Yes, absolutely appreciate it. It's much appreciated. You ready? Okay. Apologies. Good evening and welcome to tonight's meeting of the Sparta Township Planning Board. Thank you for those joining us here and online. For the record, this meeting is being held on
May 6, 2026 at 7:18 p.m. in the Sparta Township Municipal Building located at 65 Main Street, Sparta, New Jersey. And the live stream can be viewed on YouTube at www.youtube.com/spartatwp. Please note that adequate public notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. No
new business will be conducted after 9:30 p.m. and the meeting will end promptly at 10:00. Let us begin with a salute to our flag. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Harry, would you mind calling the role? >> Wait, she's calling the role. here. I can't hear you. Sorry. >> Sorry.
>> Michael Wallace. >> Deputy Mayor Sylvester. >> Ron Day >> here. >> Christine Dunar >> here. >> Joan Ferman >> here. >> Ernie Ragstad >> here. >> Vice Chairwoman Janette Burke >> here.
>> Brian Zimmerman >> here. >> Burgg Bogler >> here. >> Chairwoman Luciano >> here. Okay. >> Sorry, Carrie. I couldn't hear you. >> I don't even need to look at you like if you're in the headlights. I just couldn't hear what you couldn't hear.
>> So, we are opening up the meeting with the approval of minutes for April 1st, 2026. Eligible to vote are Beerit Bogler, excuse me, uh Janette Burke, Ron Day, Chris Dunbar, Joan Ferman, myself, Christine Quinn, Ernie Ragstead, uh Mike
Sylvester, Mike Wallace, both are not here, and Brian Zimmerman. Uh I will put it up to the deis. Does anyone have any questions or comments with regard to these minutes? And Ron, yes, there we we do know that there's an there is an amendment. If you'd like to read it into the record.
>> Sure. So um on page four, right before the second to last paragraph um and this is where we were talking about the um the capital improvement plan, whether or not we want to see it. And I want on the record just to show there was a conversation both full agreement
that Ronda said his opinion that it was not the responsibility of the planning planning board to review the capital improvement plan unless requested by the town council or or required for other reasons. The rationale given was that the approval of the capital improvement
plan is a town council responsibility. It would cost unnecessary money to have our professionals review it and any review could take up time and money better spent reviewing any potential pending applications. Mr. Poro suggested that if there are any spec specific projects that we would
like to see uh or recommend recommendations that we'd like to make such as a sewer line or a transfer station then we should consider making that recommendation recommendation to the town council uh for consideration as a future capital improvement. >> Does anyone else have any comments or
questions regarding these minutes? >> Madam Chair, I have to recuse myself from approval of these because I was not in attendance on April 1st. Ah, okay. So, let the record show that the agenda that stated that Chris Quinn was
eligible to vote is not she is not eligible to vote. >> And then also on page four, just a minor minor thing. Um, says Joan Ferman stated all of this is on a list for discussion during the summer. It's not this upcoming summer. It was uh we were
supposed to review it over the summer and it was on uh going to be on a list for discussion in September. I just have one minor correction. It's on the bottom of page one. Uh at the end of the last full paragraph,
it says, "Miss Bogler also provided data remove from living wage." So it should read, Miss Bogler also provided data on the cost of living in New Jersey as it relates to the regional income limits prepared by the affordable
housing professionals of not on New Jersey and affordable housing professionals should all be capitalized, please. >> So you're taking out from living wage, >> correct? Okay. Madam Chair, I just have a recommendation around the minutes of the
past couple meetings that we had. We spend a lot of time updating the minutes on the fly kind of at meetings, but when we had applications and professionals and things like that that we're paying, maybe we could put or look at putting a process in place that says if anyone has
updates to the minutes that they go to the board secretary, I don't know, x amount of days before so that a final copy can be kind of put together. I'm just throwing it out there, food for thought maybe for another day, but just to so that we're met minimizing the the
cost of with professionals and applicants and things like that. >> Understood. So Carrie, I'm assuming that we can discuss putting a process in place of of getting minutes out earlier to um to board members so that they can opine on
on So we'll work together on that. >> Okay. So, um, any other questions or comments regarding minutes? Okay. Um, I am seeking a motion to approve minutes as amended. >> I'll move Ronda Day.
>> I'll second the second. >> Jo, >> thank you. >> One second. Christine Quinn, >> I can't vote. Right. vote. >> Not abstain. She can't vote. She can't
vote. She wasn't here. >> Ron Day, >> yes. >> Christine Dunar, >> yes. >> Joan Ferman, >> yes. >> Bernie Bra, >> yes. >> Vice Chairwoman Burke, >> yes. >> Brian Zimmerman, >> yes.
>> Bogler, >> yes. >> Chairwoman, >> yes. Okay, so approval of minutes. Moving into public hearings. PB number 26739 Nicolock Paving Stones LLC 4 482 Houses Corner. >> Just quickly, I did speak to Mr.
Zimmerman. Uh he does have a conflict in this matter that his uh business does work with Nikolai. He did say nice things about the Apple. >> Hi, Brian. >> Good night, Brian. And that's Houses Corner Road, block 1605, lot 16, PDRM1
zone, amended site plan with variances. uh which has been carried to this particular meeting. >> Good evening, Madame Chair. Michael Svaji from Lvery Svaji in Cohen on behalf of uh the applicant. Um the chair
is correctly identified u the lot and block. Um this is a 54 acre tract of land uh on houses corner road. Um the applicant did appear in front of you in 2022
uh and secured a site plan approval uh which in in some substance it allowed for the construction of a uh new uh building uh a 1,116 square foot addition to an existing
building and the construction of three silos used for uh dust containment. uh they secured the approval, they got the building permits and through the course of construction uh changes uh became necessary
and u the construction is done. T uh temporary C TCOs have been issued. However, because of the nature of the changes, uh, we were asked to come back here to amend the site plan so it's consistent with what's actually going on
at the property. Um, you'll hear in a minute. Most of the changes are are nominal. Uh, and some of them are are generated by uh OSHA requirements and and pollution or dust control requirements as well. So, what I'd like
to do, Madam Chair, is have Owen Dystra first lead off. Uh he'll kind of run through uh what was originally approved and what's out there and what the changes were and then um we'll move into testimony from the applicant's representative and then we'll have our
planner kind of wrap everything up at the end. So, if Owen uh can be sworn, that'd be great. >> Swear to tell the truth, hold the truth, not by the truth shall be God. >> I do. He's been accepted as an expert in civil
engineering in the past and I believe uh serving and also civil and and your license is still current from last time you were here, right? >> That's correct. >> All right. Cool. So, uh Owen. >> Yeah. >> Chair except
>> Yes, I do. >> So, thank you. >> So, Owen, um you were here in 2022. Um why don't we just kind of summarize what was approved and then you know what's out there now uh on the property.
>> Sure. In 2022 we were here for a 32,500 foot >> Mr. Dextra. I'm so sorry. Can you use the mic? >> Oh yeah these things. I need one that's like >> So we were here and we got it approved a
uh facility for a 32,500 ft um building. the dimensions that 325 were actually 33 because we had not calculated part of the building. So the actual physical dimensions of the building were 33,000 but on our plan it
said 325. So we're back asking for 33. So that's one thing that's changing. So at that time we got an approval. This building was replacing not replacing it was replacing a plant on site to do the walls paper walls.
>> Yeah. the wall plants and the original wall plant was created used for storage now. So, I'll go through kind of what happened there. Along with that, a number of improvements to the site. We um had all our outdoor storage approved. Um the facility had significant drainage
improvements and uh and the like. And if you've been out there, the new building's beautiful. So, I'm going to start with um this is um page two of four of our plans. The only thing different is I turn some colors on so we
can see it from a distance. >> You want that mark since it is different than what was submitted. A1 is good. Oh, however you want. A1's fine. Do >> you want me to mark up this for you and then sheet two?
>> Yeah, this is sheet This is sheet two of four. Um, it's called the site plan, overall site plan. Sheet two of four. It's dated January 9th, 2026. There's no revisions other than it's the color I put on it today.
Um, so existing site is tax lot 16.05. It's a 54 acre site located on Houses Corner Road. Um it's the bulk of the facility, the industrial portion of the
facility is all um in the northwesterly corner of the site. Primarily the easterly side is the more or less open space. There's a solar field in the front um that powers some of the site. Um, and there's an access kind of in the
middle of the frontage off Houses's Corner Road where um, all of the um, vehicles enter and exit this site. That that entrance is a shared access with the neighboring property to the north which is um, a recycling facility. Um,
so I know there's a in your ordinance now that wasn't they added that there's no left turns allowed and that was requested, but we don't really have the right to shut off someone's left turn. We're going to ask for a waiver for that.
Um so I'll run through the um around the the rest of the property. To the north west is the New York Sesana railroad and then to the south is the Micheladi property, the um quarry and sand gravel
pit that's been ongoing forever. So the property is located in the PRDM1 plan development resource management one. a planned planned economic it's a planned economic development and the use is allowed permitted. Um
the current site was approved over numerous years. I believe it started in the 70s originally and slowly on it's developed into this. The Grenell's had their their facility there for years. uh Nikolock purchased it from them and
they've been upgrading the site just along the frontage. It's more or less pasture with the um the solar field. So, visually from the street, you have very little visibility of this site. I tried to drive around today to see where you could see into it just to get a handle on that. And it's very
difficult. The only place I could see into the facility with any um was from Park Lake Road, which is the opposite side of uh the railroad tracks. It's an industrial site over there as well.
As far as um the existing there's an existing pond uh located on the easterly side and there's the settling pond from the original used to be a sand plant here as well and that that is where all the storm water from all of this
facility goes. Now the facility is comprised of eight build seven buildings correct myself. Building one is the administrative office complex. It's occupied by Nikolock and Hammer and still that's building one. It's um as you enter the site it's the first building you come to. It's
basically the office building for the whole facility. Building two is to the west of that building. It's a uh maintenance building that is occupied by hammer and steel and nicolok about twothirds one third. The remainder of
the buildings are all nicolok. Now building three is plant number one that creates the uh pa blocks. So that's what's coming out of that facility. That facility had an approval um associated with the last approval for about a
th00and square foot addition. They still intend on putting that on. It just has not happened yet. So, if we'd like to continue that with this approval, building four is the former paving stone plant. That's just below building three.
Um, that that's what building 7 has now replaced. All of these structures conform with all of the bulk requirements. So, I just wanted to make sure. So, those ones have no variances associated with them.
Building five is the wetcast facility. It's um immediately to the right of the or to the north of the office building um that has a non-conforming rear yard setback. It's a pre-existing condition. 100 ft is required and 56 is what's
existing. Um building six is the northerly um building. That one also has an pre-existing nonconformity on the rear yard of 63.5 ft. Building seven is the new plant, the
33,000 square foot plant I mentioned at the beginning. Um, and that's really the focus of this hearing. The total floor area of all of the spaces, all the buildings is 123,000 square ft. This would require by code at
one per 500 uh 246 parking stalls per ordinance. Um, we had gotten a uh a waiver for to provide 116 parking stalls when we were here last time. Um, 54 of them, I
believe, were constructed and the round remainder were banked. We've changed that a little bit. We've gotten we have 59 now located in front of the administrative building that are constructed and we have 14 spaces that are around building 7. And then the 51
banked spaces remain. Those are in the gravel area adjacent to the existing parking area. Um, four of the spaces are proposed to be EV ready and we have three ADA compliant spaces which is compliant with the
requirements for having 73 physical spaces. If in the future we the bank parking gets built, we'll have to add additional ADA spaces. Currently, Nolock has 30 employees on site and Hammer and Steel has 12. So, a total of 42 employees actually visited
the site this morning just to count cars and see what the reality was. There were 19 cars in the main parking lot. There were seven cars at building 7 and there was four cars just kind of randomly throughout the site. So, it added up to 30 cars total on site. So, we're very
confident that the 73 physical stalls we have is appropriate for this facility. So, we'd request a uh that waiver that was granted prior to be changed to total of 24 approved stalls, 73 constructed and 51 banked.
Yes, we're requesting 70 three constructed stalls, 51 bankked stalls for a total of 124 stalls. Any questions before I go to the next page?
>> Um, and I think it's just because I'm not hearing. Um, building number seven is Nicolock or is that a shared building? >> Building seven is Nicolock. The only >> Yes. The only building only building one and two are shared.
>> Oh, that I Thank you. Okay. And when you expanded to the greater square footage for the building, did that change the impervious coverage? Obviously, it did, but >> it didn't because the building was just miscalculated. The physical calculation of the building
was 33,000, but it was written 325. >> So, you were approved for 33,000. >> We were approved for 325, but the physical when you calculated the impervious because it was drawn at 33,000 was so it didn't change the impervious.
building that we see here on A1 dimensionally is no different than what you presented in 2022. >> Exactly. It's 330 ft by 100 ft. >> So this exterior measurements versus interior just
>> I think at the time we were looking at taking out the office space of 500 square feet and it just got miss never got added back in and the office space went away. So it was it changed. >> Okay. So, I'll move on. This is similar to sheet two. This is
sheet three of the site plan set. Also, I've added some color just to uh make it more obvious what's going on. This sheet is created based on the asbuilt conditions that are out there today. Um so with regard to the building itself,
it meets all of the setback requirements. So the building is 100% compliant. The building um is 40t tall, just under 40 ft. And that is based on the way the um municipality requires you
to calculate height by the average uh of all the space building. Um, however, the ordinance has changed and now the ordinance is 35 ft. So that 40 foot would be a a pre-existing nonconformity at this
point in time. >> Since you colored that in, why don't we call that D2? >> I did. >> Okay. So, you don't want these. You don't need these. You're going to take his two. >> His in the record. >> Okay. So, I can close these.
>> Yes. >> Okay. You're welcome. >> So, there's four accessory structures associated with this building. Um, one of them is a uh conveyor um which brings the material into the building and three are the silos which store the um
materials for making the paving blocks or paving walls. So, of the three silos, they're numbered one, two, three as you go to the north. I mean, yeah, to the north. Um, the first one has a height of is
Oh, I'm going to do rear yard setback first because when we had originally set them, we had them closer to the building and one of them actually got a little larger. So, they violated the rear yard setback. So, originally they were 100 ft off the setback, but now they are silo
one is 96.6 ft off of the setback. Silo 2 is 98.7 ft and silo 3 is 98.5 ft. So each of them require a rear yard variance for the accessory structure. What's interesting in this setback, it's
a very uniquely shaped property. So you have a lot of rear yards. You know, whether it's a rear yard or sideyard, but we air it on the side of caution that it's a rear yard. Um, and also it's adjacent to the railroad. So the nearest property that could be built on is 220
ft away. So from a visual perspective from anybody who could build another building or it's um not really impactful. Um there's also with regard to height, that's the other um situation that
occurred with these uh silos. There's equipment that's on top of the silos for dust control and also rails for safety. Those take up less than 10% of the area. So they would qualify in my opinion as an exception. So they would not count towards the height. Um
excluding them the silos we were allowed to go to 45 ft on our in the original approval. The silos now silo one is 44.15 ft. Silo 2 is 45.11 ft and silo 3 is 48.16 feet. So
>> repeat that. 44.15 >> 45.11 and 48.16. >> Um before you continue, I just want to note that in my letter out of an abundance of caution, I noted that the height deviation could potentially be a decent experience, but since we are at
the planning board and these historically have been viewed as accessory structures, I think we can continue to look at them as accessory structures and would not require that. So just to clarify that from my letter so there's no confusion. >> Thank you. >> Agree with that perspective. Thank you.
>> So that creates a high variance for silos two and three. >> Can you just clarify then the railing how tall that is because um >> in the report it did say something about 58 53 feet for the third one. The third one
>> 48. So it was 48.08, 49.94, and 53.0 feet on page two of Dave's report. >> Yeah, those were to the top of the equipment. So there's a dust control on top of the um structure. And >> what is it? Is it just a railing? Because you said
>> there's a railing around the perimeter and then a dust feature that sticks out of the top. So it's >> Can you explain a dust feature? >> I can show you a picture. Not a very good picture, but vivid A3 is some photos I took. When you look at the silos, there's
these small um like little stacks on top that control dust. Because it's taken at an angle, it's hard to see it, but they're just they stick out at the top. Not really a small box, but they're basically like a a method to make sure no dust comes off of
these things. >> And you did not anticipate that when you originally came to the planning board. >> We did not have them on there. Correct. >> But you didn't anticipate that you would need them. >> I did not. >> Is that one of the OSHA things you were talking about?
>> This was a D requirement. Railing railing is >> railings are correct, but they should be because they're less than 10% and less than 10 ft above they they fall under the exceptions. At least that's my
opinion. >> Okay. >> While we're on A3 >> Oh, I'll go through it because I wanted to I gave it these two first pictures. One is of the stacks. That was kind of the best shot I could get on the site of them. So I took that was from the corner
of the the um the parking area. This is all porous pavers which is uh what we did in order to manage the storm water just so it's very unique. They make them so it was kind of it's kind of a test product for them as well. So and it's
working out really well. So those are the three stacks that we're talking about. This is the conveyor on the upper right corner to show you what it looks like. And then >> this was the picture from the only place
I could really see when I drove all the way around everywhere. The only other place you could see it like way in the distance was off this bridge on 15th, you know, but that's a long ways away. So this was the this was from Aaron Way
North Park Lake Road or that intersection >> White Lake. >> It's off White Lake. It's that industrial park. And then this was when I went to North Village. I tried to see if I could see it from any of the houses, you know, because there's a residential development back there. And
that's the silos or and building is that little. So it was almost impossible to find a spot. But I wanted to show you visually how it it because impacts are important when you're granting variances. So, I'll go through the conveyor.
Oops. The way the the aggregate goes into the facility is there's um to the east of the building there's all these uh storage areas where different types of material. A loader will load it into
this hopper. The hopper drops it onto this conveyor. And the conveyor comes to the south, makes a left a 90 degree turn, comes all the way to the other side of the building and enters the building here where all the raw materials are put together. It runs through the processing and the pave
paving block comes out the other side. So initially we had this design where it would drop into here, it would come to here, it would go into the building and then it would run through the building along the ceiling basically and then but then they met with OSHA and their safety
people and they did not want to see it inside the building. So that's when they relocated it outside the building, but they weren't aware that that created a variance and that's why we're back. So originally the building's 50 feet off
the property line. The conveyor now at its closest point is 38.5 ft. There's a 50ft setback requirement. So it's a a variance. The other thing in Mr. Simmons report was one of the pipes, storm pipes was um
undersized at 10 in. That's the one here located on the easterly side of the building. Um, I believe that was done because they had pipe um equipment running underneath that that area. So, it became like a problematic area. So, we'll look at we'll analyze that pipe.
If it works, we'd request a waiver. If it doesn't work, we'll probably double it up or something. Next thing I wanted to talk about was landscaping. There's very the site like 60% of it is kind of armish and
then the back corner is all industrial and in these industrial plants it's locations it's not an ideal space for um landscaping as there's no no green space. We did um to go back to the pictures
they did plant a double row of uh arbories. Yeah, that's okay along uh the boundary with the neighboring property as required in the original approval, but that was the only um landscaping required for and this was the only area
that was modified on site. >> And can I just ask a quick question more around the picture? So, if I understand this correctly, the original setback was only altered and you only need a variance because the conveyor which is all the way up in the air. So, it's not
like the building came out. I just want to put I did want to clarify that for everyone. >> The building's fully compliant. >> The building moved. It's that the conveyor now sticks out of the top and that's what's eating up. That's why you're requiring the variance. Correct. >> Correct. >> And I know in Dave's report he
questioned whether from circulation perspective whether it had any impact. As you can see, that was all built over the concrete slab that's along the side of the building and we have full width driveway around the building still. What did you say you could double up to
make it conforming >> for the pipe? If the pipe doesn't have adequate capacity, the storm pipe, we can put another one next to it that's still small, but with two pipes next because we have a a issue with getting past some other utility underneath it.
And as far as if you and and Dave are the board engineer to determine that a second pipe is necessary, that would be okay with the >> I don't think they had a choice. >> Question you're talking about that setback there.
Uh and the rear setback of the neighbor is the railroad. the other side. What's the zoning on that property? >> That's PRDM1 as well. That's the quarry next door. >> No. >> Are you through with your particular testimony?
>> I am. >> Okay. So, I'm going to bring it up to the professionals. Ken, if you wouldn't mind starting off. >> Madam Chairman, if I could I can't see those pictures from here on Facebook. >> Oh, sure. Um, I'm not sure if you went over. Can
you just go over the hours of operation? >> Next one. >> Got it. >> Mr. So Dave, do you have any >> information or questions for this particular >> No, I think uh Madam Chairman and board members, just referring back to the
report I prepared dated March 23rd, 2026 basically again just to for the record to recap everything, we did receive preliminary addict bill last fall and that's basically after a review of everything that's been discussed here
tonight. That's what precipitated us being here tonight, if you will. Uh because when we did compare the originally approved preliminary plan to what the preliminary ASB bill showed, we identified the uh sideyard setback, the rear yard setback, the height of the
silos, and the other issues that Mr. Dyster just discussed tonight. So what we worked with the township construction official and the planning department and basically everyone agreed that as I understood it the construction official
was going to issue a temporary CO for the building as is but it was subject to getting here tonight to ask the board for the relief for the various variances that Mr. Dyster just described and add the additional information as outlined
in my report as far as additional features, the water manes, the hydrants, the valves, the utilities, etc. So basically in the latest plan and I included that in my report just to give the board the background flavor of how it got here and the items that Mr.
Dyster talked about tonight as far as the silo variances for the height, uh the setbacks, uh the conveyor system on the side, uh the size of the pipe and the other items I basically am in agreement with. Plus, he had to uh
clarify the 33,000 square feet just so going forward that number is correct in the record. Uh the other item that we talked about with regards to storm drainage, as Mr. D indicated this particular company does make a paving stone that basically with the material
underneath can mitigate the increase in runoff. So they installed that on the site and that's been functioning fine as to the best of my knowledge. Uh he also provided just so the board knows an operation and maintenance manual that still I believe has to get reported in
the county clerk's office. And I put all that information in in the report just so the board knows. So it makes it if the board decides to approve this as a condition of any resolution from the standpoint that it's entirely possible because it's happened in the past that
with regards to storm water sparta could be audited again by the D and we were audited a couple years ago and D at random took a couple site plans and came to our office and wanted to see all the documentation that have been reviewed uh and approved in accordance with the
requirements of the stormwater rules and regulations. So that's why I wanted to make sure that got taken care of and not lost lost in the the transaction, if you will. And finally, on the end of the report, I list a series of various agencies,
Sparta and county and uh state agencies that we just want them to confirm that they've got the approval, provide written copies of the approvals so that hopefully we can close this part of the project out. So that's basically a summary of the whole thing. Council, is
it fair to say for the record that uh the plan has no objection to compliance with the board engineer >> report? Great. Thank you. >> And Lindsay, do you have anything to add to the testimony or any questions for Owen? >> Um I'm assuming there's no deed restrictions or easements on the property. Um and then last
>> but >> but not that are addressing the Yeah, that will not be addressing the application at hand. Um and then um the some of my comments have been addressed by Mr. Dystra. um specifically the remaining ones that um addressing like landscaping, but I think Mr. Dster did
an good job explaining how the previous resolution addressed landscaping and kind of the deviations from the ordinance and I think that those continue to be applicable to this application as well. >> Okay, council just for the record as far as the issues identified by the planner
as far as continuing obligation to the prior rules of landscaping. Yep. >> Thank you. Uh, I will bring it back to the deis. Any other questions from the deis for this particular witness? >> Uh, Mr. Dyster, what's underneath the
conveyor system? What is it? Pavement. Concrete. Yes. >> Okay. And it has to be concrete. It can't be the pvious pavers. >> We have a concrete um apron around the whole building. You don't want porous material right next to a building. It
creates a you kind of want a block of >> more water. You don't want you don't want moisture in a building. So you segregate that. >> Any other questions from D? just it sounds to me like really the changes that were made to the building which I think was one of the big questions what
drove all these changes but it really sounds like when you were going through it some of the regulations for safety have changed the O you know when you're dealing with OSHA obviously um I was on the board in 2022 when you guys came and and it was approved and it sounds to me
like it's nothing um of the ne nefarious nature. It just seems like the rules changed and you had to update accordingly. Um I'm not too worried about the setback because it's in the air. Um really so there's no nothing. So I think that
I think that was really the only thing that was con concerned. So I have no no questions. >> Ron, did you have a question? You looked like you were going to ask. >> The only question um excuse me, the only question I had is is regarding the um the left turn. No left turn. So, um, you know, when I when I look at the master
plan and the whole zone there, the idea is to keep all the the trucks and everything away from the residential area. So, if they make a left turn, they're heading up to that residential area. Um, would you agree or disagree with that? >> I agree that Well, I mean, I agree that
that's that would be the case if they made a left. No question. The reality is I don't think trucks are going that way. >> Can you speak into the mic for the people at home? >> Sure. I don't think that any of the trucks are going that way, but because we don't control that access by
ourselves, I we could say Nikol no left turn, you know, something like that maybe, but >> we can hear from the owner that's >> there's there's also a weight limit on the road when you make a lot. So, I
mean, trucks would be in violation if they're not actively delivering on that road. If they're going if they're a true truck, they're gonna they'd be over the weight limit to be correct, you know. So, >> is there a sign that clearly states the
weight limit for that area? >> Beyond beyond that driveway, there's a weight. >> Okay. Your experience ever an issue with not with that site. >> Fair enough.
And just one last question. So the prior approvals did not include a restriction on no left turn. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I think we're >> I had a couple questions. >> What is the height of the 33,000 square foot building?
>> It's just under 40 ft. So just call it 40 because it's like 39.9. >> Okay. is when you showed the pictures and you were looking at it from the shop ride and different angles, you said the silos were lower than the building and therefore you wouldn't even notice the
increased height of the silo. But if the building is 40 feet and the silos are 48.16 for silo 3 and 53 feet with all the um additional stuff, they would clearly be >> I didn't say they were lower than the
building >> from the pictures. You said when you looked at it from the pictures, you don't even notice the silos >> when just because of the distance. I said the only one that you noticed the silos was from the Park Lake um industrial complex. Other than that, I
you can see them in the distance. Are they taller? >> Yes. Okay. And then when you realized because it you you came in with 44 square feet for everything and when you realized that it was going to be higher, not because of what OSHA made you do with the dust covers and stuff, how come um
there was no communication with the town at that point when it went from 44 to 48 and then 53? >> We did our ASB bill and that's when it came up. It turned out that they the original, this is how it happened is what I'm told. the original there was um
these were on the ground but they were concerned about trucks hitting them so they put them on three foot and that's how they got taller. So I I wasn't involved in that decision but when we located them and it came that's when we came here with the uh asbuilts and that's why we're here. A lot of the
issue is that this is all like retrospective at this point that you know maybe should have come and asked, but um uh I had another question back on the previous page for building number five. You said it was a pre-existing nonconforming,
but was that preapproved in your original application in 2022? >> It was. >> And how did it become pre-existing? >> Building five is located here. That building's been there since the subdivision was created. So >> So then why didn't you get a variance in
2022? >> They took a different perspective on it. They didn't require a variance on it. >> So then you have approval for that already. >> It's a pre-existing nonconformity. >> The last board attorney didn't determine that you required to reop those.
>> Was it on the plan? >> It's on the original plan. Exactly the same. >> Okay. And that building was not a new build. That building was to the actual word pre-existing non-conforming. It was there since
>> I've been working on this facility for 20 years. >> If it's pre-existing non-conforming, you don't need >> And why are we giving one now? >> No, you're asking for building five for just one building. That's not what they're asking for. A variance. know
Lindsay and it's a different perspective >> when it's a pre-existing non-conforming it's possible that at the time when the building was constructed the zoning was different so it is existing prior to the zoning that is today and since they're not changing anything on the building
it's considered a pre-existing non-conforming condition >> okay >> use is also >> yes >> I have a couple. >> Okay. >> Um, so we moved the conveyor
uh from inside to the outside. Is that correct? Because of the OSHA requirement for safety. >> Correct. >> So now did that elevate the noise level at all? Because I'm thinking about the North Village uh area. I mean, I'm
conveyed is going to be gravel and rocks and and things that are banging against a metal conveyor and that is going to transmit that noise is going to transmit throughout the shallow bowl of the
pollen. >> Well, I can answer it because I was >> Yeah, >> just just wondering. >> Yeah, the conveyor belt is um it was already outside number one. It just now goes around the corner of the building. Oh, >> but um I was there like at the closest
part of North Village looking at the back of those houses and it was running today and I couldn't hear it. So >> Oh, was running today? >> Yes. >> Okay. And you didn't hear anything? Okay. And um so that was one thing.
>> It'll come back to me. >> Okay. I'm here all night. >> You too. Mr. One last question and I think this was in Miss Knight's reports. What are the hours of operation in particular? >> Okay, fair enough. Thank you.
>> Okay, I think we are ready for our next witness. >> My name address for the record, please. >> Uh, Roberto Nicole Jr. Uh, my address is 141 Wampam Lane in West Icelip, New York. >> Spell your last name, please. >> N I O L I A.
And uh so let me sort of tell the truth. Truth truth. Yeah. >> I do. >> Just tell us relationship to the applicant. >> Yeah. I was just going to ask what what what's your uh connection with the applicant here tonight? >> Um I'm vice president of the company and
my family are is the owners of Nicolok. >> And and what is it succinctly the uh business entails for those who may not know? We manufacture concrete paving stones and retaining walls. >> And how long have you guys been doing that? >> Since 1992.
>> Uh how long have you operated on this property? >> 2016. >> Um and who did you buy uh the property or the business from? >> Uh we bought it from Grenell Pavers. >> And were they doing you know substantially the same
>> essent essentially the same exact thing? >> Okay. >> Um so we'll get right into it. um what are the days and hours of operation uh for this uh business at this site? >> So that can be broken into two
components. Um manufacturing is done uh generally two shifts. Those shifts due to seasonality can range from 8 hours to 12 hours. And then shipping and receiving is done uh 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. >> Okay. The the two shifts, if that goes,
what would the hours at the manufacturing facility be running? It would be running from uh 6:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. and then generally the second shift would run from 6 p.m. to about uh 3:00 in the morning, 4:00 in the morning. >> Okay. Um and how many employees
do you have in total? >> There are 30 total employees on the site over both shifts. >> Okay. Um and you heard Owen go through the whole parking and everything else. I mean, do
you believe right now, given your eight years of being 10 years now of experience, you think you have enough parking? >> We have more than enough parking on site. >> Okay. >> Um why don't we do this? We're looking at a um a
mind, you can grab the the mic. Um if if you can, and this was a question that the board planner had. What's going on in each of the seven buildings we're looking at there? Sure. So, uh, building one, the first building as you come in. If >> you could just point because I I don't
think everybody can see it. >> Sure. So, building one right here is our is our office. So, that's just we have any staff on site is in there. >> And how many people would be working in there? >> About about seven Nikol employees. And then Hammer and Steel has I believe
three in in there. Uh building two uh is called the maintenance building. That is about 2/3 hammer and steel, one/3 nickel lock. Uh that's just uh general storage for spare parts. >> And what does hammer and steel? >> They do maintenance on
uh I think hydraulic drills and hydraulic rigs, things like that. >> They have nothing to do with you? >> No, no affiliation. >> As far as uh how does the dynamics work? Do you own the property? >> We own the property. They're our tenant. Yep. Thank you.
Building three is an existing manufacturing plant. Uh that that facility's been there that was part of um the Grenell acquisition. Building four is a decommissioned manufacturing plant. Um and then we built building 7 as kind of the
replacement for that. So that's the building that's under question tonight and that's where we built the new manufacturing facility. Uh building five is another decommissioned uh wet cast plant. And then building six is a uh just a storage facility for us. >> The decommissioned buildings formed by
what are you currently using? >> They're both used for storage right now. >> Um and what was the building that had the um 1,00t addition put on? >> That would be building three. If you see in this top left corner, there's an area
that's boxed out. So that yellow boxed out area is not currently there. It was part of our initial application back in 2022 just to give us a little bit more operating room um around the com around the equipment inside that building. >> We haven't done that yet, but you want to keep those.
>> Yes, sir. >> As far as um building number seven, the new manufacturing and I wasn't here in 2022. That that's brand new construction, >> correct? >> And that was open space before. >> Yes. >> And I'd imagine it was a substantial
capital improvement. Yes, it was. >> How much did you put into the building? >> Approximately the the total project was approximately $30 million. >> And as far as um I did drive in the site today. Uh the the very nice office building in the front. Was that always
there or is that new also? >> That was there when we purchased the property. >> Okay. No improvement on that? >> No. Um so how do you handle um deliveries into the site frequency, hours of
operation, you know the hours they come in and go and then when you ship product out. >> Sure. So there's there's inbound raw material deliveries which would be our sand, our stone, our cement that we use for the manufacturing process. That's between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p p.m. Those are generally dump trucks, dump trailers
that come in, deposit the material in our storage areas, and leave the site without ever really getting out of their truck. The other uh the other component of that would be our outbound deliveries. Those are generally third party trucks or the uh flatbed trailers of our customers. They come in, they
receive an invoice in our office, they go into a loading area, they're loaded with forklifts, and then they they strap down their load. the only time they leave their truck is when they're securing their uh load before they leave the yard. >> Now, I I sure it's seasonal, but you know, let's go worst case scenario. When
you're busy, how many deliveries of material come in on a given day and and how many how much product gets shipped out? >> We have about 20 to 25 trucks throughout the course of a day in and out of the yard. >> Okay. Um, and you heard the question
about left turns, right turns. How do, as far as you know, because you you can't control particularly uh whether or not you're employees. Um, how and do these guys come out and never make a left turn? I >> I couldn't tell you for sure. Um, as most of the trucks that come in are
either from our vendors or a third party. Any Nikolock operated trucks comply with any local regulations that they have to follow. Um and when we talk about the product that that
comes in stone, the gravel this where is that getting dumped on the property? >> The stone and the gravel get dumped uh right here. You'll see there's kind of a markers right here. That's where the that's where the material storage is.
And this cement goes into the silos in the back that are in question cuz that's a dry product. actually goes into a a sealed silo. >> Okay. Um and that's near where that conveyor belt is. Correct. >> Correct. The conveyor belt runs along this side of the building.
>> Now, when you were here in 2022, that conveyor belt was to be built inside of the building. >> Yes. >> Um when did you realize that that wasn't going to fly with OSHA? >> I don't know the exact date. It was um as the building was going up, uh we
participated in u one of those OSHA consulting programs where they come with no infractions and tell you kind of what you can do better, things like that. Uh we met with them, they looked at the drawings, they expressed concern over the conveyor running through the building and people potentially working underneath the conveyors. Uh so we moved
it outside, not thinking that we we considered it just an equipment move, not considering setbacks or anything like that. Um and the conveyor when it's transporting the raw materials from outside to inside um uh one of the board
members raised a question about the noise. >> Mhm. Those are uh they're rubber conveyor belts. So it's not so it's not metal. It's there's a metal frame with thick rubber belt on it. Uh there's a cover over it to protect from noise and
also moisture from the rain. Uh, so it goes right up and it's really not doesn't make much noise at all. >> Um, now with respect to looking at building 7 to the back of that building is those silos. Um,
again the silos come, they get delivered, they get built. When did you realize uh that as part of your operation, you were going to have to put that dust control equipment on the top? >> During the during the construction process, as the silos were delivered, uh
we realized there uh that we were going to need to do some additional dust control. Dust control has been an on always moving target specifically in this industry. And as those regulations have changed, we've had to adjust on the fly. So once we did that, we added these
fil these filters up top and it added the, you know, I forget the exact dimensions of them to the top of the silos. >> All right. And and once you had to put those up, then you needed >> the safety railings as it's a piece of equipment. We made it um safe for if people had to go up there to do
maintenance or things, repairs, things like that. >> All right. And and again, you were responding to a DP requirement probably not thinking, you know, not that ignorance is any excuse, but having to come back here to uh
>> correct. We correct, we tackled the problem at hand. >> Um and um while this was going on and discussed that, you did in fact before any of this work began and applied for building permits. Correct. >> Correct.
>> All right. So as these things were unfolding, municipal officials, not that were blaming them, but they were aware of what was going on. So it's not like you were doing anything in the dark of night here. >> No, they were all on site repeatedly for, you know, various inspections and
things like that. >> Um, and since the site, you've got a TCO and been operating. I mean, with respect to noise or or or anything. Have you guys had any complaints or or gotten any
negative feedback from what's going on on the property? >> No. >> Um and then finally, the size of the building. Um the original proposal as far as you know was 33,000t building. Correct. >> Correct. >> All right. Um, so there was no bait
switch going on where you >> No, bring it to the professionals first for Thank you. >> I have no questions. >> Okay. So, we will bring it up to the deis. Any questions for this witness? >> I'm sorry. Did I miss something? Uh when
you said that the two shifts um were 6 to 6 and then 6 to 3, what days? Monday through Friday or or seven days? >> Uh generally it's Monday through Saturday. >> Saturday. Thank you. >> Um the added filters to the tops of the
silos, can you do you know know how much of a percent dust reduction each one of those filters provides? >> I don't have an exact percentage. They're they're intended to capture um any dust overflow because it is a sealed silo. So, it's intended to catch any dust overflow and act as a pressure
release valve as well for if there's over pressurization. >> A question. Uh do you ship in all of your raw materials or are you mining there? >> No, everything is shipped in. >> Everything's shipped in.
>> Mhm. Uh, previously was the area mined for the sand and gravel? Do you happen to know? >> Not since we've acquired the site. >> Any other questions? Um, uh, originally going back to these silos, they were all 44
feet in height. Then you were required to have dust covers. >> Yes. >> Why are there different size dust covers? with the dust covers. Why is the first one at 48 feet, the next one at 50 feet, and the next one at 53 feet?
>> The the equipment was purchased from a a equipment manufacturer in Georgia. Um there was some discrepancies throughout the building and engineering process with the drawings. They gave us what was actually delivered um both in height and circumference and we kind of made do
with what was shipped. >> It's not what you ordered. It was the some of the dimensions were not exactly what we ordered. >> Well, we're talking like 9 ft. >> Well, there's the 3-ft concrete base that we added as well for for backup truck protection.
>> Talking six feet >> minus the uh dust collection. Yes. >> So, the reason that one is six feet higher than the others is because they sent you the wrong dust cover. Yeah, there was some mix up between engineering, fabrication and design.
No, the dust cover would stay the same. The dust cover is uniform. The dust collection on top, the silo itself. >> What is the size of the dust cover? >> I don't have the exact dimensions. I would uh say it's between four and 5t.
>> So, the silo height changed. Why did the silo height change? That was the miscommunication between um engineering, not our engineers, the uh equipment engineers, the design and the fabrication of it. We received equipment um that was not to the exact dimensions
that was on the drawings. >> And did you notify then the construction officials at the town and then they gave you the permit to do this? >> We had we were operating with the permits that we already had. We had a general contractor >> permits the previous permits. Correct. >> Not for an increase in the height. >> No.
No permit for increased height. Um, >> okay. There was no The town was aware though you said, right? The town was in and out of there and checking the site and things. So the the town was aware of the
fact that things were changing on the site and you did this as things were changing. You were not doing this under cover of darkness. You were working with the the township staff. >> Yes, ma'am. As far as I know, the our general contractor at the time had all
necessary town inspections done for, you know, the whole the whole range, town, county, state, whatever was needed at the time. You know, we were under the belief we were working well within the structure of the town. >> Right. >> So even though there might not be an official anything that was generated,
you were working in partnership, not off under cover, >> right? Nothing was hidden. Everything you can't miss those. So >> there anything documented? >> Uh we have all of our permits and inspections throughout the entire construction process >> that you can go to the 50. >> No, we're not we're not sub we're not
stating that. were just saying that, you know, nothing was was hidden from these guys, but we're not taking their silence as somehow uh being an approval. That's that's why we're here. >> So, how long have you had the the uh
TCO? >> Uh we received it, I want to say in October or November of last year. >> And you got it predicated on these as built on what's existing right now. >> Exactly. So the the town felt comfortable enough giving you a TCO
based on what we've got right here right now. >> Yeah, we we met with everybody. We went through the entire site plan. We had our GC, our engineers, town officials uh talked through the entire project and the town felt comfortable giving us a TCO after that pending coming to this hearing.
>> And that meeting was held as indicated in my report on November 6 of last year. >> Okay. Um, so in in that time since between then and now, right? So you've been operating with with that in in mind. So how have your operations been
since you've occupied the building? >> Everything's been fine. >> So you haven't had any issues, no complaints, no um issues, you know, in terms of drainage, in terms of, you know, anything that that >> uh No, ma'am. The drainage has been
great. Everything else has been absolutely fine. Um, one of the other questions that I actually had, and I'm not exactly sure whether or not you can answer it, but the utility authority had said that
um the if I can find it. Of course, I had the page earmarked and now I lost it. Um, okay. So, service side is needed to be called out
for um for your utilities. Are you finding that that this is an issue or is it is this something that was addressed at some point? >> I'm sorry, I didn't understand >> the memo. Um the memo from Corey Long from uh March 23rd, 2026 said, "The
Sparta Township Utility Office has completed its review of the abovementioned application and offers the following comments. The proposed design is not acceptable to the Sparta utility department for the following reasons. A interior plumbing plans are not provided. B municipal hydrant is not
called out in the on the plans. And C service sizes need to be called out. So it seems that there's some there was a potential for inadequacy. Just want to make sure that we're all on the same page and things are functioning the way they should be functioning. >> I'll have Owen come back because I think
he talked about that in his direct correct. David, is that in your analysis? sending your analysis. >> I sorry on uh page five of my >> they've agreed to compliance with your report. So are you comfortable that we
it's addressed in your report or should be an additional condition? >> It would be a condition that I would recommend because I deferred to Mr. Long's report because he was intimately familiar with the layout of the water main infrastructure and what have you.
And on the last page six of my report under final approvals that we need the written approval from uh Sparta Township Water Department for the water service and water main relocation as well as any other requirements that they have would be a condition if the board acted favorably. >> Oh, is that okay?
>> Yes, council. >> Yes, absolutely. the board they they basically announced on the record that there will be compliance with the uh utility commission uh memorandum of March 23rd 2026
>> and and items B and C on that would be on our plans and then the interior plumbing plans would actually be on the construction that >> that was it for my questions any others >> I've got one more. Maybe this will be
handled um later on. But so, so we have these variances that you're requesting approval for. I'm not sure. I've got a little confused reading some of your report. What type of variances were they? So, um could we get uh testimony
from from you in terms of what type of variances are they? >> We have a planner that'll be Yes. Yeah. So they're going to be it's our our view that under the C1 uh analysis that these bulk variances you that's what we believe you should be looking at.
>> But they're all bulk variances. >> Yeah, I would concur. They're all C variances since this board would not be able to grant devariances anyways. So it would be sent to the zoning board otherwise >> and there'll be testimony as why those grant why those variances should be granted. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Okay. I think we are ready for the next witness. >> Okay. Alison, thank you. Thank you all. >> Hi Alison. >> Yes. >> Your name and professional address. >> Allison Copsko, Ali S KO.
Business address is 145 Spring Street in Newton, New Jersey. If I could just to move along, you're a lic final planner in state New Jersey. >> Yes. >> And your licensed in good standing? >> Yes. >> And I'm sorry, do you work for yourself or for a company? >> Jay Caldwell and Associates. >> And I'm sorry, where are they located
again? >> Newton. >> Newton. >> I'm a senior planner. >> Have you been accepted as a professional planner before any boards before? >> Thank you, Mr. Paul. >> Uh, not this board, but I was at the Sparta Board of Adjustment a couple weeks ago, and I represent several
boards in Sussex County. Yes. >> Is that fair as an expert in the area of professional play? >> Okay. >> Um, so Allison, you you uh you had an opportunity Well, you've been here the whole night, correct? >> Yes.
>> And you've also had an opportunity prior to tonight's meeting to review the May 4th, 2026 report um that was prepared by uh Miss Knight. Correct. >> Yes. >> All right. um been to the property?
>> Yes. >> All right. In your professional opinion, we've got these bulk variances out there. Um are they justified? I had said that uh under the C1 analysis, um are they justified? And if so, what's the
reasoning for that? >> Yes. Uh so just uh kind of zooming out a little bit uh to give a little bit of context. Um so 40 482 Houses Corner Road is slightly irregular in shape. It's located southeast of White Lake. Uh
there are several industrial uses um immediately adjacent to the area um and a light industrial business park to the west along houses's corner road and west of the subject property are smaller commercial uses um including a pet boarding facility and south of the
subject property is a quarry property which is also in the PDRM1 zone. So uh the variances being requested are relatively minor in nature. Um just to clarify what those are. There are three
minimum rear yard setbacks. Setback variances being requested for um one for each of the silos. Um the required setback is 100 ft for silo one. Uh 96.6
ft is existing and proposed. 98.7 ft is existing and proposed for silo 2. and silo 3 um is 98.5 feet existing and proposed. And then we also have several um uh building height accessory building
heights variances being requested for those same silos. Um silo 2 the maximum height uh is 45 ft. We are at 45.11 ft. Um that's excluding the equipment and uh
the railing. Um and then silo 3 uh is 48.16. And again I would uh agree with your board planner that um because the language is fairly straightforward um in NJSA 405D-70D
6. Um it pretty clearly applies to the principal structure and the silos uh historically have uh acted as accessory structures. they meet the definition of accessory structure in the uh township code. And so um I would agree that it's those are
all bulk variances rather than the height variance, the use variance. And so I would actually uh consider uh these variances more applicable under the C2 uh variance criteria. And as the board is aware, the municipal land use
law sets forth the statutory criteria uh positive and negative uh for these bulk variances. Uh so boards need to find applicants need to demonstrate um that the purposes of the municipal land use law would be advanced by granting these
proposed variances. Uh that they can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. that the benefits uh of granting these variances outweigh any detriments and that the variance will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan or zoning ordinance.
Uh so first looking at the positive criteria the first uh purpose of zoning outlined in municipal land use law um that I feel is uh advanced by this proposal is purpose A which is encouraging municipal action to guide appropriate use of land uh in a manner
that promotes the public health safety morals and uh general welfare. So, first talking about the silos, uh the silos themselves only slightly exceed 45 feet, but the equipment on top as well as the railings, uh uh the equipment that controls the dust, um
they do push that a little bit further over the maximum height. Uh without this equipment, uh the operations on site are less safe and there would be no measures in place to control the dust that's produced from the materials within the silos. uh this equipment uh promotes the
general welfare by improving air quality and meeting NJ rules and regulations. Uh again looking at the primary concern with exceeding a height regulation. Um these concerns are usually uh with
respect to negative aesthetic impacts or issues with blocking light, air or open space. uh as shown and described by our project engineer, uh the site has a topography that allows uh for the silos to sit in a
manner that has uh extremely minimal impacts to any public rights of way. Uh with this in mind, the use is permitted in the PDRM1 zone and the structures are um expected and appropriate uh for this area in ter in
terms of size, scale and use. Uh the visual impacts are minimal given uh the large size of the site and the dispersed nature of the buildings. Uh this eliminates any concerns with the blocking of light, air, and open space.
And then the looking at the issues that are commonly associated with rear yard setbacks, um they're very similar to height. Uh looking at the blocking of light, air, and open space. Again, uh in this case, the large sight of the lot and the topography allow for these slight encroachments into the rear yard
set back with no negative impacts to the surrounding area. And as it's been mentioned, uh the site that's immediately adjacent and has the best view of these encroachments are the railroad tracks. Um so again, uh that
concern has been eliminated. Finally, uh, looking at the conveyor, um, setback, it was moved from inside of building seven to the western sideyard where it encroaches into the 50 foot, um, sideyard setback, approximately 38.5
ft. Uh, the adjacent lot um, that's directly next to this uh, property line is approximately 55 acres. It's almost entirely undeveloped. It's the quarry site. Um, and it's also within this
PDRM1 zone. Uh again, this per the purpose of moving the conveyor belt was to allow for safer safer operations inside of building 7. And uh the sideyard location also allows for safe and efficient uh on-site truck
circulation. It doesn't impact that. Um it's also not visible from any public right of way. Uh so the the variances being requested uh promote purpose A by creating increased safety on the site and meeting NJD and OSHA regulations.
We can also look at purpose GG G uh which is to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of uses. Um the use is permitted in the zone and allowing for these variances um as they are requested. It permits an
existing successful industrial use in an industrial zone to provide safer and more efficient on-site operations. All of the variances uh being requested this evening are intended to improve the safety of on-site operations while resulting in very minimal uh if any
impacts on the surrounding area. Uh finally we can uh also look at purpose M which is to encourage coordination of various public and private procedures uh shaping land development with a view of lessening the costs and to a more efficient use of the
land. Um the proposed improvements and requested variances allow for the efficient use of an existing site without having to find a new developable developable site near or on environmentally sens sensitive land.
um there is existing imperous coverage and um as such this is uh an efficient use of the expansive property that uh the operations occur on. So then uh looking at the negative criteria of the C2 variance uh
applicants need to first demonstrate that there's no substantial detriment to the public good. Uh so primarily um we're concerned with what can the public see. Um the silos are not visible uh to
a substantial extent for many uh public right of way due to natural vegetative buffers um particularly to the rear of the site um where you do have uh trfoger court which is relatively close and they might have the best view um but there is
some natural vegetation there. Uh the sideyard setback encroachment by the conveyor system has minimal if any impact on the adjacent property which is in the same industrial type zone as the subject property. Uh any potential development on the site would be of
similar character um to the operations occurring on uh the nolock site. Uh then we can look at the rear yard encroachments. As I mentioned um the silos are relatively dimminimous in nature. um less than five feet and
they're contained on an existing concrete pad that surrounds an existing building. Physically and visually, the encroachment is very minimal. Uh so then I've also had the benefit of reviewing the township's master plan and re-examination reports. Uh the
application is consistent with the purpose of the PDRM1 zone which is to allow for economic development in the form of a planned development uh which will provide for a coordinated plan development of all the properties in the zone and will supplement the economic
development zone in a controlled manner. Uh so uh the proposal includes improvements that promote the safety of employees on site uh including dust control and more space in the interior. uh through the relocation of the
conveyor system. Some goals from the 1984 master plan and as amended through the 2020 uh re-examination report that are uh particularly advanced by this project are uh safeguarding the tax base,
preserving economic balance and providing for a continuing source of employment and tax ratables through appropriate use of existing and potential uh non-residential land. and then avoiding development which will disturb disturb environmentally
sensitive lands. Um so just based on those proofs that I've just presented I believe that the proposal meets uh both the positive and the negative criteria and that the right the requested variances can be granted without a without any substantial detriment to the public good or any
substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. >> So the release is C1 or C2. Yeah, correct. >> I have nothing further. >> Okay, we'll bring it to the rest of the
professionals. >> I have nothing further, Madam Chair. >> I have nothing further. >> Lindsay, are you comfortable with everything that that has been testified so far with in terms of of how how the variances, you know, apply? Are you in
agreement with her assessment? >> Yes. And the applicant's planner is in in uh in planning law ML and um I do agree I I actually even called out similar master plan consistencies in my own report um and noted specifically in
the uh 2011 master plan amendment um PDRM zones intent um and I would agree that it is the intent of the zone plan and master plan for this type of use and the location of these is in my opinion less impactful because it is located in
such an area where it's not It's not in the areas adjacent to the residential areas and I think Mr. Dyster did a really great job of showcasing from North Village those images and you could see could barely see them. I went to the site today as well. Surprised I didn't see Mr. Boral there.
I did a driveby as well. Um and I do think that it is um a use that has been uh that's been functioning for a while and they've done a great job of keeping that site clean. You go there and it's you know running in in good order. Um
while they need deviations or waiverss from parking, when I was there, there was plenty of parking spaces as well. And I was there at like five. Um so kind of close to that change between the six to six and the and the uh office workers being there as well. So um when I was there, I saw plenty of parking spaces as
well. So that would be one of the other items that I would consider as kind of controversial, but having been there and seen the site and seen the parking situation, I would be comfortable with is being granted this evening. >> Bring it back up to the deis. Any
questions for this witness? >> Okay, seeing none, uh I'm assuming this is your final witness. >> Yes, madam chair. >> I apologize. Miss Furman has questions. >> I have one. Um when was the OSHA requirement for dust covers regulated? When did it become
>> That was a D requirement. OSHA was the conveyor belt. >> Okay. So when did that occur? kind of a conversation between trend that we saw happening in our industry across the whole country. No, I think it's a good thing. Um, and I
just I guess I want I just want to say, you know, I'm glad Nikolock is an employer here and uh an owner and that you are here. I just have uh you know, a lot of reservations about retrospective approvals coming in, you know, if you knew this and the height variances that there should have been some
communication. So, I was concerned about that. But from your testimony, you're saying that um the town was in and the town was aware of all of this. And so it sounds more like an administrative issue than anything else because it's not up to the
town to really approve these height variances. But if you relied on that then, you know, it's not up to me to hold it against you. You got a TCO. So, you know, but those are my concerns and I just want the message to get out there to the rest of the public that or the,
you know, employers that we shouldn't be doing things retrospectively. It puts us in a kind of uncomfortable position. And so, I would also ask that, um, you know, you've had some improvements that are uh different than what you
originally planned, you know, and that uh I would suggest that there be a new tax assessment, you know, of the of the property. I assume we since we're operating on a TCO when the CO is issued the assessor I'm certain will be out there.
>> Okay. >> Ring us up. >> Any other questions from the D? Okay. So, I'm assuming this is your last >> that before before we uh before we step away, we're going to open it up to the public for any potential questions um
relative to this hearing in particular. Okay, seeing none, I think we are ready to craft a motion. >> Yes. board you have before you uh PB number 26-739 uh Nicolock Paving Stones LLC 482 Houses
Corner Road Lot 16005 lot 16 EBRM-1 zone the original uh request was an amended site plan with variance we clarified also that there uh because of the changes we're going to call it also a preliminary and final site plan
approval because there's some new aspects. So, uh an amendment to the old plan and thereby uh preliminary final site plan approval. There were the variances as discussed and set forth in the numerous reports. We had three witnesses in support of the application.
the applicant engineer, the um applicant property owner representative and the applicant uh planner as a condition of approval assuming that you approve the application would be compliance with the board engineers report and the board planner report which were very specific
and also the utility report by Corey Young long long uh there was one aspect of that no lefthand turn I defer to the board and your expertise in this area uh when I did drive by. The line of sight looked pretty good. Ernie, uh, you know,
I would think that if there was an issue that the police could, uh, recommend some safety issues if if it became an issue. >> There's still enforcement of the way on there. So, you know,
>> so I am not placing on if unless directed no left turn prohibition uh based upon the testimony. So again the conditions would be the board engineer, board planner, utility report if you were to approve this application with
variance waiverss as set forth on the record. >> One other condition please. Um the things that we are not changing going back to the addition the original resolution of June 15th things that relate to storm water design and uh spill prevention and all of those things
hazardous materials that they still remain in place. >> Good point. I'll so add it. >> My understanding that anything that's not being asked to be changed remains in place. >> Yes. But it doesn't hurt to >> No, I mean I'm just saying yes.
>> Just for my own clarification, my understanding is that was approved. It doesn't not become approved because they ask for variances for different things. >> That is true. But uh we have the board engineers report and uh board planners report also set forth. But no harm in uh
reiterating assuming you have approval resolution. >> So we are looking for an approval based on the motion as crafted by Ken Puro. May I have a motion in a second, please? >> I'll make a motion. >> I'll second.
>> May we have a roll call here? >> Christine Quinn? >> Yes. >> Ron Day? >> Yes. >> Christine Dumbar? >> Yes. >> Joan Ferman? Yes, >> Bernie Raget. >> Yes, >> Vice Chairwoman Burke. >> Yes,
>> Bogler. >> Yes, >> Chairwoman Luciano. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much. We appreciate it. >> Thank you, gentlemen and lady. >> Want us to keep the exhibits here? >> Council presentation.
>> Those electronically, please. We can add them to the file. Don, is it possible that you could submit those exhibits electronically to Carrie so she could add them to the file? >> Thank you. >> Thanks.
>> Uh, five minute recess. our board members. Uh, in the back of the room is Robert from my office. He's just observing if you were wondering who that guy was. >> Hi, Robert and welcome. >> I was like, who's going to object? >> He's the objector. He's the high. >> He's from the glory.
>> He's from the What does that guy look like a troublemaker? >> Yeah, there he is. >> Opportunity at the end of the meeting to get up when when you could talk about the guy in his eyes. He hasn't gone meetings. >> I couldn't read.
>> I couldn't read. >> Oh, he had something on there. >> Oh, I couldn't even see that. >> But I couldn't make out like who it was. Sure. Are we taking a little break? >> I told this a great area.
>> No, you know what? I got to test it. I've had people come out go to like two meetings. Oh no. >> No, I mean I actually
So I had twoach I would sometimes say so I couldach the game and I was the running joke I live in because I >> used to call me Pat
and my son my son I I used to coach literally you know like I would those over my so you got to really I don't even know what do you have to do go all the way out that door now
>> there's like a door behind here we could just go straight out >> I know they put a copy or office there um card and you spill >> put an office or something on the other side instead of
>> it's ridically put there >> or a meeting room for council >> that makes sense meetings you know what I mean like things like before meetings and And if you had to meet with a resident or you had to meet with somebody, the town
council had a space. >> So when you serve on the town, >> you don't get a filing cabinet, a desk, a space, a chair, >> you get a computer. >> You get what? >> You get a computer. >> You get an iPad,
>> which is fine. You know what I mean? But >> we don't even get water. >> Those iPads Yeah, you can't work on that. >> Wait, you have to use your own. >> So, when we got the first set of those, >> I'm in it.
>> I said, um, what's the ID? What's the >> Oh, we're not giving it to you because the first time we not >> I think >> I said, >> Chris, I think our microphones are on. >> Oh, are they on?
>> Are we recording? Harry, are the are the microphones still on? >> Are we recording? >> I think it's a lot. >> But but I will say the one night get the reports earlier. I
>> think moving forward we need to figure out how to pause these things during >> the microphones are off. The visual is not what they were supposed to be. They weren't. Microphones are >> Are the microphones live? It's been live. >> That's what I'm saying.
>> Oh, here. Let me >> Yeah, they've been working the whole time. >> Well, they they work, but usually what happens is when we take a recess, they shut them off from the live stream. >> So, we paused it. We figured out a way. >> Okay. >> Microphones to to mute them.
>> And I think they're back on now. Okay. >> Can we double check and make sure that we're active on the live stream here? I'll look it up. Janette's looking it up. >> Yeah, that that put you back to the
beginning. I don't know either. So, if we are live, we're just double checking and making sure that we're live. Just want to have the public understand the delay. Okay. Are we >> I'm going forward as if we're live.
>> Okay. So, that brings us to the portion of um the agenda where we are on other board business. Uh I will throw it up very quickly to the deis. Does anyone have a matter for discussion currently?
We'll start down with Burgett. Not in that section. >> Okay. And we will move forward to run. >> Nothing. Thank you. >> Ernie. >> Nanette. >> Nothing. Thank you. >> Christine. >> Christine. >> Good. Joan. Okay. I don't have any uh
anything under other board business currently either. So, we will move forward to updates. Seeing as though that the town council uh liaison is not here this evening, we will move forward to the update for the environmental commission. >> Thank you. I'm very pleased to announce we had a
highly successful Earth Day despite >> despite all the rain. We had a very successful Earth Day event and uh people were looking for a place to get out of the rain and there was a lot of uh a lot of different uh environmental groups.
There was a Highlands um coalition there. There was the rigid valley consery. There was Trout Unlimited. Um there was Americanore ambassadors, all sorts of kids activities. So a good time was was
had by all. Yeah. A lot a lot better attended than uh last year. Uh for sure. So um so recently Oh, I wanted to remind you that we're going to have a hike uh at uh Sparta Glenn and um it's already
been posted and you can register. There's a QR code and this is on on our website, hike the Sparta Glenn, and it's scheduled for June 6th at 900 a.m. and um they're going to meet at the Sparta
Glenn trail head and it's only going to be about 2 and a half miles. It's uh relatively easy. So, we hope you can join us for that. We have um submitted
um an we are going to submit. We haven't submitted it yet. It's not due yet, but we're submitting that county grant for trails. And that would be to clear out and improve the uh the first section of the
Iron Horse Trail, which is from Sunset in Road to Demerest Road. So, fingers crossed on that. That's a $25,000 grant that we're applying for. >> That's great. >> Is that a um a straight up or is that a match? It's not I don't think it's a
match. >> Yeah. >> So, you don't have to prepay it and then they pay you back. No, >> they just give you $25,000. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. But we have to have a detailed budget and uh lots of different quotes from the people who clear the trail and
and all of that. So, um we're still looking for that, I believe. And I can't tell you when the next trails committee meeting is, but it wasn't today. It probably be next week. Um then what else is going on? Um
we have been um we have been talking about uh data centers uh a bit you know educating ourselves and all and I did receive in the mail um from ANJ the Association of um New
Jersey Environmental Commissions. Their uh featured flyer is all about uh data centers. So, I'm going to just pass these down if you want to keep it. It's two-sided. I've given one to Joan and Janette and Ron.
Here's a color one. Anybody want that? >> Here, you're getting the >> So, it's just um >> Yeah. So, so you might want to take a look look at that um because we are concerned of course about um the data
centers. We want to be proactive protecting Sparta. Oh, >> you bet here. You can have them all. >> Thank you. The other thing uh we're uh discussing uh as part of our con conversation would
be uh relating to protecting our water in terms of a water bottling facility ordinance. So um we're kind of studying what the capacity is of um of our aquifer and um
withdrawal rates and and that sort of thing. So, that's something else we need to focus on. Uh, I know that there are adjacent townships that um that do sell or export water um from the aquifer and
we just have to be careful. So, that's something we want to look into. And I did mention that we submitted an ecology education uh grant uh for bats.
And so, we're waiting to hear if we got that. So, we'll uh have an education program and then maybe um figure out great places for batouses in our community. We're also looking into um just kind of assessing some guidelines u
best management practices for uh winter salting our roads. Some some guidelines we feel would be useful in Sparta. And also we thought that would be really helpful to the planning board is if we
could come up with sort of a an environmental commission checklist of concerns u for applicants that come in uh and um you know uh submit their applications. We can let them know upfront what things that we would be
concerned about in their application. So if we could help that way that would be great. Yeah. That's about all. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> We will move on to subcommittees. I'm going to start with the minor site plan
subcommittee um to >> just ask Brian left because he had a conflict. He's not out there, is he? >> No. >> Oh, >> he took everything with him. Jacket, books. He did not have to be told twice. He was like, "Nope."
>> Yeah. He escaped the evening. Um so minor site plan subcommittee uh to date we've had 17 applications submitted. Um of those 17 applications one is a resubmission one had um had
removed themselves from the list. Um of those 17 applications four of them were heard this evening. two of them were continued um because we require additional information and two of them were approved. Um and that brings me to
minutes for uh last year that are still outstanding um from October through December. Yeah, it would have been helpful for for >> to be here for for that, but we still have Burgett and Joan. I don't know if
you want to um take the opportunity to to opine on them or um you know see if we can get through a potential for approval seeing only three of you would have been allowed to vote anyway. >> And I was the only one on it the whole time. So um which is something I just
wanted to go over. Now I I noticed people don't have these in front of them so it makes it a little hard. >> Um >> Oh, am I the only No, you should you should have Does everybody have them? It wasn't in >> Are they in the pack? Yeah, they're in the packet. >> Oh, I copied mine. I didn't see the packet approved at the minor site plan.
>> Oh, so they weren't here for everyone. >> Oh, okay. I apologize. We had them in our packets for minor site. >> You had the 2025. >> Yes. >> All right. Some of you can follow, I guess. >> That they go before >> Well, we don't have to go through it line by line. >> No, no, no. I just want to since we
never really got to do a final of it at the end of the year. Um, and the these will be I guess become the minutes. There's um I just wanted to go over a couple of things and one was a last minute change on
application 25-14 the legacy group. It has Ronda Day voting on that. But Ron had um let me backtrack. I'm going to just backtrack. Forget all that. We have a lot of names in here as you will see
and somebody did question me on this because there were changes throughout the year. So one of the first applications uh you see Christine Dunar's name on it and you see uh Bill Enright's name. That's because the applications had come in in December of
2024 and we made the decisions in the very beginning of 2025. So they were on the committee in 2024 but not in 2025 other than that decision. So you'll see those two names
and then Ron stayed on till about April and at that time he came off and then Brian Zimmerman came on. Rob Lee was on here but then he went off I think in June and then Burga came in in August.
So there are eight names going through here and as the um decisions were made there was some confusion. So rather than going back to the voting sheets a lot of
it was by memory etc. And there were some mistakes on here that we've been trying to fix and correct. Um, I know Brian had one earlier and I think that one was corrected, but after that 2514, the legacy group, which was decided on
April 22nd, 2025, it has Ron's name in here, but Ron was no longer on there. That should have been Bryant. So, I want to make that change to the minutes. Okay. Um and then there just a couple other
things I did want to go over. One is let me just start with the summary. We had 50 applications that we had reviewed. We had approved 29. And then it says we uh denied 15, but we didn't outright den
well we did deny those 15 because the minor site plan subcommittee is not allowed to grant waiverss or variances and many came in that required that. So we referred 10 of them to the planning board, two three of them to the zoning
board, which really means we denied about two. Okay? So as you're going through that, just keep that in mind. It wasn't that we were denying the application itself. We were denying the ability to review it because of the variances in the waivers that were
required, mostly parking waivers. So, if you have a multi- uh tenant site, you're required to look at the parking and things came in sometimes where it did require an update and that had to be referred to the planning board. Um, you have some in here. If you look at
it, 255 Rubicon properties, uh, it said zoning board approved the changes. Um, MSPS not required. And that was back in the beginning, but it came to a point where we said, "Wait a minute, minor site plan should be seeing all of these applications." That is what the
ordinance says. Uh most towns do not have a minor site plan subcommittee and it would normally just come to the full planning board. So because we have this subcommittee, we act as the body of the planning board and uh we should have been re uh receiving them and reviewing
them if they put forth an application. And I think a good example of that was we got questioned about a change in use from um a computer repair shop to a smoke shop, but that was not done by the minor site plan subcommittee. So, we
took that back and we said, "Look, if they if they file an application, it needs to be heard by the a minor site plan subcommittee, unless of course there were a couple of them that we shouldn't have heard because of the variances and uh waiverss, whether it be
zoning or planning board." Uh there's another one I just wanted to call your attention to. It's 2521. uh that came in and these subcommittee unanimously said no, we cannot app um
grant this. It requires a waiver and it should go to the full planning board. Well, if the applicant had come in to the full planning board, they probably would have gotten approval, but they did not. Instead, they came back three months later um application 2532
and we told them the same thing. Look, we can't do this. This requires a waiver. So if this planning board here denied an application, the recourse, bless you, recourse from the applicant is a legal recourse.
They can take us to court. They can do whatever they want. It should be no different for the subcommittee. This applicant though determined that, hey, I'm going straight to administration. So, even though we denied it twice
unanimously, um, and it has in here in the minutes approved by the township manager on October 29th, 2025 in consultation with the township attorney and planning board attorneys pursuant to ordinance section
2-6 uh.4B. Well, I'm going to take I'm going to if I vote for this, it will be with that part coming out because there is nothing in section 2-6.4B that allows the township manager to do
this. That was not the proper way to um decide this. It never came back to us as a subcommittee. We had no knowledge of it. Um, and I brought this up one other time and we said we were going to do something to,
you know, talk to the township manager and it never happened. It just kind of disappeared a few months ago. So, if we bring forth the approval of these minutes, I would like it to be that the township manager comes in and explains why this happened because this is just completely wrong. And I do want to get
that on the record. The other thing I just want to point out, we have an applicant that came in with um unclean hands. They already had signs up. They came in and we did not approve it because it did not meet the requirements. They came back again
several months later as 25-39. Um we again voted no and those signs are still up. I don't think that's anything that we can do since, you know, that's out of our jurisdiction. But I think we can make it known that this applicant continues to just do what they wanted
and disobey everything and that should be maybe something that we can at least call to the attention of the new code enforcement official. Um, so those are some of my comments and you know, um, I would put for you know, Beer, I'm happy
to hear whatever you have to say. I'm in agreement with what you said. >> Okay. So, if we put a motion together to approve these minutes, my motion would be that we fix 2514 to take out Ron Day's name voting I and insert Brian
Zimmerman and to have Jim Zep come to one of the next meetings and explain how he is approving these ordinances or these. >> You can request. We can demand. You can request. >> We can request. So, who would request that? Would you do this? Would Celeste
do it >> if the board determines you'd like to do that? >> Well, for the sake of the meeting, you have requested for the sake of the meeting. >> I have I have >> for the sake of the minutes, I should say, >> for the sake of the minutes and for the
minutes, I would like to take out >> everything after approved by the town manager on 102925. But what I can say, John, if that's his position that that >> is there are minutes though. >> I get it. But
if I wouldn't take it out in the sense that that you'd ask him to explain why that is applicable, but I I wouldn't take it out if that was the basis of it. Just gives completeness. That's his position. Right
or wrong? Yeah, they put it in here, but it was not something that we put in. But if you feel that it should be left in for that purpose, then I'll leave that part alone with the request for him to come and explain um why it broke protocol and procedure or a planning
board issue. >> What number was that one? >> It started out as >> 25. Which one? >> It ended up being 2532. >> It started as 2521. We denied it. It came back a couple months later, same exact application as
2532. We denied it again and then it was overridden without any correspondence to the minor site plan subcommittee. We had no knowledge. >> My clarification, >> can you use the mic? >> Sorry. Um, so Ken, I guess this question
is for you. What is our position here with this this specific um issue? Uh to be very candid with you, I haven't done a analysis of it. The I think Jones uh suggestion requesting
uh some discussion on it. And again, we have no subpoena power, so he could say uh he's doesn't need to explain himself as business manager, but uh you we're approving the minutes. So I would suggest that you approve the minutes with the notations that Miss Ferman had
noted. >> Gotcha. be no different than if we had denied Nicolock. >> Yeah. >> As a planning board and then it gets overridden. That's not the process. >> Right. Right. >> Okay. >> Okay. So then the motion is then to approve it with the change to 2514
>> that Brian what you're saying is that what's written in there accurately depicts what happened. >> Yeah. >> Right. Okay. >> Yeah. >> And just so we're we're um we we understand. Right. So right now the only two people who are eligible to vote are are Burggit and Joan. So even though
we're having this conversation at the board level that there's a better understanding, you know, of what happened during the course of last year, the only two people who are eligible to vote are are Burgett and Joe. Well, let me ask you a question. This is kind of interesting now because Burgett was there from August, but Ron
was there in the beginning. Robot is here. Um >> well right now the the issue is from October the issue is from October through December. >> Well December is year end. >> I understand that but but the point the point is is that we're there's a
year-end update but everything prior to October had already been approved. Fair. So we're what's being approved at this point are the three months from October through December. And what you just went through was the wrapup of of how the year pro progressed. Right. So now we've gotten that on the record now that we've
gotten that out in the open. Right now the vote is for minutes predicated from December uh from October through December. >> Right. And those of you who are Robert's rules junkies, you have a quorum to open the meeting and you have uh those
present who can vote and we can approve the meeting minutes with one vote. Uh if Beardrid and uh Joan said uh one said yes, one said no, then there wouldn't be a majority. But if only Joan was able to vote and she's the only quality, you can
vote and that is proper. >> Okay. Then for the last time, I guess I'll make the motion to approve it based on a change from 25-14. Uh changing Ronde voting I to Brian Zimmerman voting I. And there was one
other that he changed this afternoon. It's in the most recent one. >> Yes. Right. So, yeah. What what originally Brian had changed was 24 um48 where he was listed and Ron needed to be and he also requested a change for 251
where he was listed and Ron should have been listed. So, I I made those changes on his behalf. >> 2448. >> That's what he said. He indicated 2448. >> Okay. because I printed this out right at the end before I got here and it still has Ron's name on here. >> The two I don't
>> Right. Ron should be there. >> Ron should be there for 2448. Yes. Okay. And >> two were those I I I don't have the sheet in front of me. What numbers were they? >> 2448 first page. >> 2448 first page. >> Yeah. >> And 251. Brian had said he was not on
the minor site plan for that. >> That's correct. Okay. >> And then the legacy group was 2514 and you did not vote on that one. And that was the fence. >> That was Brian, >> right? >> Okay. >> And we'll make that change because Brian hadn't noted that prior. So we were
>> So again, the uh you have a quorum, but only those who are uh able to vote can vote on those minutes who are in attendance. >> Need a second. >> I'll second. >> Carrie, roll call for the two, please. >> Follow.
>> Yes. >> Furman. >> Yes. >> All right. >> Great. >> Hallelujah. End of an era. >> May. Okay. Um, now we are going to move into the update for master plan subcommittee.
Our next meeting is scheduled for May 11th, uh, which is this coming Monday. Lindsay, if you wouldn't mind helping me out. Where are we with agenda? Because I've been juggling a lot of stuff. Um so I actually was told this week by
Highlands that the scope of work was submitted to them for grant for grant work. Um so I will be putting an agenda together based on that. Um however at the previous subcommittee meeting we were able to come up with some
potential goals and objectives which has been one of our cruxes. So, um hopefully we will keep that same momentum at the next meeting and uh potentially move forward with some of that those items as well. >> And I also want to put out there um actually there was a great suggestion um
put forward by uh Jenny Derk's saying that or asking that if certain members of the subcommittee wanted to meet in smaller groups um in between our regularly scheduled meetings to kind of go over certain things this way they can bring those items forward into the official meeting. I I think that's a
great idea. Um, you know, so if we can if we can pull that together um and get, you know, whatever members are available um at the times that they're available, I think that that'll help move the momentum, you know, push the push the ball toward the goalpost. So, thank you, Jenny, for uh for suggesting that.
>> Yeah. Agenda and minutes from the previous meeting will be going out tomorrow, though. >> Great. Thank you so very much. >> There's one last thing, and it's too late now, but in the minutes, I just completely forgot about this till now. It has Luke's name as he was going to do the minutes for the back minutes, you
know, that we haven't had. And it has them down as Luke Dystra. >> Okay. >> Ow. Adopted him. Yeah. Okay, there we go. >> Is there a way to still correct that or >> not? Okay. Um, for members of the
community, oh, for members of the community that might be interested in following along with what's going on with the master plan, are the minutes of that available at the township website? Where do people get that? >> We don't have them yet. >> So, yeah, we they're they're really notes. They're not they're not official
minutes. They're really notes from previous meeting because we only meet once a month. It kind of keeps everybody, you know, up to date or was intended to keep everybody up to date and refresh our memories in terms of what happened last time, where we're supposed to be headed and but the public
process will be starting to ramp up a bit more where uh more of the master plan will becoming more of a public process in the coming months. Like this summer is where we're anticipating to do much of kind of the uh public meetings. So will I'm asking like is there some
space somewhere online in some realm where people can go and if they want to participate in a meeting or they want to look at what's going on. >> These aren't open to the >> they're not open to the public at all. >> We had a bunch of um >> I know you had the surve
and now we're kind of going through the process of like writing the master plan. Um and then once we have we're going to go by each section rather than um presenting it all in one undertaking so that you know we can really get the most engagement with the public. Um and those
um sessions are going to be coming where we'll present them similar to when Brian and Tendola came and he gave the circulation element. We got a plethora of feedback. We go back to the drawing board. We implement what we think is valuable and useful. Um, and then we'll have one final meeting where we do show
everything that we've done since those public meetings kind of an all-encompassing saying, okay, this is the final plan um, released to the public. There'll be two public engagement sessions and that that will also be so there'll be plenty of opportunities for the public to be involved in um, public meetings.
>> Okay. Well, Luke Dystra was going to put some of these notes together for us and then when we get them, is that something we can put just the notes on? >> You can request from the township manager a page on the township website
>> we can put but I'm asking are we going to put the notes on there? I'm not exactly sure about the feasibility of that, but I mean, one of one of the one of the issues that we had had previously in terms of, you know, putting out information that's not officially part of the actual document and or process is
that we don't want misinformation out there or we don't want information that's transient information that changes from from space to p space. One of the reasons why the subcommittee is put together the way that it is, we have citizen members on the subcommittee. So we're getting that feedback from you
know from you know people who are not part of any statutory board who you know are bringing certain things to the table. >> Yeah. I think one of the issues is um like in the past we've posted like the PowerPoint presentations and um so the powerpoints you know they don't have the
full scope of what was presented and unfortunately a lot of times the slides were taken as that was what was completely presented and it was taken um as we were you know not giving enough information or it was
very vague when in reality there was a presentation that went with each slide. So, um, kind of the feedback that we had gotten was misinformation spread from that because we would have these slides that are meant to I mean, anyone who's done a PowerPoint, you know, you don't
put your full um your full uh you don't put all your information on there because nobody wants to see a paragraph of words up there, right? You put kind of things that are visually stimulating and kind of touch on the points that you'll be speaking about. Um, so unfortunately they were being used incorrectly. And so to avoid confusion
or to avoid the spread of information or misinformation, we determined to kind of until things are ready to be released, um, just wait until they're ready and and release them in that capacity. >> Right. So basically, prior to any hearing moving forward, anything that
the board is going to digest, that'll be given out to the public as well because that's going to be part of an agenda. it's going to be part of something that they're going to come and we want them to participate in. We want them to to speak to. >> And I I apologize. The only reason I said it was because when you said, "Oh,
the minutes," I said, "Oh, good. Are the minutes out there somewhere?" So that's why I >> We do have a master plan website that has my contact information and and um my office. If anybody does from the public have questions, >> we are more than happy to engage with um
with uh people within the municipality and talk to them about the process or help them with any questions along the way as well. >> And that website has all of the historic information, right? So, it has all the previous iterations of the master plan. It has the survey data. So, you know, it
does have some information out there that we've that we've done to date. >> And as the elements become public, we'll put them on there. We'll put meeting dates, any kind of updates we'll be putting there as well. >> So that's what I would just have them when you're ready add to the township like >> there's actually a link there is a link
from from our from the planning board's page. There's a link from the planning board's page that you can get to. Okay. >> And when we did the public engagement, I believe we did, I don't know if you guys use Nixl or what program you use, but we did do a blast to all of the residents who are on that program where you know,
you get your Sparta Township information, the road closures and things like that. So, we had those in there and then we also had it on the electric sign in front of the municipal building. We are making sure that word is out there as much as possible >> and council leaison were also um you
know spreading the word to like Mohawk voted trustees things like that so we can kind of keep everybody engaged and and involved in the process. >> Yeah, we've had really great engagement sessions and really great turnout and from all over the township which has been awesome. >> There's just a quick question and again
appreciate all the work that everyone's doing on this. I think people are anxious to see it. Um, are we still on track to to complete it this year, do you think? >> Yeah, the intention is for it to be completed by September. >> Awesome. Thank you. >> I know. >> So, even if we're late, it's still going to be this year.
>> We're all ready for it to be completed. >> Yeah, I think I think we're all ready to, you know, kick this uh kick this ball over the >> goal post. That's great. >> Um, all right. So that is it for subcommittees and we are going to move to the >> before actually before we leave
subcommittees. Um, so some new information came into minor site plan today shortly before 4:00 and um, it would have been unforeseeable to uh, notice an executive session to
discuss this and Ken, I'm just wondering can we add an executive session after the public after we open it to the public knowing that you know there's not going to be any formal action but we would just discuss this new information that came in shortly before 4:00, like
two hours before minor site plan. >> I I think we can talk I don't think we have to go into close session on the concept of if things are brought minor site plan or to uh the building
department and they're not timely, should they be disregarded? Should it go to the next meeting? And that's that's within your purview to say yes, we will hear it or no, we won't. So, it's a tough that's a tough call.
>> I think it's a little bit bigger than that. >> What was not distributed? I'm not sure what you didn't receive. >> No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about that. >> Okay. >> Well, she
So maybe what we need to do in the interest of where we are right now is maybe offline you guys should just level step so you can explain to him >> what what you're talking about and um close session we'll do it
>> and then if we need it we can add one >> give a notice for a close session >> then we can notice it properly and we can >> then we can have that that conversation >> and it can be on the agenda everyone it can be on the agenda and then there won't be an issue it'll be done properly. Okay.
>> Okay. So, we are going to Can I just clarify because I want to know who's going to do it. Is it Ken? Are you writing the letter to Jim Zap? >> Uh, I am not writing the letter to Jim Zep. It is noted in the the minutes that were passed that request. Uh, I would
say that the minutes should be forwarded. If you'd like me to forward them uh to Jim, if the board would like that, I will do that. that he's >> where will be the request if you're just forwarding the minutes. How will he know? >> I could put it bring it to his attention. >> Thank you. >> Is that okay by the board?
>> Fine with me. >> Just didn't want it to get lost. >> Yeah. And just to make it easier, let's let's put on the next >> uh meeting agenda a closed session uh just so there'll be notice. Is that a question of personnel, a question of
litigation or a possible litigation? I I would assume it's possible litigation. >> All right. So that's so noted it'll be possible litigation. >> Okay. >> That having been said, we have members of the public who are still patiently waiting.
Um so we are going to open to the public for items that are not on the agenda. >> Hey guys, bear with me. Um so members of the board, professional staff, >> your name? Oh, Rob Otto Sparta. Um, I've had some time to look at the chapter 18
code and I know you guys are looking at September for master plan. I'm not part of that. Um, but it's led me to a question I just want to pose, get you guys thinking about it and it's going to probably be subject further discussion. Um, why are we still relying so heavily
on use labels instead of performance metrics? Um right now we spend an incredible amount of time debate I don't uh debating whether a project is a warehouse light industrial but as we've seen um it's a shell game. Labels are
subjective easily interpreted. My question is why aren't we uh measuring what the buildings actually do? So, uh, just broadly, does anyone in New Jersey, the Highlands region use a strictly
quantitative performance model? Um, seems to me with Germany Flats aquafer, with our natural resources, uh, structural capacity of our roads, the, um, ashtto, EEL limits, those are
objective realities that we should be able to look at. So wouldn't it make sense to shift the burden of proof to the applicant uh to show their maximum operational potential against hard numbers? Uh is it a legal hurdle uh lack
of data or just it's the way we've always done things? So for the professionals I have kind of qu quick questions for each of you. So the attorney from litigation standpoint um in a defense against a prerogative
writer numbers just to throw back at the applicant. So why don't we see more towns utilizing say the New Jersey green amendment as a hook to create rational nexus between a project's intensity and our resource limits. Is there a reason
that we're not using this constitutional shield to defend our water to the engine the board engineer? Um hey on technical side uh and I'm I'm new to this but the um NJR reel 2026 standards and ashtto uh
roadware models are available. Why don't we make these mandatory firstline metrics for every application? What's stopping us from requiring a 2500 foot well interference model or draw down as baseline requirement for anyone seeking
to utilize uh groundwater resources? And then to our board planner, uh why don't we move away from estimated benefits and require a hard 1.5 to1 fiscal ratio for any project over a certain intensity? Is it a matter of like expertise or just
the the data that's just not being demanded? Um, so I'm just in closing wondering if we're missing an opportunity here, you know, redoing the master plan. Things have always always been done kind of with a use-based thing, but it seems
like then we get to uh metrics. We get to heights of things and we get to uh small businesses that can't open because that use isn't contemplated, but really I think the high level spirit of it is intensity. So, uh, are we missing an
opportunity for objective certainty? Uh, what are the barriers to moving for, uh, more of a metric-driven carrying capacity model for Sparta? >> See, so I could just quickly um because it's getting a little late, Rob, but >> the applicant always has the burden of
proof. Uh, we are the planning board, so we are permitted use. The non-permitted use goes to the board of adjustment. We have a simple majority vote. five out of uh nine because it is a permitted use and again the applicant burden approve.
We can use other matrix such as your aquifers and the like or your lack of uh sewer or lack of uh other uh public health, safety, welfare issues as um uh prohibitions or as conditions are
standard as arbitrary and capriccious that the board just can't act arbitrary and capriccious. If an applicant is dissatisfied or a public member is dissatisfied, they file what's called the prerogative writ which is a non-jury trial. The progative rate is handled at
the county of which uh the board is located. So here Sussex County uh and the judge would rule uh whether the board had acted arbitrary and capriccious which is uh a pretty high
standard for the applicant to win. So it's uh I think the law is fair. the issues you brought up are very good and they are issues that I do think the engineer and the planner does bring into uh play but thank you for identifying
those areas that hopefully can be clarified in the master plan. Go ahead. Um yeah, just to add on to that, um when you are writing ordinances, obviously I did not write Sparta's um ordinances, but when you are writing ordinances, you're thinking about the uses and how
they will affect the other uses in the area, um the adjacent use uh properties as well as other uses within that zone. So, um you'll see, you know, um definitions that describe different types of warehouses that are permitted
and it's because they're considering the types of vehicles that are accessing the sites. And this is actually something we have t spoke about at the subcommittee um where we've thought about what types of trucks and talking to Brian as well
the traffic engineer um about which types of trucks are appropriate for which roads and in which areas and considering kind of what uses then that entails would be appropriate. So these are things that we are contemplating within the master plan that we're drafting at the time. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. And last but not least, uh, couple things. Number one, as far as evaluating traffic and what have you, we do always reference the Institute of Traffic Engineers, uh, trip generation factors and what have you, which are quantitative numbers based on a number
of studies that have been done for different types of uses. So, we basically rely on that data. And when Brian is the traffic engineer for the board uh contemplates a report, he'll utilize those figures as will the uh
engineer, the traffic engineer for an applicant. And with regards to water withdrawal, there are certain state laws that are set up. If a development is going to utilize a 100,000 gallons of water a day or more, they have to apply to the New Jersey D for what's known as
a water allocation permit. And as part of that water allocation permit, uh the DP will require certain hydrogeeological studies to show the impact uh not only in the development itself but on adjacent properties. And from some of
the water allocation permits that I've seen issued over the years, a lot of times the D will put a specific condition in there that if it's proven that the particular development has a negative impact on an adjoining well then they'll be subject to having to
rectify that situation. So there are some existing quantifiable uh safeguards in place now. So, those safeguards presumably use state models and thresholds. And all I'm simply asking, um, just to clarify for anyone who didn't understand what I threw out
there, uh, there are metrics that we could define uses. Uses seem to be like a whack-a-ole type thing. Uses evolve over time. And I mean, we've seen what's a gym, what's a boutique gym, small, medium, large, good, better, best.
Things change. So I'm simply saying what if we looked high level and said in village areas we're not we're not seeking to prohibit say a small exercise studio maybe a Planet Fitness isn't the best
fit for that area. So if you had size restrictions, intensity restrictions, uh, and kept it kept it high level without even saying it's for a gym, because ultimately it doesn't matter if you have your restricted uses defined,
then any other use should be available. And then as far as what you're saying about 100,000 gallon per is that per day draw down David? Um, so I would just simply say we're in the highlands. I think the highlands might have further
restrictions. And so the question, and I think I know the answer is that Sparta could decide that they want to implement uh restrictions on top of existing state uh thresholds if they so chose, right?
Would that be fair, >> Rob? You just have to be careful that there's something called inverse condemnation which is when a government goes too far and takes away the reasonable uses of the property. Yeah. Taking. >> So taking exactly. So think of it as yourself. It's your property. Oh yeah.
And government tells you you can't do something. So there has to be give and take where >> No, it's a bal it's a balance. Yes. >> Right. So I get that and we don't I I don't need to belabor this but we're on the same page. It's a balance. Uh it's
not a conversation about being anti- business, anti-development. It's simply uh smart development in balance with finite resources is all I'm saying. Maybe maybe it's worth taking a look. Um
because I think that there's common the the common I don't know what it is but the common good or when we health safety and welfare uh our finite water resources one I don't know I'm not a lawyer but
could you perhaps say that uh an applicant might be uh there might be a taking from an applicant who I don't know is is drawing down the well significant ificantly the wellhead if >> I think very interesting topic thank you
I just want to put it out there >> we got single family home one thing uh data center another thing so good topic >> all right thank you >> thank you >> thank you Rob to Rob's point we do have some things that have standards in there for square footage and maybe there are
other things that we as we're doing the master plan need to take a look at square footage and what is appropriate for the sites >> I I mean And to your point, I mean, at any point, the planning board can make a suggestion in terms of what what you know is we we deem reasonable and and
you know, in any given area, at the end of the day, it comes down to is the council going to amend an ordinance to be in alignment with what it is that we say. Now, master plan is the best chance that we have of that happening, which is one of the reasons why I've been pushing
for it for as long as I have because we don't we're we've tried to make peace meal change. We've gotten shot down. So, we're we're in a position now where, you know, we're we're about to get the football over the goal and, you know, God willing, at this point, we can
really get some good ordinances to give it some some teeth. So, I think that that's, you know, to Rob's point, we're we're in a good position to be able to to kind of really fine-tune some of those areas and find that balance that everybody's looking for. >> Yeah. >> And if I if I can, I just want to
commend Rob, and I know Madam Chairman, you'd agree with this. You know, we look for the public. If you got different thoughts, different ideas, bring them forward. >> Oh, yeah. >> And he you know, we start at 7 o'clock, it's quarter to 10, and you know, so you know, thank you for for doing that. >> We appreciate it. >> Thank you. to hear someone speaking
outside of the box. >> To me, your point's well taken on uh >> you know, as you said, we try and identify what's what's allowed, we identify what's not allowed, >> and then something new comes in, you know, and yeah, maybe there is a better way of trying to put a a phrase in
there, you know, like or similar kind of thing, you know, it's but it's hard, you know, because and you know, uh you know, as as you knew from sitting up here as well, I mean, you you still have to define, you know, and that's where it get, you know, and
that's why I say, you know, we always got to kind of stay ahead of the trends when we're when we're looking at our stuff, you know. So, um, you know, nobody nobody for warehouses 10 years ago, you know, these giant warehouses,
you know, got caught on that. So, you know, uh, that's that's the new thing. Who knows what the next new thing is, but I think that's your point. >> Yeah. And the other thing that we need to be mindful of is that if there is change, it's got to be a unilateral change, right? It's got to hit every ordinance that is relative to that
change. Right? That's part of the problem is that we've got so many ordinances now that have been amended over the years that if you look in in one zone, it's this. If you look in another zone, it's that. And those things may be logical, but we've changed the language in this, but didn't change
the language anywhere else. So now the definitions are off. Yeah. >> Well, that's what happened with fitness centers. And you know, to Rob's point, it's intensity because, you know, you're saying no fitness, there's nothing in there for fitness centers in the TCC zone and yet they're low intensity and
we've asked town council to do that and they've completely ignored us. >> Exactly. And that's why I said we've tried to do this peace meal on on multiple occasions and and we've gotten shot down. So, you know, master plan is is best and highest use, I think, of of us actually being able to to affect some
real change. >> And there's the one thing Judge Minkowit said. I keep going back to this all the time because we sat in Ron sat there and um couples in the trial for the vet hospital and he kept saying, "Forget the labels. What's the intensity?"
Labels mean nothing. What's the intensity? That's going to help you to define it. So, as we go through the master plan, that's kind of what we have to be thinking of. >> Okay. Uh, thanks again. And Ernie, you're on. >> Make a motion to adjourn.
>> We need a second. A second. All in favor? >> I >> Any oppose? I don't think so.