Calling to order the zoning board of adjustment R and Township regular meeting April 2nd, 2026. Notice of meeting. The notice requirements of the open public meetings act has been satisfied by the placing of a notice of this meeting on the 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. Orul Danji >> here. >> Mr. Steve Farcio,
excuse me. He has asked to be excused. Mr. Mr. Randy Block >> here. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero >> here. >> Via Zoom. Miss Lindsey Kool, she's asked to be excused. Miss Lorett Cina >> here. >> Miss Donna Drews >> here. And Mr. James Miller, he is also
asked to be excused. Board professionals. Um, on behalf of board attorney Mr. John, we have Mr. Joseph Toriello >> here. >> Township planner Mr. Jeffrey Bakarella >> here. >> On behalf of township engineer Resh Dari, we have Mr. Ryan McCarthy
>> here. >> Traffic consultant Mr. J. Troutman >> here. >> Board planner Miss Jessica Caldwell, she is asked to be excused. Township landscape architect, Mr. John Morgan Thomas here. >> Okay. Can I get a motion, please, to um
excuse the board members? So >> move. Second. >> Can I get a roll call, please? >> Chairwoman Miss Cynthia Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Miss Vice Chair, Mr. Su Damoni. >> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero.
>> Yes. >> Miss Lorettina. >> Yes. >> And Miss Donichers. >> Yes. >> Okay. Moving on to comments. Ryan, would it be all right if you stay after the meeting? I'd like to >> Yeah. be with you. >> Sure. >> Thank you. >> Moving on to announcements. Distribution
of correspondence. >> Flemington 202. I'm sorry. >> Uh that we will actually not be having a close session because um John would like to have that when he's present. >> Okay. Thank you. Minutes. We have the meeting minutes from the Ryan Township Board Adjustment
November 6, 2025. Anybody have any changes? Hearing none. Can I get a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> Jo by Jim. Okay. Too late. >> Chairwoman. Miss Cynthia Schaefer. >> Yes.
>> Vice Chair. Mr. Russell Odamchi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero. >> Yes. >> Miss Lorett Cina. >> Yes. >> And Miss Doners. >> Yes. >> Okay. Moving on to the next.
Moving on to the resolutions for this evening. First resolution, Raron Township Board Adjustment, Nico Nicholas Karpa Kappa, block 37, lot 2, 14 River Road, application number BOA-06-2022. Resolution memorializing modifications
of condition number 7 of resolution number 2023-15 to extend the time within which to obtain zoning and construction permits commence and complete construction and obtain a permit permanent certification of occupancy
resolution number 2025-2022 version 2026-03-18- version 2. Anyone have any comments or additions? Hearing none. Can I get a motion to approve? >> So move. >> Second. >> Roll call, please.
>> Oh, hold on. >> Yeah, there is one. There is one correction. Can we spell my name right? >> Thank you. >> Yes, >> no problem. Woman, Miss Cynthia Schaeer. >> Yes. Vice Chair, Mr. Suadami, >> yes.
>> Mr. Randy Block, >> yes. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero, >> yes. >> And Miss Lorett Cina, >> yes. >> Okay, moving on to the next resolution for this evening. Radon Township Board of Adjustments, CE Main Street LLC, 181
Old Croin Road, block 41, lot 30 lot 63. application BO BOA-06-2024 resolution memorializing second modification of condition number one of resolution 2024-12 for extension of time to revise plans and related documents
and to obtain signatures on the revised plans to December 5th 2026 resolution number 2025-23 version 2026-03-18- version 2 any changes or additions No.
>> Uh, yes. My name >> again. >> Yeah. >> They don't want to just give you extra air. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Can I get a Can I get a motion to approve? >> So move. >> Second.
>> Roll call. >> Chairwoman. Miss Cynthia Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes. >> Miss Lorett Cina. >> Yes. >> And Miss Donna Drew. >> Yes. >> Okay. Moving on to the next resolution for this evening. Oh, we're not doing this one. Correct. I
mean, you could read into the record, but then we'll just make that announcement. >> Okay, I'll read it in. Okay. Brandon Township Board of Adjustments, Chanty LLC, 305 Route 12, block 41.01, 01 lot 3 application BOA-17-2021
resolution memorializing a third modification of condition number 13 of resolution number 2022-11 to grant an extension of the time period to obtain construction permits to November 4th 2026 resolution number 2025-2024
version 2025-03-18- version two and yes could change my We won't be adopting this resolution tonight. We have informed the applicant that they do owe escrow funds and unfortunately they have not provided
such funds in a timely manner. So this will be pushed until further notice. >> Okay, great. Thank you. All right, moving on to the next uh resolution for this evening. Right Township Board Adjustment, the Fudge Shop Land Group LLC, 8 Bur Lane, 10 Bur Lane, 461 US
Highway 202. Block 36, lots 65 and 68. Application number BOA-12-2020 and BOA-11-2025. Resolution memorializing the dismissal of applications without prejudice.
Resolution number 2025-25 version 2026-3-18- version 2. Any corrections? Yes. >> Your name? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Can I get a motion to approve? >> So move. >> Second.
>> Can I get a roll call, please? >> Chairwoman, Miss Cynthia Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes. >> Miss Loretta Catina. >> Yes. >> And Miss Donna Drew. >> Yes. >> Okay. Moving on to last resolution this evening. Ron Township Board of Adjustment. Mark and Jennifer Veto.
Block 84, lot 31.06 10 Summer Lane. Application number BOA-17-2025 resolution dismissing application without prejudice resolution number 2026-07 version 2026-3-26-
version 3 and yes my name was spelled correctly >> can I get a motion to approve second >> roll call >> chairwoman Miss Cynthia Schaefer >> yes >> vice chair Mr. Osamji.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes. >> Hold up. Hold up. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero. And Jim, you are muted right now. >> Jim. >> Okay. >> Yes.
>> You want to give us a hand signal? Okay, thank you. Okay, Miss Lorina. >> Yes. >> Okay, >> good. >> Is it? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Moving on to the applications
for this evening. BOA case number 23-2025. Applicant is Lewis A. Pastano Hernandez and Margarita Pastano. I hope I got that right. location block 71 lot 10 nine cool road application site plan approval
and commercial use in AR two zone and more than one principal use of the property >> thank you good evening >> evening um my name is Robin Wright I'm an attorney with the law firm of Lanza and Lanza and I represent Margarita Pastana and Luis Pastana Hernandez
they're the applicants tonight uh they're the owners of Nine Cool Road and the owners of a a small business called Evolution and pool liners. Um the pastas uh came before this board uh around 2023 um seeking use variance relief. They had
uh submitted a a bifrocated application and uh they asked for use variance relief to allow them to operate their business on the property that they bought. The property is unusual because it has both a residence, an existing residence, and it also has a commercial building that used to be a surveyor's
office. So there's an existing commercial building on the site and the uh the applicants came before this board and described their business, how they intended to use the site and the board granted them the use variance. The use variance for a commercial uh use in the
AR2 zone and uh use variance for um two principal uses on one lot. um condition of variance relief was that they come back before this board and ask for with a site plan. Um it took some time for them to come back because in the interim
they um they applied for an LOI from the D. Their property uh sits high above the Nanic River. There's wetlands on the other side of the river, but it's on their property and they confirmed with the D that there's a 50-oot wetlands buffer and they wanted to have that resolved before coming back. Um so
they've now filed their uh their application for site plan relief. Uh what they're proposing is um on the existing house they're proposing uh putting an addition to the rear. Uh they're proposing building a um a standalone garage to store equipment. Um
they're uh proposing um a door on the existing commercial building for storage. Uh they're proposing uh parking commercial vehicles which as you'll hear them describe is is needed for their the operation of their business. Um they
need a new septic system. Uh uh they're proposing landscape buffering to buffer the view of the uh the commercial vehicles from the road. Um they do need some variance relief. Uh your ordinance uh requires uh variance
relief when uh structures are proposed within 100 ft of certain streams of which the Shann River is one. Uh they're proposing some improvements there. There's already the existing building is already within that 100 foot buffer. There's already an existing shed in the buffer which they'd like to keep. Uh
they're proposing a stone area, a dumpster pad, uh infiltration basin, um I think some septic and uh they would have to disturb the soil within the 75 foot buffer. So that's uh part of the relief that they would seek. Uh they
also need a variance um from your front yard setback standards. Um the uh the existing residence is within the uh front yard setback. Um it's uh uh 50 ft is required and they have a setback of zero feet and the the um addition to the
rear of that building would also be within that setback and also need that kind of relief. So they're asking for that as well. Um the detached garage when they came here years ago um was uh they were proposing putting it within the 100 foot buffer, but now we've changed that after hearing the comments
of the board and now that's further to the front of the property. U but they require um relief from your setback requirements. Um uh the detached garage would be um within a 25.76 foot setback where 50 ft is required. Although, as you'll see and as will be described,
it's within, you know, the developed existing structures on the property, which was developed a long time ago. Um, the uh existing office structure requires um setback relief. They're not proposing making it any bigger, but it is too close to the sideyard, so they
require setback relief from that. Uh, the proposed parking area, they're proposing um uh an area with of gravel uh without a curb uh without delineated spaces. um that works well for this site as we'll uh explain but they they
require both um varants and uh I think a design waiver relief from that. Um but before I get to my witnesses I just want to um >> I just made one clarification. >> Uh you me you mentioned about the proposed detached garage
>> structure within it says you're 28.76 but if I heard you correctly you said 25.76. So what is it? Um I said uh it should be 28.76. Okay. I misspoke. >> Be on the record. >> Okay. Sorry. Yeah.
>> Um uh the uh when the resolution was adopted for the use variance, the board said that the applicants could only have um uh two cars parked on the site until they came back to the board for final site plan approval. Um I think there was a little bit of a misunderstanding in
one of the um professional reports. Um the applicants when they were here for the use variance described the vehicles um that they were going to park on the site. Those vehicles are on page eight the parking plan. Uh it's the same vehicles and they understand that they had to come back before the board to
have the right to park those vehicles and that's why they're here today. Uh so with that I have three witnesses. I have Margarita Pastana who is the applicant who will describe uh questions about the business and uh what she wants to do with the property. I have Robert Clerico
from Van Clee Engineering who will go through the site plan and I have Mark Remza who is a professional planner who will explain the justification for the C variance relief that we see. So with that I would ask Margarita >> actually council if you can have all of your witnesses approach. I'm going to
swear everybody in including the board professionals will do it once. If everybody could raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to provide in this hearing is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Starting with the applicants, witnesses,
if you could state your name and spell it for the record. And then the board professionals, you obviously don't have to spell it. Just state your name. >> M A R G A R I T A P A S T R A.
I wasn't sure. Robert Cler C I >> and Mark Ra. >> Okay. Ryan McCarthy. >> I do. Yes. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. Council. >> Before we go any further, as usual, please speak into the microphone, please. Even though she has the tiny little microphones out, please just do it for our recording. I'm looking at our board professional table.
Thank you. Okay. You live at 9 Road with your family, correct? >> Yes. Correct. >> And you and your husband both live there? >> Yes. Correct. >> And you also own a business called Evolution Pool Liners. >> Yes. And you uh you bought this property
because it had a residence and a commercial structure. Correct. >> Yes. Correct. >> And uh before we get to your business, I want to talk about the residence a little bit. Um you're proposing doing an addition to the rear of the residence. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. And that's to improve the property, make it nicer and more
functional. Correct. >> Correct. >> And um you're proposing five bedrooms would be in the house total. Correct. >> Yes. Five. Correct. >> Consistent with plans from Jeff Fleer that were submitted as part of our application. Correct. >> Yes. Correct. >> And >> give me a fair Excuse me a minute.
>> I'm looking at Jim and it looks like he may be struggling to hear. Could I ask you to move the mics just slightly closer to you, both of you? >> Okay. >> And um Margarita, when you speak in into it, you seem loud enough. >> Okay. >> Um I'm not sure you were. So if you
>> Thank you very much. >> Sure. >> Um Margarita, you understand that um your use of the property would be for single family? Yes. >> Only correct? >> Yes, that is correct. >> And you um you also had uh Van Clee Engineering prepare a septic system
design. Correct. >> Yes. >> And was that approved by Hunton County uh health department? >> Yes, it was approved. >> Okay. And you're going to provide that as a condition of approval. Be uh you'll provide that to the board's professionals. Correct. >> Yes. >> And now I want to talk about your
business, Evolution Pool Liners. Um, when you were here a couple of years ago, you described that business to the board when you were asking for a use variance. Correct? >> Yes, that is correct. >> Have there been any changes to the business? >> No, no changes. Everything is the same.
>> Okay. Um, can you briefly describe what you do and what Evolution Pool Liners does? >> Yes, we do liner replacement for ingground pools for residential homes. Um, you have uh you and Luis work there
and you have three employees, correct? >> Correct. We're familyowned. Louis is my husband. My son that turns 20. He lives with us and works with us as well. And >> and um you're proposing um the existing commercial building. You would have offices there and you would store material there. Correct.
>> Yes, that is correct. >> And uh your employees would come in the morning. Yes, they will come in the morning, park their vehicle, and take our vehicle to the client's house. >> So, the work that's actually being done is really being done offsite. >> 100%. We basically we go to our client's
house. They don't come to us. >> So, you don't have members of the public coming on? >> No. >> And in fact, you're not proposing any signs on the property. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. um your hours of operation. Um I believe last time you testified it's Monday from
Friday 8 to 5, Saturday 9 to 1 and close Sunday. Is correct? >> That is correct. >> And so that's the same. >> Yes, the same. >> Um when you um testified at the use variance hearing, you identified certain vehicles, commercial vehicles that you wanted to park at the site. Correct.
>> Yes. Correct. And those commercial vehicles are >> the same as before. It's the uh the van, the two pickup trucks, the dump truck, the trailer, and the dump trailer. >> Okay. And those are on page eight of the site plan. Correct. >> Yes. >> And I'm going to provide um just an
exhibit. I don't know if you want to mark this as exhibit A1. This was A6. Can Can you look at this exhibit? And >> that part of the application. >> Yeah. you could just reference.
>> Okay. Okay. Um I I provided this uh in my last letter to Jeff. I provided the photos of the um of the vehicles that were going to be put on the site and they're basic and those vehicles are the same. So your testimony about what you're going to do
on the site is consistent with your testimony at the use variance hearing. >> Yes. Correct. And uh um the um there are certain um pieces of equipment like um loaders and things. There's three, right? Yes. Package. >> Yes.
>> And um your plan is to put those loaders in the existing in the new garage, the the pole barn garage. You're going to put them in there and store them in there. >> Yes, that is correct. >> Okay. And the um the blue trailer you'd
like to park behind that garage? >> Yes. Okay. And the other um vehicles will be parked as shown on the parking plan that Mr. Clerico provided. Correct. >> Yes, that is correct. >> Um you understand that there won't be you won't be allowed to have any outdoor storage on the site. Correct.
>> Yes. Correct. >> And um you're proposing landscaping, correct? >> Yes. >> And the landscaping the purpose of the landscaping would be to to shield visually the commercial vehicles on your site. Correct. >> Yes. And um the board's landscape
architect uh had some comments about what was already there. He said that some of the trees he didn't think were going to live in one section and he said some of the vegetation might be um invasive and uh as a result of that you had your landscape architect contact the
board's landscape architect. Correct. >> Yes. Correct. >> And she's going to provide a revised landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the board uh ar landscape architect. Correct. >> Yes. Yes. >> And you're willing to implement those changes? >> Yes, absolutely. >> Okay. Um,
Mr. Bakarella indicated that he wants to come visit the existing commercial building and that's >> that's fine. >> Arrange that with him. >> Yes. >> Um, do you have a timeline for for getting the improvements done at this point?
>> Not we haven't set nothing up because we're still waiting for the approval. >> Okay. Um, for the uh detached garage, are there any utilities that are being proposed? >> Electric or >> it's just electric. >> Electric, right? You're not proposing any plumbing or any bathroom in that
building. It's just a >> a p it's a it's um a garage and we provided the specs with our application. Correct. >> Corre correct >> building. Okay. Um and uh if you get the approvals today um you'll be able to operate your business in a satisfactory way on the site.
Correct. >> Yes. Correct. >> And you would say your business is fairly low intensity. It's just sitting in an office. People come in the morning, come back at night and go home. >> Correct. We're small familyowned business. >> Okay. I uh I have no further question. Just to confirm, the commercial the
commercial vehicles are being parked in parking spaces. The commercial equipment is what's going in the garage? >> Yes. Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Well, since we've already addressed John's report, John, are you satisfied
with what's been said? And have you have has the landscape >> That's correct. I've been in contact with the landscape architect and Mr. Clerico's office. They actually she actually did send me a revised plan and the other thing I had requested was a
report from an ar from an arborist. I haven't had a chance to review that completely, but I at this point I think we're on the right track. Basically, we're just trying to ensure that the landscape buffer planting is vigorous enough that it does screen the
commercial. Okay. >> So, that was kind of the intent. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. So in that regard, uh Jeff's uh item three >> uh Jeff >> report item three section C and D. I
just want to confirm what the chairperson had asked that that's exactly what's inside the garage. So, yes. Um, so Jeff wrote in his um in his memo, he wrote, "What what uh well,
what's going to be parked on the site, right? Uh not necessarily in the garage, but on the site would be a van, white van, two pickup trucks. Correct. >> Correct. one dump truck, one trailer, and one dump trailer.
Correct. >> Yes. Correct. >> And those are depicted on um I think it's page eight, the parking plan. >> Yeah. I'm just putting it on the record. >> Okay. >> And how about the blue trailer? >> Yeah,
>> the blue trailer. Um you're proposing parking that outside uh in the rear of the uh of the new garage. Correct. Correct. The blue trailer is the dump trailer. >> Okay. Okay. So, that's the same that the the the uh the dump trailer and the blue
trailer are the same. >> So, is it going to be parked inside or outside? >> Outside. >> There's a black trailer in the picture. >> But the dump trailers. >> Yes. The blue trailer will be parked in the side. But
>> inside is that >> on the side? >> On the side. >> Okay. Because that's not what it says here. Yeah. So, so in the initial hearing it was testified that it would be inside, but I mean if it if they changed it, it's just up up for review now. Okay. It really wasn't. It was just
testified during the use variance, but it's it's on the table right now. >> So, that should be noted that it's going to be different. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And how about number D? >> No. >> Uh the type of materials um I can hand these out uh if you want.
The the equipment stored on the site is on page eight. those yellow um uh the uh this page eight of the site plan. It's the uh >> No, it's um an excavator, right? >> The equipment. >> Yeah. >> Let me hand these out and we'll it would
make it easier. >> Yeah. I'm just looking for a simple answer. Is it inside or is it outside? Then you can hand it over later. >> They would be uh >> section D. >> It's the equipment is going to be inside. >> The equip correct. That's why we were saying to put the blue trailer on the
side and the equipment will be inside. >> Gotcha. >> And uh just to to further uh for more clarity um the building, what are you going to be storing in the existing >> Robin? I I think you got to speak in the mic for Sorry. Um just just briefly review, I know you testified about this
last time we were here, but what are you storing in the existing commercial building? >> The vermiculite um the material that we use when we go to the client's house. So we will be storing it inside which is like a vermiculite um the hose um
but >> do the liners get delivered to your place or are they ordered and delivered to the the >> We order them but we pick them up at the factory ourselves. >> Okay. And then you don't store them there. >> They go No, >> you go to resident. >> It's not like if we have 300 liners we
wish, but that's not the case. So, we order them from the factory and once they're ready, we're going to go to the client's house. We bring it to the client's house. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions of this witness? >> Professionals, >> just to put on the record, any any
material, you don't bring any material back on site or anything that's because you have a dumpster enclosure. I don't know if if anything is brought then back. The dumpster is just for the garbage and we put it in a black bag at the client's house and then we put it in the dumpster and then a company comes
and pick it up um every two weeks. >> Okay. >> Waste management comes and pick it up. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Can I make note is there anyone in the public here for to ask questions of this applicant? Noting there are none. Okay.
Thank you. >> Thank you. My next witness is Robert Clerico. >> Again, please speak directly into the mic. >> Thank you. >> Sure. >> Bob, can you describe your background as an engineer?
>> Uh, a licensed professional engineer uh state of New Jersey, been licensed about 50 years. um employee of Van Clee Engineering Associates uh currently operating out of our office in Hillsboro. >> I would ask that Mr. Clerico be accepted as a
>> So you're your license is active? >> Yes, it is. >> And have you testified before this board? >> I have and numerous other boards. Um okay. Both on representing municipalities and representing private clients.
>> All right. Thank you. Okay. And I would ask that the board accept Mr. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Um Mr. Clerico, can you um >> again, Robin, I I hate to say it. I mean, Jim's going to have a very difficult time. >> Uh Mr. Clerico, can you uh can you uh describe the site plan, the existing
conditions, and the proposed changes on the site plan that you prepared? >> Yes. Excuse me. Uh site uh sheet three of the site plan uh depicts both the existing and proposed conditions. As has been described up to this point,
the existing dwelling and the existing office building on the site are essentially being retained. The component of the existing dwelling is being expanded to include the um expansion of the house which will be a garage and the five bedroomedroom um uh
five bedrooms for the unit. Uh it has an existing o driveway opening on the uh on this particular plan north is up. So to the left on the west side there's a driveway that would come in. It's going to be improved upon uh to incorporate access into the garage. Um the existing
um building in the back of the property that had been used as a believe it was a land surveyor engineers office at some point in the past uh is what's being uh converted. uh the office space is being converted for the applicants use for office on the uh left side of of the
building and the right side is where they're will be used for just for storage and material. That's where one overhead door is going to be constructed onto the building just for them to get access a small overhead door just to get access into the building. Uh the post storage shed building uh is shown on the
plan. It has a two two door access into the building itself. Uh in our original proposal when we're here for the site for the use variance, we had this set back uh clo uh further away from the road, but it was in an area that was encroaching into one of your stream corridor easements. And one of the
recommendations at the time when we come back for site plan was to move that so that we avoided that particular encroachment. So this particular plan, the building is moved a little closer to the road but outside of your uh one of your protective corridor stream corridor
easements. Um, and that results in a uh 28.76 ft setback from the rightway. Uh, again, the rightway as shown on this plan is an expanded rightway to meet your master plan standards. Uh, for an ultimate 60ft rightway, 30 foot would be on our side.
So, there's a fairly significant expansion of the rightway into this particular property or proposed expansion of the rightway into this particular property. Uh the existing parking lot, gravel parking lot that's in here uh is being slightly reshaped. Um again the one edges is being moved
out about 3 4 feet just again to get to meet the dimensional requirements uh for the parking of as I said the uh we actually have four spaces here for employees. We sort of tested earlier there was only three employees but we have four spaces here for employees. Um, we've did our best to make the most
efficient use out of the space that's there and to convert other areas back into landscaped areas that are not effectively used for parking. Um, the since we moved the building, the storage building or the vehicular building uh closer to the street to get it out of
the the corridor set back, we use that area in between uh to create like a a small parking area where the dumpster could be located. Uh and if you go to sheet eight of the plan, you can see that's where the uh the trailers are being parked in that area, albeit they're not in the building. They're behind the building and would
effectively be visually screened uh from the road itself. The other major element uh to the site is essentially a new essentially it will be a brand new septic system for the property. Uh the existing um dwelling has uh it's a little unclear
exactly what's out there, but there's a a a essentially an old call a cesspool or a drywall of some sort that behind the uh office building that's out in the back uh that is effectively not really usable
as a current septic system. Uh the existing office building sits at a much lower elevation of where the house is. Uh with the soil test that we conducted on the property up behind the house showed suitable soil. Um essentially in the what would be the southeast southwest uh corner of the of the
property just off behind the garage which worked out relatively well. Uh however, to get to get effluent from the office building in the back, we're going to abandon the system that's there, put a pump tank and a septic tank in that location and pump up to this uh septic
disposal field. So any of the plumbing from the house itself will drain down to the septic tank. It'll be down by the by the garage area with a pump tank and then both of those buildings will be combined and pumped up uh into the septic disposal field. As was indicated earlier, we have a detailed design for
the septic system. uh the general layout of which is depicted on on the site plan. The detail septic plan was with all the appropriate applications were filed with the county health department. It has been approved by the county health department in February. Um as indicated earlier, one of the most
extensive delays we had in coming back before the board since we bifurcated the application was obtaining the LOI from the NJ. Uh that was finally issued in late September. Um, as indicated by Robin earlier, the wetlands are depicted on the plan. Uh, they have a
intermediate resource value with a 50-ft buffer. So, the site plan itself shows all all the environmental features, the wetlands, the buffers, the stream corridors, and the uh both the repairing zones associated with the stream corridor uh by the state level and the
uh the the restrictive elements associated with your ordinance in terms of setbacks uh from the the stream corridors. Um, uh, Robin went through a list. You want me to go through the list of the variances and stuff again? >> Yeah. Would you ask? Sure. You know, um,
you know, the features on the property that require. >> So, I have one one question before you go through that. >> I'm looking at, uh, Jeff's report again. >> And if you have done it, I apologize. I just didn't pick it up. Is item seven
>> in Jeff's report? >> Yes, please. items seven. >> Yeah, the book table there. There is a we neglected to list there. There's a setback of the existing building on the sideyard uh which is depicted on our
plan. We just listed the 50ft sidebar sideyard. Your ordinance actually has two standards, a minimum of 20 and a combined of 50. So, we have to make the correction of that note on on the plan. >> Okay. Uh so the just again just not to go into
hugely because you're going to hear testimony from the planner on these as well. But essentially within the uh stream corridor buffers uh we are proposing um this um since we moved that building forward uh to get the building out of the buffer area. Um we're using
that area which is somewhat disturbed as it currently is just as a as a gravel surface where it's a very convenient place to park uh two of their commercial vehicles. uh again it'll screen them from the road and it's an appropriate use of of that particular area. So when one of your first variants released
would be for the stone areas within the 100 foot buffer area. Um there's also a dumpster pad uh we're putting in that area. It's a very convenient location for the dumpster. It's essentially adjacent to the uh commercial building itself. So that's another component of
one of the variance reliefs uh with the application. Uh we have an existing um we're not creating this but we're acknowledging we have an existing encroachment of an existing shed that's in the upper left half corner of the site plan be the northwest corner of
this property. Uh this one of the protective uh areas zones of restrictions of the township. Um we have the uh set again the nature of this site we really have no control over this because uh we have the
building down below. We have to we have to abandon the system that's there now. Uh and we have to come out of the the the building into um basically a septic tank and a pump tank. Again, we're trying to minimize disturbance. So, we have the two tanks located by the
building that would be within that zone. Again, that's just the nature of the fact that that's where the building is and that's where we're coming out. um part of our storm water system uh to address this doesn't meet the threshold for the state criteria but to meet your
local uh ordinance criteria we are putting an on-site storm water infiltration system in that's shown on the plan um just in order to situate that so it meets the setbacks the required setbacks on the septic system in a location where it could be
downgradient from the buildings we're essentially collecting all the roof runoff from both the existing and proposed dwelling and from the commercial building uh and diverting that into the infiltration basin to meet your your storm water criteria.
So the nature of the site the uh horizontal location of the various features that mainly the topographical elements um have to we have to put this system at a downgradient location uh which and we have to stay 50 ft away the septic system and as much as possible we
tried to stay out of your stream carter but we're kind of uh nipping the one corner of the um the grading component of your stream carter uh criteria. So we are collecting that. Uh there was one comment um I believe from your engineer that talked about the fact that
we're not quite capturing everything we're required to capture. We're short by about 400 square feet. Uh and we've been we would need to modify the plan, but what we're thinking of is picking up some of the um the the storm drainage off of the driveway that feeds the
residential component uh and featur and and u directing it down into that particular location. that would essentially give us the balance uh to meet your ordinance requirements as far as capture and infiltration uh of storm water uh itself. Um getting back to the
variance relief again, one the existing building is out there um is not an encroachment into the current rightaway, but because we're being asked to dedicate right away to meet your master plan, uh I believe this is a collector road standard. um the
dedicated rightaway would now um take the house and what is about a four or five foot setback from the current rightway and make it actually an encroachment into the proposed dedicated rightway. So we're going to be dedicating the rightway albeit the uh dedication will have to carve out an exception for the existing structure
that's going to fall within um you know within that particular dedication. So again we have a setback situation here. the existing house is now going to be zero setback uh from the rightway because a component is actually going to be in in the right of way. Um and
likewise the um the balancing act we did with the proposed storage building again pulling it back out of your stream corridor easements um it's still within your 50oot setback um uh from the from the from the proposed rightaway uh
dedication. So again, it's a balancing act of trying to um meet the criteria to keep minimize as much as we can the the encroachments into the stream corridor easements. Uh maximize as best we can the setbacks from the various roads acknowledging that we have a house uh
that's already will be an encroachment into the into the road itself. Um I mentioned the garage structure. Um and then as Robin mentioned earlier, just some design standard relief. Again, there's a gravel parking lot here. This
is a relatively um infrequently used parking lot. Again, there's no customers or anybody that comes here. So this is really just the parking area for allocation of areas that the employees have a place to park their vehicles when they show up in the morning, get in the in the commercial in the company
vehicles, leave the site and vice versa, come back in the evening and and and reverse that uh particular procedure. So we're dealing with a gravel parking lot. We're not doing curbing. Uh we're not particularly doing striping. Again, this this site is not really set up. It's not
being utilized for general public coming here. As indicated earlier, we're not not going to give you a sign acknowledging this is a you know a business location uh at this particular um uh position. Uh so that's the general
description of the site uh and the um and the variances as defined um as outlined in in um Jeff Aarella's uh letter. Um Bob, do you want to address um uh any
other planners comments? Um I think that they've been I think that they've been addressed. Um >> yeah, we're effectively going we didn't really have any issues with any I think of the planners comments. There's some details we're missing on the plan. We have some missed uh things that are weren't dimensioned correctly. Uh as
indicated, we heard about the the dump trailer uh where we intend to store it. And if you go to sheet eight of the plan, uh that shows all the vehicles has pictures of the vehicles. It has a where they were positioned on the site.
Um and um I think that's a pretty clear picture of what the applicant owns. Uh if the board grants approval, what the limitations of the approval would would uh entail. It would only be these vehicles would be the only ones on the site. You heard testimony. the other
equipment would be stored within the um the the building that's being constructed. Any material equipment they have, any material storage they have would be within the existing um building that's out there. Uh
who else we got here? Um >> could you just uh testify to item number 17? >> 17 conservation easement. Yeah, we'll be dedicating uh an easement um as requested, we could be dedicating an easement that would constitute the
wetlands and the wetland buffers. It be at the basically the um the the right rear portion of the triangular portion of the property is depicted on the plan >> and that shed is located within that >> that shed is with it's an existing shed. It's in there. Um
again, there's nothing on this plan that proposes any disturbance of that area. Okay. Thank you. Welcome. >> Could you um inform the board uh how many bedrooms the septic design was approved for?
>> Five. >> Five. Okay. So, the clarification on the number of bedrooms. The testimony is then the the old and the exist the addition that will be a total of five bedrooms. >> It's a fivebedroom. You have plans I believe that support that
>> instead of seven which was mentioned earlier. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah, there was an earlier version. They're going to have seven, but that >> Okay, >> it's it's five. >> And there's going to be one additional bathroom. >> Sorry, one additional bathroom inside
that office space. >> There is an existing bathroom in that office space now. And it be utilized. That's why they have a septic system down there. Now, >> in one of the reports, I can't remember which one. I I thought it was Jay's.
There was mention that one of the parking spots should be designated ADA. >> No, it's your engineers report. I'll get to that in a minute. Um >> Okay. >> The um well, let's just do it right now. Um citing a standard of the um
the state code for any kind of a parking lot, you need one handicap space. There are some provisions in that code uh that talk about if you have a facility that's not really open to the public uh and if you're not um expanding or modifying what you have that there is a ability to
not have a requirement for an ADA space. It it's it's kind of a practical situation. It's not that we can't find a space and designate it for handicap use, but it's never it's nobody it's never it's going to get used. The employees that work here are working in a field. So, by definition, they can't be
handicapped uh individuals. And the occupants of the office are the owners of the property in the event that there was a subsequent owner here that was handicap. I mean, they have they're living in the garage. They have the stuff there. So, there really isn't a need for a handicap space here. Um, and
again, we're trying to make the most effective and efficient use of the property that we have here. In my view, again, if we believe there's a way for that to be waved, um, and to the extent it could be waved, we think it would be more efficient just to keep the site as
small as it is uh and uh and and not have a designated handicap space. Again, if we we're forced to do it, we'll find a place to put it, but effectively, it'll just be an impervious surface that will never be used. Um, so >> Jay, as a traffic uh professional, what
your thoughts? ba based on the operation. It's a very niche operation. If there's a provision in the in the ADA standards that allows an exception like this, I would I would support that based on the operation. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. If by some reason there's an a concurrence that there's just no way to get a waiver of this, we'll have to find a you have to designate one of these spots uh as for that purpose. But just looking through it, um there is a um an element we found again it would have to be verified I think more than most
likely by your construction code official. Uh but uh basically says for commercial facilities such as office buildings and warehouses or other facilities that do not provide goods or services directly to the public and are only sub they're only subject to the ADA requirements for new construction and
alterations. Again, the only new construction we have here is the storage building uh which is just for vehicles and there's nobody occupying that. Uh and the existing the office building that we have again is um um is is already there. The office space in here
is going to be interior um renovation of the space. But essentially what what's in there now is office. Actually, I think some of the existing offices they're not going to be using for office. Again, this was originally a surveyor's office. um this particular operation they're using um the office
space but not all of it uh for for offices. So we think >> Mr. clarify. You just read from there where you read you said or alterations. You're proposing alterations, correct? >> No, there it's interior modifier renovations. >> Again, this this would have to be
subject to somebody looking at it. I if if it's if there's the interpretation, there's no way we can we can avoid this. We have to put a handicap spot. have your thoughts. >> My thought is it if who else would be looking at at it if it's not now? Um I
mean I'd go back by what Jay and Ryan had said, but I think this needs to be either discussed now or or um it have to come back. >> So what do you guys Yeah, sure. So it
was it's it's always been my understanding that more or less the rules are there so that way you can't discriminate against any employee that may work there in the future. Um and would I for me I would feel that we are making alterations because it's alterations to the site. It's no different than if you have a any other
office space that comes in that may not be open to the general public but if they're making alterations to the parking lot we would generally ask that they make improvements to the parking lot to provide ADA access to the building. So, >> so is it okay if they just take one of the current spots and mark it as ADA?
>> I believe so. Yes. >> But would your report I I believe referenced though it would have to be cement. >> So it wouldn't have to be. So there's other requirements that the accessible space has to be basically a smooth firm foundation. We generally wouldn't
support that it's gravel because that's hard to keep it in a compact and smooth surface. um that can certainly be accomplished with asphalt, concrete, or some other means and methods that I'm okay with generally so long as it meets the requirements. But that's that would be my feeling on it.
>> So, this isn't since this isn't open to the public. >> Mhm. >> They could technically take one of their current spots and make it ADA knowing that they have no employees right now that would fill that situation.
But in the future, if they were to hire someone who had some type of disability, then that would be the parking spot for that individual. >> I think you would have to just designate it now. So you you would >> well designate it now. Designate it now. But if they have no one with that
situation, no one's giving them a ticket for parking in that spot. >> So you would still have to post signage. Who enforces the signage? I mean, you know, it it definitely is one of those weird
um kind of weird cases where we're kind of airing on the side of caution because ADA rules are are very strict and they're notorious for lawsuits and things like that. So, I'd hate to to kind of heir on the other side of it. >> And they do have one extra parking spot.
They have four employee spots uh up against Cool Road there. So they only have three employees based on what we heard. So it seems that that one there's one extra there that to cover the regulations. >> All right. So they would have to find a
new spot. They would just have to designate >> Yeah. Like I said, if if it's determined to be a mandatory thing that we this board can't wave or whatever, we'll figure out a way to do it. Uh again, it it's it's either going to be a spot that's not going to be used or it's
going to be used and it's not going to be used by a handicapped person. So, >> Okay. All right. So, you'd agree you'll do it. You you'll provide a ADA spot and it'll be the the material underneath it will be the satisfaction. >> Yeah. We'll have Well, I'll have to talk
to my client whether asphalt or concrete. I The building they're pouring they're putting here is going to have a concrete floor. There's really no other asphalt on the site. might just be just as easy if they're pouring a floor to pour a, you know, a parking space, but it'll it'll be a compli if we're doing
it, it'll be a compliance space. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I was trying to point out that we thought there might be a way of not doing it. >> Okay. I think I have a question for our professionals. Um Ryan or Jeff, our our environmental
commission is saying that they would recommend a rain garden, but you're not. >> So, this is a minor development project under your ordinance, and it I I have it
I I have it pulled up here because I' I thought we were going to probably talk about this. It only requires that you're meeting water quality standards, which is doing soil erosion sediment control. And then you have to abide by the rate and volume control standard that's in the ordinance, which is basically, to
put it in layman's terms, is capturing whatever new imperous surface that you're putting on site. That all has to be captured into the system. It doesn't require one system over another. It could be a a dry well. It could be a rain garden, a bioinfiltration basin. It
just has to be able to capture that volume. So there's >> And so since they've chosen this, what they've chosen is not a rain garden obviously. >> Correct. >> So it's okay. >> Yeah, it it does it does meet the requirements. Yes. >> All right. Thank you.
>> So just related to same document. How about number one? Do they need the operational manual for the >> No, they do not. So we we do have it as uh one of our comments. Again, because it's a minor development, it doesn't require the operations and maintenance
manual to be deed restricted. But because one was provided, we just ask that those notes get added to the plan. So that way going forward, whoever has the copy of that plan because sometimes the other document goes missing, right? So so long as you have a copy of the plan, you can see what information and what you're actually supposed to do to
maintain whatever was proposed on the property. >> And we agree to do that. Right. >> Um there was one other comments in Jay's report um essentially talking about the the and I didn't get to this yet. Uh so the these are existing driveway openings
both for the house uh and for the where this parking area is um for the parking lot where you where you come out of it. Looking at your uh site distance standards. uh what we have here essentially uh and I there's an exhibit I prepared but it was too late to submit it as part of this but I could this
basically as part of my testimony I'm putting on the record what this what this shows uh that you're coming out of the driveway if you look to your left you have about 550 ft of uh of uh sight distance we have a road that's posted at
30 m an hour ordinance gives you a table uh for sight distance criteria your your ordinance uh and Jay's recommendation is that you don't try to meet the standards that's listed for the speed is out there, but you actually do it for 5 miles higher, which would be 35 miles an
hour. Uh so, uh we have 550 ft to the east. Um which it would exceed in that situation would exceed this the standard of only 260 ft for the uh posted speed or 350 for the enhanced uh speed for the 35 mph design. So coming out of this
driveway um and looking uh to the um 550 ft to the east uh we would we would exceed and that would be really for the a vehicle coming out of the site uh and turning right it's upside down turning right to go out towards 202 which is
probably um the applicant didn't testify to this but I talked to them earlier and logic would tell you that probably 90 the majority of anybody you coming in and out of this site is going out 202. That's not to say that no one would ever go the other way. U but their business
is commercial. It's in the general area. Uh and they need they would get need to get to a state highway. So most of the vehicles uh leaving this site are going to be making a right and that would meet meet your sight distance standards. Uh when you look to the if you look out towards 22, if you're looking to the
west, uh you have a sight distance about 350 ft. Uh even though the road is straight, the reason you have a sight distance limitation is it's about 350 ft uh past this property. The road dips and goes down. When you stand at this driveway, you could actually see 202,
but there's a dip in the road where if a vehicle was in that dip, you wouldn't see the vehicle. Um so you're seeing the vehicle about 350 ft um from that driveway. Um, again, your ordinance standard, um, if if it was only 30 miles an hour would be 3 the 350 ft would
comply, but if you enhance it to the the 35 mph, you the standard goes up to 450, which we wouldn't meet. Again, that's an and that would only be applicable to a vehicle coming out uh, and making the the left turn. Uh, again, very few vehicles, if any, would do that, but to
the extent a vehicle did that, that would be the limitation. I think the other consideration here too is that at least for the commercial standpoint, these are not vehicles where the uh the way the standard is set up, your eye height is 4 and a half ft. I think I think that's what it's about 42 in. Um
most of these vehicles are are again commercial vehicles. The driver is sitting much higher. So again, we're I'm giving you information based on how your standard is set up, but in reality, if somebody was coming out of that in one of the commercial vehicles, they're going to see a lot further than that only because they're elevated. But
that's an existing condition that would have very minimal um occurrences uh for the use of the site. Uh and it would meet the it would actually meet the 30 mph speed limit but not the enhanced 35 that your your ordinance speaks to. >> So Bob, you're saying you have 350 but
you can't make 450. >> Again, the road dips, >> right? Because of the dip. So I what I did is I also took a look at the ashtto >> requirements. So the ASHTO requirements are a little lower than the town. For a
35 mph design speed, you need 390 ft for intersection site distance and you need 250 ft for safe stopping distance. So my opinion would be that if you can meet at least a stopping site distance
requirement, which it sounds like you exceed that by 100 ft, >> you still have a >> and we can incorporate that into our vision of the site plan. We actually put together an exhibit that u again would kind of would show that. But um yeah, we we certainly we could certainly meet that. And again, that would be the
likelihood of vehicles coming out of here and uh and making the uh the left to go away from 202 is is highly infrequent. Um but you know, and again, these are not vehicles necessarily where the drivers high as 4 and a half ft. They probably be much higher. So they
probably would have greater sight distance uh of visibility anyway. So, so if the board were to act favorably, I would just make um reviewing that site distance exhibit an approval item.
The other uh element that your engineer brought up in terms of the storm water, um we did extensive amount of testing on the site for the septic system. Um at the time we were doing that, we weren't necessarily contemplating or anticipating we would have a storm water requirement.
And so we we were utilizing some of the soil testing that's in proximity to where the infiltration basin was going to be uh for design of the infiltration basin. engineer is absolutely technically correct which the testing we we we have here is supposed to be in the basin
itself. Uh I would in infiltration basin I would I can't move the basin to where the testing is because that would put it within 50 ft of the septic system. So we're we're uh adhering to the setback of the infiltration basin to the septic field and if if it's absolutely
necessary we we'll go out uh and and do additional testing. Uh again, it's we're only moving over about 30 ft, but um the regulations are the regulations and unfortunately I there's nothing we could do about it. So uh if um unless there was some way to grant any kind of a
waiver from that, we would ask the board uh to you approve the site condition on us going out and doing a test 30 ft away from where we have a test um of the u for the infiltration basin to to literally comply with what your your ordinance requires.
>> Sure. Yeah. So I think the the only concern and the reason why we're so I understand that it is in close proximity but the concern that we had is it requires the 2 ft of separation from the seasonal high water table to the bottom of the sand layer and we only have.3 is
like the wiggle room of meeting the bare minimum. So because we're 35 ft away and we're on a slope, I think just the air on the side of caution just requested another >> if again if you look at that I don't want to get into the weed chip but if you look at the the soil log that was in that particular location the wasn't any
any modeling in the soil modeling is a condition you look at the soil you could tell if it's subject to seasonal high groundwater what we had there was seepage uh coming in I think at 40 at 40 in um again we we moved this basin Again, I really can't pick the basin up
because again, we're trying to capture runoff from the roof um runoff from the proposed building we're doing. So, we're we're balancing a lot of different factors here to try to get this thing uh this this facility to work. Uh but we'll do we'll conduct test in the area and it's very likely if we conduct test in the area to base, we may not have any
infiltration. So, we we might be free and clear. >> So, you agree to go in and do the the permeability testing? >> Yeah, we'd ask we'd ask for an approval to do the Yeah. subject to us providing testing that >> I'm not getting what she's saying. >> I'm sorry. >> So, we'd like you to basically comply
with items number 13 and 14 on the engineers report where it asks you to do the permeability testing and then um you know update your analysis proof. >> Yeah, that would that we'd be asking that for that as a condition of
approval. So, >> okay. And just while while we're on the topic of the stormwater management. So two of the other things that we're requesting this is item 12B 1 and then 12B2. So uh for the tree removal uh nothing is noted as there are no trees
being removed. I just wanted to put it on the record that no trees are being removed or if they are that you'll comply with the >> well under the under the as uh John spoke to earlier the revised U plan we have number of the trees in in the in the buffer area uh in the uh lower right
hand corner the southeast corner of the site uh are diseased or dying. So there there's going to be those they're going to be removed and they're going to be replaced in accordance with your ordinance. Um there was another comment um by I forget what uh who who said it
but the some of the right now the existing buffers are within the dedic the enhanced dedicated rightway. Uh again this is set up for a collector road standard. When and if that would ever occur in the future I certainly can't predict but be that as it may uh
we could probably relocate most of that landscaping to be outside of that um that u additional road dedication area. Um, but yes, there there are some trees in that and our revised plan will show the location of those trees that are being removed and it'll be replaced in
compliance with your ordinance and that all be subject to John's review. >> Great. And and that was a again I received a report from um uh the engineers uh arborist. They evaluated the existing trees that were
along the road which were not shown on the original plan. So that's what I requested. Some of them were in bad shape. They'll be removed and was represented to me that they'll just be replaced in accordance with the with the ordinance. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay.
>> And and again, the important thing, one, we want to remove any trees that were potentially unsafe. And the second thing was it was going to potentially inhibit the growth of the evergreen trees, which is what we want to screen the facility. So that was the discussion >> and you represented in your report.
Correct. >> Correct. Yeah, I agree that. >> Okay. Uh, one of the other comments I have regarding the storm water. So, being as this is a minor project and we're subject to different requirements than than traditional major storm water, um, we went through and looked at the
numbers of everything. So the intent of the ordinance is to capture all the new impervious coverage which we had calculated as 3,5001 square feet and then it appears that only the roof surface for the garage and then the addition um is 3,37 ft. So that leaves
uh a difference of 464 ft that's not being captured uh with the with the proposed infiltration basin. So um just wanted to see what what your thoughts were and how how >> Yeah, I I kind of glanced over that earlier. what way we think we would do it. And again, we're dealing with existing structures, existing
topography. Uh and obviously, we have to have water flowing downhill. Um the area we think we could pick up that would probably exceed that. Uh what we're currently missing for a standard would be the residential driveway area. Uh we think we could put like a a swale. We may even need to put an inlet in, but we
can capture the runoff from that particular area and pipe that down into the um into the infiltration basin. >> Okay. Yeah. And that's that would be something that we typically see with a stormwater application. Some other things just just to note for the record. Um trench drains are another one where
you'll put just a drain along the the border of a parking lot or or of the driveway and then you'll have that pipe to the basin as well. So just just something just to note for the record, >> but you might not want a trench drain right next to your septic system. >> It's true. Yes. >> Now we think we're thinking a surface
swale would probably be the u the better way to do it. So >> Okay. Um, some other quick comments that I have. Uh, comment number 18. So, one of the things that we' be looking for is an asbuilt plan, which would be required anyway for
as for a project of this nature in the township. U, but just looking at the proposed grading that's right up against the 75 foot uh township stream setback where no grading is permitted. Um, the one 155 contour rides right along that.
So, we just want to be very very careful and clear when we're out there that that that is not going to happen. If there is any way to revise that grading to get it a little bit farther away. Um, but you are showing that you do meet the requirement. Just looking at it from a constructibility standpoint because we
will ask for an asbuilt that shows that no grading was done there. >> All right. Now, we understand the comment again if we go do testing in the basin. It's it's possible that we could actually put this basin in lower than what it is to get the volume which would would lessen some of the filling that's occurring in this current plan going off
to the side. Again, the one thing I can't do is I can't move this basin further away because then it' be within the 50 foot of the uh the septic setback. So, >> we're balancing a number of different issues here to to to get this to work properly. >> Sure. Um and um yeah, we obviously made
to be and if it for some reason this stayed exactly the way it is. Um we're going to actually, you know, call for them to, you know, put a fence in there, obviously do it before construction so they don't encroach or it might even be possible to small put a small like knee wall on the lower end of the slope just so you eliminate one of the contour
lines. >> Sure. Uh so some other things. So this is comment number uh 20 and 21. This is regarding the the lighting on the property. So, um I believe it was either your testimony or I know it was part of the the application that no proposed
modifications are being made to the on-site lighting and it sounded like from the testimony the hours of operations are Monday through Friday 8 to 5 and then Saturday 9 to 1. So, from my perspective, so long as we maintain those hours um and we're not going to be operating that building during
non-daylight hours, I certainly would be okay with with what is proposed. Um, so long as we just add the general note, no light spillage. Uh, I think there is maybe a little bit of light spillage. It's on lot 11. Whatever condition has to be put in on that as far as shields or things like that, we would just ask
that that it be installed. >> Yes. And if you look at the overall site, this this property is basically surrounded by woods on either side. They really And you go off to the uh to the west and you're into commercial property. The front's out on 202
>> and you of course go to the back of this, you got the stream corridor. So, it's pretty well vegetated beyond the limits of the property itself. >> Yeah. And and that's fair. I think we just have to think of it from future development standards. If it is developed in the future, we don't want
to have to then go back and try to to go after it. So, whatever we can do to to eliminate or reduce that that spillage to meet the township requirements. >> Understood. >> Okay. And then just one other thing just while I have you uh general comment number two, this was just talking about the timing of the application and just
looking for a little bit more information. So from from the prior approval, uh it required that basically one year from the date of the adoption of the resolution that you make a submission. Uh and I do understand that as a part of that there was an extension that was granted to have all the um all
the application materials submitted by January 31st. And then we're just generally speaking, usually you get a one year from the time of approval if the board acts favorably. So just wanted to get an idea for timing for construction wise. >> I'd have to leave that to my client, but um I would assume the one year was a
requirement. I know he's anxious to to get started with this. Um and as to the resubmission, we would have been here a lot earlier, but we really were reluctant to do anything on the site until we had the LOI. >> Sure. uh because there was a underlying
concern that the DP might may have classified this as exceptional resource value which would put a whole different buffer which put a whole different design on and things. So we really had to wait until we got the LOI uh which was in like I said late September almost October which is when we started the
design finished up the septic and the details and whatnot. So if there is a if there is you're indicating that your your ordinance requires a one you have one year to to obtain a building permit or a complete compression. >> It's it's not the the ordinance it's it's just generally the board always
there's a time ex there's a time requirement that the board puts in place. >> Yeah, we might ask for additional time just because um as my clients can testify they're getting into their busy season uh with pools and um you know obviously they need everything to be finally approved before they can get
started. So, uh, you know, if the board can give them a little bit of extra time, um, you know, >> usually it's it's a year to a year from the permit and then additional for for certificate of occupancy.
>> So, usually it's two years. >> So, so let me ask this very simple question. How much more time do you need? >> Wait, wait, wait, wait. >> Well, if that's I mean clarify. If it's the years to get a permit, we certainly we certainly meet that, I would think. So it's a year year for the permit >> permit and then a year to finish two
years. >> So that's two years. >> Yeah. >> You're okay with two years, right? >> Thanks for the I I thought it was they would have a year from the board's approval to have the thing built. >> No. >> Okay.
>> Anything else? >> I think I covered everything. >> I do. I I didn't want to interrupt the test. >> Wait, just um Sorry. I just want to go back on some of Ryan's um things. So So Ryan, you're assuming they're going to and and the applicant would agree to um
change some of the notes that are referenced on your plans and some of the the minor changes like >> uh I think to make it easier, Bob, if if if it's a condition for you, if the board acts favorably that any other comment in our letter you would agree to
to to comply with. >> Right. I I covered I tried to I highlighted on here your comments that we we thought we needed to discuss like the um you know the testing within the basin uh and um you know and jing on the site site distance or whatever.
>> The one note that uh that they're recommending and I think we would have an issue with it's on uh comment 3B. It says the applicant is permitted to park one truck and one trailer or two trucks on the property. >> Yeah, I think you clarified that earlier. That was a condition, the original resolution. That was a condition that would let the applicant
do that up until the point in time they come back in for site plan. >> That that wasn't a permanent thing. That was just like in to give the applicant a little bit of leeway in the event till he comes back that he could he has one or two vehicles he could park on the site. He could park them on the site. >> Yeah, we were we were just noting what
was on the prior resolution. Yes, whatever whatever you would be voting on tonight is is >> if I can jump in and streamline this because we're ping ponging all over the place and this is why I always suggest to the to the applicants professionals to take the uh board's professionals
report in the exact order as presented and we've been all over the place so I can't proceed. We're going to start over again on page two. I'm going to go through the entire report in the order as presented. every single number in
paragraph and we're going to confirm on the record. We're going to get an agreement as to what the conditions are because I cannot write a resolution based upon the way that it was presented. So, we're going to start. I have as conditions of approval,
paragraph 3, paragraph 4F. Um, you you're dealing with the planners report. >> I'm dealing with the engineers report. engineers. >> You've already stated that you agreed to all the conditions of the planners report which he only had four or five, right? >> But with respect to the engineers
report, there's at least 20 separate conditions. >> Okay. Give me a second. >> Give me a second. >> We need to go through them all. >> Yeah. Give me a second. >> This would be like a 40page resolution. >> Um, so I have as conditions paragraph
three. That's A, B, and C. I have as a condition paragraph four. Uh, I have four um E. Well, we'll call it we'll call it F. 4F, which and I I'll add asphalt. So, it
doesn't have to be concrete. It could be concrete or asphalt. >> I'm sorry. You're spelling out the conditions that we're agreeing to. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And if you disagree, you say no. But otherwise, they're going to be conditions that are going to need >> So, you said you said 3 A and C.
>> I said three A, B, and C. B is not no B is the one that had the the that was the limitation imposed with the use variance that were be overridden by the the site plan approval. >> Okay. Okay. Which is going to be exhibit it's exhibit eight. >> Sheet eight of the
>> sheet eight. Yeah. Okay. It's fine. So this is why I'm doing this to make sure we get it right. >> So B is going to be sheet eight. >> And we clarified item two about the construction within the year. >> I'm sorry Bob. I need to drive this. I just >> Sorry. I I'd like to lead the
conversation. I'm gonna ask you questions. You say yes or no. Okay. So, now we're back to work. So, it's three A and C. B is going to be sheet eight. You go to four. It's going to be condition F. 4 F is a condition,
right? >> Yes. >> Nine is a condition. >> There's you miss some. Okay. >> Seven. >> No, because the comment here is a relocate.
>> You jump in. This is this is the problem when we have conversation goes like this. Okay. So, now I'm going to ask the engineer. He's not satisfied with what I said. So, what's the next condition after 4 >> is I heard you say seven.
>> So, >> I thought that I thought I thought we testified that that was rectified. >> Rectified. So, so uh rectified, but we were still waiting just to get that. Do we I think we have a copy. >> Oh, never mind. So, that one that one is right >> because I I had that as a result, >> but it needs to be I thought the request
was for it to be noted on the plans the LOI and I think it is >> what I heard it was >> date of the line. >> Yeah, I we think it if to the extent it's not we will but it's >> the permit number >> the document existed. It's in the township's possession. >> Okay. I I I I heard it was so if it
wasn't I can add it as a condition but are five and six satisfied to your satisfaction? Five. Five should be a condition. And these that's that is slightly >> five is a condition. What about six? >> Uh six. Yes, six should be >> okay.
>> Mhm. >> Uh and and eight. I heard >> just clock by six. You want us to show the utility connections and we're testifying it's only electric. >> Yeah. So utilities and also on there it was um where the garage doors are proposed on the building. I don't think that was actually testified to.
>> Okay. That's why That's why we're That's why it makes sense to do it in an order so nothing gets missed. All right. So, now we're now we're at uh um I I I I'm not sure if eight is a condition or that's been satisfied based
upon the testimony. >> That one's satisfied. >> Okay. Yeah. >> What about nine is a condition? >> Nine is a condition for me. >> Okay. Uh >> hang on. Nine. The recommendation is recommended to relocate the structure.
>> You're right. Nine is something that I think they're requesting a relief from. >> Okay. So that's what So you've made a recommendation. They've said no. So the board needs to understand when they vote that your recommendation is not going to
be followed by the applicant. So if that's an issue or not an issue, I don't know. But so that's nine that you're not they're not. So that's not a condition. Okay. 10. We've already discussed 11 and that's always outside agency approval.
>> Uh I have 11 as a condition except I don't review them. That's the township attorney. So we'll change it to the township attorney. But I have 11. I have the trees the tree removal as a condition. I have >> 13 as a condition.
>> 12 as a condition. >> Uh yeah, that's the Yeah. Well, A and B are not. That's what I have. I have 12. Yes, I have the 12 I2 as 12 >> two.
>> It's 12B I2 and then 12B I 2. Again, that should have been numbered differently, but it's the soil erosion instead of making >> uh 13 I have as a condition. Mhm.
>> 14 15 16 7 17 18 19 20 21 I'm sorry and 20 I have as a condition. >> I'm sorry. You're going a little too fast for me. >> Yeah, I'm just reading the rest of them all lay down. I have as condition >> 14 15 rating will be uh adjusted. Yeah, that's
true. 16 is uh that's true. 17 health department. A we have that you can make it a condition but we have it already. >> Yes. So I I would just like to add um
under 17B it talks about the abandonment per state health code regulations of the ex old septic Leechfield, whatever it is, Sistern, but um but the plans note a new well. So, am
I to infer there's an old well that will be abandoned? >> Uh I I know there's a well on on the site, a new well, uh to the extent there's an existing well that has to be abandoned, that'll go through the health department. >> I'd have to defer to the owner on that. >> Yeah, because it says proposed well. So,
>> there is a proposed well. Yes. So the applicant would agree to abandon per county per per state health regulations any existing well on site. >> Correct. >> Okay. So that's a new condition. >> Our septic plan notes that the existing
uh cess poolool or whatever it is that's out behind this building is going to be abandoned in place. So okay, >> that typically means remove the cover, pump whatever's in there out and back fill it. Um, so it's it's minimal disturbance, but >> I think the note here is that that requires some sort of permit to have
minimal disturbance there. I guess they'd have to get a permit. >> Thank you, Don. Uh, 18. >> That's a request for an ASville plan. >> Yep. I'm just saying 19 and 20 I have as as
conditions. >> Yeah, they're typos on the plan >> and I don't know about 22. I defer to our engineer on that. >> 21. Didn't you ask for light >> the lights? Yeah, 21. Okay. I had that on on a
separate sheet, but you're right. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And then for 22, we were just looking for uh the stone parking area. We just want to have some type of edge restraint just to really tighten up exactly where the edge is going to be. >> That's a detail. >> Okay. >> Condition.
>> And then obviously outside agency approvals, >> right? We have the health department. We have the septic uh we have the county soil conservation district. We have the LI. >> Okay. Thank you. I have what I need. >> And we have county planning. >> Do you want to go over the other reports?
>> I have them already. He's already agreed to them. And um and then all the other stuff that we talked about in terms of like no signage and um uh conservation easements and uh deferring
to the board. uh landscape architect, all of that other stuff I have uh I have written down. >> Okay, >> I'm good. >> All right. >> Any more any more questions for this witness for Bob?
>> No. Okay. Um and I would uh would ask our planner to come. Mark, do we want to take a break for the stenographer? >> Uh sure. I'm sure she could use it. >> Want a break? >> I'm okay. >> You're okay? Okay. And we >> That was
>> No, no, we can because this last witness, right? >> Yeah. And >> and planners only take 10 minutes, right? >> Yes. >> Positive and negative. Let's go. >> Five minutes.
>> Never I never plan to take five minutes. >> We're counting. >> Wait, wait until I get qualified. Yeah, leave it. >> Um, all right. Mark, can you uh review for the board your uh your background as a planner and your experience testifying
to Orlando sports? >> Yes. Uh, good evening uh board chair and and board members and members of the public. Um, my name is Mark Rea. >> Time out. >> That's a piece of paper. >> We lost somebody. >> Jim took a break.
>> He heard he heard a break and I think All right. I I think we're gonna have to take a break. >> Yeah, let's take a five minute. >> We'll take >> Unless you want to qualify me and then then we can jump in if you >> All right, we'll wait till it comes back. We'll take a fivem minute break.
>> Thank you. Meeting back to order. Thank you. Go ahead. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, uh, my name is Mark A. Rema. Um, this year starts my 47th year in the field of planning. Um,
uh, I am licensed as a professional planner and a landscape architect in the state of New Jersey. Both my licenses are good standing. With regard to my educational attainment, I have a bachelor of science and environmental planning and design, a master of city
and regional planning, and a master of business administration with a concentration in finance. Um, I have currently serve as a a municipal planner for two municipalities. Uh I have uh also been qualified uh as a planner uh
in New Jersey Superior Court and I have appeared before numerous planning boards, zoning boards, joint land use planning boards throughout the state of New Jersey as well as this board for the uh use variance component. >> You've been here? >> Yes.
>> For the first application. >> Okay. Sorry. >> That's okay. >> Okay. No one has any questions. We'll accept this. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> And Mark, can you uh review the um the variances that we're seeking and
explain? >> Yeah. Robin, sorry. >> He speaks well. Okay. Let me let me get All right. Mark, can you uh Thank you. There it is. Okay. Mark, can you review the criteria for the variances and explain how um this site plan satisfies those criteria?
>> Yes. So, what I'm going to do is I'm going to start off just with a brief description of the property. Uh Bob did a very good job of that. But I want to emphasize that the property is highly constrained by uh the topography and the environmental uh factors on the property
as well as the existing arrangement of the um current uh improvements uh the house and and the current uh office building. Uh the property's a little uh almost 2 acres in size uh but but uh at
least a third if not more is is constrained. So that's why everything's pushed toward the road. Um the property is in the AR2 zone. And also Bob talked a little bit about the uh joining uses. So I want to just
talk about those just briefly. Uh to the north is uh farmland and and woods uh woodlands. To the east are woodlands. To the south is farmland and to the west uh are also woodlands. but they're also part of that automobile dealership that
fronts on uh route 20 202. So, uh Bob talked about the uh variances that are required um and I'm going to talk about them as well. Uh
the essentially the improve improvements uh that are in the 100 foot buffer uh township buffer are prohibited. Um but we are actually proposing some and some are already existing. For example, we have the existing uh and proposed stone
area uh for parking that's going to fall within that 100 foot buffer. Uh the proposed dumpster uh pad location which is actually between the um existing uh office building and the uh proposed
garage. We have an existing shed and that existing shed uh is actually for the residential component of the property. Uh it's a small tiny 176 square ft shed. We have a proposed septic tank in the buffer uh that's
replacing uh that uh cess poolool uh that Bob described and also we have a proposed infiltration uh basin uh that's also in that 100 foot buffer. And then because of the uh work that has to be done uh in in that buffer, we're also
disturbing uh soil which is prohibited within 75 ft. Um also uh we have the um uh proposed um uh front yard setback violation. Uh that
is uh uh for the proposed uh garage and the proposed garage is supposed to be 50 feet set back from uh the front yard but we're proposing 28.76 ft. And the reason for that is that uh uh it was u uh
advised uh by by the uh town to move it out of the buffer which is actually a significant benefit. Uh also um uh we have those existing conditions uh uh uh that violate the the
bulk standards. Uh for example, the existing dwelling uh after the dedication is going to have a zero front yard setback. 50 ft is required and then also the existing office building violates the sideyard set act where 20
ft is required and um uh our prop our existing existing condition uh is only 7.73 ft. So those are existing conditions that we're not exacerbating or or making worse from the application. Um however
uh uh Bob did talk about the uh house addition uh because it's being connected to the house and then uh the way it's uh designed uh there still will be uh a a front yard setback uh violation as well
and that's roughly 13 ft from the um front yard. So in terms of the proofs that are associated with these variances, uh there's a combination of the two. One relates to C1 variance or the hardship
variance and the other relates to the C2 or flexible U uh uh C variance. So as I look at it because the property is so heavily constrained and you heard Bob saying it was a balancing act to try to uh work within the confines of the
existing conditions and also the topography and environmental constraints. This is why uh the existing conditions create a hardship of how to uh work on the property and that particularly pertains to strictly the um
uh improvements that are going to fall within the buffer area and also dist disturbing the soil. Um and also uh the flexible sea that pertains to the um front yard setback for the garage. We
could set it farther back uh and meet the 50 ft. However, uh that would put it uh uh in the uh buffer area and then trigger another variance. So, better zoning uh would be to push it away from
the buffer uh but yet still maintaining a reasonable setback from the uh front yard uh as well. And in terms of the the gravel uh uh and not having the curbing uh my viewpoint is that uh it's a very
low intensely used property. Uh the um public will not be coming to the property. Uh that's why the gravel parking lot could be uh maintained. I do agree with Ryan uh that the edges though have to somehow be defined with some um
um uh stabilizing uh edge because we don't want gravel to creep uh gravel uh will creep and move. So if we have something that maintains the edge uh that will confine the uh parking area.
So um as as I see it um the uh u uh hardship variance associated with the existing conditions uh I don't see any uh uh detriment being caused by uh these um uh uh violation of of the ordinance
uh particularly to the buffer. Um, and we're doing the best that we can to balance it uh uh and maintaining proper distances from septic uh systems and and uh and and keeping things confined as small as possible. Uh and also the uh
flexible sea uh I believe uh the uh pushing of the building a little closer to the to the front yard will result in uh a better zoning and keeping another improvement out of the buffer area. So that sums up my uh testimony in terms of
the the proofs uh for u the two types of uh variances and the uh design exception uh for the the gravel and the uh uh lack of curving. >> And so in your opinion the positive and the negative criteria have both been satisfied. Correct.
>> Yes. I I see no substantial detriment at all of from this and none of the surrounding properties are going to be uh negative ne negatively affected by uh this proposal. Thank you. Um, I'll turn the witness over to the board and the professionals. Anyone have any
questions? >> I do. Specifically under uh 4055D2 um specifically what uh what letters in the positive criteria under the statute are are you saying are the positive criteria? >> So let's talk about NJSA4
55D-2. Um what I will do is I will talk about the um I'll give you the small letter and then I'll I'll I'll paraphrase the uh the purpose. >> I appreciate that. >> So so the first one is C to provide adequate light air and open space. Um as
a matter of fact, we're maintaining as best as possible the u existing conditions confining them to to the area even though the front yard setback um uh uh is closer to the front yard. I find that keeping it out of the buffer area
will maintain the uh air light and open space around the um uh around the property. U G to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of land uses. What are those land uses? Residential and commercial
uses. Uh the property has always been used uh as a residence and a non-residential use. Uh we're uh uh going to continue using the residential component and we're going to be converting the um office component of
the property into a um uh the the the pool liner uh business uh with a small office uh reducing the amount of office spaces in the existing building and and having the the storage uh there. So uh
that would also speak to uh uh helping fulfill the use variance. I to pro promote a desirable visual environment. Uh I find that the removal of the dead trees. I find the uh replacing them with
much more attractive uh evergreen trees and a mix of uh other plant material that's native uh will enhance the visual uh environment. Also the addition to the um uh house will also be attractive and
and respect the uh uh character of of the the existing uh part of the house and also the garage which is a poleborn style and pole barns are something that's typically found in the more rural landscape and I find that that
combination and maintaining the gravel area will also be respectful of that that rural uh character. The next one would be uh J and that is to uh uh to uh uh prevent urban sprawl and degradation of the environment
through improper land use. And what's happening here is that uh we're essentially reusing an empty office space and reusing it to properly utilize the uh uh and make use of the property. uh m more efficient use of the land and
similar uh uh description uh can be applied uh to that clearly the reuse of the property reuse of the residential and and the non-residential components uh uh would would speak to that and then a given all of those above uh that I
spoke about I would say that it promotes the public health safety uh morals and general welfare. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Okay. Any other questions? >> I just have one one question just to confirm on the record that all the
relief uh within the buffers it's it's it's delicate. So anything um during construction or even post construction there may be additional relief that that may be needed um just based on what they the relief um some of the disturbance or
any any further structures um would require border relief uh in those areas. >> Okay. Is that going to be a condition that you want to add?
>> Can you Can you give us an example? Yes. >> Yeah. So, so post they're they're proposing disturbance within that area. If it's >> if it exceeds >> if it exceeds what what they're proposing post construction or during construction, that's that's subject to
um board review and additional variance relief. >> Okay. So they need to stick to their plan or else they have to come back. >> Exactly. >> Okay. >> Got it. >> Yes.
>> All right. All right. Uh just to confirm there is no one from the audience that has any questions or concerns or comments this applicant. Robin, you want to do a closing or? >> Yeah. I would ask the board to grant the relief requested. It's consistent with
the use variance. This board in the past recognized the appropriateness of the business use and you've heard testimony about the constraints on the property that um that necessitate some of the variance relief and the uh the proposed site plan is very workable. Um it uh it
allows um Margarita and Louise to to live on the site and operate a very low inensity business on the site uh without really harming anything uh on the town's part. Um it's near a a commercial zone as well. So uh for the reasons for those reasons and the reasons testified, I
would ask the board to grant the relief. >> Okay. All right. Close for duration. >> Sure. Want to go first? >> Yes, please. >> So I'm going to support this application. Uh just want to make a couple of comments. Uh first of all want
to thank you guys because this is a very highly constrained property and uh the amount of effort you guys have put in as well as the owner's flexibility. But above all um encouraging small
businesses especially in that area um is really good. So I really appreciate that and I want to support that and also your flexibility. Uh I do agree with a lot of those hardship arguments you made about
uh the variance C1 uh just considering where it is and the buffer and all those elements there. I in fact drove by before I got here today uh just to see that environment and because of other things I do for township that area is
very sensitive for flooding and all that good stuff. And so just the way the plan is coming together with the importance of storm water and all that and you guys have done a good job. So I will support that. Okay. Yeah. >> Anyone else?
>> I would um like to support the project as well. I'm glad to see a very old cesspool type of um wastewater facilities get replaced by something new and that meets current standards. That's a public health and safety thing that um
is very important. Um protecting our groundwater quality and so forth. And likewise, if a well is there, an existing well that's been there for like forever might not be consistent with the
requirements for well location and so forth. And to have a new well that's properly located and it's going to be tested and safe is a is a good thing. And I very much support the reuse um of the existing um facilities on site and
having the pole barn as a place to store the equipment. Keeping that property um looking nice and clean and neat um with things stored indoors is going to be great for the neighborhood and the community.
>> Jim, do you want to add anything? >> Yes. Uh can you hear me? Yes. >> Okay. I I uh I I'm impressed with the amount of work that's going to be done on this property to to and and the
description is really impressive. Um it is a tough spot, tough area and it's not very large two acres with all that stuff going on. Wow. However, I don't think we talked about it. I don't think we should
be extending our uh time frame beyond one year. In the event that they're unable to get completed or they need additional time, we should be required to come back to the board seek an extension like everyone else would. I don't think we should make a policy of
changing the the time frames where wherein things have to be accomplished here or in anywhere else. Hey, hey, Jim. Just to confirm, um, >> Jeff confirmed that the it's one year
for the permit and then following it, it's one year to complete the construction. So, I think we are good to go. >> Okay. But do we have are we going to put that put that in in
the resolution that way? I don't think we've done that. Yeah, Jim. It's always included in the resolution. >> It's always included. >> One year and then plus one year, >> correct? Yep. >> So, they should be good.
>> Anything else, Jim? >> No, I I support the be. >> Okay. I want to thank the applicant. Um I think this is a unique piece of property. I appreciate all the work's been done and I do want to highlight that I appreciate the landscaping. Um,
it's always big on my plate. I think the place looks very good and I think this is a perfect business for this property and uh I would be in favor. >> I I concur with everything that's been said.
>> Okay. All right. So, we'll take a vote. >> No, going to make a motion. >> Make a motion. Sorry. You want to make a motion to approve? Make a motion to approve with all the conditions placed on the record.
>> Okay. Lorett did it. I'll second it. >> Okay. Now, can I get a vote? >> Chairwoman Miss Cynthia Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Mr. Russell Damji. >> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes. >> Miss Jim Ferrero. >> Yes. >> Miss Lorett Cina.
>> Yes. >> And Miss Donna Cruz? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Following the next application for this evening, EOA case number 02-2025.
Applicants Cheryl and Vincent Reetti. Location block 63.09. Lot 125 Sun Ridge Court. Applications for a C variant for construction of inground pool within the 15 foot setback
and exceeding the 20% hard surface maximum. >> Good evening. >> Wait, wait, wait. Just wait until everybody leaves. >> And goodbye to Jay and John Marca Thomas. >> Okay.
>> Thanks for everything. And can you guys make sure that microphone is on by him? It's green. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Okay. You're an attorney now. >> No, you just gonna give a brief intro.
So, good evening everyone. James Kyle. I'm the applicant's planner. We don't have an attorney, so I'm just going to give a quick intro. And uh we have three witnesses tonight. Um Cheryl Bernetti is here seated to my left, the applicant. I'm of course Jim Kyle. And then we have Ted Bear from Bear Race Engineering, uh
who worked on the revised plans. Madam Chair, as you said, this is an application for bulk variance relief. Uh the primary relief is hard surface coverage. Uh a lot of this is related to improvements that have existed on this property for the better part of 10 15 years roughly. Uh a lot of what was
constructed was constructed with permits. Um and then what happened was the ordinance shortly after the brunettes built their pool, the ordinance changed and reduced the hard surface limit from 40% to 20%.
So that created some issues. Um the admittedly this has been a very long process for Vince and Cheryl. Um I've actually been working on this job for 5 years uh since being first being retained in 2021. Uh and one of the main problems uh it's unique in that there is
storm water that flows from adjacent lots through this property to the property that the township now owns back behind the Bernetti house. So, there was a lot of um things that we had to figure out with storm water and and some other delays that we had as well, but we were
finally here to present this application to the board. Um so, what I'll do is Charles just going to kind of give a an introduction to her and and talk a little bit about um the process and then Ted and I will kind of wrap up the variances and and the storm water system
that's been designed here. Again, if I can have uh everybody sworn in, including the board professionals, do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're going to provide in this hearing is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? And everybody,
uh, just state your name for the record. >> Hi, my name is Cheryl Bernetti >> and James Kyle, professional planner. >> And I am Theodore Bayer with Bayer Engineering, uh, project engineer.
Ryan, really? >> Really? You think Jim heard that? >> Sorry, >> Brian McCarthy with the board engineers office. >> She's not She's not doing a transcript. >> Jim. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. >> Planner.
>> Thank you, Jeff. >> Okay. >> Good evening, everybody. My name is Cheryl Brunetti. I'm a homeowner of Five Sunrise Court. I'm a long-term resident of Hunter County. I've been a resident here since 1986.
In 2005, we purchased the property that we're speaking about today, which was our dream house where we had raised our three children. Um, we've been there since 2005. In approximately 2006, we had applied for
permits to do a pool and a outside deck. Uh at the current time there everything was there was not even any deck off the back and so it was our dream to build this for our family. We thought we were
doing everything right. We hired a contractor who was handling all the permits. Um, you know, we were more concerned about aesthet the the ex, excuse me, aesthetically pleasing appearance of the property because he told us that he had
everything under control and we assumed that everything was under control. Um, we paid for the permit fees, we did everything. And then uh approximately 15 years later was when we and I could
be wrong on the exact time frame, but it was approximately 15 years later when we received a letter stating that we hadn't comp we hadn't the permits had not been closed out that we um did not meet or
fulfill the standard of providing an asbuilt survey. And so here we are. We spent, as you said, 5 years, considerable time and expense to handle the storm water management
issues with the runoff of the rest of the people in our culde-sac. And uh we I'm requesting relief so that we can continue to enjoy our beautiful backyard. I guess I just have a couple questions.
So, you applied for permits for the pool and the deck. >> Yes. >> Did but not for example the botchi court, the fire pit, the all those other areas. And >> that is correct. >> And extra sidewalks and things like that and the fountain.
>> Uh I'll actually Mr. So, there was a permit applied for for the front walkway. I don't know that that permit application included the fountain that that might have been added later or
wasn't depicted on the permit, but there was a permit granted for um they actually if you drove by the house, you saw over the front entry there's that roof structure. So, that was part of the permit application as well as the the front walkway.
>> So, I I actually issued a notice dated March 1st, 2020. It includes that zoning permits weren't provided for the deck edition, patio and walkways, hot tub structure, fire pit structure, botchi ball court with
horseshoe pit, property fence, and fountain structure. So, let me make sure I got on March 1st, 2020. >> You're saying that none of this was a permit was
>> none of it? >> Well, we do have um so there was an attorney working with us when we started this whole process. They had submitted oper requests to the township. So, we have copies of the approved zoning permits for the pool, the pool deck, the
the deck, and the patio underneath the deck in the rear was all part of that one permit that was issued in 2006. Um, Taylor, that was one that I emailed to you today. And then there was a subsequent permit. So, the pool was
constructed. There was a permit. >> Do we have it? Can we see it or >> uh we can submit them? I I'm going to be honest. I didn't I completely forgotten about all the material that we had received because the attorney had compiled all that and I came upon it
today and I thought, well, gee, we probably should have submitted a lot of this. >> So, we're happy to provide all the copies of the permits um that that we received from the OPER request. If you give me just one moment, I can bring up the permit, but >> it was not submitted as part of our
application >> to be an exhibit, >> but we could as a condition of approval require either evidence of an approved permit that was complied with or the applicant will apply for any and all outstanding permits that weren't ever applied for.
>> I think that would be appropriate. >> I mean, I have the blocking lot right here and I'm reading the permit right right now. Yeah. >> Um, >> the one which he said. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And it says pool deck, but that's I don't think that has to do with the deck going. >> Yeah, I was going to say
>> Yeah, but you have to look at the permit drawing that was submitted with it. And it does depict the the deck and the and the patio underneath the deck. That was also part of what was shown on the uh on the on the permit plan. >> I mean, look,
>> yeah. all when I do a zoning review and the desri and there there's something on the plan and it's not in the description that's not that's not being applied. >> Um and that deck is in a in a setback area. I can't imagine a zoning officer
approving that. >> Jeeoff, it happens all the time. Well, yeah. I would know. But that's >> So I guess I mean where >> I'm sorry, I'm confused. Can you So
you're talking about the deck and the underneath the deck, >> right? >> You guys, when you say underneath the deck, >> I thought it was all one structure. >> Yes. So there's So this is a walk out basement. So from the main living area
there is a deck that extends off the rear of the house. Now it's a substantial deck. It's a concrete structure. It's it's on pillars. >> So on the picture >> it says deck. >> That's what you're talking about. >> It is a deck. Yes. >> And then when you And then the underneath one is where it says table.
>> Well, there's a patio that extends it. >> It's the same amount of space as the top. It's basically um a deck and then under it it's like a patio that mirrors the same space on the top.
>> So when you walk out the basement it's a patio and above it is a deck. >> Yeah. It's mirroring the same space. >> It looks pretty much bigger. So on the plan it looks like >> So you're saying it extends beyond the footprint goes all the way under the
deck. >> And the deck is sitting on top. Correct. And plus there's the fireplace which extends out even further. >> Yeah, I guess there is a one area where it is a little bit Yes, >> there was one area where it juts out.
You're right. You're right. It juts out a little bit. >> Okay. So, we don't have any permits for We have a permit for the green ground pool and the deck around the pool.
>> Correct. But I'm I'm looking at the the permit the zoning permit application that was approved. >> Yes. >> And it says installation of new inground swimming pool deck equipment pad pool barrier fence and patios plural as shown
on attached drawings SP1 and C1. >> Do you have that? And when you go to that drawing that's attached to the permit application, it shows the pool, the pool deck, but then it also shows new concrete patio by others, new raised
concrete patio by others. So, it's all depicted on the on the permit drawing, >> but that doesn't include a deck. Well, Jeeoff, I don't know what to say. It's shown on the permit. So, >> no. One second. I one opinion from our
attorney. Joe Jeff is arguing that it's not mentioned, so it it doesn't matter whatever is in the drawing. What's your opinion? I I don't know that I have one other than to say I would defer to the
planner. I've never had to pull those balls of strikes before terms of in terms of what satisfies for an application, but I would say and again this is just by common sense working through it. I would look to what
the ask is and write in terms of what you're Yes. >> If I do have a digital copy, do you want me to put on the TV or No, >> I have I think that would be helpful. >> Yeah, it would be helpful. >> I mean, it it does say the patio
concrete patio and and concrete patio raised concrete patio and concrete patio by others, but there's >> there's a there's a deck that's above the patio. >> All right, hold on. Let me bring it up and we will go by the page where they write in the description of work
>> and then we will look at the drawing >> and then we will look at the survey that was provided with the permit. >> And I guess what I'm looking at here and just talking to Jeff, it's not mentioned and it's not shown. So we're discussing something that's not even relevant
because >> it's not shown. >> We're talking about a hypothetical. It doesn't exist. >> Yeah. >> It wasn't mentioned in the ask and it's not on the drawing. So, >> so they so it would require imperment for the deck. >> Yeah, 100%. >> Yeah, that's and I'm not I'm not trying to be argumentative. When I look at this
plan only because I've been to the site many times, I know what was constructed and when I look at this plan, it reflects in my mind what was constructed. There's they're calling it a raised concrete patio, but which is essentially what it is. It's a concrete
structure that comes off the main floor and is above the walkout basement. So, the concrete patio that you see on the drawing here is what extends beyond that that main floor deck that goes out. But look, I I don't I I honestly don't want
to argue about it. If if Jeff feels that we need to apply for a permit should the board approve this application, then we will do that. >> Well, okay. So then my next question is is when they applied for it, I don't understand why it didn't come before the board of adjustment because
of the location and the setback. >> I'm not sure, Madam Chair. I I you know, it's >> the pool is is the pool and the I guess the curve of the patio, >> right, >> are within the setback,
>> aren't they? Well, the patio um there's a different So, the issue >> what's considered the backyard? The backyard >> to the right of the to the right of the house would be the rear yard. >> Okay. >> So, the um the concrete patio that's at grade
typically would be considered an accessory structure. I agree with Jeff's interpretation. Since the deck or or the you know what we're calling a raised concrete patio is attached to the principal structure. >> Mhm. >> The principal building setbacks would apply to that accessory structure.
>> So it does need to meet the rear setback. Now why no one caught the fact that it was in the rear yard setback? I don't know. >> Yeah. So Jeeoff, that's what I'm trying to think. >> Well, no, I think there's because it's not a patio. It's it's it's a deck. >> Oh, I agree.
>> Yeah. So that that's really where um what's shown on the zoning permit. I don't they I don't know if they did the previous calculation or whatever, but the the setback for the patio is fine. But the deck is is not
>> and the deck is on top of the patio. >> Yes. >> So it's extending beyond the patio is >> no different set. But the but the deck is attached to the principal structure. It has to abide by the self act.
>> The patio extends further than >> Yeah. And they were done at the same time. >> Okay. What do you got? >> Go to the first page. Page. That's where the just one sheet. What am
I going to call this? Ariel. >> This driver is bigger. >> So Jeff reading this is what Jim was talking about. >> What's wrong with that? >> It does not include deck. It's unclear.
>> It It shows the It says mentions the pool deck, but that's not the deck >> coming off of the house. >> And really, I mean, >> okay. So, and this was submitted by the pool, >> correct?
>> Which they wouldn't care about the deck. So when they say pool deck here, they're talking about the patio around the deck. >> Yeah. And if you go to the actual site plan that was submitted. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Gotcha. >> Okay. They note concrete patio by others and
raised concrete patio by others. I'll admit that >> it's not clear in the permit. No, >> I agree with you, Jeeoff. It's not I would not have worded it that way um on the permit drawing. >> I guess I guess since I've been there and seen it, it made sense to me the way
that this was labeled, but you know, I realize it might not make sense to everyone else. So, >> and also the just to point out like Lorett pointed out to me, the driveway depicted here is substantially smaller than the driveway that exists when the plan
submitted. >> That is true. >> So, that was >> so that was the the the driveway that you see there was the original driveway constructed when the house was built and it was later uh converted their concrete pavers that were installed um as well as
the front walkway. Okay. So then my question is you said in the beginning that there were issues >> with water. >> Yeah. So you see on this drawing um there's a
swale that comes from if you see in the upper left corner the number 192 191. So water comes from offsite in that area and flows through the swale. You see where it says on the right hand side behind the concrete patio it says NE
swale. >> Yeah. >> So the water from offsite runs through this property through that swale and then ends up uh discharging onto the township owned property to the east. So let me let me just so Joe is satisfied. Um this exhibit that I've handed out
it's entitled 2025 aerial photo and tax parcel base map. Uh this depicts uh the subject property. It's block 63.09. 09 lot 12. The lot lines are a little off, so don't focus on those too much. There there's a little bit of inherent error
in the parcel data. Um, but that depicts generally the outline of the property and then the improvements as they exist today. >> But one of the problems that we have is putting too much structure on a property
which causes more flooding. >> Correct. And that's what you'll hear from >> saying there was flooding before. Well, not not necessarily flood. I mean, I think in certain situations there was a lot of water that would flow through that swale from offsite. You know, if you think about 2021, you know, some of
the rainstorms we had there, it was a problem for for Cheryl and Vince. But um the the issue that we first identified um when Jim Hill was working on this and we were talking with Tony Hajar about it was
what do we do with all that water that comes from offsite? Tony, I think at that point, was of the opinion that we needed to do something with it. And that's really where Jim Hill was struggling. And they went back and forth quite a bit and, you know, Jim noodled it a lot, but then we ended up kind of
said we lost our place on it. And then, uh, Ted came in to address it, but essentially what I can tell you is that 20% is what's permitted. At the time all of this was constructed, they were allowed 40%. So if you see on that permit drawing in the upper leftand
corner there's a uh a table and it says maximum permitted 40%. So, it was not very long after this was all built that the standard was cut in half. >> And with all these uh additions, is is
it still within 40 with all that Jeff was not included? >> We're So, we're actually removing some of the improvements. So, the fire pit, >> yes. >> And the botchi court and the horseshoe pit are going to go. >> Yeah. But my question is very simple. You have all these things which are
remaining >> correct. with that >> we're at everything within 40 which was approved >> it's at 36% >> with what's shown on the plan today. >> Okay. >> And then what we're doing is we are attenuating
all the excess impervious over 20% with the storm water management system that's proposed. >> That was my next question about storm water and how is that going to help reduce whatever runoffs from the storm? Uh, I think I want to let their their
engineer testify to >> Yeah, we'll let Ted I'll give you the details on this one. >> Yep. >> Jim, I'm sorry. When you when you when you remove the fire pit, the Bachi, the horseshoe, uh, all of what does it go? It goes from 36 down to what?
>> No, right now we're just over 40%. And we're going to we're going to come down to 36%. Correct. Can we uh take a two-minut break? >> Okay. Yes. >> Okay. Calling back. Okay.
>> Where are we at? >> Continue is what I want to say. >> Okay. But >> let me put it this way. Sure. >> It wasn't you specifically. started. >> Okay. And I really mean that. I appreciate that. Okay.
>> So, let let me just reiterate. I I agree that the permit that was submitted, whatever was approved, it's not clear. You can't necessarily tell from the drawing. We have no issue. If the board were to approve this, we will reapply for the zoning permit. Not a problem. We're happy to do it.
>> Okay. Cheryl and Vince were under the impression that, you know, that they had gotten all the permits or the contractor had gotten all the permits that were required for all this construction. You know, we all know sometimes that's not really what happened. So, um and and honestly, >> just just to confirm, >> yeah,
>> it looks like they submit the pool company submitted for permits. >> Yep. >> They got permits and they went and did all but they what tagged this was the permits were never closed. Well, specific to the pool and the pool deck,
we have I have a bunch of other information, um, certificates of completion, okay, >> that are related to some of these permits. >> Okay, >> so somebody came out and looked at this all once it was built and issued a certificate of approval.
>> Okay, so with that being said, >> not for the I said not for the pool. Okay. >> The pool was not completed because the asbuilt survey was never submitted and that was a specific condition of that permit. >> However, there were other there were other permits that were granted and I
have certificates of completion or approval in in the file. >> Can we can we state this? >> Yeah. >> That we we should hear it out tonight. >> Okay. >> But we want to see everything you're talking about. >> Sure. >> So there we would not vote tonight. >> That's fine.
>> Okay. But we just need everything in order. This is >> it's frustrating. I'm sure it's very frustrating for them. They've been through this for five years. >> Yeah. >> Um but we just need to line this up. >> Not a problem. So what I'll do is after we leave tonight, I'll put together a package with with
>> I'm not going to give you everything. I mean, there's probably a lot of stuff that was in the Oprah request that's not relevant. I'll compile the relevant information and we'll submit it to Taylor and then when we come back we can you know you guys all have that and I have it all electronically too. They're all PDFs so
>> okay >> we can do that that would help. >> Yeah and I know it's frustrating but we need to do due diligence. I hope you'll understand that. >> Yeah I mean I guess is a question whether or not we got permits in the deck. >> A lot of >> there's more than that.
>> The fire pit of the Bachi court. I know we did >> the driveway. The driveway >> fountain. >> Well, I know we did for the deck and the pool. I mean, obviously, >> but no, that's why we're we did not get for the bot. I didn't think that we need
them. I mean, it's I thought it was an imperial. >> So, no, we did not. >> Yeah. So, that's where we're just trying to gota The reality is when you go to sell this at some point in the future to have all these permits cleaned up. >> Yeah.
>> You will love it. and and your buyers will love it. >> Yeah. And and I think if we can get through what the the storm the solution is and knowing that if that satisfies then it's really just cleaning up the permits for us to >> vote and >> then then maybe we vote can vote.
>> Fair enough. >> But I'm not even sure I want to really hear that >> the storm water >> the storm water solution is going to work and not >> in impair the the uh lot next to them. >> Understood. >> Okay.
So, why don't we uh why don't we hear from Mr. Bayer? >> All right. I should qualify myself. My my name is Ted Bayer. I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. Graduate of Ruffers University College of Engineering. Received my professional engineers license in 1988. I've been township
engineer in Lebanon Township Punan County, uh planning board engineer in Lebanon, also zoning board engineer, and I've testified before numerous boards. I believe I've testified before this board of adjustment. If not this board of adjustment, I've been before the Rabbitton Township Planning Board.
>> Okay. And your license is active? >> My license is currently active. Yes. >> Great. Okay. We'll accept. >> Okay. Great. >> Qualifications. Thank you. >> Thank you. Unlike everybody else, I've only been involved in the project for a month and a half. But what we what we were uh hired to do
was to take a look at the review letter from uh environmental resolutions uh and and also Jeff Vakarella and come up with a solution to the storm water problem on the property. What we did uh
and my my plans consist of three sheets. Uh sheet one we'll start talking about that is the lot development plan existing and proposed conditions. Uh that's sheet one of three. It's dated March 11th 2026 unrevised.
So what this this show uh plan is based on the asbill survey that was conducted and prepared and submitted by David Newton which I believe the board has and it shows uh at the end of the uh culde-sac rights court north is to the
top of the sheet. So when we talk about north it's up uh east east is to the right west is to the left. So it shows the driveway coming in from the west. Uh it shows the existing two-story dwelling that's kind of grayed out so you can see
where the where the actual house is. Uh then there's the the deck which was the upper deck I guess or the upper patio. Extending out below that to the east is the lower patio with a table on it and
then a fireplace off of that. To the north is the swimming pool. Uh on the southeast corner of the swimming pool is the fire pit and then on the lower souththeast corner of the property was the botchi ball pit and and the uh
horseshoe pit >> and the hot. >> So uh that's the existing conditions. What we proposed is a storm water management basin at the southeast corner of the property. If you look at the relief, the existing contours are such
that water will flow from the northwest corner of the property and a lower diagonal down to the to the lower right, the southeast corner of the property. That's the general that's the general relief across the site. What we've done is we put our basin at the southeast
corner, which is the lowest property, lowest corner on the property. And we've created a swale that is going to extend northward from that basin almost all the way to the pool. And we will have uh
sheet flow coming off of the house, the pool, the decks, the patio, and the uh northwestern portion of the property, enter into our swale, and being conveyed by overland flow down to the basin in the southeast corner of the property.
That basin has been sized to accommodate the amount of runoff increased from the 20% which is permitted by zoning to the 36% 35.95%.
So that e that excess uh 15 and change percent will be managed by this basin. Uh there was a soil log done by uh another engineering firm and he found that there was a uh a high water table
on the property or water table at a depth of 39 in below the ground surface. So that was a constraint in in our design of this basin. Uh, one of the things we did when we took over was we reconfigured
the basin so that we could provide that two-ft separation as required by the ordinance. Uh, we did not have a very very good permeability. So, we put an under drain in this basin. So, we have a foot of gravel in the bottom of it. The bottom of the basin starts 2 feet above
that seasonal high water tables identified in the soil log. We have a foot of gravel and there's an under drain system in that and that under drain will convey any excess water uh off to the eastern side, the southeastern corner of the property where we put a scour hole. There's an 8
in pipe that discharges from the bottom of our basin into that scour hole. So uh we wrote a we put together a storm water management report uh that accommodates the design of the basin the the runoff volumes runoff quantities and
we submitted it with uh a letter in response to Resh's uh initial letter and and then um we complied with most of the most of the conditions that were what was the issues that were addressed in in uh that
letter. That was the original letter. Uh then there's been two review letters since then. One from uh Environmental Resolutions dated March 26th uh and one from Jeff Varella dated March 25th of this year. And probably the best thing
to do would be to go over those those letters uh one at a time. Make sense? >> Okay. >> Which one you want to go first? We'll start with the uh with the engineers letter. Okay. Uh and I believe that the first uh
first page and the upper part of the second page is just a description of what uh what was submitted and the description of the zoning and uh at the lower half of page two uh he talks about variances. Item one, the office defer to
the board planner for any comment regarding the variances. Jim and Jeff can talk to that. Uh waiverss per article three discharge of storm water. Uh the discharge is permitted by the piper will not discharge onto an
adjoining parcel and uh one of the one of the uh conditions in that and this is an ordinance uh that the outlet pipe must be within the building envelope. Uh and in our case because of the lay of
the land and the fact that the lowest point on the property is in that southeast corner our outlet pipe from our basin terminates 10 ft from the property line in that uh scour hole. So we are going to need relief from that and that's what Resh said in his letter.
Uh then there's general comments number two number three we're satisfied >> to 63932. Correct. Right. Yep. >> Out that way >> to the east. Yep. >> Okay. >> I didn't understand.
>> What was the question? >> I I didn't hear that. >> I just want to know where >> discharging it to the east. >> Oh, yes. I'm sorry. You're right. Yeah. Discharging. Discharging to the east. That's correct. >> Y. >> Okay. Hawaiian. >> Uh then uh top of page three uh of the
engineers letter said the statement that the project meets the deposition of a minor project as defined in your ordinance. Uh and then uh number five uh several conditions regarding uh the requirements for minor development. Uh
5A soil erosion settlement control that's satisfied. uh uh I I we acknowledge and so does he that we have to submit a soil rose and sediment control plan for the soil conservation district and uh sheet three of my plan set is the soil rose and sediment
control plan so we'll submit that uh 5D letter I was satisfied we' submitted that storm water report uh the storm water management basin uh item six testimony provided as to how the storm water is going to be captured and conveyed And as I said earlier, we
have a grass swale that runs north from the basin up towards the swimming pool. All runoff from the pool and the other hard surfaces will enter that swale and be conveyed down to our basin at the southeast corner of the property. Uh 6B, the plans in the storm water
report are consistent. That's good. uh routing information in our storm water report. We did provide uh pre-development and post-development uh drainage uh patterns. Uh so again that complied >> item number seven, the bottom of the
basin has been raised provide that 2.7 >> I'm sorry item 6C. So was the routing information provided? Okay. Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh the bottom of the basin was raised uh two feet above that elevation of the groundwater table.
So that complies. Uh item number eight uh is refers to wetlands and we had a bunch of correspondents earlier this week. Uh Ed Cook of Eastern States Environmental uh was out to the site. He did a wetlands sitewalk and he submitted
a report which I believe is part of the record uh January 30th, 2026. Uh, and what Ed found was that there are no there are no wetlands on site or within 50 ft of the site. And I I think the uh the issue of wetlands came up because on
the geo web uh the DP's GIS site, there are shown wetlands that basically come right to the edge of our property. I think that's in one of the reports, but Ed went out there and he confirmed uh and his reports is very clear. you know, he looked at the uh looked at the soils, he looked at the drainage, and he looked
at the plants, and he he found that there's no wetland species out there. Uh he found that if there if there was a wetlands, it would be a 50-ft uh transition area because it's a uh not an exceptional resource value. And he says in his report that the wetlands and the wetlands transition areas are are more
than more than 50 ft away. So, >> yeah, I'm sorry to interrupt, but we had spoken with Mr. Dargy about this issue because the first review letter stated that an LOI should be applied for um on that property, the adjacent property that the township now owns, I think it's
about 17ish acres. It's a large property, so it it would have been a monumental undertaking for Cheryl and Vince to apply for and obtain an LOI. So, Mr. Dargy agreed at that point that if Ed submitted a a report and he went out there in the field and looked at it
and determined that there wasn't anything within 50 ft or that the buffer was 50 ft and nothing was with excuse me was within 50 ft of our property that that was sufficient in his mind to uh address that issue.
So that's why we had Mr. Cook or Cheryl had Mr. Cook go out and and visit the site. He actually took soil samples on the township property just to confirm. So he he's pretty confident in in his analysis. >> Yeah, I agree. We're okay.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh that that addresses number eight of the engineers letter. Number nine uh is the discharge of storm water should be directed uh to ditches or cleaning the drywall. As I stated earlier, because of the lay of the land,
we can't get a discharge within the building envelope and we have that 10-ft uh kind of thing. Uh so, uh number 10 is a new comment from the engineer and what he'd like to see is build the fabric along the bottom and sides of our uh our
gravel enclosure within that basin. And we have no problem doing that. So, that could be a condition of any approval. That's item number 10. And number 11 is he wanted to see an inspection port in that with that basin. And that's again that's something we can we can put in that's not a big deal.
And then approvals and permits the outside agencies which have been talked about earlier. And then uh assuming Cheryl and Vince are up to date on their taxes. Everything else should be good. >> And just just to clean it up on my end just for for the record and for the resolution. So it's going to be comments 9, 10, and 11 from our letter
conditions. And then for the approvals, we're going to strike uh New Jersey D LOI. That's no longer condition. >> I guess my question to you guys is uh the 10 ft discharge on the east, is that acceptable?
>> Yes. So, actually that's it's under a general ordinance. Uh so it's something that the township committee would have to authorize. Um it's been done by for other applicants. um there would have to be a a letter or
um application to the to the township committee and they they actually review that as well. So it's it's a it's a exception from them and then also a variance for the location. >> So we can't formally approve it then we
can only >> contingent >> contingent upon the township. >> Yeah. >> Accepting. >> Yeah. Yeah. do that like an outside agency. >> Yeah. >> So we could do that, right? So with that condition and
>> I guess my only question Ryan and for your engineer is there any chance of um we get a bad storm, we get another, you know, pick >> it, you know, whatever. Yeah, that comes
through. Um, is there a need for like a little emergency? Like is this thing just going to sheet flow over the top of the burm or would it be better to have a controlled area where if it were going to go over top
it wouldn't erode? >> Well, we have a burm along the entire length of that grass waterway. >> Uhhuh. >> And we also have the under drain system with the 8 in outlet pipe. So, uh, anything that's not relieved by the
outlet, we would have she flow over the top of the burm, uh, we did some stability calculations for the swale. We included them in our report. >> So, I I think we're pretty confident that we're not going to see a lot of erosion. >> And I would agree. I think, okay, >> the the intent of the ordinance, the way
it's written is to design for this kind of system. Um, and if we keep expanding, it's kind of like where do you draw the line? So I I I'm I'm comfortable with with uh what they have proposed for the property. >> I have one more um question related to
storm water and drainage in the um permit plan that was uh that Taylor put up on the screen before. Um and we were you were pointing out this swale that was there. There was rip wrap and and other um features.
Is that um a drainage easement? Should there be a dra d or is there a drainage easement associated with that swale? And it's not shown on the plan. I feel like that should be protected. Is it if it's
important to the um the subdivision as a whole? Is it even there anymore? like is it intact if it's needs to be restored? >> That's a good question. Um
that is a good question. I mean I I think as a part of this application they are proposing to more or less continue to use the swale and now it's being directed to a basin. Um, >> so is that something that would need to
be checked for the when they come back to make sure that there wasn't an existing conservation easement or something placed on it at the time subdivision? >> Yeah, I would I would hope that that was picked up when the survey was was done. But maybe if we can do a some deed research to determine if there was any easement that was ever
>> that was part of the problem that you know >> Wait, wait, wait, Cheryl, before you go any further, go into a microphone. I think that's part of the problem that it was not a documented easement when we purchased the property or done by Tall Brothers, you know, when they were doing
the subdivision. >> Okay. >> We didn't even know it existed, >> you know, until, you know, everything started. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> I mean, the plot plan for the Yeah. The plot plan for the house does
not show any any other easements. Usually they're they're shown. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, but usually it's shown on a plot plan for an asb for the plot plan, right? >> Okay. Okay. >> Thank you, >> Ryan. I got a question for you.
>> What the heck is this? >> So, so >> that's the geo web I talked about. >> So, so just just so you know, >> from it, okay, I'm not expert. When I saw that, I thought the blue
>> was wetlands. So that's what so now we're sitting here saying no there's no wetland. >> The I think the best way to describe it um the state provides this mapping as a service for everybody to give a general idea of what is out there >> or what could be out
>> or what could be out there based off of historical data and and historic mapping and things of that nature. I think a good example is from um Mr. Kyle's exhibit that he gave where it shows that there's some issues with the partial data and how it's offset a little bit. >> Yeah.
>> So GIS data as a whole generally should never be used for >> um making sure you're looking at lines specifically. Again, it's more for a general idea. Um and it's and it's more for a a very broad scale, not a buy lot
definition. And that's kind of the reason why we were originally asking for an LOI, but then understanding that it would have to be for the the large property next door, getting a um a wetlands expert out there to actually go out and determine, which that would be a part of the LOI anyway would be to have a wetlands expert go out and actually in
the field and verify it. So the mapping is a great tool to give you an idea if it's out there, but then the best way is to have someone actually go out and then and determine if there is one or not. >> Okay. Thank you. Was there a survey ever done on this property? >> Uh wetland survey. >> Yeah.
>> Yes. Ed Cook went out and verified there's no wetlands on this property and then he looked at the adjacent township property just to make sure there's nothing within 50 ft. >> Okay. >> Within 50. >> So my last question because I'm all about facts and now I know I can't.
So you're saying that your picture and your picture do not are not correct that I can only go by this >> correct. >> Okay. Because obviously it looks like
the pool is on the property line and all. Yeah. Okay. >> The the aerial is is accurate I think. Um, and listen, I I was working at the Hunter County Planning Board when we started this whole parcel mapping and GIS thing 25 or 30 years ago. >> Mhm.
>> So, there's something called National Map Accuracy Standards and what it does is it allows a certain fudge factor for data to still be considered um of use, but it has to meet those standards in order to to be published. And you can
get a line. It's just like soil surveys, right? you look at a map, that line to meet national map accuracy standards could be 250 ft north of where it's shown on the map and still be okay. >> So, you just have to understand the limitations of the data that you're working with. And and I will tell you
from experience, >> the geo web is notorious. I've compared LOIs to D mapping and there is a dramatic difference. Nine times out of 10, it's very overstated because it's photo interpreted and it's based off
soils data that has inherent errors in it to begin with. >> So, as long as you understand the source of it and it's and its accuracy or inaccuracy, then it tells you how useful it is for what you're doing. >> And again, you're looking at the scale. So, if we're looking at New Jersey as a
whole, it's a great tool. But then getting into the nitty-gritty of every property that's an acre or less, then it starts to get a little bit Yeah. >> Okay. Good to know. >> Yep. Sure question. >> Okay. >> I think uh there's another questions
about the engineers report. We can go to uh Jeff's report. >> Do you have any? >> I do not. No. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh Jeff's report uh dated March 25th, 2026 consists of three pages. Uh it talks about the variance relief
which is what we have Jim for. Uh And so I think I'll just jump to the planner comments at the bottom of page two. Uh and uh the the material Jeff said materials was submitted within the 21-day rule. Okay. Uh the zoning table should be revised to
reflect the following. The typo uh 31.12 ft for the rear yard. We had transposed the one and the two. So we said 31.21 rather than 31.12. We'll change that. That's not a big deal. uh same thing as the existing condition for the lot width uh as it's on a
culde-sac so the minimum lot width of 50 ft is not applicable so we'll change that uh and then we've talked about this uh the the township committee has to issue the uh the waiver or the variance for the 10 ft uh if you guys could condition your pool on that that's good
uh the rest of it is uh stuff that Jim can address the planners report was very simple from my stand >> uh What's up about the fence? >> Oh, the fence line. >> Oh, that that's going to be relocated to
within the Bernett's property. >> It was uh constructed in the wrong place by the pool contract. So, as was as were a few other things. So, that's part of the issue >> and we can stipulate to that being put on the property right now on the
property. >> Okay. So, you agree with everything else? Yes, I do. >> Well, yeah, the not the planner stuff >> except for gym stuff. >> Yeah. So, from an engineer >> from an engineering standpoint, I have no problem making a couple of
adjustments. >> Okay. So, um question to Jeff. Jeff, I know that the was toll is the other >> is the other uh community is Toll Brothers that we
have all the storm water issues. I believe so. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry. Strike that from the recording. >> Okay. >> Jim, you didn't hear it. >> And we had a chart.
Okay. Of all the variances and I believe what they are proposing is within the other properties. Um it's it's on the high side. Yeah, it's >> Yeah, but there were but
>> I'll have to look back to verify because I know that >> there were a few not only in the toll but surrounding developments that were >> um >> I think there's nine all get you know there was yeah quite a few okay so if you could do that that that would be appreciated >> yeah I could I could prepare that yes
>> okay so what this was was an exhibit that showed what the historical devian from the 40 you know when it went from 20 to 40, right? What type of relief the board has >> traditionally looked at. >> Okay.
>> Right. Is that putting right >> which which then the the early part of that study was then a recommendation to the township committee to allow up to 27% >> right >> with a administrative engineering review
of the storm order. So 27 is actually applies to this to this development as well. So, >> yeah. And for some properties, it it was difficult. So, we're just trying to >> Okay. All right. So, we on to the planner. >> Well, I'm going to leave it up to you,
Madam Chair, because it is 9:49. We know we we know we are coming back. So, I'm I'm happy to present my testimony at the next hearing. If if this seems like a logical place to >> cut off, we'll get everything else submitted. um all the permit information
that we have. I'll get that to Taylor in an official submission and we'll come back and see you again. >> Do you want to discuss it? Possible date. >> Sure. >> I mean, I'd like I' I'd like to try and move this along quickly because of the situation. >> So, Cheryl.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um so, do we have any >> uh first off, what's the time for them to act, Jeffrey? We had already granted >> Yeah, we had granted one extension
already. So, >> okay. I'd like to have that on the record. >> Okay. >> Did we ever mark this exhibit? >> Yes, we did. >> Okay. Good. Because I don't want to tell John that we didn't mark. >> No. Neither does Joe. So,
>> well, whenever he submits everything, and it has to be hard copies, not just digital. >> I got it. um that have to be the 21 days. So you're looking at either our first May or second May meeting. Our first May meeting is already scheduled with our
Lowe's application >> or what? >> Lowe's. >> They're coming back. >> Yes. >> And then our second May is for the Marinelli's restaurant. >> The what? >> Marinelli's the Italian restaurant. So,
>> so I mean that's up to you guys. >> I mean Lowe's isn't >> we didn't mark the permit package that we looked at on screen. Let's make that a >> Oh yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. I would >> I guess I guess my question is Lowe's.
>> That's exactly what we are talking about. Exactly. >> That complicated. >> Yes. Even if it is they'll go first and then then Lowe's can go after. >> Thank you so much. Yeah, we're and we're still awaiting plans from them. >> They they
>> Hold up. They have until the 16th to submit plans. >> It is April 2nd. Relax. >> So, I'm sorry. >> The agenda put them first. >> Yes. So, if if you guys are available, you can do May 7th. >> May 7th.
>> Okay. Yeah, let's let's do that. I mean, I have all the information. I just need to compile it, get copies made, and >> Yeah. I have a conflict on May 7th, but do you need me to come back? >> The only >> I I would
sure you'll be able to answer. >> Well, I think I think Mr. McCarthy is okay with the storm water design. I don't think there are any questions. So, >> I think that issue is resolved. >> Okay. >> All right. The only thing I would suggest is do your whatever discussion
about the permits and all that >> and if offline if you guys can talk about which additional permits you would require. >> Sure. >> Alignment of that would be wonderful. >> Yeah, we can do that. >> Oh, I'm sure I'm sure when John is here,
no offense, Joe, when John is here, he will he will legitimately he will list it out in the resolution what permits you will have to do. Yeah, but it's so he doesn't come with the list. >> We're going to be here a half hour making list. >> Yes. So that'll be on Jim.
>> I know that twice >> make the list and if you can >> discuss before >> discuss with Jeff I will coordinate with Jeff and actually what I will do is in our submission memo I will detail the permits we're submitting I will talk to Jeff and we'll provide a summary of the permits that would be needed should the
board approve the application. >> Okay. >> Perfect. And remember, if you don't meet that 21 day, somehow you forget, we'll be bumping you. >> Nope. I'm going to get it submitted next week. >> Yeah, we've had we've had quite a bit of not making it, so we're kind of
hardlining it now. >> Yeah, no, it's fine. >> Okay, >> not a problem. >> And then we'll just make an announcement that this application will be carried to May 7th without the need for further notice. >> Okay. Good job. >> All right. Thank you. Um just so we just
have to kind of align it history. Is that what >> correct? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> All right. Thanks everybody. Enjoy your holiday weekend. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> So move. >> Wait.
Can I get a motion to adjurnn? >> Make a motion to >> Okay. All in favor? >> Okay. Mr. D. That is