone's going to stand up, raise their right hand. Everyone swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give in this matter. We retreat the whole nothing but the truth. Let's start
over here. Yes, I do. >> Yes. >> I do. I do. >> I do. looking. >> Okay. >> So, now you were the court reporter and for my notes and for Taylor's notes, can
you give us that list again, but spell the names for us? >> Yes. Grant Switzler, B R A N T S Wii T Z L E R. And he is the >> And what is his official position with
the applicant? Is he the managing member of operational reservations? >> I am. Okay. Managing >> member >> of applicant number two witness. >> U number two witness is Mr. Ted Bear. B
A Y E R >> and he is a PE and he is your engineering expert. >> Correct. >> Hold on. Number three. >> Three is James Mazuko. Spell his last name, please.
>> I'm going to try. Jim, tell me if I'm wrong. M A Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z U C O >> and he is a licensed landscape architect and he's the applicant's landscape architectural expert. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Number four, >> Rihanna Kirchoff. R H I A N A. >> Okay, hold on. Start again with this one. >> Well, there's no H, right? >> Yeah. Have her come up and give you the spelling of her name, please. >> I always do that.
>> I don't know how to spell it, but I knew that was wrong. >> Is R I A N is K I R C H O S. >> Thank you. And you are a
>> I had them both. >> Traffic engineer. >> You are PE and you are the applicant's traffic engineering expert, right? >> Yes. Number five, >> Elizabeth Mcmanis. >> She is a planner and she is the applicant's planning expert.
>> Correct. >> Okay. And let's Jeff, you're going to go first. Jeff. >> Jeff Aarella. I'm the township planner. >> Resh Dargy, township engineer. >> And Jay Troutman, the township traffic consultant.
I'm just leaving space for John Thomas whenever he should come. >> Does anybody cell phone? >> Yeah, I do. I'm going to text him. >> Okay, everyone sworn. Go for it. >> Before we start, since there are new I I think there's people in the audience that may not know how the board of
adjustment works. >> Yeah. Is there Let's Is there anyone in the audience other than the professionals that's here with the applicant? Raise your hand. Okay. With the applicant. Okay. We have one. Are you here as an interested party? >> Just
>> just observing. Okay. >> Okay. Uh just to for information, uh they will provide testimony. Okay. At the end of testimony, our professionals or our the board members will ask questions. At that point, you
have the opportunity to come up and ask a question to that witness on something they said. After all the witnesses go at the end of the meeting before they do a closing argument or closing you have the opportunity to come up and provide your
opinion or any argument that you want to state at that point. So again end of the witnesses you ask questions to the witnesses end of the application you can come up and provide your own evidence or your own opinion. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Okay so Mr. Switzler, uh, you are the managing member of the applicant LLC, correct? Okay. And you have some comments that you've prepared that you'd like to present to the board before we start going through your testimony and
and addressing comments of the board professionals letters. Is that correct? >> I do. >> Okay. Why don't you go ahead and if the board wouldn't mind indulging us, it is uh a little lengthy, but I think at the end of it, you're going to speak slowly and and carefully. >> Slowly and loudly.
>> Yep. I I think you'll get a very very good idea as to exactly what this application is for you. >> Do you guys mind if I stand and use the >> Oh, yeah. You do what you on. I don't think I turned it on. >> Okay. Okay. Do you want me to just say
>> that one's on? Yeah. >> Test test test. Awesome. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh let me know if I need to get closer to the mic. Hello everyone. Thank you all for gathering here in Flemington for
a very big moment for me personally. My name is Brandt Switzler. I'm a neighbor from Delaware Township. I'm the record holder for career singles wins at the number one position for 100 central tennis team. I'm a division one scholarship recipient. I'm a professional tennis player and I am the
coach of multiple decorated collegiate and professional tennis players who attended schools such as Colombia, UPEN, Cornell, Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, NYU, LSU, Emory, Oregon, and more besides.
I'm deeply in love with tennis and I use it every day to build my small community of players into the strongest versions of themselves both on the court and in their everyday life. Lastly, as testified to by my lawyer, I did not mean to be here before you all tonight.
My family and I have been working for the past eight years to get the necessary permissions to build a small twocourt indoor tennis training facility. I believe tennis in New Jersey and in the northeastern section of the United States in general has been gradually degrading for the past few decades. I see the game similar to how a
biologist would see an ecosystem. You have your beginner, intermediate, advanced, and professional players. And they all need each other to maintain a strong tennis community. There exists a term in biology called the trophic cascade. It is where the addition, removal, or population shift of a top
predator trickles down the food chain to indirectly affect plants and other resources. Local higher level tennis players and those interested in becoming one are severely underserved. Their population has been steadily decreasing and without a clear example of what
success looks like, interest and performance in the game has followed suit. The most common story throughout my entire life in New Jersey has been that you cannot progress past a certain level without leaving this state for places like Florida, Texas, or California. These are the meccas of
tennis within the United States because the climates are suitable for year-round outdoor play and there are tennis courts on every block. This desirable environment is not only a factor for the players, but also the coaches serving them. In the Northeast, tennis coaches
need to teach indoors for about half of the year, depending on how cold it gets. It is incredibly uncommon for indoor facilities to allow tennis coaches to work as contractors and rent court time to teach their clients privately. The owners of these facilities know that uh
the winter will eventually starve out anyone attempting to teach independently and use that pressure to force them into accepting lowball job offers. These offers are purely based off of hours worked with no PTO benefits like good health insurance or guarantee of court
time. The job itself is incredibly physical, requiring 5 to eight hours of moving around a tennis court almost every day. If you get injured during this rigor, you will not make money. Over the years, this has caused a great migration of excellent tennis coaches out out of New Jersey or out of the
industry at large. It was a very hard decision for my father when I was born in 1994 to leave tennis coaching, the job he loved and performed exceedingly well in in search of something that could guarantee his family health insurance. It was personally devastating for me when one of my coaches, David
Mercurier, left the area due to poor work conditions, high cost of living, and no health insurance for his budding family. These factors cause a vicious cycle within the industry where young tennis players begin to form bonds with the game and their coach only to have it ripped away from them when extenduating
circumstance forces their coach away. This in turn forces them into finding a new home with a new community only to have it happen again and again unless they leave for the South or quit the game entirely. Our aspiring athletes deserve better than this. They deserve the stability of
a safe and permanent home to hone their craft. They deserve the care of experienced and empathetic mentors guiding them through the gauntlet that is tennis. And they deserve to have these things without uprooting and leaving the northeast for greener, warmer pastures.
I founded Aboriginal Tennis Fitness and Recovery LLC in 2020. Named for my Wasco Pam and Chinook blood and for my vision of creating a home for my players in native New Jersey. This facility, the plans, this meeting,
all of it is a manifestation of a dream I've had since I was a kid. I want to be a tennis coach. Thank you, sir. I have teachers from Delaware Township Elementary School that would testify to the fact that that was my answer when I
was asked what I wanted to be when I grow up. This facility allows me to fully express that dream and hopefully allow other dreamers like me to realize their full potential. When my family and I first embarked on this journey to make this dream a
reality, we tried to do it on our family farm in Delaware Township, which was zoned for agricultural use. I was told that I could pursue something called the use variance to gain relief from the restrictive rules against running indoor tennis programs on our front field.
After three years of litigation, neighbors leading a Facebook and yardside campaign that turned our street into a DMZ akin to North and South Korea, and for the worst 07 loss of my entire life, I came to the realization that I never wanted to pursue a use
variance ever again. After that loss, my architect at Delrafot taught me how to search for properties with the appropriate zoning for my dream. After a lot of tax maps and cold calls, I was extremely lucky to find just that at 143 Route 202 South
for a price my family and I made work. We began the long process of ticking off every requirement Ritton had uh to get before the board for building approval. It was a monumental step forward for me. This time I wouldn't have to demonstrate a property particularly well suited for
the proposed unauthorized use. I would just have to demonstrate a plan conducive to building code. Hooray. A year and a half after the start of those engineering plans and the retaining of my excellent lawyer, Cara, it was brought to my attention that Raritton had drawn a line through indoor recreational tennis in the list of
approved usages for the B5 zone. Why God? Why must you give zoning battles to your devoted tennis pro soldiers? But thankfully, tennis has taught me something very important. Resilience to analyze losses.
Adapt to circumstances and come back and try again. I believe I've learned from my first naive attempt at getting a use variance, and the testimony you'll hear tonight and during any oncoming meetings will demonstrate that this is a perfect use for 143 Route 202 South.
The facility will provide two tennis courts for the purpose of teaching and practicing tennis. A gym for the purpose of becoming fit and conditioned enough to withstand all the violent movement on court. A small pro shop for the purpose of equipping patrons with the gear
necessary to perform. And lastly, a manager street apartment for the purpose of housing me or pros making my facility their base of operation. I hope my statement tonight has given you a little insight into my dream and the history of this project. I'll be happy to answer
any questions about the planned operation of the facility or the desired effect of its amenities. Thank you so much. >> How many tennis courts? One or two? >> Two. >> Two tennis courts, a gym, pro shop, and
it's a two apartment suite for you and one other tennis pro. Or is it more? So no. So it would be maximum one other one or for instance like if I in the future for instance was to get like a house outside of it, it would be for uh two
other people. >> But there two apartments. >> Yes. >> How many >> how many people could you mean it's one apartment but it has two bedrooms? Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yes, of course. Thank you for the one. Appreciate it. You did a good job. Thank
you. Anyone have any questions for him? >> No. >> Okay. I have I want to go through and address some of the questions within the professionals reports. You can stay there. You can have a seat. >> I'll stand. Feel high energy. >> Um All right. So, thank you very much. I
I think that gave the board and the professionals a very good overview of what we're looking to do. Um we do have to get into some of the specifics now to address uh some comments. Um you did hear in the opening and some of the dialogue that we will have to return to
the board to obtain site plan approval and uh potentially other variance approvals uh should they grant your use variances. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> And you also understand that the board may impose conditions on any such approval of these use variances.
>> Correct. >> Yes. And some of those conditions, as we've said, may be to comply with all of the other bulk um and other standards of the uh ordinance with regard to properties in this zone. Correct. >> Correct.
>> And should the board grant the use variance, uh we will work to comply with those as best as we possibly can. Correct. >> Absolutely. >> All right. So, let's start with uh the township planners letter. And the one
that I'm referring to, there's two letters. One dated June 4th and an updated one, planner review number two dated June 15th. Um Jeff can correct me if I'm wrong, but the only change between those two letters was just the addition of the Dvarian that is required
due to the multiple nonpermitted uses on the Hey, >> Karen. That was very passionate speech. I just want to make sure that you and your client understand those options with John laid out earlier. If you need five
minutes, take five minutes and go through that. So this we're very focused on where to go next. >> We do. >> Yeah. >> He he wants to make sure that it wasn't just you saying you want to go with option one, but also your client. Well, and and that's why I had him
testify that he understands that the board may impose conditions on this use variance approval requiring compliance with all of the understand other standards of the ordinance. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Just want to make sure. >> Yes. Thank you.
>> Uh okay. So again, I think that's the only change between the two uh planners reports. Is that correct? >> Yeah, that's correct. >> Okay. All right. So, starting with um comment. So, I actually had and I'm not
going to waste the board's time. I I did want to point out to the board comment number one and then comment number two in Jeff's report talking about the purpose and then his comments that he actually feels that this is a um that
that he believes the proposal to be a direct example of a trai transitional use between a non-conforming residential use to the north and existing commercial facility to the south. Um so I was going to have him testify to that. That's already on the record.
>> Yeah, I'll do one better than that. >> Go ahead. >> Do you you were involved when the ordinance was revised, correct? >> That's correct. 20 in 2024, >> right? Can you shed any light on why
when it was revised the category of indoor recreational facility was taken out of the permitted use category? I believe and some of the this is a low inensity zone and there's a few others.
They had a list of permitted uses and they did not generalize um retail. So we we decided to um what is this? >> The intent was for there to be de
development friendly but also to um to kind of clean up and and kind of assess the the zones but it was meant to to um for larger commercial indoor fits. Was it fair to
say that your understanding is that the ordinance was revised so that largecale indoor recreational facilities wouldn't be permitted? >> That was my re and a lot of these lots, they're smaller than than a where a
typical uh indoor recreation facility would. >> So, put it this way. I know this is just the beginning of the application, but in your opinion, is the proposed facility here one of those large ones that they wanted to in intend to eliminate or is
this a scale that maybe the ordinance wasn't revised to eliminate? Of course, subject to the other variants. >> Yeah, this was on the smaller scale, but it also there was some review of how it would appropriately fit within the the lots that were provided for a B5 zone.
That part I understand but your understanding at least was that it wasn't a small scale indoor facility that >> no I don't think the ordinance change that was not the intent it was a large scale >> large scale which would draw um a lot of
u patrons >> and I understand and your memo is very clear that the purpose is that whatever is going to be in there complies with everything we get that I just wanted to put on the record what I thought his
opinion was on that just so you'd have that also in the beginning of your case. >> That's a good thing. >> Yep. >> Thank you. Um we did do Well, thank you. Um okay, so now some of the other questions within that letter. Um let's
look at item number two. Uh 2A, hours of operation. What are the hours of operation at the facility? >> Uh it would be standard to what tennis facilities normally are. Uh 8:00 a.m. to about 9:00 p.m. >> 8 to 9. >> How many days a week? >> Uh five days a week, Monday through
Friday normally. And then a lot of the time people So there's like 8 to 6, Saturday, Sunday. >> So seven days a week then. >> You'd be open seven days a week. Yes. >> Any noise generated from the facility
that can be heard outside in your experience? Uh, in my experience, no. Uh, indoor tennis facilities are extremely quiet. It's completely different than something like pickle ball. Okay. >> And do you currently work at a indoor tennis facility? >> I do. >> And which one is that? >> Uh, winning touch down in uh in
Princeton, New Jersey. >> Okay. So, this is based on your experience working in that capacity. >> Yes. Yeah. As well as obviously my playing experience training in many different facilities across the United States and the rest of the world.
Uh moving to 2E of the planners report there was a question from a noise point of view. Do you have like competitions which take place and will there like be any additional like celebrations or noise or whatever? like I if if it were
a facility that were even allowed to have competitions maybe, but the the USA actually the United States Tennis Association, the governing organization for uh the the the tournament play in the United States actually mandates that you're not allowed to host events unless you have six courts at the very least.
So, my facility would be focused on uh just tennis training basically. Yeah, there would be no competitions there. >> We'll get into that a little bit more later, too. Thank you. Um and and obviously any noise could be subject to
a noise test that would have to comply with state and local requirements in the event that that was a condition that the board wished to impose on any approval. >> Yes. >> Um similarly there was a question 2e of the report that talked about glare. Um,
our engineer will talk a little bit more uh with regard to proposed lighting, which would be more of a site plan related issue, but um would you agree again as a condition to do a a night light test and make sure that you would
address any glare that was found to emanate from the property and the lighting of the property? >> Absolutely. And there are a couple other comments, specifically six and seven within the letter, the plans being revised to correct setback lines and providing a
zoning table that was a little more updated with columns. Uh you would agree to revise the plans to comport with those comments of the board planner, the planner, correct? >> Okay. Now, let's talk about signage. What type of signage are you looking to
install? We understand it's not part of this particular application, but just so the board understands, are you looking for a large ground sign? Are you looking for big wall signs? Um, given the fact that this is a very limited facility and not large, >> is he able to say that whatever signage
he put up would comply with all the sign regulations? >> That was my next question. >> Because if he can, unless the board wants to hear all the details about the signage, I don't think they have to hear any details about the signage. If he says he's going to have a compliance sign with no variances,
>> I will comply. >> They ask what the name what the name of your business uh >> what's the name on the sign going to say? >> This is a curiosity question. >> Yeah. Uh >> if you don't know, that's okay.
>> I'm not I'm not sure yet. Um >> I have some ideas bouncing around in my mind. Uh but >> it's okay. >> I'd prefer to wait. Thank you. >> Okay. So, just to clarify for the record, this is not your typical
commercial recreation facility. This isn't a Diamond Nation. This isn't a like you just testified, a large tennis facility where there would be competition. >> Do you know what Diamond Nation is? >> Of course. >> Everyone does. >> Everyone does. >> I've lost I've lost a couple athletes to
them, unfortunately. >> Yeah. um because I know that this board is very familiar with that operation and and has a lot of concerns with regard to uh how that operates. So that is not what we're talking about there. >> Not that Yeah, that was extremely tennis
is not a team sport. It is a individual sport or a double sport. >> Um okay, there was a fire marshals letter dated April 13, 2026. Um, specifically looking at, we discussed
this and looking at items 1 through 4, seven, and eight of that letter, you would be willing to comply with those requirements of that letter. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> One, four, seven, and eight. >> Sarah, I I guess I have concern about
>> Hold on. I just want That means five and seven are you're going to >> Five and six will be dealt with by our engineer. I I would prefer that your engineer deal with number four because that is a very much of a sight design, >> you know, >> parameter. I don't know that he can
testify that a 30,000gallon will fit. >> Right. But I think what what the purpose of asking him is is he willing to do that. >> Okay. But I would like the engineer to also talk about the feasibility of sighting
>> and location and things like that. You're willing to put in a 30,000galon this turn for firefighting if it fits. Correct. Yes. >> And we will have our engineer address that issue as well along with five and
six. >> Again, I'm interpreting anything he agrees to he's agreeing to pay his engineer to do. But you get the details from the engineer, >> right? Because the engineer will know the feasibility of it.
>> Yep. I get it. >> And our next question, the ability to complete the remaining items will be discussed by our other witnesses. Correct. >> Yes. >> Um, moving on to the letter from the board's traffic engineer. There's a couple.
>> I just had one question. Sure. Um the residential use is entirely within the building. Correct. >> It is. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes. But explain what you mean. In other words, there's not going to be an outside barbecue area, patio, or anything like that. Correct.
>> That that was that's what you wanted to find out. >> I understand the residential component. >> Yeah. Uh definitely at the beginning for me as like the principal operator of the facility, I'm not going to be a manager.
I'm going to be a coach. I'm going to be a a landscaper. I'm going to basically be taking on a lot of the duties of running the facility at large. Um as well as like the having a a somebody
else like potentially like a pro staying in the in the facility as well. Um, I'd like to have an additional like bedroom in it. Uh, for the sake of like if there's a teaching pro that's a professional tennis player as well
that's going in and out of the country. The way that the the the pro schedule works is is that you're essentially in the country training for about a month and then you're out on the road for about a month and you do that for years at a time. um it makes it a little bit
difficult to find housing for people that are pursuing tennis professionally. Uh and if there were like a professional player that was making like the facility a base of operation, uh that's what I would be able to like to to offer to
them to basically be like you you have a place here in New Jersey to stay, to train, uh to get better, to hone what you're what you're working through. uh and then you go out, play tournaments, come back and repeat the process. >> And this would not be rented out to
people for transient purposes. This would be for people associated with training at the facility, teaching at the facility while they they are there. Mhm. >> So you're saying occupants of the units
would have to be >> part of the >> operation >> any operation. Yes. >> Okay. The board traffic engineers letter dated June 10th has a couple items as well that I think are within your
wheelhouse. Um, you talked about training at the facility. Um, but there was a question as to whether there would be any recreational play open to the public. Uh, will there be any at the facility? Um the the stuff that would be
going on in the facility with on the courts would either be a private lesson, which is like a one-on-one between me and a student, uh a group lesson, which would be me and a group of students, or uh renting court time to be able to like
practice by yourself. And that's normally if somebody's playing like one-on-one or uh or doubles. So, I don't know if that falls necessarily under like recreational use, but it's like uh renting an hour and a half of court time to be able to go and practice. >> So,
the there will be two courts available at the facility, correct? >> Yes. >> Each court can accommodate a maximum of how many people? Both players and so how many players? Um, so industry standard in in my opinion if
you're trying to actually get better at tennis is six people uh per court. So if I were to do like a group lesson, uh it would be, you know, maybe six adults practicing like doubles and switching in and out and that sort of thing plus one coach. If there were to be, for
instance, two group lessons going on at the same time with me and another coach on the other court, uh that would be 14 people maximum out on the tennis courts. >> So whether we're dealing with lessons or we're dealing with court rentals, uh
there could be a stipulation of no more than seven individuals on the courts at any one time. So a total of 14 spread across the two courts. Is that correct? >> Yes. And then any other additional employees that you anticipate other than
the two instructors? >> Um maybe a front desk person. Uh that would be ideal. Uh for the gym, maybe a trainer. Um but that would be the maximum. >> Okay, let's talk about the gym a little bit. Is this a gym that's open to the
public that people could um get uh join and and go to every day and get memberships at? or is this specifically for the people that are going to be training at the facility? >> No, it it's specifically for the people that are training at the facility. It's it's for the sake of in the same way
that you're learning tennis, sort of learning uh the the fitness component of it that you need to safely participate in the highest level tennis that you can play. But tennis is an extremely physical game as I testified to and
there's a lot of pitfalls in the long run with injuries and there's a great documentary that just came out about Nadal on Netflix if if you're interested in that. It's unbelievable. >> So you're saying that the users of the gym would have to be either trainers or
trainees of the facility. >> Yes. And then the pro shop that would also be there for people that are visiting the facility as uh to be trained and and uh that would be visiting it. Otherwise, this is not going to be a a marketed
retail facility open to the public. >> No. Uh what what pro shops are basically like tennis rackets, tennis string, fuse, and maybe a couple outfits. And that's the extent of it. It's just to to be able to outfit the people to to play
within the facility. >> So, you're saying the pro shop would not be open to the public. It only be open to trainers and trainees of the facility. >> Uh, yeah. >> You mentioned matches. >> You mentioned what? >> You mentioned that matches
>> like tennis matches. >> Yeah. What kind of match? >> Tournament. >> No tournament. How many people tournament draw? Yeah, there's there would be tournaments. >> He said he said there's no tournament. I'm not my notes say he said there's no tournaments because the
>> USA >> USA says in order to have a tournament you need a minimum of >> six courts and he's only having two courts. >> That's what you said, right? >> That is what I said. >> How about any other events there? Um uh
we we call that a tournament, but do you plan on having anything that wouldn't constitute a tournament, but you would be marketing to draw a lot of people to the facility? Is that at all contemplated? >> No, not really. It really is just for the sake of me being a tennis coach. I just like a safe environment to to teach
my students. >> Okay. So, your testimony was six max six people per court plus one instructor. So that would be seven per court for a total of 14, one desk person, 15 and
maybe an additional uh person. So total number of people in the facility at any one time would be >> maybe maximum one. Yeah. >> And that's that's high-end maximum. >> Oh, definitely. Yeah. like the we're we're sort of in the realm right now of
talking about like a if there's two six person adult like clinics going on at the same time uh that's relatively rare I would say uh it's normally like a
sixperson tennis clinic and maybe on the other court like a private lesson is going on. I would say that that's about like average. And maybe you have that like backtoback. Like there's a couple stacked up lessons between 9 to 12 uh on one court that are private lessons and then maybe like two hour and a half
clinics that you know most of the time four people show up for. Some of the time six people show up for. It'd be great if there were two backtoback clinics that were like that. Um, but yeah, I mean the situations that we're sort of talking about with that are are
exceedingly rare in my experience. >> How many do you expect to have? >> Well, well, Randy, microphone, can't hear you. >> How many how many members do you expect to have in your facility? >> Uh, it's a good question. I
So, I don't necessarily have the opportunity to work with as many adult clients as I would like. Um, >> can I just clarify the question? How many members? >> Put it this way. How many people can be accommodated at the facility at any one
time? That's one question. I know you said >> I think that's what I just testified to. >> He said a maximum of 20 would be at the facility at any time. So, he wants to know basically how many clients you anticipate having. I I just want to make sure that there's no confusion that
the facility can only and will only accommodate 20 at any one time. Correct. That's your testimony. Correct. Okay. So, go ahead. Now you >> his question is >> and part of that 20 some are clients, some are trainers, some as a desk person, some is whoever,
>> but he's [clears throat] asking how many clients do you anticipate if everything goes the way you want it to go? What's the maximum number of clients you could conceive you would have at this facility? >> I I carry like currently between like 20
to 30 clients. If I were to start adding in like hours where uh I'm teaching like adults and everything, it might jump up to to 40 or 50. Um, and then if I had like another teaching pro there with me, then it would basically multiply it by
by two. I I would say that that >> And how often I'm going to re I'm going to channel his brain. How often would a client come to the facility per week or per month? >> Um, it depends on what demographic
you're you're asking about. Uh ideally because I I am particularly invested in high performance with tennis like I I would really like to start working with kids almost every day. The the same ones that
that's what uh if you're searching for elite level and and trying to play for colleges and that sort of thing like you you have to train frequently. >> So if you had let's say you had if just you not another trainer. So let's say
you had 50 clients >> and you'd want all 50 clients to train every day. How >> Oh, so so some of those would be adults, right? So they would only participate maybe once or twice a week like in the
morning. Um the the other ones would be like essentially in like the group lessons in the evening. And so presumably if they're students, it's when they're not in school. >> Yeah. It's not the it's after school. >> Mhm. >> And Okay.
>> Can I ask >> the kind of information you wanted? >> Yes. >> For clarification with the uh you said you you aspired to have a trainer on site. I assume there'll be people that they're training in your gym. Um how many people do you envision being in the
gym at any one time? Because that's another >> Yeah. So, so the the ambition for the gym would be and and this is the way that I run my my my groups right now. It's two hours of tennis like on court followed by an hour of fitness within
the gym. So, like let's say that I had me and I like if if I did it with uh my my friend Christian for instance, uh each of us are working with like four kids on our court. Once they finish their tennis, they would go to the gym.
So, eight people in the gym and then you know if we're teaching privates or something like after that class than that then we'd have the people out or that we're working with. >> Okay. So, people churn through the fitness um at a higher rate than typical for
your classes. Correct. >> Uh >> they're only there for an hour and you're keeping them for lessons for two hours. >> Oh, so so it's it's one package, right? So, so it's it's the same people, >> right? They sp Tell me if I'm wrong. What what I understood him say is let's
say he has let's say he has six kids not four. >> So he's got six kids out on the court. They're on the court for two hours. Take little breaks here and there to drink a little water, whatever. >> And then after their two hours on the court, they have an hour in the gym. Correct. >> Precisely.
>> Okay. So then there would be no one just coming in to use the gym as part of a fitness routine. >> No. Yeah. It would be associated in other words. Correct. That's >> say correct or correct. >> Okay. So, I'm just trying to understand your
business model. >> Then you're saying you're aspiring to have like 35 or so clients um they would be um members and or could people that are not clients
or not members, however you want to. >> Yeah. Where is the members coming from? Yeah. Yeah. >> Clients. >> Yeah. So, like you're you're right to ask >> Listen, if it's a member to me, they're paying like an annual thing, right?
Clients pay like by the hour or something. How do you structure >> it would be by the hour is the way that I that I >> But it's it's to you. They're signing up because you're the they're your clients >> and if you have another professional,
they're their clients. Uh, >> you know, again, listen, I'm not testifying, but if this is his business. >> Yeah. >> Okay. She's going to employ him. You're going to employ yourself, correct? As one of the trainers. >> Yes. Yeah. >> And you want to employ a second trainer?
>> Yes. That would be the end. >> I mean, you're going to split 50/50 the facility with another trainer or are you going to hire another trainer? >> Uh, hire. Yeah. >> All right. Yeah. So, there's this confusion about memberships. So, I'm going to be very clear. >> Yeah. I think the membership I don't
believe he does have a membership. I think that membership thing from someone up there you just have clients. These are not like a country club. >> No, there's no there's no annual fee associated. >> There's nothing like that. That's just your clients.
>> Um so one question about events just so that for clarity for you. Yes. As I was going through that you started thinking about kids >> they will probably have graduation or something right? Let uh like when they leave the facility. >> Yeah. Like certificate or anything?
>> Oddly enough, no. What? No. Yeah. What what normally happen you're I I prepare them to play in college. Uh that's a completely different phase than when they're a junior. Um I'm not that there there are coaches
that do it this way. I'm not the type of coach that sort of like stops coaching them once they get to college. like that that portion to me is as important as their junior career. Like a lot of the times you're using college tennis as like a vehicle to get into like a good
school, but once you get there, you still want to make progress. So, >> so there won't be like this events about progression or what like taekwondo or whatever they do. None of that. >> Okay. The other thing which is a little confusing for me is you said you're
going to arrange I on the court. Who is that for? Uh that would be for like people just looking to to practice extra for instance or like for instance the the facility that I
work at down in in Princeton um they have their adult programming in the morning uh and then they have their evening classes that run 3:30 to 8:00 right >> so it's just for the people who are training it's not like Russul can call
in and say hey >> can can. Yeah. >> Okay. So, >> you could if you called in and you said, "Hey, Brent, I'd like to do you have any available court time so I can come and play for an hour." Like, you would be allowed to do that. It's just that you'd have to like reserve it in advance. It's
not like a show up and play. >> Is that an issue with whatever we have discussed so far? >> Well, we need numbers. >> Well, again, I I think we need to we need to be clear. The maximum number on the facility is what he's testified to.
So regardless whether it's a lesson, a rental or anything else, that's the maximum number. >> He hasn't given us a maximum for rental. >> No, as it's overall there's two courts and the facility will accommodate a
maximum according to his testimony of up to 20 people. >> Wait, wait one minute. >> By the arithmetic it actually came to 16. He said, "Ah, you know, basically, he didn't say it this way, but let's" and out a safety concern for him, let's
say 20. But he said that you could have six trainees on a court at a time plus a trainer that is seven. You have two courts. 7* 2 is 14. You might have a desk person there, that would bring it to 15. And you might have one additional
person that would bring it to >> Hold on. Hold on. that would bring it to no more than 16 in the facility at any one time. Then he said, "Listen, maybe it would be up to 20." But if the board was gets to that point of wanting to
grant the application, it' be a condition and it would say no more than fill in the blank 16 20. But you got to hear other things. You have to hear what are they, you know, how many parking spaces are they going to have? You have to hear from, you know, Jay Troutman on
that. I know that I saw somewhere that they're proposing 27 parking spaces. I don't know. I saw that in one of these reports. I don't remember which one. So, >> yeah, the clarity I would like. So, if if a student's in for their two-hour lesson and they're progressing to the
trainer, the courts are open. So, you could have people renting the court for that period of time. >> Except if you had a condition that there's no more than X number any one time at the facility, then you would have to worry about it. The only question is who would police that, >> right?
>> So just >> separate issue >> and and let's and maybe this will help as well. Um based on your experience in the field and where you teach at your current location, when somebody comes to rent a court, >> um can you explain the the ways that
they would use it and the numbers of people? Would you have six people coming to rent a court? No, it it's when when people come in to rent tennis courts, it's normally like me playing with a friend for, you know, an hour, hour and a half or >> or doubles. >> Or doubles. Exactly. So two versus two.
So in terms of like it it there's just never going to be a point where it exceeds six people per court is what I please. >> I have um a question about an overlap. Um it seems like you could have your two
courts >> fully um at capacity with a full um number of um students and instructors and at the same time because of the third hour group up in the gym. Um, you
could still you could have people laying in the courts and the courts being completely full and still having a group of some number of people in the gym at the same time which would to me bring you above >> the number the 20.
>> So, so what you mean by like so if I were to have like four to eight for instance, right? like two twohour classes uh four people for class. So 18 and then >> or so not
>> so for instance you have like A and B on the courts A and B go up to the gym and you have C and D on the courts. So she's saying that there would be like double the amount of people >> be time four >> yeah so no no so the the high performance
groups are maximum four people per court. So like for instance, I'm not going to in the evening time after school, right? That's for the younger kids that are like junior tennis players. For that, it's maximum four people on the court. I wouldn't be
hosting um like adult clinics in the evening. >> Question I heard and we'll give it a shot. It's like sometimes they get an application with a doctor's office >> and they have x number of examination
rooms, but unlike your proposed facility which has two hours on the court and an hour in the gym, the doctor's office might be popping them out 15 minutes or 30 minutes. So there's people in the waiting room >> and everyone has to drive there. So I
think one of the questions is okay so let's say you have from I don't know four o'clock to 7 or 5:00 to 8 whatever you're going to do with the little kids and then you have people that are also they want to come in after that to rent
they get there a little you know earlier or whatever you either have people waiting in the parking lot in their cars or waiting inside it's something like something like that scenario so can you explain how you do scheduling Yeah, I I think you nailed the I think you nailed it. Like a a schedule like that is
pretty much part for the course. like it it we're asking for the 27 parking lot spaces for instance because initially like I I believe and again I'm kind of testifying to engineering things here a little bit
>> engineer will come in but your layman's understanding of what you've heard from your engineer but it will be have to be verified by the engineer but tell them what your understanding is >> my my understanding is is that there is like a you you have your total floor
space and then your potential like occupancy is based off of that. Uh obviously with tennis courts the floor space is pretty big. Um, but I will never have anywhere's near like that potential amount of people that could
like fill that within the space where the we put it at 27 to fulfill that obligation uh or uh for Raritin as well as like I don't know like maybe if grandparents are in town and they want to come like watch a group lesson or or
something like that >> or a parent drops off pulls four kids over and decides they're going to stay. >> Yeah. Like it's a I I do believe that you're right that there might be like
scenarios where it like if if there's a spectator group or something like that like and those are normally grandparents coming to watch their children play. Uh it could potentially pop over that. But like when I'm saying like 20 people, I'm
talking about like active participants, I guess you could say. like if you're talking about like a family staying and watching or something, I I think that, you know, I I think we have the the appropriate amount of like parking lot spaces to accommodate even like the craziest of
situations. >> How about inside the facility? Let's say, >> you know, a husband and wife and they got four kids. >> One of the kids is in your program. >> Yeah. >> They decide they're going to come out with the other three kids and watch. >> Mhm.
>> What do you do with them? Are there chairs? Is there a viewing area? >> Yeah, there there's a a small viewing area on like the second floor uh overlooking and >> that is that in between the two courts? >> No. No. So each court has a an upper level thing. So they
>> No. No. It's from one side. So if like you have one court and then the second court, the viewing would just be from like right here looking down on the two court. >> How many people could fit in that the second floor viewing area? That's like a um >> mezzanine. Mezzanine.
>> Yeah. Uh, I don't know to be honest. I mean, >> we'll ask the the engineer. >> Oh, yeah. We haven't seen any architecturals or We haven't seen any architecturals or anything. So, >> I believe that got was submitted as an
exhibit. I don't know if that's yet. >> Okay. We haven't seen it yet. >> You haven't seen it yet. >> Okay. >> Correct. >> Cross original. You will be seeing it. >> I think just one last question. You're not having summer camps or anything like that. that would require you to have >> question
>> that type of in and out kind of action. So, as you're talking about like one parent might drop off four kids or something just from a perspective of parking spots. >> Yeah. So, by by summer camp you mean it's starting to exceed like just what's going out on the court that I already >> Yeah. Like you're not planning on having
20 kids come and >> No, no, no. It's it's it's a learning facility. The this the client base that I'm catering to are people that are >> the camps say they also run learning facilities. Uh so >> yeah, just wanted to specify >> is this you're saying it's a higher
level learning facility. >> It isn't like a health quest that you just go drop your kids off and there's a group class that's going on type thing. >> Yes. >> And it may take place during the summer, >> but does it make it a summer camp going on during summer? >> Yeah, of course. It just wouldn't exceed the amount that you've already
discussed. This is it going to be airond conditioned or you going to have industrial industrial fans? I'm thinking about the summer and the noise. >> I I would like to have it airond conditioned. Um I'm also not Mr. Moneybags,
>> right? So uh like that might be something that eventually like I I level up to um where where I could get to like you know one of those systems in play. Uh what's common like for Bucks County for in you have to have heat obviously that's going to be something right up front, >> right? But they have those big
industrial fans on the ends which makes noise. So you that's an issue that you'll have to discuss with the board. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I just wanted to confirm this. I I think I put it as a note, but there's no pickle ball at this facility. Correct.
>> I hate pickle ball. Yeah. >> No, that was actually a former draft that was since revised and properly got attached. We very quickly corrected that. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, we talked about the instructors using the residential
apartments. Um, we had discussed should the board find it necessary that you'd be willing to impose a deed restriction basically stating no rental of the apartments or the the bedrooms in the apartments that this is strictly what it's utilized for if that would make the board comfortable. So
>> yes, >> um, you testified you believe the 27 parking spaces will be sufficient. >> Absolutely. >> You're going to get the traffic expert. General questions. >> Yeah. And I have so that those were all contained within item four.
>> Questions within item four of Jay's report. >> Go ahead. >> Right. But that's going to have to be you need the traffic engineer and not him to find. >> Well, yes, but if there you'll hear from the traffic engineer that
>> they will utilize it standards. However, his expertise in dealing with these types of facilities, what he's seen, what he's proposing, I do think that's important by way of testimony to understand that realistically um while that may be what's um discussed
from an IT perspective, he has the actual hands-on knowledge and experience. >> Is this not number four? Number seven maybe. Um we're looking at today's report. Um it is item >> yeah four operational testimony tennis training classes recreational play and
events. >> I thought yeah number seven gets into the change of issue >> and that was the kind of discuss the discussion we just heard was what I wanted to hear about >> how many simultaneous occupancies of rooms could be going on if people show
up early. Is there room for them to park? >> Right. Yes. And Jay, the only question is where did you get the information, Jay? Number seven, that there'll be eight students and one instructor because the applicant's principal testified there's
going to be six students and one instructor. >> That that was in the traffic. >> That was in the traffic report. That was an assumption in the traffic report from August of 2025. Okay. Got it. >> Um, okay. I'm looking at item 10. Um,
talk a little bit about any sort of deliveries to this property. Um, whether they be FedEx. I mean, we're not FedEx or any other sort of uh deliveries, equipment, things of that nature on a regular basis. >> Not on a regular basis. like may maybe
you know tennis rackets or something for like the pro shop but that doesn't happen you know more than once. >> Go loud here. >> Oh sorry. >> Uh that wouldn't happen more than once a month if it were like a tennis racket delivered or something. >> Okay. And what type of vehicle would access the property to make that
delivery? Is it a box truck? Is it an 18-wheeler? What are we talking about? >> I I'd imagine it's the run-of-the-mill UPS or Amazon at the van type. I'm going to bring this down to the applicant's attorney. This is the
traffic impact analysis prepared by Dolan Indeed. And I'm going to ask her ask you bullet question because obviously the traffic your traffic guy got this from
talking with him because Jay got his stuff from page three and there's a little from what we've heard but just each of those six bullets. Just read the bullet and ask him to confirm or to
revise it or whatever. >> You want me to do that now or you want me to finish what I was doing? >> Well, you're on the Jay's track report. You might as well go do it right now. >> Okay. All right. I'll finish the other questions I had on Jay's report after that. Okay. Um, your testimony uh was
that the training center would be open seven days a week. Correct. >> Yes. And the hours of operation were >> it says starting at 8 am. And he he gave the the different hours for Monday through Friday and Saturday and Sunday. >> Correct. >> That one's fine. Go to
>> um >> weekday morning >> morning peak activity expected. >> Is it read the comment and then ask him if that's correct or if he's got it revise. >> Okay. The So what I'm doing is I'm reading comments within the traffic
report. uh the applicant's traffic report, >> correct? Which was prepared. Um item the second bullet point says, "Weekday morning peak activity is expected to occur between 7:45 and 8:00 a.m. with the arrival of six adults and one
instructor for each court. Is that accurate?" >> Uh I'd amend it to between 9 to 12. Thank you. The maximum use of the courts will occur on weekdays and Saturday afternoons during junior classes comprised of eight
students and one instructor. So you're saying that eight is actually six, correct? >> Eight students and one instructor. >> For for children's classes, it would be four per one instructor. >> Okay. So it's even less. >> So eight. So eight total. Not not
instructor. >> Okay. That's it. >> Oh, it it says eight students and one instructor for each quarter. You're saying that should be four students and one instructor for each quarter. Correct. >> Yes. And that and that would be for like junior classes like
>> we have to change the eight to a four on page three. Like we're the second bullet instead of 7:45 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. we're changing that to 9:00 a.m. to 12 noon. The third bullet, we're changing eight students to four students. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Okay. Next. Back-to-back junior classes are scheduled for Monday, Wednesday, and Friday with a 6:00 p.m. changeover between classes. Back-to-back classes are scheduled on Saturday with changeovers scheduled at 12, 2, and 4.
Is that accurate? >> Yeah. Is all that accurate? >> Uh, it's an approximation of the schedule. Like it it it Yeah, the schedule can change like depending on who's available on like what day or if there's like tournaments, but that's an approximation of like the
average schedule. Yes. >> You say or if there's tournaments, you mean that the instructors would be out at tournaments, they wouldn't be at your facility. >> They could be. Yeah. Yeah. They they could be out at tournament >> because when you say because of tournaments, that implied that you'd have tournaments at facility. >> Oh, no, no, no, no. What what I what I
mean by that is is like if if an instructor were to take kids to a tournament or maybe there's kids that are away like Fridays for instance are normally the start day for junior tennis tournaments. So a lot of the time Fridays don't have any group classes going on. It would be for like privates
for the ones that are like still there that but those clients would be gone but yeah like and so the schedule sort of shifts around that. But again, we're still abiding by and and limited to the maximum amount in the facility that we've testified to.
>> Yes. >> Um Okay. The changeover periods are likely to create the highest traffic and parking demand with potentially eight vehicle arrivals and eight departures for each court, which would equate to 16
entering and 16 exiting trips. Is that >> definitely accurate? >> Okay. continue with Jay's report. >> I mean, I think that number I think that number excuse me, I think that number is based on
>> bullet number three where you were getting eight students per cart. So, I think that number goes down based on what we just heard. If it's only four juniors per court, >> that trip count may even go down, right? >> I think what we need to do is eight
eight arrivals and departures. Um total >> four vehicle arrivals departure for each court which would be eight entering trips. Correct. Eight exiting trips. Correct. >> Is that correct Jay?
>> Yes. Based on his best on his testimony >> since he amended bullet three I think bullet five changes. >> Yep. >> Correct. Okay. I had a couple other questions to
tie up Jay's report. Um, based upon your testimony regarding deliveries, is there a need for any established loading area, which is usually again for larger uh delivery vehicles, tractor trailers and such? >> No.
>> Any significant trash to be generated from the facility? >> No. >> Uh, so what would we be talking about? just minimal daily trash that could be handled by a small dumpster uh for refu and recycling. >> Yeah. Nor normally what's par for the
course for facilities or one of those like dumpsters about this wide uh and those get emptied once a week as is like the standard >> and we can provide for that on the location on the site plan along with any sort of pad or enclosure. Um, and you
would agree as a as a condition now or later uh to arrange for pickups as necessary. If it's once a week, if it ends up being twice a week, that's necessary, but whatever is necessary in order to maintain the uh appropriate health standards and and cleanliness. Correct.
>> Yes. Correct. >> Okay. And then the last we have um unless Jay has any other thoughts or questions um the civil engineers brash's letter. and that's dated June 15, 2026.
There's a couple items here that I think would benefit from your testimony. Item number 4B, and I think we've covered this, but I just want to clarify. It talks about anticipated number of employees per
shift. Is there any shift work that's going to be taking place here? >> No. Uh it it's going to be me and one other guy and that we'll be there daily. >> Okay. Um we already testified for clarify you also testified that there'd be a trainer and
>> a >> and then maybe a front desk person if things go well. >> Yes. >> Will there be a pro shop person? >> That that would be the front desk worker. That's first. >> Uh 4B also we testified maximum number
of people. Um and again just to testify similarly as we did with regard to the others. Um you will agree to authorize your engineer to address the
site plan changes and nonvariance related comments that are within the engineers report as well. Correct. >> Correct. Right. I [clears throat] don't have any other questions. >> Anybody have any questions for this witness? Any professionals?
>> I do not. >> No. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Oh, hold it. Hold it. Hold it. There's one person sitting out there in the audience. You want to ask them any questions? No. Okay. >> Jay, may I >> You got any questions? >> No. I I heard all the information I
needed to hear. All right. First of all, at this moment, do we want to take a break? And second of all, is there any way to contact our landscape engineer to >> I texted him and I >> Okay.
>> Everything okay? You weren't in Ridan tonight. >> Yeah. I hope he's all right. >> Back yet. Did you get anything back from him? >> Hope he's all right. >> Yeah. Seriously. Okay. >> So, if this goes past >> Yeah. >> Um, we'll put the landscape at the end. Sure. >> Yeah. I'll put the last cap at the end.
I think he's made himself quite clear in his memory. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Um, does anybody need a break? >> Okay. Five minutes. Let's take a five minute break, please. >> Y. >> Tell me when we're recording.
>> Okay. So, during the break, we did find out one thing. >> Jeff, can you explain what we found out? It's going to take some testimony from their engineer on this issue, but on the front yard setback, we found out the following.
The microphone, please, Jeff. So, it's within section 296-134 yard area is a title and under a generally um in parentheses one front yards. The minimum building setback shall be
maintained as required in schedule one attached to this chapter. >> Stop for a second. Which is 75 ft. >> Which is 75 ft. >> Okay. Now continue. Except >> except that a structure to be erected on a vacant lot between two improved lots may follow the average setback of two
improved lots but in any case not less than 25 ft from the street rightway line. If a vacant lot is between two improved lots upon which structures are set back greater than the required setback, then the proposed structure on the vacant lot
shall also be set back along the average setback line of the two improved lots, but in no event need set back more than 100 ft. So, the upshot is that they're going to have to put in testimony about what are the setbacks of each of the
lots on either side of the subject property. And in fact, it might very well be that the front yard setback is not 75 ft and it could be 25 ft. So, we'll have to wait on that. But it sure you guys have a township has an
ordinance that says that and that's what it is. >> Okay. >> In my opinion. >> Okay. And again, that would then if I'm reading correctly, whatever that requirement would end up being, Ted's going to try to make that estimation. But if the representation is that we
would comply with what the ordinance requires and that's what the ordinance requires, then that would become a condition and that would be what we'd have to then prove on the back end if we can't specifically finalize that tonight. So the condition would say that you can't seek
fear from front yard set back or rear set back. >> Correct. Correct. >> And there's no distinction between commercial and residential zones um within this section. A lot of it pertains mainly to residential with within with the rest of the section. But this would also if you guys don't like
that ordinance provision, you could recommend that it be changed, but not for this application. >> Right. I just want to ask how often have we used that? Like how many times have we approved something?
>> South Main Street. >> Once on South Main Street with the two houses that just got up here. >> That was planning board. >> Oops. No, that was that was kudos to Beth McManis, their planner, for finding it.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. But just to confirm, it doesn't change the rear yard setback which is required. >> Yes, that's correct. >> They don't comply. >> Yeah, the F was requested with this in
mind. So, they would still need to address that. >> Okay, over. Yep, we're good. Okay, our next witness is Mr. Ted Bear. The square in the back. Ted, you've already been sworn in. Um, you give the board the benefit of your education and
qualifications. >> Yes, I'm a graduate of Ruckers University College of Engineering. I've been a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey since 1989. My license is current. I've never any dismerging actions against my license.
And I've practiced uh in the field of land use and civil engineering continuously since I got my license. have appeared before numerous boards in Hunter County or this board actually two months ago. >> Yes. >> And quickly your license is still in
good standing. >> Yes, it is. >> And the reason I asked that on Monday night >> I was in another place that I will not mention and there was an objector. The objector brought in an engineer and
they went to qualify him and the applicant's attorney said, "Oh, I I know this this guy. I stipulate to his qualifications." Then I just said like joking around. Is your license still in good standing? And he said, "No, I haven't renewed it for the last two
years." >> Oh my lord. So, I'm always going to be asking this question from now on because you never know. >> My license renewed a month ago. >> There you go. Okay. And Jay, you can hear him, correct? >> Yes, I can hear everybody very well.
>> Okay, good, good, good, good. >> Okay. Okay. And you've been accepted as an expert in the field of civil engineering before these boards? >> Yes, I have. >> We'll accept them. Thank you very much. Um, okay, Ted. Um, plans, the engineering plans that have been submitted to the board were prepared by
uh, Liberty Environmental, correct? >> Yes, they were. >> And have you reviewed and are you familiar with these plans? >> Yes, I am. and you can answer any questions regarding these plans uh that may be posed by the board, its professionals or the public. Is that correct? >> Yes, I can.
>> Okay. And should this application proceed to site plan uh approval stage uh and the use variances be granted, you will be taking over and making whatever plan uh resubmissions, changes, etc. on behalf of the applicant in connection with the uh site plans. Is that correct?
>> Yes, we will be preparing this. And just one last question. The Liberty environmental site plans, they're stamped and sealed by James Hill. Is that correct? >> Yes, they are. >> Okay. So, in my opinion, we've had this come up last month. If you have a
stamped and sealed set of plans under the municipal land use law, in my opinion, because the rules of evidence don't apply, the plans themselves can come in to the record without anyone testifying about it. Now, you need someone to answer questions about it. If this
engineer who you've qualified as an engineering expert has testified that he's reviewed them and he can ask questions about them, then as we say, everything's kosher. Okay. in my opinion. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you very much. Uh okay, Ted, uh
why don't you describe the property for the board? >> Okay, I'm going to go up to the uh the easel. >> And by the way, since everyone in the audience except for one person is with the applicant, if you want to interrupted party, if you want to get a better view to come on up because the
board's going to ask K to move the closer to them since there's only one person. >> Okay. And the lighting in here stinks. This we can't see, but we have our own.
>> You can get up and and if you need to >> can you actually turn on? >> Yeah. >> All right. We we have >> we I have my plans >> front row. >> Nice. >> We're not charging you anything extra. [laughter]
>> He can't talk. >> Yeah, but you can't talk yet. >> Okay. So, uh the property is known as block 84 lot 9. It is on route 20231 southbound number 143. That's to orient yourself. It's directly across from the
tractor supply. It's an existing wooded lot. Uh driving south on on 231. It's on your right hand side. >> Uh on the north immediately to north is a little residence and on the south on the uh joining lot and that would be is
a uh manufacturing facility. So, and by the way, I'm looking at the plans prepared by Liberty Environmental. Uh, the >> sheet number >> sheet number C1, which is a topographic survey of existing conditions for Brandt, Switzer,
>> the lot. Give us the the the lots on the two sides of it. >> Okay. Uh, by the way, on this on this map, >> Yeah. Where's the north? North is to the right on the map. >> Okay. So, uh, we are lot nine. To the north of us or the right side as you're
looking at our lot is lot eight. That is the residential lot. To the south of us or left as you're looking at it is lot 10. That's the manufacturing industrial lot, whatever that one is.
So, our our property uh is in as was stated in the uh the B5 zone and we are approximately 2.2 2 acres. Liberty Environmental conducted soil testing for the purposes of a septic
system on the property. Uh they excavated four soil log, five soil logs, excuse me. Um four of them are on the northern side of the property. They are used for septic. There was a fifth soil log uh excavated on the south side of the property that's
not associated with any of the any of the infrastructure we're proposed. Were that the information in those soils logs provided to the township? >> The they were provided to the Hunter County Health Department and Hunington County Health Department actually uh reviewed and approved the septic system design for that.
>> Could you like give us a guess of where the system is because we don't have it? >> Oh, absolutely. I'm going to refer to uh the next sheet which is C2 and this is the proposed site plan and septic design plan. And this plan identifies the uh the
proposed improvements on the property. On the south side is the the tennis center. Uh north of that is the parking area with a subsurface detention structure. And then north of that is the septic proposed septic field. Uh one
thing that that Liberty did was they identified both >> Oh, I'm sorry. [clears throat] C2 >> I have >> C2 is dated 9225 >> 9225
>> Wait a minute same sheet >> with the same date but we don't have Oh, okay. >> Very very >> Yeah. Let's look at sheet 3A instead of C2. What? 3A.
>> 3A. G3A. >> Okay. If you look at sheet 3A, that is the tree remover plan. >> Mhm. >> Prepared by Jim Mazooka. You're saying to be
>> That's correct. >> You took reserves. >> I was going to get to that. >> Yeah, that's >> Oh, boy. >> What sheet number? >> Sheet >> C-3A. >> All right. All right, everybody.
Yeah, >> I hope you're just putting chatter. >> I have no idea. I don't >> know. >> Should we take a recess? >> Can you take a take a recess building out?
>> Okay. following the meeting back to order. Go ahead. >> Okay, thank >> yeah. >> By the way, the set of plans that are now up on the screen are the set of plans that have been filed with the board and the set of plans that all the board members and the board professionals have in front of them.
Correct. >> Okay. Looks right. >> Okay. And so we look at CA which is prepared by Jim August 26 20
no revisions. We can see on the south end of the property of that facility to the north of that is a parking lot and to the north of that are two rectangles identified as primary area
and reserve area. These are the areas that were tested by the SW system ordinance does not require a reserve area but tested 41 identified it on here. The reserve area is the one
closest to the highway. The primary view by health department is the area in the back. >> Does the county health department require a reserve area? >> No. department only enforces the township's local ordinance.
>> Doesn't the township local ordinance require primary tested area and then a reserve area to be tested? I believe it does. >> Does it? >> I looked at yesterday. I did not see that in there. >> Not that I know. >> Okay.
>> I mean, the only the only indication was for subdivisions two >> dogs, but not a reserve. >> Okay. Okay, as we go in, >> I mean, Jim Jim Hill has done work in other municipalities where they have an ordinance requiring primary and
secondary and maybe he neglected to figure out that that's not required the township. >> Okay. >> We'll get into that in our testimony as we go through. So the uh the the property now is
accessed entrance in 1231 south into the proposed parking lot and that parking lot provides 25 physical spaces including two ADA spaces and two EV
spaces. So for purposes of calculation the EV spaces count as two. So we have 27 actual park space. So how again how many physical parking spaces are on site? >> 25 >> 25 physical spaces and you get credit
for two phantom spaces to the facility is at the northeast corner which is the lower right corner actually looking down at the building. Ted, I'm going to stop you there quickly. There was a comment that there was another that a driveway extended on
the adjacent lot eight. Could you just talk about that here for a second? >> Yes. Lot eight is the residential lot to the north. It flew by there earlier tonight and the driveway comes. >> Yeah. Can you show us what sheet would show that driveway?
[clears throat] See CPA also show that on our property it's the black line solid path which runs up and down on the sheet in the direction and just to the
north of our property corner property corner you can see that thin line coming in that's the comes in and it encloses onto our property a little bit over our northern property when I go by and say look at that I
don't believe that there's any way we can use that as an access to our property because heavenly wooded we have to take down significantly more number of trees in order to provide an access property >> yeah that's not part of our proposal we don't have any agreement with the adjacent property owner the access is as
proposed on the plan >> thank you >> I'm sorry I'm having a hard time locating I'm having a hard time locating that driveway could you highlight it on those where the encroachment is >> I just
tell me if I'm right >> here like this like am I right you are correct heavy driveway goes over on their lot
see So it's like a flat it's like a flag pole. >> It's like a flag pole flag. That's a good way of describing it. >> It's very in my opinion looking at it I don't
believe we haven't approached the neighbor about using it. I don't believe it's physically perfect way to go just because looking at the environmental commissions uh review and tree rule this would only exacerbate that. Thank you. Okay. I'm sorry. Didn't you
want to interrupt you? >> That were remain. Sorry. >> Would that remain? Uh >> I don't see why we would do that. If we had to uh remove it, if we say cover right now, we we could have that remove a little bit of less per coverage. So
that would be something. >> That could be a condition if the if the board wanted it it removed. >> Yes, that absolutely. >> If you remove it, does that impede their is that extra driveway for them? Is that what you're looking at? It >> looks like it's like a backup.
>> Okay. >> Their house is to the door. >> Yes, it is. >> So, the driver comes in here, their house is over. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. >> We want to have that. >> I don't think we would want to have that
section. If anything, the applicant may wish to discuss it with the adjoining property owner whether there's a possibility of granting an easement of some kind. Well, listen. If you grant an ement, then they need they're going to need marriage relief. >> Oh, well, never mind. >> Yeah. >> No, the best the best thing to do is for
them to remove it. So, so they don't need any more relief. >> Yeah. >> Helping us with with >> correct. >> Okay. Uh so, uh I think maybe the best thing to do is go through the
engineering. Yep. We've got some items in Jeff's letter also, but wherever you want to start, >> I think I'll start with the >> uh in the zoning table. >> Yes.
>> The minimum setback identifies a none of the proposed condition. It's identified unknown. The rear yard set action is minimized at the northwest corner of our block as far as 5.
So again, that would be >> So you're saying that you can comply with the minimum rear yard at 50 ft. >> Can you just double check that your microphone is on because it does not sound like it. up. >> There we go.
>> Oh, good. >> Says they will comply. In other words, they're willing to take a condition that will require them to comply with the 50ft rear yard setback. That's what he said. >> That leads back to option one. >> Yes.
>> Do me a favor. Point that out again. You're back. I couldn't do your back. >> I'm sorry. >> No, that's okay. Where do you see? >> Right at the the north. That's the northwest corner of our building. That's where it scale. That's where it's 35 ft. >> All right. Thank you. >> You're going to adjust the set plan.
Well, >> we'll adjust the site plan so we can comply. That's correct. >> Okay. >> We'll also as we're talking setbacks, the the front yard setback as was discussed earlier, uh I don't have the information at this
point to determine what the front yard setbacks are in two joint properties. However, uh we'll take the average of that and we'll comply with the front yard setback uh based on the the qualifier in the ordinance that that
Beth found in >> it will comply with the ordinance for the front yard and the side. Yes, I read that ordinance section please 296-134A1. So would our ordinance requires more surveying
offsite? >> Yes. >> Would that required additional survey show and document those setbacks? >> Yes, it would have to I have to prepare my sighteline to show that. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Uh moving on in the engineers under general comments. uh >> you go back to the chart. You're also suggesting after this discussion that the front yard says permitted, but it's really either it's
regular >> minimum maximum. The front yard requirement is going to be >> Well, we'll actually put an asterisk there and then we'll cite that section of the ordinance. That's right. And >> and you're going to and then we'll comply so that the uh the variance will go away. >> Yep.
So from a bulk bulk standard we will comply with all the all the requirements of the >> So the chart will end up saying >> complain confirm conform conform. What about that minimum lot frontage? It says proposed unknown.
>> I think that's because the uh plan did not show the overall uh that that needs and balance description didn't have the overall distance. I'll put it on there though. Right. >> It says it line with frontage.
>> Got it. >> And so you're going to get that survey done and I'm going to have this all uh side. >> And I assume that in the right hand column it's going to say conforms. >> Yes, it shall. >> But how does the floor area ratio?
>> Well, we're going to Well, he hasn't gotten there yet. >> Okay. Well, no, >> because the floor area ratio is the last line on the chart where you get off the charts. The maximum permitted is 15%. It's proposing 20.5%.
That's right. >> Ask a question just so I >> just so I'm clear and understand. I know that that's what the table says. Minimum lot width frontage unknown. Um, looking
at the plans and the the key map, it looks to me like the frontage is 460 or 50. >> I can't tell. >> It complies with >> It looks like ities, but you can't >> It just wasn't in the table. >> It just needs to be specified. That's got I just want to make sure it wasn't
there was a wasn't a question measurement. Okay. >> Based off of my observing the plan, it it does appear that it complies. >> It does not that it complies. There's no actual measurement. That's what that's what my final site plan will show.
>> You can't go off a key map, right? >> It looks like it's going to conform. That's why I said it's going to say it's going to conform, but you can't you look at a key map. It does not tell you what the actual lot with frontage is. >> Okay. I I see what you're saying. Okay. Thank you. >> Now, go to the last line. Minimum floor
area ratio. Mac. It should say >> say maximum floor area ratio. That's right. 15%. And >> it's a variance. >> Hold it. Let's hear what he has to say. >> Currently, it's a variance. Yes. >> Right. But it says conforms. >> That's that was an error.
>> I know that was an error, but it might not end up being an error if you head tall. >> What what we will do is I have the architectural plans. I'm not an architect. I want to testify to that. However, uh in looking at the proposal,
there seems to be quite a bit of room between the edge of the tennis courts and the walls and I will be able to massage the building mentioned so that we comply with the F. >> That's >> see that your conforms was correct.
>> Absolutely. The number that was wrong, right? 20.5% is going to be changed to 15%. Absolutely. Go ahead. >> I knew it all along. Now you're done with the chart. Okay. >> Could we question? >> Yeah. What is the building height?
>> You have question. >> The building height >> because it's not one story. It's been testified that it's two story. >> Yes. The uh >> Well, is it one story with a mezzanine? Is that two stories or one story? That's the That's the issue. >> Two stories. But the the architectural plans show
that in the apartment there is the master bedroom upstairs and the guest bedroom downstairs. >> Oh, we don't want that. >> Yeah. >> What architectural plan? We haven't we do not have an architectural plan. >> Architectural plans that I was provided. >> Uh >> only digitally. I'm the only one that
>> Yeah. Do you have an exhibit of the architectural? >> I I can hand them out now. I was waiting till we introduced it, but happy to hand it in now. >> Like to hand them out now. >> All right. Ted, while he's while she's handing out, can I ask you a question? >> Yes, ma'am. >> So, I'm I'm not a mathematician. Okay.
So, it looks like you have about 924 square ft to reduce. >> Yeah. You got to go louder, please. >> Okay. It looks like you have to about 924t to reduce to come into compliance with the >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> Do it. >> Okay. and and I well obviously I have to work with the architect to do that but in my in my estimation I can reduce the footprint of the building such that we can comply with that F. >> Okay. >> Mr. Bar saying in your estimation in your professional opinion you believe
that the building can be reduced in size to comply with the 15% F. >> Yes, I do. I I do. Yes. I I >> John just to clarify if if they can't then where are we? they they needition that's going to say they have to comply
and if they don't their approval fails because it's going to take no is going to say no may be applied for next >> and and the applicant's going to accept that condition correct >> I I think I did it about four times now
but I'm we'll do it again [laughter] >> and I'm sorry just to just to clarify I know the chair put the square footage on the record the it's by my calculation actually you would need to reduce it by about 4500 square f feet. >> 4500? Yes. >> Really? >> Yeah.
>> Cuz it's two stories. >> Well, no. It's it's it's 5% 5 and a half% of the overall lot area. >> That's right. >> Right. So, >> it's it's about 4,500 square feet, >> but it's floor area ratio, which is below. Yes. Yeah.
>> So, you might have to eliminate 400. >> It's 400 square feet. But if one's over the other, >> that's double. Yeah. the amount of footprint you'd have to eliminate would be half, >> right? But that's still going to be stillificant. >> One person at a time.
>> I'm just saying that you have to reduce 4,500 ft of thriller area. That's correct. And and as as Mr. Drill has said, I believe that by if we have to, we can eliminate that second story and that'll give us quite a bit of reduced
floor area. Okay. >> Okay. That's I it's my personal opinion that I I can comply with the F by massaging the building itself. >> So there won't be a gym upstairs. >> I believe the gym was upstairs
>> down there. Okay. Have to have to figure this out. >> We don't have a work session and like deny it tonight. >> Okay. I I >> Well, you're saying it. No, >> you'd like to see it, >> but I would like to see it.
>> I understand. So, at the appropriate time, you say that, but but hear the rest of the testimony because there might be, you know, people that are like, "Hey, they agreed to these uh conditions and they can't comply with them, >> the approval fails."
>> Understood. >> Keep on going. >> Okay. I believe that wraps up the table. >> Yes. >> Okay. Great. All right. The uh we'll get to the township planners uh comments after we go through this. So general comments uh item four uh hours
of operation has been testified to by the applicant. The uh number of anticipated employees. We've also uh talked and discussed no trash enclosures is ex shown on the plan. So my
I my thoughts on and in my opinion what I'll be able to do because I don't have to maintain that reserve area on the septic system. That opens up a significant room for me. >> Where's your where's your stream order going? >> Where are you in the report? >> We are on general comments number 4C on
page two of five. >> Got it. >> I'm sorry. 4C is the trashure. >> Where is your storm water management system going? storm water management system is going to go below the parking lot. [clears throat] >> It's an underground system is what he's
saying. >> Yes. >> And I think um the other thing that Mr. Bear was saying is that there is additional space available for for storm water management because the reserve septic system isn't required. So they'll be able to put in storm water management. >> No, that's not what he said. He said
he's putting it under the parking lot. I what I what I'm going to do is the area that's currently identified as a reserve septic area. I intend to put the trash enclosure over there and the drafting tank for the fire the 30,000galon fire
tank. Uh but you're still going to if you use that reserve seems to me if you res if you use the reserve septic system for anything all those trees that are there are going to have to be cut down. And you also have to think about this 55%
limitation because if you didn't have to That's where I thought you were going in the beginning by saying that the township ordinance doesn't require a reserve system. If it didn't require a reserve system, well, you have saved a bunch of trees. Well, that's that's a part of it, but I do have to be able to comply with the rest of the uh the
engineers's comments. And again, we're going we're going to be doing a full a full site plan uh when it comes down to it. uh storm water management uh I do have to provide a 50ft separation between the septic system and the storm water field the storm water uh system
that's why we're going underneath the parking lot so that gives us that 50ft separation and uh reduces the number of trees that have to come down uh right now on the sheet C-3A
there is a dashed line that identifies the area of disturbance uh and right now it excludes the uh propos what was shown as the reserve disposal area and we'll try and maintain that as much
as possible but in the event I need to uh to use that I can I can grab a little bit of that area. >> Okay. What number are you now up to? >> Item five number five. Yeah, we already dealt with that system. Yeah. Item six.
>> Could you provide a copy of that approval? >> Yes, we can get a copy of the approval. >> Yeah, mark that down to submit the approval to the board office digitally and in paper. >> Okay. Item six on the engineers letter
was the approval stamp for the B which is on. >> What does that mean? There's a space for >> there's a space but sign the pool stand. >> It's not sand, but there's a space for the sand. >> Do they need
>> Okay, let me ask. So, let's ask Jay about that. What do approvals, if any, do they require? >> Uh, they need a a driveway access permit. And when that gets issued and the final plans for construction are approved by DOT, they want that block on
there to stamp it. Aha. If not, notes. M >> Jay, do you anticipate any issues with DOT granting um >> approval >> approval >> for the driveway access
>> and with the design of that with some of the elevation changes necessitated change in the driveway? I I don't anticipate issues with the DOT approving it, but I do anticipate that the driveway design
may look different than what you're seeing tonight. >> Could you elaborate a little bit in what way? >> I mean, I I just think just looking at a driveway with 4 foot radi is what I'm seeing here. I think those radi may have
to get bigger and sometimes DOT requires a a pork chop island when it's a right in right out. Um they do they do have requirements in terms of >> of grading things that would have to be looked at as well
>> and I agree the the grading in that driveway is uh going to have to be uh very carefully performed. If you look at the site, uh there's a significant bank going up from the side the side of route 202. So the the grading I agree I agree
the grading plan is going to be uh reviewed in in depth by DOT >> but that you would look at that as well. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. We already dealt with nine. That's the uh
>> access from LA. >> That's number seven. yesterday. >> No, I'm sorry. Number seven. Number eight, fire marshall. >> The fire marshall uh that was uh in a attachment to Jeff Bearella's letter. Uh he wanted to see the drafting tank, the
30,000galon drafting tank for firefighting purposes, which we will spot >> on the on the property. I don't have a problem complying with that. >> Do you have any idea right now where that would be? I'm thinking it's going to be to the
north of our driveway. Post driveway. >> Can you A 30,000galon tank is approximately what? By what dimension? >> Generally, it's about 80 feet by 10 around around uh Xerxes makes the tanks. It's a it's a round
fiberglass or plastic tank that gets buried. It's about 80 80 ft long and 10 ft in diameter. Did you f long and 10 ft wide? >> Yes. It's a circular stand. The tank right when they have to dig the hole to put it in the ground. I'm as sorry.
>> What are the dimensions of the excavation to put the tank in? That's what I like to ask. I'm sorry. It would be a foot wider than the tank dimension itself. that these these Xerxes tanks which is the manufacturer of just about everybody specifies they have to be bedded in pearl and you need a minimum
of 12 in of pravel around that >> 80 ft long it the rectangle the excavation would be approximately 82 >> 82 ft by 12 ft >> by 12 ft okay >> sir did you turn the microphone off again because it just you're facing that
way I can't hear a word you're saying >> I'm sorry >> there you go it's on >> it was Okay. >> And if you don't have the faces, just make sure you're talking loudly into it. >> Sorry about that. Uh the other the other things that the fire the fire uh marshall wanted to see
was uh emergency vehicle access and the turning he gave us the dimensions of the apparatus. Uh we'll do a turning moment identification. We'll put that on our plans to show how the emergency access will will flow through the site. Uh we'll also include a a turning radius
for the for the garbage truck because we're going to show the uh the the trash and close include include that also. Uh also the uh fire marshall uh wanted to see identified fire lanes with striping. Uh we can comply with that also.
>> Where is that? I think that's on uh they'll grab it. >> The mic's off camera. >> Yeah, I'm Yeah, I'm just talking to myself. Thank you. >> It sounds like a good idea, but I don't see it in his memo.
Maybe it was in >> Maybe it was someone else. I >> I saw I saw a fire striping somewhere. >> I bet >> that might be north. >> Yeah, I'm guessing. >> Oh, that's right. Uh number eight. Yes, >> there you go. >> Fire lanes, emergency vehicle circulation, and hydrant location. So,
typically with these these 30,000gallon tanks, there is an FDC connection, a fire department connection. There's one fill, there's one withdrawal, and then there's a vent. So, we what we do is we put a small concrete pad adjacent to the tank. And then the fire department can
draft out of that. And when the approval when it's originally approved, the tank has to be full. So that before you get any final approvals, the tank is full and the fire department has checked to make sure they didn't have >> draft out of it. Oh, >> number eight would be a condition.
Correct. >> Number nine, you would defer to the landscape architect and I hope he's okay, but we'll have to um Well, I'll tell you what. At this point, I don't think >> I'm not the landscape architect, but let's go through his report. Well,
>> can we use our landscape? Yeah, you have a better idea. >> Let's get the engineers report done. Can we get the engineers report done? >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, the Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I only got half hour. >> Yeah. You only got it's it's already 9:30, so >> Okay. >> Okay. Site plan item 10. A uh a full
zoning chart showing all required setbacks. >> This way. These are Well, let's let's keep on going. So, 10 uh same thing. I I'll put a graphic scale everywhere. 10 C, right?
>> Yes. question is, does the applicant agree to comply with all these ordinances so they don't have to seek relief? >> Yes, we do. >> Okay. >> That's lowercase I through lowercase IB.
>> Yeah. The big one, storm water management. >> Okay. So, there has been no storm water soil testing completed to date. what we will have to do is go out there and do the soil testing to demonstrate that there's permeability in the subs soil. Uh and then
>> so the board understands had they applied for preliminary and final site plan approval and hadn't done this I would have explained to the board the board's not at liberty to grant a preliminary and final site plan application because that the appellet division case law but they're seeking a
bifurcated use variance only and there's no legal requirement that they have to for bifrocated use varants that they have to have this in again would be if you were going to grant it, it would be a condition of
approval because without a stormwater management plan, they can't prove the negative criteria. >> That's correct. The question is, will they agree that they won't be seeking any relief from any of the storm water management requirements?
>> I can agree to that. >> Yeah. Do do you think that's >> Yeah. So I think at at the time of when you have a bifurcated um use experience application like Mr. Dill said a lot of the site plan issues do get you know refined at site plan. I
think what we really need to um have is some comfort level that the site as presented would still be you know what what we get when we get the site plan right like so you know like this floor area thing which I will get back to
you know if the site can't accommodate a storm water then what you're going to see at site plans may be significantly different than what you're seeing right now. So that's the only thing I think we would want is some comfort level that do you think that the storm water as you're because you're not required to have similar testing at this stage or design
at this stage. But when you do get to the design with this subsurface system that you're showing or Mr. Hill is showing on his plans, would the site be reasonably close to what's being presented to the board? Yes, I did receive some preliminary calculations
that Jim Hill did that showed runoff values and as I reviewed them, I saw that they were they they look to be pretty accurate and so I I'm pretty confident, very confident that I can make a subservice detention system work
here. uh for the board's application those those preliminary calculations are are work product that we we don't see that that wasn't supplied to us to to look at and it really isn't necessarily required at this stage. What I wanted to know is that testimony that there was some preliminary work done uh to to sort
of support what's being shown in the plant. Yes, I I I received the the storm water calc that showed all different drainage areas that he had gone through and he had done he had done the uh calculations of the amount of runoff for each one of them and I looked at him pretty carefully and I I think he's uh
very close. Okay. Well, we'll see. >> How close is it to Hampton Corner Road? >> How close is it to Hampton Corner Road? This property. >> What? >> Quite quite a bit south. south quite a bit south of Hampton Corner. Hampton
Corner cuts off to the right, goes behind the old uh that lot. That's where I'm asking. >> Yeah, that area there. >> Yeah. >> Far south across from Tractor Supply. >> Supply where the springs place was
>> a couple lots. A couple lots. It's not >> It's a couple is what Jeff is saying. >> Couple lots. So, lot lot eight is 80 ft wide. That's the one immediately north of us. Lot seven is north of that. That's 350 ft wide.
>> So, uh and then there's another lot that doesn't show up on our our key map here, but I I'd say we're a solid 500 ft south of where the Stewart was. >> It's far enough away from flooding as well. >> That's my Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Because that area floods a lot. >> That's correct. And I believe we have a
letter from Jeff Terella that was submitted uh that that addresses that addresses wetlands and the flooding. >> Yes, correct. There was a letter dated February 16th uh from Jeff Terrella Environmental Consulting that was submitted to the board and the conclusions there were that there were
no indications of positive wetland hydraology uh hydric or wetland soils or hydrophic or water loving vegetative species identified on the subject property. and no areas of freshwater wetlands on or directly adjacent to the subject
property was also confirmed um according to their review of the DPO web mapping which was also attached. So that's in the record. >> They have the railroad track right behind them. >> We didn't cut >> microphone. >> Um thank you. Um there is a a comment
you didn't review the environmental commission and they asked that um you get a a presence or absence letter from D to confirm that because we've seen in some other applications
the drainage ditched on the other side of the railroad has wetlands associated with it and that's you know so that's where the presence or absence letter would give the township
actually we require it >> um and so I respect your professional submission, but he's not here for us to ask a question. >> How long does it take? According to the Environmental Commission, they say this is the Environmental Commission's report
May 22, 2026 attached to Jeff's memo dated June 15, 2026. And the environmental commission in their note number two, their last sentence says obtaining a letter of interpretation presence absence is not an expensive
process. You agree or disagree? >> I agree that it's not an expensive process. It's a $1,000 application fee plus $100 per acre. That's not the issue. The timing is I think they go on and say it doesn't take long. Something like that. >> Yeah.
Um, so what's the difference between an LOI, a letter of interpretation and a presence absence? Is the same difference or is it >> No, a letter of interpretation or line verification is >> but they have to come out. It's a formal thing, >> right? That the applicants wetlands guy
Jeff Terrella would place flags if he saw any wetlands. The project surveyor would go out and survey them, put together a meets and balance description between your flag is typically A1, A2, A3. admits about description there that gets submitted to D. D looks at it,
comes out and does an inspection and then says, "Okay, move this flag or don't move this flag." >> Presence or absence. >> Yeah. But the president's absence, >> you don't need to go through the uh the process of putting the flags, having them surveyed and submitting that on a wetlands plan. Uh you make the
representation that there are no wetlands on the site and the D comes out, does their inspection. The difference is the LOI these days is anywhere from 12 to 15 months. >> How long and how long for a president's absence? >> 6 to9. It's it's it's a little bit
shorter, but it's not you don't go in on a Tuesday and have a uh have a permit in a month and a half. >> And we would want confirmation of that in connection with the site plan application as well. So, if the board is so inclined, we could
certainly make as a condition that the presence absence determination in accordance with Jeff's letter um be supplied in connection with the site plan application. >> Keep on going. >> Yeah. the other the other items that
were in their report um you know the issue related to the the leech field and the storm water management system. So you're you're confident that the septic system can meet the separation? >> Yes, we're required to have a 50-ft separation between the disposal field
and the storm water management. >> Where's the well going to be on the property? >> Well's going to be on the north I'm sorry the southwest corner of the building. >> Is that shown on the plans? Yeah, >> it is. I believe it was >> it's I haven't looked at these plans. It's it's it's just to the it's just to
the uh rear of the building where the first the court to the left is. >> It's about 20 ft off the building. >> Yeah. I can I can show you. >> Yeah. It's to the westerly side. >> Okay. >> The westerly side if you look on C2. >> Okay. >> The westerly side of the courts >> on C3A
close to the upper leftand corner. >> That's correct. Yeah. >> West. >> Yeah. Southwest. Yes. Oh >> um the other issue that they raised but it's consistent with John Morgan Thomas is about the trees
>> I guess we'll get into that but that's the landscape architect on >> yeah okay >> back to the engineers letter uh the uh site specific details for the stormwater system will be required literally we'll put together a a storm
management design based upon uh the this soil logs and the specific storms and we will be designing for the year 2100 which is what the standard is these days. So we'll have a uh a well-designed stormwater system and an operations and maintenance manual for what has to be
done to maintain that system. And as when an overnam manual is prepared, it ends up being appended to the deed through a through a deed restriction so that the operations passes to any future owner of of the site. We've talked about the septic system
under item E. Uh and then uh item 11 is basically uh if the board chooses to act favorably upon the uh the use variance, these are items that will have to be addressed in the preary final site plan. And I can
acknowledge and that we're able to uh accept all these as conditions A through K outside agency approvals. RTMUA I'm not sure is uh >> no in that case uh A is not applicable.
Item B to county planning board will submit to them. Uh I'm sure we'll get a letter that says it doesn't affect any county uh facility. So it'll be a letter of no interest. Uh soil conservation district. We have to put together a soil rose and sediment control plan. >> I'm sorry. The Huntington County Soil
Conservation District will review and approve the soil erosion and sediment control plan. New Jersey Department of Transportation as we talked about Jay will be there and New Jersey DP for the wetlands presence or absence. And again, that would be
part of the site plan approval process. >> A the Ritaran Tatchet MUA. We're crossing that out. Instead, we put the Hunter County Health Department, which you will say you already have an approval. >> That's correct. >> So, let's leave this in here until you submit the approval. >> That's fine.
>> Jeff, is this applicant required to comply with our well testing ordinance when they come in for preliminary and final? >> Yes, for for sight. The aquifer test >> not for use variant. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yeah. the aquifer test section. >> The aquifer test just pointing that out
as a reminder. We do have a aquifer testing requ and water quality testing as well. >> Uh the administrative items are >> administrative >> above my pay grade.
>> I just want to get real quick and add back to the that Floria ratio uh discussion. I I'm I'm concerned maybe that's the best way to put it because you do have to reduce 4500 square feet of floor area. The
apartment just the first floor apartment is 1,300 square f feet. >> That's you're looking at the architectural plans to determine that. >> Correct. Looking at the floor plan that's illustrated on the landscape plan and I'm I'm making measurements uh off of the plan and my with my
>> a preliminary question to Mr. Bear. Do you know for a fact that the floor plan as reflected on the site plan coincides and is coordinated with the floor plan showing up the architectural plan? >> I will have to look at that and I will
look that right now because we're talking about 25% reduction in the floor area of the building. Right. Because because the allowable is 15%. The proposed right now is 20.5%. Correct. So you have to reduce the building floor area by 25%. That's that I think that's a little bit
more than trimming around the edges. That's the only reason I'm Yeah, I'm looking at the architectural plans that Mr. Mr. Drill just placed in front of me and they they they scale or they are are dimensioned similar to the
>> Yeah, they looks to be 130 ft. >> Yeah. >> By 40 ft. >> No, the apartment is 65 by by 20. >> So you your scale I'll get the wrong scale. >> You got a 40 scale out. Sorry. Yeah. Uh, so yeah, it's 65 by 20. So it's about
1,300 f feet. You see what I'm saying? That you're talking about reducing the floor area by 25%. I >> I the heart in my heart I kind of think you're going to need a D4. It just might be a lesser D4 maybe. Um, and it might be something that that Mannis McMans
might want to deal with, but >> the board might [clears throat] if they want an approval without having to submit >> detailed architectural drawings. I don't think the board, they didn't apply for a
D4. I don't think the board is gonna it's up to maybe I'm wrong, but if I'm reading, but I don't think they're going to be willing to grant a D1 unless they agree that they're not applying for a D4. >> Hey, I agree. I'm I'm not I'm not saying that the board should grant a D4. I'm just saying if the board's decision to
grant that the other D variances is based on not needing a D4. >> Here's a question for the applicant's principle. Again, I'm looking at I'm sure that that the uh what's the national organization that >> USDA USDA
>> USDA I'm I'll bet that they have some minimum standards of distance between courts, distance from the back line to a wall, sideline to a wall and everything. If can you look at the architectural plan? Does the building have to be this big to to comply with those minimum
requirements? Squish the building down any I would really have to go and look. Um those were based off of uh I'll put it to you this way. Like like some tennis facilities have it where it's smaller
and everything, right? It's just it obviously impacts play. Um, look, I understand, but if >> if the board feels, >> yeah, that to grant the D1 variances, we have to >> they're not willing to grant a D4 variance and if you have to cut the
building size down to get it so that your floor area ratio is no more than 15%. Maybe you don't just look at the those areas, but you look at the the area for the tennis courts. I think our engineer has something else to say.
>> I'd like to add a whole other wrinkle. This I just did a quick math here and the floor area ratio is actually not correct on the plans because the floor area ratio that Mr. Hill has is just based off of the first floor. >> It doesn't it does not account for the
second floor. >> Would the applicant like to the meeting? >> Listen, it's 9:45. We're not going to finish anyway. So, I'd like to keep vetting some of these things that we >> a major curveball. >> Yeah, it is the case. I'll tell you what
the floor is in just one second. >> Take a quick break. >> Okay. Sorry. >> Five minutes. Five minute break. >> Yeah, >> it was a son. Call the meeting back to order. >> So, what are we doing? Are we >> all right? So, yeah, you're right behind
you, right? >> Thank you. >> Yeah. So, clearly we are going to need to continue at the next meeting. Um, we will look at we now have I guess a F percentage of 23.71%.
That's what we've we've calculated. Um, we'd like to if we can quickly go through Jeff's letter, see if there's anything else in there, any other questions that the board has, so that again when we leave, we can have we can be armed with everything. Um, and then go back and and continue at the next
meeting. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh, Jeff's letter. Uh, I guess we would start on uh the planner's comment. Uh, John has read into the record, so I think we can skip over that. Yep. >> And go to item number two. Mh.
>> Item 2 a, hours of operation have been discussed. >> Yeah. >> Uh, traffic. Uh, Jay's got his report and we'll have our traffic engineer talk to that next time. >> Yeah. >> Uh, impervious coverage. Uh, I will have to go through and do an impervious
coverage calculation. I did not see it on the plan. So, I'll I'll come through and do that. Uh, noise. >> Recognizing the board's going to want that to comply. >> Absolutely. AB absolutely, John. Do you know if there's any steep slopes
on site? >> Any what >> steep slopes? >> I did not do a steep slope analysis and I didn't see that there was one. Okay. And I'd have to look at the existing topography. >> Okay. >> Uh but I again I would think that would be part of the site plan approval process. Uh if we're
>> I just want to make the Yeah, it's it may impact the impervious service if it's >> understood. Understood. >> Noise. >> Noise the applicant discussed. Yeah, other than >> that was before he was going to use the industrial fans. I assumed it was going
to be air conditioning. >> Yeah. I Someone's got to just just think of something when you come back because if it's not going to be air conditioning and it's going to be those industrial fans, what's going to be facing that residential property, >> the residential property to the rear of the
>> generally they got fans on both sides of the building. And those things make a lot of noise. And then they're going to be required to comply with noise levels of 65 dB at night. >> Hold on, Brent. >> Yeah, I I I understand. >> Turn that thing on.
>> Sorry. >> Uh, I think I understand what you're talking about. Are you talking about the big fans at the very top of the building? Yes. I'm sorry. I completely misunderstood what you're asking about. The fans that I'm talking about to like fool people down are actually like
indoors about yay big and they aim at the court. Not not those big ones that pull. >> Right. But you're saying in the summer like if it's 95 degrees Yeah. >> you're going to have people playing tennis in that building and you're just going to have the the the fans that are maybe 10 feet off the ground.
>> Uh yeah. They hang out like at >> Well, I I know what you're talking about, but but people are going to be able to play tennis. >> Yes. Yeah. We play we play outside during the summer. >> What do you mean you play outside? >> Well, typically you play outside. >> Correct. Correct.
>> Yeah. I mean, the French Open, for instance, just happened and it was uh 100 degrees out on the court. >> That's true. That's an extreme, >> but people are going to >> preparing them for the extreme. >> People are [clears throat] going to be willing to train
95 degrees weather July and August without air conditioning in there. You're saying happening as we speak. Okay. >> [clears throat] >> Okay. >> Item E was glare and Cara stipulated earlier we'll do a nightlighting test uh to confirm.
However, uh our landscaping plan does show a significant amount of screening uh along Route 202 and the residential lot to the north. There is a significant number of trees uh proposed and the existing one. So, there should not be a
glare in that direction. runoff. Uh obviously we'll work with the town of engineer and comply with storm water management ordinance. Uh the the zoning chart will be updated. Uh >> move down to eight. >> The traffic impact study and wetlands
report. >> Hold on. Go to six. >> Six was the uh >> Yeah, we testified that we would amend the plan to >> reflect seven. Yeah, seven was agreed upon as well. >> Yep.
>> Um, okay. Eight, >> the traffic impact study and wetlands report have been submitted. And again, if to when we get to the site plan issue, we'll be we'll be happy to get the uh presence or absence LOI. Uh signage uh that applicants testified,
he'll comply with the ordinance. Uh we have a landscape plan prepared by Jim Mazooka. Uh floor plans have been submitted tonight. Do we want to mark them as A1 or just do that at your next meeting? Okay, >> submit them. Resubmit. >> Yeah. I mean, or you can just you
submitted them tonight. Send in a letter confirming you submitted them tonight. It will be at least 10 days ahead of the next hearing session. >> Well, they were submitted electronically on Monday. These were just the copies for the actual board members. >> Monday is not 10 days before tonight. >> Okay. Monday's your exhibit. Okay. That what whatever you want.
>> Send in to confirm that you handed out paper copies tonight. >> Okay. Item 12 was the driveway that encroaches from the lot to the north. Uh we've discussed that. All exhibits submitted two days prior on PDF. U so that's kind of done. And uh our
stenographer is doing a yman's job. >> Okay. >> Copy. >> Yes. >> Always. >> We talked about the fire marshall. Uh DPW had no comments. the environmental commission we talked about uh and the administrative issues of taxes are still
above my pay grade. >> So when you come back you're going to have a because we didn't get to the landscape report. Uh Don Morgan Thomas had some very specific feelings about your tree
removal numbers. Will you agree to have your professional work with him because it was his estimation that a lot more trees were going to be impacted or removed with the new plan? >> I know that they have already spoken and prior to the next meeting, we'll see
what we can accomplish together to present to the board. >> Okay. because we need to I mean my feelings is that knowing that tree a really accurate number for the tree removal and replacement requirements and
where what percentage you're at is an important part in making the decisions on this application. >> All right. Next, we want to talk about >> the board requesting that they submit anything before the next hearing or just
have this information. >> No, we need to see it ahead of time. >> You need to see what >> we need to see an updated tree removal plan, tree replacement plan, um, and percentage of trees removed on the property.
You're sworn. We're not going to get you qualified. Just make a non opinion. >> Identify who you are for the court reporter. >> Jim Mazuko, landscape architect. U in order to accurately dictate how many trees are being moved in the canopy. Also, it's it's important to
have an accurate outline of the limited disturbance and all the improvements are being happened. So, in order to really do that, the site plan needs to be modified. Um, so in order to kind of really to to have that for the next meeting, I think would be a challenge. Um, >> well, when is the next meeting?
>> Well, let's let him finish. Let him finish. >> No, let's find Let's find out because if the next meeting is not for two months, it's not that much of a challenge. >> Well, isite we're revising the site plan before the next meeting or we just >> Well, that's that's what I'm trying to find out. Sounds like the only way that she's going to get the information she's
looking for and maybe others on the tree removal is to revise the site plan before the next meeting. >> Because if you're saying the only way you can get an accurate count on how many trees are going to come down is to have a more accurate site plan, then even though this is a bifurcated
application, like I said before, you got these three appellet division cases. >> But wait, wait, wait. It sounds like what what was discussed tonight that they we cannot move forward with the bifurcation because it sounds like they're going to need the D4. >> That's what they have to determine. The
only way they can determine that >> is up. >> I was thinking I was leaning this way before, but after hearing Mr. MUKO, I think what you should that what they need to do for their own purposes, let alone the board's purposes, is to revise the site plan and come in and submit and
show that they can do >> meet all the criterion. If they can't, okay, fine, they can't, but come in and show what they can't comply with. >> Yes, >> it's one or the other. They just have to show that they can comply with everything because Jim needs to see that
to do the tree count or at least come in and comply with everything but not you know not the F even though the board might say okay we're going to deny it but at least they have to have some realistic plan so Jim can do the tree work.
>> Yeah. So, I'm thinking that you need to revise the site plan in all the ways we're talking about. Ed Bayer is going to have to put on there. He doesn't have to design the storm water, but he's going to have to have the area for the underground system. He's going to have to have an area. If he's going to have
anything above ground, um he's going to have to put on there the things he was talking about tonight. >> Thanks. Thank you. by state approval really just means that the applicant isn't seeking that site plan approval right now. Uh but to get the use
variance or to provide sufficient information to the board right >> for the for the devariances they do have to provide that additional information. So when when John says revise the site plan, he's basically saying revising the site plan or bearings plans that they're using right
the conceptual site. Thank you. >> Conceptual site plan. So they could come in next time and we could say we could say we don't agree with the bifocative plan and then come in with an actual applicate. >> They come in with a a conceptual site
plan. >> Yes. >> Seems to me unless I'm reading you guys wrong. >> Yes. Yes. If the conceptual site plan does not require any variances or exception relief other than the D1 use variances, if I'm reading the room the right way, I'm thinking that's probably going to result in an approval.
>> If on the other one exception, what Donna said, I'm with her of the trees, >> right? I'm saying it would include provide all the information that you are looking for, >> have comfort, have the comfort level you need to grant the D variances that
they're seeking. Meaning if people say there can't be a D4 variance and there can't be any more than 55% tree removal plants shows that if the plan doesn't show that then people can vote on the devariance accordingly. They can vote no if they want to vote no, but they need
this conceptual site plan to be revised to to see. >> But by voting no, we're not voting no to the application. We're voting no to the bip. >> No, you're voting no [clears throat] variances >> because if you know that they can't give you a site plan,
>> they wouldn't be able to submit for a site plan if you vote. >> Right. >> Well, do you remember the countryside application for the 55 and up? >> Mhm. that that was a bifurcated use. >> Yeah. >> And then they're working now to do the site plan. So they'll be coming back. So
that's essentially what they're doing. >> They show side. They showed you a conceptual site plan. >> Yes. >> And you told them, >> "We're not going to grant relief here. We're not going to grant relief here. We're not going to grant relief here." They brought in a conceptual site plan that conceptually they could do
everything you wanted. Then you granted the bifurcated D1 variants and now they got to do all the D >> like is actually a good example because that actually had I wouldn't even call that a conceptual plan. They had a very welldeveloped plans, right? And the only reason why
they actually fell back and bifurcated applications is because Donna had all that wealth team done. >> So the order >> I I'm just I'm just joshing with you. But that was a bif application, but they provided a lot of information because they had their site plans pretty much
prepared. They bifurcated their application. So what I'm saying is that the deep variance relief and they'll have the right to ask for a biocute application and they have the right to ask for whatever variance relief they want. It's just a matter of whether you folks have all the information and you >> it's not exactly they have the right to
ask for it cases that say the board doesn't have to do ask for it though. >> Yeah. Okay. And Right. So again what I'm hearing here is you want to see how we are representing that we can meet these requirements. Now there's been a change
in the F calculation which certainly makes us have to go back and take a look at what we have and which may well have to based on what you're looking to see result in changes to the plan that would then be utilized by Mr. Mizuko, if I'm
hearing the board then right there to show exactly how we can or cannot, if that ends up being the case, comply with the canopy requirements and provide the information concerning removal and replacement. >> Correct.
>> Okay. >> If I mean the building is going to have to be made smaller, you guys are going to have to figure out how. If the building is made smaller and you get to no more than 15% F that might very well help you also with the tree requirement
and also if certain things can be placed underground under surfaces that are going to be right now impervious in any event that will also help with how many trees have to be cut down. >> Okay. So let's talk about the next >> Yeah. >> Okay. So,
>> Taylor, >> Tail and I spoke and we don't there's openings on the Well, it depends on how long you guys think you're going to take to get revised plans. So, unfortunately,
the next possible hearing, you would not be getting the entire meeting night like tonight. It would be August 6th. If you don't believe you're able to get revised plans in, unfortunately, you are looking at our second September meeting
which is >> 17th. >> The 17th and then if not then unfortunately we're looking at October that's >> October what? >> So July >> October 1st. So either August 6,
September 17, or October 1. And you you need these revised plans, >> 21 days before. >> 21 days before. >> So say if you were to take August 6th, you would only have until July 16th. >> And and this is a two-phase thing. It's
not simply >> Yeah. That's not going to work because it's a two. You need Ted and you need Jim. So we can do the 17. >> So wait, does it matter if they come back on the 10th for the landscaping and the traffic? No,
>> because only going to get half the meeting. >> Oh, landscape. They can't do it until people are >> Oh, that's true. >> Yeah, that's Thank you. I really appreciate that. But >> they got a pyramid going on here. So they're all on each. >> So how much of the meeting of the 17th
can they get? >> Half. Well, >> it won't be my birthday, but I mean, for right now, you guys already have the whole night. That's all we have. You guys are all we have. And Jeffrey, please check the time. >> They have until September 30th. So, we get time extension.
>> So, let's get a time extension to >> end of the year. >> Yeah. December 31. >> Okay. Okay. So, then since you're taking the 17th, any type of material needs to be submitted. >> 77.
Do they get the whole night? Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Well, they can be finished on September 17th. >> That's the whole Yeah. >> So, what's 21 days before September 17? >> August. August 27th. >> 28th.
>> 27th. 27th. [clears throat] >> Okay. So, the hearing in this matter is going to be continued to September 17th, 2026, 7 p.m. and you need to get the revised conceptual site plan submitted
by August 28th. >> 26th by >> is a Wednesday. No, it is not. It is August 27th is a Thursday. >> Oh, 27th. Okay. >> Let's try, buddy. >> Okay. >> Can I make one more ask?
Can is there any possible way and that we can get review letters as they're issued? There are definitely times such as the fire marshall's letter where we could have submitted an exhibit showing circulation plans had we gotten it in
April. I I know and I apologize. I know that there's internal procedures, but >> see it's a lot easier to ask for you know planner and engineers review but for for these other agency approvals we we have
no leverage over >> No, what I'm saying John is they're dated April and I get them in June >> one at a time. So, so, so this actually I wasn't >> didn't really want to address it tonight because it was regarding a different
application, but um this has been going on for years. We issue agendas and reviews on Friday to the board and to the applicants. That's been the procedure. The planer review IDE was the 15th. That got sent
to the applicant. >> No, she No, she's not questioning purely. is questioning the final review which is dated when? >> April 13th. >> April 13th. And it wasn't they didn't get it till it was attached to your memo. She's asking if one of the other
agency gives you something, can you get them sent out to everyone? >> I don't know why you're looking at me. That's my boss right there. >> So that's what she that's what she's asking. If if the fire marshall gives you something April 16th, >> you send it >> get it out. Is the reason being you need
to review something like make sure yours is in alignment is what you're basically saying. >> That's that's essentially the the intent of it. >> I think the board should talk about this. >> Well, that's fine. And that's fine because it's been a long-standing policy. This is the way we do it. And
you know, >> and and again, I I I do thank you. I just want to say it it becomes increasingly difficult for an applicant getting things the Friday before a meeting having a deadline to submit that is pretty much in the bucket by that
point in time and there were things we could have addressed and presented to this board to give you more information had we gotten it ahead of time. >> Unfortunately, you still wouldn't have finished in any event. So on this application, it's moot, but I understand what you're saying. The board will discuss it. >> So thank you. I do appreciate that. I
really do. Are we discussing that tonight? >> Okay. Lastly, so formally >> hearing in this matter is continued to September 17th. What we've ascertained is the revised conceptual site plan has
to be submitted by August 27, 2026. And the re revised landscape plan has to be included with that revised conceptual site plan to be submitted by August 27th. Do you want
hear you? Can't hear you. >> I'm sorry. Did you also want the traffic report revised because it was your correction >> that traffic report to make those corrections? Good point. >> Anyone else? >> All right. >> Okay. Someone going to make the all
important motion. >> Can I get a motion to adjurnn? So moved. >> I'll second. All in favor? >> I