Good evening everyone. On behalf of the members of the planning board and our professionals, I would like to welcome you to tonight's meeting of the Sparta Township Planning Board. This meeting is being held on uh Wednesday, June 18th, 2025 at the Sparta Township Municipal
Building located at 65 Main Street in Sparta. Proceedings of the meeting are being livereamed on YouTube at www.youtube.comspartwp. youtube.comspartatwp. The time is 7:03 and this meeting is now called to order. Please note that no new
business will be conducted after 9:30 and the meeting will end at 10. Please stand and join the board as we pledge our nation's flag. I aliance 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. Thank you, Dory. Would you do a roll call, please? Janette Burke, Ernie Ragstead, here. Brian Zimmerman, here.
Ronda Day. Chairwoman Joan Ferman here. Councilman Mark Scott here. Robert Blakeley. Vice Chairman Robert Otto here. Celeste Luciano here. Christine Dunar here. Thank you. All right. The first thing on
the agenda is the approval of minutes. Um we have two sets before us. One is April 16th. One is May 7th. And we're moving along. We're catching up with the uh the minutes. I want to give a shout out to, she's not here, but a shout out to M Molly Wildsmith who's been helping
out to uh prepare some of these minutes for us. Um, so we're pretty caught up for 2025 except for maybe the last meeting or so. And then we're going backwards to 2024. Um, in 2024, we still have 13 that are
missing. And um, so she'll be working on them next. And I just had a question. Um, we have 11 missing in 2023 and I'm just not even sure on for this board. How many of us were here in 2023?
One. I think I was think you know. Yes, she was. Two. Ernie, me. Three. That's sufficient. Janette was also here. Janette, but we are able to go back and do them. You are. I didn't know how many we would need. I want you to set the quorum for the meeting. Uh then those
who are eligible to to vote could then pass it. It's a statutory duty to have the minutes. So my professional opinion even if you have three people think of if you had people have conflicts uh technically if one person is there you
have quum they can vote. So okay. Okay. So we'll be working backwards then. Um so hope you all have good memories. I just wanted to make sure and clarify that. Um, with regard to the two sets of minutes that you have here, I just want
to point out something. Um, I was looking at the May 7th minutes and I noticed that one second here. Let me pull it up. when it says that all present were in favor.
Um, it doesn't show the roll call anymore. And I think that's important because I did notice some I didn't go back to the April 16th, but I did note changes in the May 7th minutes. So, for instance,
there was a motion made um and seconded and uh it lists if you look at the roll call, five people voted yes. Three were not eligible to vote because they were from 2024. So, the December 18th minutes
of 2020 24 Robley, Mark Scott, and Rob Otto were not eligible to vote um because they were not on the board at that time. Yet, the minutes say all present were in favor. So, I don't think it's a good indicator of that. And
actually say all present and eligible to vote. So, that line was stricken out mistakenly. So, we can change that, but it still doesn't show who did the voting. So, I don't I think one time we talked about listing all of the people. It's always better to have the names. Uh
especially we're talking about the minutes when people weren't there. Uh just to clarify my other statement. So, let's say someone has a a conflict. Uh as long as they are not um stricken,
they just uh abstain uh they do create the quorum and and someone else again you just would need even one person uh to move it. As long as you have a quorum. So it it is better for the sake to have their names. it's better practice you can follow it rather than
having to go back to another set of meetings to see who was eligible because historically speaking on those if you don't mind um prior to this current board that's how we did do them um and it was asked to be changed excuse me prior to actually it was Ronda Day when
he was chair Ronda had suggested all present in favor and then or who whomever is eligible so this is a new board so we can change it again that's not a problem all right because I I noticed it a second time too when it was approving the resolution 25-13
and um it said all present were able to vote. Christine Donbara was present but then she said that she wasn't present at the meeting when the resolution for the green came up. So you weren't eligible to vote on that one but it's reflecting
as if she did vote. So it's very hard to follow. I wasn't eligible to vote on the right. It said you were recused. It said uh Ron was recused but it didn't mention Christine. So I think if we just have um the voting I would do a motion if this
board so Dory has direction if that's what the board wants that the minutes moving forward will reflect the uh names and voting pattern of I would put forth that motion if somebody would second it. I'll second.
Thank you. And can we have a roll call on that please? Uh, Celeste Luciano, yes. Ernie Ragstead, yes. Councilman Mark Scott, yes. Uh, Brian Zimmerman, yes. Christine Dunar, I. Vice Chairman Robert Otto,
yes. And Chairwoman Joan Ferman, yes. So, going back to the minutes as presented, can we make those changes? Yes, of course. Okay. Yeah. move to uh approve them with the changes.
Okay. So, let's take the April 16th minutes first. Would somebody like to make a motion to approve the April 16th meeting with the changes to include the roll calls? Can we can we add the I like the footer on the the May 7th. Can we
add that to the April? See that? Easy enough. Yeah. All right. What the footer? I'm sorry. at the bottom. It's on the top, but it's it has it has page number and it has a link to the meeting
so that it could be cross checked. It will have that. They all have that one. Okay. All right. Thank you. Good comment. All right. So, approval to for the March, what was April 16? I'll make that motion. All right. In a second. I'll
second. That's Celeste. Oh, yes. We need names. So, Rob Otto, I don't Let me see your green light. Rob Otto making that motion. Celeste Luciano seconding. Since we're sharing, we're getting the same.
All right. We have any comments? Any other corrections to the minutes? Anybody see anything? Okay. Um, can we have a roll call, please? Ernie Richstad, yes. Uh, Chairwoman Jean Ferman. Yes. Councilman Mark Scott. Yes. Vice Chairman Robert
Otto. Yes. Luciano. Yes. Christine Dunore. Yes. Okay. And then a motion to approve the May 7th minutes with the uh changes. I'll make that motion. Rob Otto. I'll second. Celeste Luciano. Actually, I'm sorry. I can I actually
can't I was not there for that meeting. I'll second. Ernie Richstead. Ernie Reichstead. Okay. Roll call, please. Unless there are any other comments. Roxson, yes. Brian Zimmerman, yes. Chairwoman Joan Ferman, yes. Councilman Mark Scott, yes. Vice Chairman Robert
Otto, yes. And Christine Dunar, yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. Today we have a special hearing. Uh we are going to be presenting the 2025 housing element and fair share plan and uh a resolution. And we have um Katherine
Sarmad and Matt Flynn here. Um Matt is the attorney representing the fair housing plan and Katherine has been the planner who has put a lot of this together. Um and I think Ken, you need to swear Katherine in. And they'll give a presentation on the plan and then the
public will be free to come up and ask some questions. We're going to get all the questions at once. will take notes of it and then in the end, you know, Katherine will address those questions. And just for the public, uh Matt is on our team. Uh he works uh with Steve
Warner, who is the special counsel on the fair housing. Uh so, Katherine, if you raise your right hand, you saw me swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of God. I do. A name and professional address for the record, please. Katherine Sarad and my address is 26 King George Road, Warren, New Jersey. And you're a
professional planner licensed in the state of New Jersey. Yes. And my license is active and in good standing. And and you've testified before boards on fair housing plans. Uh yes, I've been noted as an expert in affordable housing in multiple visages and um in the
affordable housing planner for for multiple municipalities. Uh board, I would recommend you accept Katherine as an expert in the area professional planning with a concentration in fair housing. Accepted. Thank you. I'll just do a brief intro to start and then turn it over to Katherine. Um, as everybody
knows, in 2024, the governor signed an amendment to the Fair Housing Act, um, establishing the fourth round of uh, the Affordable Housing um, requirements that each municipality in the state of New Jersey has to adhere to. It's a
constitutional requirement uh as found by the Supreme Court in the Mount Laurel line of cases that each municipality must provide a reasonable opportunity for affordable housing as part of uh uh the New Jersey state constitution.
And so, um, a lot of you probably already know this, but, uh, around October of last year, the state gave each municipality a number of units that that in theory they would have to zone for or create that reasonable opportunity. Uh, the Sparta governing
body did adopt a resolution um indicating the number of units that it found to be acceptable in compliance with the program. And before you today is a uh master plan element, the fourth round housing element and fair share plan. So like this board would do with
any master plan element, the board must hold a public hearing in accordance with the municipal land use law. Uh and it is actually the planning board who is responsible for adopting the plan. So, if the board uh is so inclined, the board would vote on the resolution that
should be in your packet that was circulated by my office, which would adopt the plan. And after which uh within 48 hours, my office, who's been retained by the township as uh special affordable housing council, would file the resolution and a copy of the plan on
the court docket. uh every municipality in order to demonstrate compliance has had to file a complaint, a declaratory judgment complaint with the state in order to establish compliance. So, Katherine has drafted the plan um in accordance with her expertise on how to
uh have the township meet its fourth round affordable housing obligation again to provide a reasonable opportunity for affordable housing within the township. Uh the only other thing I'll add is that the current deadline for every municipality in the
state of New Jersey to adopt its fourth round housing element and fair share plan is June 30th. Uh the time frames were very tight and so uh we did provide the requisite public notice uh to the surrounding municipalities, the county and the state in order to have the
public hearing on this plan today. Uh I found those notices to be uh legally sufficient and timely served and published and such. When you hear about the plan tonight, you uh do have a legal opportunity to adopt the plan and thus demonstrate compliance with the next
stage of the fourth round affordable housing legislation. Uh and with that, I'll turn it to Katherine. Thank you very much. So um during this presentation, I will go through the document. And I'm going to walk through it at a high level. Um provide some
detail where necessary. Um I ask that you get me let me get through the whole presentation and then we can take take questions at the end. Um so the plan is dated June 3rd, 2025. Again, this is the fourth round housing element fair share plan element of the master plan. Um
there are some sections to the document. So I'll I'll kind of break up the presentation to those sections. So the introduction just sets forth the statutory requirements pursuant to the municipal land use law and the amended fair housing act. Um there are a few additional statutory requirements that were added as part of the amended fair
housing act um which were largely related to um how how the plan is put together and what it needs to include of which this plan does. Um the second section of the document is the housing element. So the housing element provides
an overview of what Mr. Flynn just went through very briefly about the Mount Laurel cases that started back in 1975, Mount Laurel 1 through Mount Laurel 4, which was the 2015 Supreme Court case. Um, and talks about the statewide history of affordable housing and how
we've gotten to this point. Um, additionally, it mentions the fourth round or the amended Fair Housing Act that was signed into law in 2024, which took this out of the courts where it was in the third round and brought it back to the state level. um through the
amended fair housing act which abolished COA and established the department of community affairs the DCA as kind of the body with the affordable housing dispute resolution program as an arm of the courts kind of assisting in in this process for the fourth round. Um,
additionally, this section talks about the um, Mount Laurel doctrine in the context of Sparta, which was very, I thought very important because the Mount Laurel, the original Mount Laurel doctrine and the original fair housing act did um, emphasize the the role of
the constitutional obligation in the context of conservation and open space and environmental constraints, which is incredibly important for Sparta in the context of the Highlands, um, the various planning areas that have been designated in Sparta. and the environmental constraints that exist
here today. Um, additionally, it includes Sparta's affordable housing history uh very briefly and the compliance with all of the different Mount Laurel rounds thus far. Um, and finally gives a pretty good detail about
um the highlands in Sparta, which portions of the highlands. So there's different land use capa compatib capab compatibility zones um of which there's various amounts of acreage in Sparta. Sparta is half in the Highlands preservation area which is much more
restrictive and uh must any municipalities that are have preservation area must comply with the Highlands regional master plan and the other half of roughly half of Sparta is in the Highlands planning area um which still has some implications on on development but is uh Sparta is not
opted into the Highlands planning area so it's it's less um stringent than the than the preservation area. Um finally the housing element section includes um and it must include statutoily an analysis of census data
that talks about population demographics, housing, income, uh employment data and uh other other valuable point in time um census information um that discusses um
kind of where Sparta is today. uh looks back a few decades at some of the other dennial censuses um and and analyzes them in that section. Um one other thing that is required um it was emphasized uh as part of the fair
housing act amended fair housing act in December of 2024 as I mentioned there's this affordable housing dispute resolution program that is an arm of the administrative office of the courts they submitted a directive in 20 in December of 2024 which um set forth additional
requirements that must be incorporated one of them was an emphasis that municipalities as part of this process that receive interest letters from property owners ers or developers must acknowledge any of those letters that were submitted for any properties and
discuss why a property was included in the plan or was not included in the plan. So, um property owners were allowed to offer their property or a proposal um for a development that includes affordable housing to be considered for the plan. The
municipality does not have an obligation to um include any of those. it simply has to acknowledge them and discuss why it was or why it's not included. Um Sparta did receive three different letters of interest um one from a property owner um at what is known as
crossroads at Sparta um behind Glenn Road. So, it's Maine and Glenn um offering to um propose a 44 dwelling unit development with a 20% set aside um which would include um a portion of
property that is um township owned that they would have to purchase in order to complete the development um to because there are constraints uh on the property. They would they would request that. Um, alternatively, they had offered that if the township did not sell the property that they would offer a smaller development on just their
property. Um, but one thing to consider and one thing that was noted in this plan is that that site was included because those properties are already zoned MF3. They already permit multif family housing and they already uh require an affordable housing set aside.
So, um, the the site was included in the plan under the MF3 zoning that already exists today. So no zoning is proposed to be changed as part of that. Um simply utilizing the zoning that exists today. Uh secondly, a site uh known as or the
the entity is known as DDG. It's referred to in the plan as the DDG site who is a contract purchaser of certain properties known as block 12008 lots 19, 20, and 21. um sent a letter to the township um requesting that their property um just to give context, it's
the property across the street from Shopright on Route 15. Um to be included in the plan. Um that letter propos included a concept plan attached to that letter. Um it proposed 400 dwelling
units. um half of them um being half of them being age restricted and half of them being um family units um with a 15% set aside. Um there was subsequent correspondence that changed that to um a
20% set aside um on that proposal. the um township did engage with that property owner to discuss um the proposed letter um and there was a meeting uh in late May. However, um there was a request for a lot more information regarding that
property that was not submitted. Um the information that was requested and the me the reason for the meeting was to determine the site suitability as required in part of this document um up until that meeting and thereafter without the information um provided in a
timely manner. The site suitability analysis um provided that the site does have um environmental incumbrances in the form of wetlands and potential wetland buffers. the resource value of the wetlands was not um delineated or known or made known. Um the so it's
unknown what the actual buffers from those wetlands would be. Additionally, this site is not in the sewer service area right now. Um and although there are sewer service areas around it, it is not included in a sewer service area. So there are limitations to to infrastructure and sewer capacity which
is um one of the requirements of a site suitability analysis is is the site does it have access to um utilities and infrastructure such as water and sewer. So that was an unknown. Um we had made a request to see what the sewer capacity um of the treatment the private
treatment plant was across the street if it would be allowed to um join that and if it would even be capable of doing that outside of a sewer service area without a wastewater management plan amendment between before the NJD. Um additionally the township noted that um
the site is also within the planning area 4B um within the state development and redevelopment plan. and it's in draft form right now but regardless in that designated in that area on the state plan map which is known as the rural environmentally sensitive area um
that area that planning area um has goals of maintaining the environ environments as contiguous areas of farmland and open space um it is goals to confine programmed sewers to the centers so it talks about not expanding
sewer service area in any in the PA4B zone because of the environment ntally sensitive nature. Um and so the township ultimately without the information in hand to understand the site better from the property owner um the township found the site not to be suitable at this time and did not include it in the plan. Uh,
finally, the township received correspondence from uh, Hakeimeian. Um, they own or they noted that they own block 10002, lot 61, which is the property across from the Stop and Shop,
west of the Stop and Shop, um, at the, um, Route 15 interchange. and they had they did they noted some specifics about their property in their interest letter but did not discuss a specific proposal for their site. Um the
township had already um looked at that site and not that site in particular but the zone in particular of which that site is zoned. The Town Center Professional Business TCPB zone already does permit a planned development which includes up to a 100 units with a 25
unit affordable requirement set aside. Um, and so the township had already sought to utilize that zoning that's already in place as a creditworthy mechanism towards its obligation. So that while that site specifically was not included, the zone that already
allows for it was included. Um that's just a kind of a formality. So that concludes the the housing element portion of the document and feeds into the fourth round fair share plan. And the fair share plan focuses on how the township has historically
complied with its Mount Laurel obligations um and how it will um comply with uh its its current obligations into the fourth round. So there are different segments of the obligations as all of
these the rounds um in the decades um past um have are all cumulative. So they're not they're not replacement obligations. They're all cumulative on top of one another. Um there are kind of four parts to the obligation. The first
being what's known as the present need or the rehabilitation obligation. Uh most municipalities have this this present need obligation which represents um a requirement to bring basically bring older homes up to code. Um so they
are probably in need of rehabilitation. Um the township has actually had has a 10-unit present need um has largely been in compliance with rehabilitations throughout the years. Um I think the township had completed 29 rehabilitations up to today. So, um, as far as I see it, the township has has
complied and completed its rehab obligation. Not to say it won't do it anymore, but there's no obligation to do any additional. There, uh, is the prior round obligation, which ran from 1987 to 1999. The township's obligation there was 76 units of which the township
complied and had additional surplus credits going into the third round. There was a third round obligation. Um, and this one's a little trickier. um KOA was invalidated and um the third round didn't happen as it was supposed to after 1999 to 2010 or so. Um and because
of uh KA becoming defunct um that round did not resume really until 2015 when the Mount Laurel 4 Supreme Court decision came about, but it retroactively included it. So the third round runs a little longer than the other rounds. It runs from 1999 to June 30th, 2025. So we're still in the tail
end of the third round. Um but that obligation was 377 and I'll discuss um the township history with its third round, what happened in the third round and where we stand. And finally, there's a fourth round perspective need which will run for a 10-year period from July 1st, 2025 until
June 30th, 2035. Um as Mr. Flynn had discussed um the DCA had set forth um the obligations for every municipality that has an obligation. In October of 2024, the township did participate in the affordable housing dispute
resolution program to um to to analyze the the the obligation that was set forth by um the DCA and to which was a obligation 427 and to analyze that set forth a number of 311 which was accepted
by the dispute resolution program recommend recommended by the program judge in that program. Um and then and then accepted by order or set forth by order by the Mount Laurel judge in this vicinage. Um and so uh from I'll talk about the prior
round compliance first. The the township had a prior round obligation of 76 uh of which it complied and as I mentioned had some units in excess of the 76 which then flowed over to the third round.
Um probably particularly because as the as COA was defunct, Sparta was still proactive and still had development going on through the early 2000s which then led to additional credits that could be set forth to the third round. the uh in the third round because it was
through the Supreme Court decision and it was done through the courts. Um the township as well as many other municipalities had um participated in the process and was involved in a settlement agreement with Fairshair Housing Center. Um the settlement
agreement that was executed in 2016 um and the judgment of compliance from opposed from the courts also in September of 2016 set forth that the 377 unit perspective need obligation was broken into two parts. Um and that was largely because Sparta had what's called
a durational adjustment. The round two COA regulations permit that municipalities that have a scarcity of um land can seek a vacant land adjust what's called a vacant land adjustment to reduce their obligation. And municipalities that have a scarcity of water or sewer infrastructure or
capacity um pursuant to certain requirements could seek what's called the durational adjustment which basically adjusts the number down um to the ability of the municipalities sewer or water to to accommodate that development. um in recognition of the Mount Laurel doctrine on the fair
housing act um which talked about the municipality's obligations in regards to those those two limitations. Um so the the durational adjustment set forth that the township's obligation was adjusted obligation was 251 and that its
durational adjustment so it's it's it set it to the it said 126 units to the side and said you don't have the capacity to do that. we can leave that be until or if sewer capacity is ever extended, sewer service areas are ever
extended or um capacity is ever uh investments are made into the sewer system that increase the capacity. Um and so that was all set forth in the settlement agreement agreed to by fair share housing center etc. The
um housing element from 2016 also discussed and this plan incorporates much of the good information that talks about the sewer service areas, the wastewater management plan, the septic density set forth by that waste water management plan and the limitations to
the township's um sewer capacity particularly in the town center where there it's most of this of the um sewer service area is in the township. The um this also includes the durational adjustment requirements that's set forth
in the round two co-regs and it has a the snippet from the um 2016 settlement agreement that talks about the acknowledgement of the township's durational adjustment and why why it's why it was granted one. Um,
so acknowledging that since 2016, the township has not upgraded its sewer system. It has not expanded sewer lines or infrastructure and sewer service areas have not um been expanded or changed to new properties. Um the the township
still in this in this process and looking at the fourth round um looked at what other crediting or mechanisms had been completed during the third round period from 2016 to today to see what was creditw worthy um to see if any
additional credits had been um garnered and to see where we stood in relation to our obligation. Um in doing that analysis um there was a few things that had changed. the township planning board had um had approved an application that
uh on Delmare Woodport Road that um is called the Delmare that included an additional very lowincome uh studio unit. So that was creditw worthy and added to the plan. The in within the town center um overlay zone which was
implemented as part of the third round housing element. Um there was a um development on Sparta A that was approved under that overlay zone um for an additional six units. And then um as I mentioned before, there are two zones
that exist today, the TCPB zone and the MF3 zone which were included in this plan um as they are required to provide affordable housing. they they provide the reasonable opportunity for affordable housing. Um, and so they've been included as creditworthy mechanisms as well in addition to what was included
in the third round settlement agreement. Finally, there are u what's known as prior cycle credits. The null heights senior units are 100% affordable low-income uh senior units. They were not included previously. They were acknowledged in the settlement agreement
that the township and fair share housing center agreed not to include them for some reason. did not elaborate why they didn't. It said the township had every right in future rounds to seek credit for those. And so the township in looking in seeking to evaluate what creditw worthy mechanisms it has and how
it could best reach its fourth its third round obligation um included a portion of those units up to the age restricted allowance in the in the third round. And ultimately where these crediting changes um differed from the settlement agreement made up for the difference in
the durational adjustment um and utilized things that were all existing existing units existing deed restrictions um and existing zoning in place to meet the third round obligation. Again no sewer infrastructure was upgraded. Nothing
about the duration adjustment effectively changed. These were mostly existing mechanisms and I will note that the TCPB zone and the MF3 zone are all within the sewer service area um where there is limited sewer capacity but they are in in a sewer service area which
would make them um more suitable. And there's a section on site suitability that discusses um the those sites. The one thing to note um or that was noted in this plan that may have seemed unusual is that town center overlay that
I just discussed which was implemented by ordinance 20-04 um includes most if not all of the TC zones the TCPB the TCC the TCCO all the TC most of the TC zones are included in there. Um there has been discussion um
about a certain portion of the TCC zone, Town Center commercial zone adjacent to Lake Mohawk that is um that is historic. It's on the National Historic Register. Um there have been discussions uh about the historic nature of those properties
and and that designation from probably 30 years ago in reverting back the um zone to the C1H zone there. um that would have no impact on that that zone as it exists. Um it's simply it would no longer qualify for the overlay zone
there. Um so it would effectively be taken out. Uh in looking at those properties and what's included there, I don't think any of them stand alone would would qualify under the the overlay zone currently because it does have a twoacre minimum. Um so I don't believe it will have an impact but it was discussed in this because it was a
mechanism from the prior from the third round that was implemented but it was just discussed to to um be perfectly transparent about the zoning there. Um as I mentioned before the two mechanisms that are included um in some cases when a municipality is um doing a housing
element fair share plan it's required to include draft zoning that would be the imple implementation measures for a site. So if a site is not zoned for housing or affordable housing, it would have to include a draft ordinance. In this case, the the the zoning already
exists in both the MF3 and the TCPB zone. So there are no draft ordinances to be included. The zoning exists. Um and so that that concludes or wraps up the the third round and that the township has um now fulfilled that third
round obligation where there was previously a durational adjustment for 126 units. we can we can meet it with what we have um and with zoning in place on certain sites to um to make the opportunity for affordable housing there realistic. As far as the fourth round,
as I mentioned, the township did work towards um correcting the formula at the from the DCA um having the number uh recommended and ordered by the court judge to be 311, not 427. And as I mentioned the durational
adjustment saw in the third round, nothing has changed about the durational adjustment. Um, which means that the sewer capacity and the sewer service areas have not changed since 2016. And therefore the ability to accommodate additional development in excess of what
what that capacity is has also not increased in any way. And therefore um the township is seeking durational adjustment on the on the entirety of the fourth round obligation. um as the the sewer capacity simply is not there. Um a appendix A includes so an analysis of
the sewer capacity um numbers the flows uh I I did work with um Mr. Simmons office with Corey Stoner with Mr. Zep the town administrator a town manager and I uh and the the numbers are exactly
the same as they were when we sought the durational adjustment in the um third round. the reservations for single family homes and existing approvals such as the flush holdings are still exactly the same. So that the sewer capac it's at capacity. there's no room for um
really any additional um which which supports the durational adjustment but a analysis of um all the sewer service area properties that are um within the township was included as appendix A as a backup to basically it's not a vacant land adjustment but it supports the
durational adjustment from a from a land um perspective also the only um mechanism that is being proposed in the fourth round is what's called a mandatory set aside ordinance. Um, most towns or municipalities were
required um in the third round to do something similar to this. um not exactly the same, but they um it essentially says that any property that comes in for a use variance before the zoning board or requests a resoning
before the council or redevelopment plan before the council with five or more units must provide a set aside of affordable housing. It protects the municipality's ability despite having fulfilled this their past obligations from um having projects that don't that
profer that they don't need to have affordable housing because the township is done with this obligation. Um I've seen it in other places. You know, a developer will come in after a town's finished its plan and say, "Well, you finished obligation. We don't have to do the affordable units." Right? This would protect the town from being able to
capture those affordable units at any point from any of those cases of reszoning, redevelopment or a use variance um and would provide a 20% set aside of affordable units to capture additional. As I mentioned before, the planning board um had asked had
requested that additional unit and that one planning board application despite not having the mandatory set aside ordinance for it and was was able to capture it. So this would actually enforce the ability for the boards to to do that moving forward. Um if there if there are any um applications that come
before um but it is a a um it is a way that other municipalities were required to do it as part of their settlement agreements. Um the only difference being that in the third round many municipalities um had a 15% set aside for rentals and a 20% set aside for for
sales as the second round co regulations used to permit. Obviously, now rental units are the probably the more popular housing type that developers seek. And so, um, it's my opinion that a 20% set aside across the board to capture as many units as these obligations continue to grow from a state mandate
perspective, it's the best way and the easiest way for the township to to capture additional units at a higher set aside. Um, other than that, the final section of the document includes a map that shows the various sites that are used to accomplish and fulfill the
township's various obligations throughout the years. They are colorcoded um to show where or what rounds they were included in um and what sites have been um included and where they're located. As you can see, many of them are located um around the town
center, which um leads to the next um section of the plan, which there is a requirement now at the um pursuant to the amended fair housing act that the township despite the state plan only being in draft form provide a statement on the consistency with the state plan
um and how the housing element is consistent with that. The um the township does have a number of different planning area designations throughout it. Um many of them are rural, environmentally sensitive. Um but they all h the the particularly the environmentally sensitive ones, the
goals that are stated in the state plan seek toi a avoid development and growth in those areas and they prefer or they um you know emphasize and encourage development to be in the in the um other planning areas that aren't envir
environmentally sensitive. And so, um, the township has, um, sought to continue to, um, or follow the state plan recommendations and most of the, um, the two sites that were added, the TCPB zone
and the MF3 zone, um, are in the PA4, which is the rural planning area, which, um, accommodates the growth in the what was formerly the town center area, um, and still maintain the environments as large um, as open space um, without
disturbing envir environmentally sensitive areas. So uh I did find that our plan was consistent with the state plan um in that section. Uh finally there are uh five or six appendix documents. Um as I mentioned appendix A is that duration adjustment. I just want
to note that there was a um typographical error. Some of the headers didn't update in my document. So I just need to change those. You you might notice that um the township attorney did point that out to me. So I do need to make those for any kind of final version. I need to update those. Um the
appendix B is the spending plan. So every township is required that has a um development fee ordinance and an amended SP and a spending plan is required to have a spending plan for the next 10 years regarding the affordable housing trust fund. Um the township does require
a 1 and a.5% um development fee on residential and uh for any kind of additions or expansions on the um change in in in assessed value and a two and a half% fee on um commercial development.
And so that trust fund is utilized for things and Sparta has been has used its trust fund um to fund uh special needs projects, 100% affordable projects. It has used it for a lot of housing activity. It also allows for um things like this housing element to be produced
and and to be um expended for administrative purposes up to a certain limitation and it has certain requirements that must be fulfilled for affordability assistance. As I mentioned, Sparta has done a wonderful job of of utilizing it for rehabilitations, for special needs, for 100% affordable. So, um, that has not
been an issue, but this just sets forth a projection, and it's not exactly a budget because it does have, um, very loose pro projections about what the what the township will um will get as far as additional funds to that to that and how they will spend those additional
funds even though they haven't been collected yet. So, it's not necessarily a budget, but it's a 10-year spending plan. Um, finally, appendix C is that mandatory set aside ordinance draft. Um, it is draft, it is not adopted yet. that will have to be adopted by March of next year pursuant to the amended fair
housing act by the town council. It is a recommended ordinance but it is subject to some minor changes. Um similarly appendix D shows um the minor changes to the TCC overlay zone that's discussed in the housing housing element and then
appendix E includes any crediting documentation from the third round units that were not built at the time of the 2016 settlement agreement. So any units that were not certified through the court or the previous COA process, new crediting documentation such as deed restrictions were included in appendix
E. And then finally, appendix F includes a larger a little bit larger map than the one that was included at the end of the document to show the different sites um and where they're located within the township. That is all I have um as far as the overview of this document, but I
do welcome any questions from from the board. just want to say thank you very very much for the thorough explanation. It's a very complicated subject and uh we've had two executive sessions, very detailed executive sessions and you know
you filled us in and I think you know we're all a little more comfortable with that at this point but um as you said I would like to open up to the board before the public and see if you do have any additional questions on this buddy. I just want to thank you Katherine. Good
job. Thank you. And uh for the record, there were uh at least uh one formal work session and informal work session. So no questions from the board should not be reflective that the board has not reviewed it and put time and effort into it. Thank you.
That's right. Catherine, is the 20% set aside uh going to be applied to multif family as well as for sale units? Oh, so it will be regardless of tenure. So regardless of ownership versus rental,
multif family versus whatever the development is, if it's five units or more, it will be a 20% set aside. Okay, great. Thank you. Anybody else? I have a quick question, Katherine, on um this is
this is um appendix D. Okay. and um Township of Sparta ordinance. Okay. And on the second page um section two one. Okay. Um I was wondering um how it
makes sense to increase the um impervious coverage to 70%. how that makes sense and and and why that is allowed. Yeah. So this this
zoning ordinance actually um that's how it exists today. So this was not a surgical amendment to the ordinance. It didn't show the pieces that were changed about it. It shows the whole thing. So that's what exists there today. That was part of the third round settlement agreement. So those ordinance provisions
are largely existing. It did it did take out um certain there were other provisions about I think even higher impervious up to 80% um four stories some of those were were stricken from it um and it was kind of
reworked into what you see now so it actually is a little bit different and I think more friendly to the to that development character of the area than it was previously. Thank you. Okay, there are no other questions. We're going to open it up to the public
for questions. Um, and as I said earlier, we will first listen to all the questions or comments. Everybody will get sworn in. Um, we'll record the questions and then Katherine will answer them all at once. Okay. We ask you to be
um cognizant of time. We do have another application after this. Um, so sure. Do I just give my name or do I have to be sworn? All right. So, I I am going to swear you in, but just for the public, uh, you do not have to give your street address. Just your name and if you
reside in the town, but if you want to give your street address, you're welcome to, but you don't have to. Uh, do you soundly swear to tell the truth, hold truth, and nothing but the truth. So, I hope you got I do. Jennifer Derek's tap into Sparta. I just have a few questions. um some of the nits nuts and
bolts the de the dem I'm sorry the dem demographic information um leans on the 2020 it's 5 years old is that typical so those those are just the the last census dennial census was in two 2020 so that's the last hard census data we have
everything else there is estimates thereafter and some of them I actually think I just forgot to change the um footnotes I think they actually are 2023 but those are all estimated data because they just work off of um projections. Okay. Um similarly uh
there's notes about uh using transportation census information or population projections. Is that typical? So the NJTPA is the group that does regional analyses and they were the group that provided that last study about employment and population projections
through 2050. So that's something that's pretty ubiquitous through all through a lot of municipalities. They're all going to use that that type of data. I think so. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Um given the um section you discussed at
the end where we um talking about the uh proposed resolution uh for uh 20% set aside uh for multif family and rentals of sing ownership or rental
units. Does the plan require or does the town is the township locked into the incentive zoning that Christine Dunar was referring to? So that was that's the only that currently that's the only zoning we have that requires or the over
only overlay zone that requires a set aside. No other zones in the township require that set aside. This would effectively make it so that anybody in any zone that benefits from resoning, redevelopment or um or yeah, use
variance would um would have to provide that set aside. So, right now we don't have that on the books. So, I guess um to just to clarify the question, those two zones have incentive zoning. The incentive zoning already requires a
20% set aside, right? So, but given the the proposed I think it is proposed uh resolution for the 20% set aside across the board is that overlay is that incentive zoning are those incentive zonings required? So, it's not incentive
zoning. Well, no. The part that I'm talking about is incentive zoning in the TCC the Sorry, I misunderstand with um 70% or 80% impervious coverage twoacre minimum for four stories. So those are incentives that go above and beyond what's currently available to anybody
else. Um so would that um still be required? Would those incentives still be required once the oh were were those numbers so the reason the reason why those were required as part of the third round settlement agreement as I understood it
was most of those zones are already developed. They're developed something else and so an infill development. It was called an incentive zone for a reason because they were trying to incentivize affordable housing to come there. I will say that in light of Christine Dumbar's question,
um I just want to highlight that that that some of those provisions that you just talked about, four stories and things, those were all ch some of them were changed as part of this proposed ordinance to to be more realistic and to be more so they shrunk the the setbacks and and all of that. Correct. Okay.
Correct. Or expanded the setbacks, I should say. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Um, uh, let's see. I think that's about it. Um who just as apppropo to I don't know
what um who was the township um representatives at the discussions with the two pe uh developers who submitted letters of intent or letters I guess is
the the only meeting that I'm aware of was um with the DGG site noted and that was myself, Steve Warner as affordable housing council, uh the township attorney and non dash and uh the mayor
Neil Clark, right? I think so. And were was that meeting documented? I don't think it was recorded. It was a Zoom meeting. Okay. So, there were no minutes or anything? No. And there was no such um a similar discussion regarding the property at the bottom of
Glen Road. I was not part of any discussions and to your knowledge or to anybody else's knowledge, Mr. Porro, maybe. Was anybody else part of that discussion? Maybe um Mr. Flynn, do you know? Not that you're aware. Okay. Thank you,
Katherine. Is there a way um that we can eliminate that fourstory or that incentive zoning in the TCC zone in the town or do we have to allow towers to be built in downtown Sparta? Um the the
credits or that has a line item in the third round obligation towards a third round obligation. Right now it's broken up into two. Um our third round settlement agreement accounted for 25 credits related to that zoning. Um initially the site where the flush
holdings was approved was a little bit more than what is approved for now. It was reduced. So I think uh it's now broken into six for the flush holdings site, six affordable credits and then 19 additional from the town center. So it does it does play a part in satisfying
that third round obligation. Um, so but as I noted, it's it's included here as an appendix because it has been modified to remove the fourstory allowance. It has been modified. Uh, the zoning was looked at to determine if we could still
um achieve the 19 units in a three-story product with less impervious coverage with bigger setbacks. And that's what the those that draft ordinance includes. It it strikes the the allowance for a four-story building essentially. How
about a two-story project? I mean, they someone could provide a two-story project. This this provides an allowance still up to three stories. The TC. I'm sorry. That's this document. This document. Are you saying the third round?
Is there a way we can change that now? Is what I'm saying. Is it all is it written in stone because it's in the third round? uh it's not written in stone, right? It is
substantially assisting in in the crediting for the the the township's obligation. So, it is it is right now accounting for 19 out of the 377. Actually, I think we have we're over at 377. We're like 381. So, give or take
there could be a few less units that are produced from that. But right now, it's just overlay zoning that allows. There are other requirements like it must be a twoacre site to even benefit from those incentives. So it's um in my opinion in doing the zoning analysis for it, it's
there's not many sites that qualify immediately. There's no really no vacant sites that qualify immediately for for the incentive zoning there. Um I will say that um I would I would we'd have to do a deeper
look at if we'd be able to meet the credits if we took that out entirely. But right now it is satisfying our it is assisting in satisfying our obligation. And that would would that be a planning board or a zoning board or a town council obligation? It's town council because it is an or it's an existing
ordinance. Again, what I said before these are draft ordinances. I don't think um we should def we should detour from them too significantly if it does go to council because they are recommended through this master plan
element. Um and so anything that's too different from them might be seen as not being consistent with the master plan element. But um it is a recommendation right now to modify that zone as it exists today to be like I said more friendly to the context of Sparta. We've heard the feedback after the flesh
holdings hearing um and thereafter that that zoning needed to be reanalyzed and it was as part of this housing element. Okay. Thank you. And just on the process, you are adopting a plan. Then it goes to the mayor and council to
endorse the plan, but this is your plan. You set forth the concept and then the mayor and council will then pass ordinances that are consistent with the plan. And that's why when we look at ordinances, we are reviewing them for
consistency with the plan. And now remember the housing element is just one part of the master plan and that's what we're talking today. Just one quick thing. The um incentive zoning came in in 2020 which was post
round three. No, it was dur during round three. So round three ran from 1999 to to the end of June of this year. But I mean it wasn't considered in the credits for it came out of the 2019 master plan review. the the 2016 housing element and the settlement
agreement included it the t that's how the 2016 settlement agreement included the town center incentive zones as a mechanism. So when you go into the settlement agreement you'll see the 25 credits for it that are associated with it. Thereafter, a master plan re-examination report was done which
analyzed all of the master plan documents including that housing element that was done in 2016 and made the recommendation to then um re to effectuate the zoning that was required as part of 2016. So there was a gap in the time from the settlement agreement
to when it was adopted, but it was a requirement of the settlement agreement which was why it was included um or why it was the ordinance was redone in 2020 to effectuate what was required for those credits. Okay. Thank you. and Hakemian is vacant so they would qualify for for
that though the uh there the TCC zone has a specific line about the TCPB zone which is exact it mirrors exactly what's in the TCPB zone that the multif family is up to 100 units with 25 units set aside. So it's that one is carved out specifically within the incentive that
that still stands as what's allowed in the zone right now. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else like to be? I should have asked our professionals as well. Taking the night off from affordable too much affordable housing. Okay. Um,
anybody else on the board? We have a resolution that's before us to also adopt. Um, yes. Uh, close to the public, please. Okay. I'd like to close this to the public. Some move. Somebody make the motion to close it. I'll make the motion to close
it to the public. Robboto. Second. I'll second. Ernie Rex. All in favor? All in favor? I I opposed. Uh, yes. Before you, you have a proposed resolution. uh I've just made some uh minor uh changes to it that I can just
read in the in the record on uh page two where it says whereas after conducting a public hearing on June 18th 2025. All I added after that was at which time public comment and concerns were
received. That is uh an addition and then I put comma and after it says giving public notice notice I just put after confirming public notice uh pursuant to the statute the plan was
before you. So my changes are minor. It's just merely on page two uh saying adding at which time public comments and concerns were received. And I changed the word where it says after giving public notice to after confirming public
notice. Those are the only changes and I recommend uh passage of the resolution as proposed. And Mr. Porro, I just have one question. I had noted some typographical errors. They're not substantive changes. I'm assuming that the board could still move forward and the final document once signed, sealed,
put on file with the township can include those edits. So noted and if uh you could uh just on the uh the uh issue of on the acknowledgement uh I've seen on other municipalities if you could
also note the uh uh town attorney on the township council, Mr. Warner's office as special counsel and then the planning board myself as the board attorney. will do. Okay. Thank you. I had um a question at the bottom of
page two. I'll finalize it. Uh where it says, "Be it further resolved that this resolution the 2025 HFSP and any other required enactments be filed with the superior court no later than June 30th, 2025. Um, now June 30th is the deadline,
but our requirement and this is our resolution is that it is 48 hours after adoption. So should that read the 20th? It's 48 hours after adoption or June 30th, whatever is earlier. So it would
be changed to June 20th. Yes, it'll have to be within the next 48 hours. Okay. So to recommend that change. All right. So the again uh as Matt and the chair woman pointed out we'll put here filed with
the SE superior uh court within 48 hours of passage. Uh shall we even say but not later than June 30th and just take it out. I would say just within 48 hours of passage. Okay. So be it. Just as a reminder there's a holiday.
We better move. Thank you. Yeah, technically the courts are closed for Junth. So, we're looking to file this tomorrow. Yes. And and I think it Matt, I think you'd agree the courts in good faith if it's a a holiday that that's considered a grace period. I
would I would think I would hope I would get it filed. All right. You get good. Good to know. Okay. Is there any reason that the durational adjustment is not noted in this ordinance? Oh, in the in the resolution resolution.
I'm sorry. I think I stated enough in the report, but it's up to you if you want to throw it in there. Yeah. I I don't think I don't think the because the plan is where the methodology comes from. I don't think the resolution has to be specific with the methodology of how we achieve the credits. As long as long as
it says that uh the planning board feels that the the plan satisfies the fourth round obligations and sets forth a little bit of the history, I think it's perfectly sufficient. All right. Great. Thanks. I agree with council.
Yeah, I know. I'm just saying if there's any other questions. All right. Would somebody like to make a motion uh to approve resolution 2025-16, the resolution adopting the 2025 housing
element and fair share plan with the changes noted on page two. Um, both changes on page two. I'll make that motion. Celeste Luciano. I'll second it. Brian Zimmerman. Okay. May we have Is
there any further discussion? All right. May we have a roll call, please? Celeste Luciano, yes. Ernie Ragstad, yes. Councilman Mark Scott, yes. Brian Zimmerman, yes. Christine Dunar, yes. Vice Chairman Rob Otto, yes. And Chairwoman Joan Ferman, yes.
Thank you all for your time. Thank you very much. And Dory, you'll get us a signed copy uh by tomorrow morning. Yes. I'm giving Dory my work. I'm giving Dory my handwritten comments and then we'll Great. Thank you all.
Is the office closed tomorrow? No. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. How about we take a five minute break and then we'll resume with um the next uh applicant. We have to in favor
I I I We're on. Okay. Thank you. I'd like to welcome applicant PB25-733 LJL Investments LLC 40 and 44 Konis Stoga Trail. Um there is a typo on the
agenda. It says LTL. It should be LJL. So, um, with that, I'll ask our attorney to please swear in appropriate persons. Sure. Some swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of the god. Yes, I do. Uh, name and
professional address for the record. Fred Stewart, sort professional engineer and land surveyor. Office is located at 45946 in Kenville, New Jersey. And just to cut to it, council, if you don't mind, uh, what licenses do you hold? engineer and
surveying. And uh are they in good standing? Yes, they are. And uh have you ever testified before this board before? Uh a few years back I have. Yes. And other county and the state? Yeah. And you would accepted as a professional in engineer civil engineering and
surveying? Numerous times throughout northern New Jersey. I would recommend we accept this witness as an expert in uh civil engineering and professional survey. So accepted. Thank you, Joseph.
Um, good evening, madam chairman and ladies and gentlemen of board. My name is Walter Hanley. I'm the council for the um applicant LJL Investments LLC. Um, the L andJ stand for Lisa and Joe um Lefkin and they're right behind us. Just if anybody's wondering, they're right
behind me. I apologize. Um the property in question is 40 and 44 Knosogga Trail, also known as block 2010 in lots 90 and 91 in Sparta. The property is uh presently located in the R3 zone.
The relief sought this evening is a minor subdivision where the two existing lots shall be subdivided into three lots um such that the new lots will be known as 40 um 38 40 and 44 Knosogga and
that's per the report we received from the tax assessor. um this evening we oh by the way I said all in the R3 and after the proposed subdivision all be conforming and there's no bulk um bulk variances
required um this evening I have with us um Fred Stewart would like to um well been introduced and sworn in so you could um take us through the plans. Sure. Your full name is Al. That's correct.
full name is Alfred A. Stewart Jr. As reflect on As reflect on the plan, I completed these plans. Um the plans I'm referring to or will be referring to are dated 31025. No revisions date revision dates and sheet one of one.
Okay. And that should be the plans that the board has as well. All right. So um basically we are here for a minor subdivision subdivision for lots 90 and 91 block 2010 also known as 40 and 44
knosa trail. So lots 90 has 45,324 square ft within it. Lot 91 has existing area of 19,781.9 square ft. Um, on the on lot 90, lot 91
is vacant. Within lot 90 is a two-story home along with a block garage that's detached, a driveway leading up to the garage. U formerly on the site were also two sheds that have been removed and an ingground pool that has been removed. So
those items are no longer uh within the property. And I would note that within one of your uh professional reports or both of them I believe that there is a notation about a variance being required for one of the sheds. Of course since since that shed has been removed that
variance is no longer on the table. So we do not need to request that. So uh what we intend to do here is take those two lots and divide them into three properties all conforming in with the R3 zone criteria. As you can see on the uh bottom center of our drawing
here, uh zoning requirements zone R3 and we have the proposed lots. I will note this that the proposed lots on the right hand side are swapped. Uh the 90.01 should actually read 90.02 and the 90.02 should actually read
90.01. I accidentally swapped those when completing the drawing. So the although it they are swapped all the zone criteria is being met. Um as far as the lot area goes the lot 90.01 which is on the right hand side of the
drawing is going to be 15,813 square ft which is conforming to the 14,000 ft zone requirement. Uh lot 90.02 2. The center lot, the one with the existing home on it, is going to be 18,190.5
square ft. Again, that's conforming. And the the proposed lot 91.01 is going to be 19,781.9 square ft. Again, that's conforming as well. As you can see on the drawings, the setback lines are show shown showed
the building envelope, very large building envelope in in place there. Um we have completed soil logs on the site and we have done some preliminary layouts within our office to ensure that the uh septic systems we place properly on the on the site uh to to comply with
uh state requirements for septic design. Uh soil logs were uh satisfactory. Uh we did two soil logs on each one of the proposed lots including the one with the existing home just in case we had to relocate that septic if need be. Since then, we have determined where the exact
septic area is, which is to the left of the home. That does not need to be relocated. So, really, those soil logs were not necessary because we're going to maintain that existing septic. The um existing home right now is served by a well, which is located on the right hand side of the home, and we intend to um be
served by municipal water system, which is located right in Konos Stoa Trail for the water service. Now, I'd like to add that as stated by our attorney that there are no bulk variances requested or no use variants requested for this site. Uh this is a
conforming minor subdivision and um as you can see and we will also be uh dedicating to the municipality 3,440 square ft of right ofway area that's located within the Kasoga Trail right
ofway. Our deed actually goes to the center line. uh but just for lot 90 that is and uh we are dedicating that area within the rightway to the municipality that's our proposal that in the thank you is that in the because I have to do the resolution is
that in the documents council how would I refer to that is there a separate agreement I'm just looking at how I can incorporate that in the resolution um is there agree you know maybe your clients is there written document how does that as far as the rightway dedication
I reflected on the on the plan, okay, that there's going to be 3,440 square ft to be dedicated to Township of Sparta for road purposes. Okay. So, is the That's nice. Okay. Is there a written
document anticipated? Is it David? How's that normally done? Nor normally, excuse me. Normally in a minor subdivision like this, Mr. Stewart would provide a meets and bounds description of that dedication and it would be a deed to the
township of Sparta in fee. So if uh I'll just put let's resolution uh applicant to meets and bounds uh with a uh deed dedication. Yes. In fee
because this is a minor. My assumption is the applicant's proposing to memorialize it by deed. That's correct. Thank you. And I cut you off so Okay.
Can you point out on the drawing where this set aside is, where this dedication is? Sure. Most definitely. This is existing lot here. This is lot 91 and that is right along the whole front
of lot of property about 210. Okay. Why are you giving that to the town of Sparta? Excuse me. Why is that coming to the town? Well, it's typical of a
subdivision like this when you have um right or a deed going to the center line of the right of way. Okay, that's what this does. We typically dedicate that area which is the normal width of the roadway. In this case, 33 ft wide will
dedicate half of that roadway width to the municipality which is normally requested by your engineer anyway. So we just went ahead and did it prior to Great. Thank you. And just for the board that's a good thing and the public if the road is ever expanded the property
owner is giving their consent and thereby there's no compensation. This is part of the condition of the approval. So it's a good thing for the town and the public. It clears the title, I guess you can say. Thank you.
Okay. Are you done with your presentation? Well, we have your professionals reports, right? If we like to address that. So, I'll be referring to Mr. Simmons report, which is dated May 19th, 2025.
Um he has numerous comments throughout um as far as the waiverss that we requested. He's uh basically okay them for completeness issues. Um as far as number three which is on page two uh
block 2010 proposed tax slot 9101 we agree with all the comments there. there. I don't know if you want me to go through line by line. Is it uh applicant is in agreement with it and the uh council you confirmed?
Okay. All right. Item four. Uh yes, we are in agreement with that as far as uh number I'm sorry, letter E. Uh that regards the existing utility pole that's located inside of lot 90.01.
We'll make sure that there is an easement for that to the power company. And as far as the overhead wires encroaching onto lot 90.01 that go to 90.02 will either grant an easement or most
likely we will relocate those lines. So they are coming in on their own property rather than crossing the new proposed lot there 90.01. Okay. If the board understands, if you look at
on David's analysis on page three, talks about the utility pole and the overhead wires serving existing dwelling. As the engineer pointed out, uh it can be resolved by way of relocation when any complicated construction. So, you could
uh to put an easement to be candid with you is a lot of work. I would think with the new construction it could just be relocated. So, I would recommend that it's relocated upon subdivision at the time of construction. Uh,
but we'll continue. We're going to relocate those. Okay. Yeah. Because then otherwise do an easement and let no sense in having easement when we don't really need it for simple relocation. Okay. Uh, number five. Um, same issue
with that with the overhead wires, but vice versa. So, we'll make sure they're relocated. Uh so the rest of those we're in agreement with as well. Uh number six, yes, we letter B we went through already, which
is the correction of the zone table for the correct lot numbers. And that should do it. Yes, we'll agree to the rest of those as well. We can just go back to uh page two on the waiverss. If you can
just go through that, please. Okay. Page two with the waivers up at top. Waivers requested on drain structure within 200 ft. W which begins on page one as well. Oh
yes. Thank you. You're welcome. Yes. So um as far as that goes with the waiverss uh we do reflect with I'm sorry back up. This is number four which is on your checklist. I believe that's the number. Uh this is regarding the key map showing
entire tract in relation to surrounding areas within 1,000 ft of tract. We do have a key map on there. Uh it doesn't go to a full,000 ft, but it's probably at around uh probably about 600 ft. So we're asking for basically a partial waiver for that. Um number 21, any
existing and proposed easements. Uh we are not proposing any easements and there is not any easements on the property but being that the utility poll is brought to light we will be providing an easement for that to the power company.
Uh number 23 location of all buildings, roads and rightways within 200 feet of property to be subdivided. Uh we do reflect that on the key map. Um I'm not sure if that was meant to be on the larger scale at 20 scale on the what we show here in the main portion of the of
the map. So we are requesting a a waiver for that. Location of all telephone poles and identification of poles to be relocated if necessary. None are proposed to be uh relocated. Just an easement provided for the one
that's encroaching. Uh number 25, locations of all drains and drainage structures within 200 feet of the property to be subdivided. Again, another waiver requested. We do reflect all the drainage that's within uh K within our frontage of Konos Stoga Trail
heading down towards Hunter Lane. So that's that's basically the drainage that may be affected by this project and that's what we reflect on the plan. And David, if the new construction, the gutters would be sent to the street, is that part of the re is that part of
construction code or I believe that the uh construction official will look at how the leaders are being handled and Mr. Stewart did show existing drainage in Konos Stoa Trail if in fact anything had to be tied into it. Okay. Number 27, locations of all
existing wells and septic systems within 200 ft of the property. Uh we do reflect the neighboring properties that are within vicinity of our project that that would be required uh by septic code to be reflected on our septic plans. Uh
that would be our neighbor to the north and neighbor to the south. Uh we reflected the septic um areas that were per um the Sussex County Division of Health records. We pulled them off of there. uh cannot do an open request there. We just they say they're online.
We go online, see what they have, and we reflect that on our plan. And that's what we did here. So, is it fair to say any new construction has to comply with current regulations and so all three lots will have the most updated standards on septic? That's correct.
And we'll be seeking approval from this division of health hopefully in the near future if this gets approved. Uh item 38, lot numbers indicated, new numbers to be assigned by the tax assessor, which they were. I believe the board has the report from the tax
assessor, which is entitled minor subdivision LJL Investments LLC with um prepared by Joseph Herrares, municipal assess assessor.
Item 39, location of proposed driveway on municipal roads together with sight distance profiles conforming to township standards. Requested a wave for that. We're not showing any improvements on the properties right now, but we will be providing excuse me, septic design and
along with a grading plan for the uh for the vacant properties. Um, and I'm sure that would be reviewed by by the township as well. Item 40. If a corporation names and addresses of officers and stockholders,
that one I believe might be on you. That's a waiver. I don't know why the application, but you need them on the plan. That's on the application, but put on the plan. Well, I have the owner applicant on the plan.
Um, which is LJL Investments LLC. And council just for the record you're represent are they own 50/50 while you're playing. Yes. Thank you. They were fighting about 5149. I had to walk away from that one.
Okay. That should take care of the engineers report. Mr. Simmons. Yep. Now we have the planners report. Well, let's just see if Mr. Simmons has any further questions on his report. Okay.
uh for the board. I would say that Mr. Stewart and the applicant's attorney covered most of the items in my report. Just to highlight two other items uh just so it's on the record for both of the lots on the existing house lot and
the proposed uh 91.01. I had called out for the hedges to be removed along the rightway line again because there's going to be driveways coming out. Konos Stoa Trail is a relatively flat uh straight tangent
piece of pro roadway, but again just to avoid any sightes issues to clear them out. Council, any objection to that? Okay, thank you. That's the only other thing I had, Madam Chair. Thank you. I I
I did have one question. There was a uh maybe maybe I missed it and you covered it. There's a well on the one property. It's going to be capped. Yes. If we get approved, we'll we're going to tie the municipal into municipal water with the existing home and that well will be sealed. Thanks.
For my own knowledge, do you have to seal it? I'm just curious. It's not mandatory to seal, but you if you were to uh keep it and still hook up to the water system, there's plumbing code that protects, you know, interconnection with that. And there's
also the fact that uh you have to permit it uh to remain on the site for whatever purpose you you keep it for. Can't fill the pool anymore. It's not there. We don't want any crosscontamination. Yeah, that's the main thing. Could still keep
it for irrigation, but it has to be permitted by the state. Thank you both. Okay. Okay, regarding the planners report, I do believe we addressed everything within that report as well. Uh, one of the bigger things was the
variance for the shed. Again, the shed has been removed and um, of course, the zone table with the incorrect uh, numbering, which we will revise and fix. Both your professionals picked that up,
by the way. Very thorough. You have anything else? That's all I have. We have Oh, other reports. Other reports. Yeah. Um from the police no issues.
Same with County Health other than regulation. Two more. The environmental commission had no issues nor did the fire department. I feel the applicant has adequately described the record and the documents
before you. I have no questions. Anybody on the board have any questions? I do I do have a question uh about and this is on page two and this is number 25 and um page two of which report of uh
engineers report Mr. Simmons, I'm just um have questions about the uh locations of all drains and drainage structures within 200 ft of the property to be subdivided. Waiver requested.
So, if they're not subdivided, then what does does this increase the risk of flooding or I'm just wondering is that an area that's prone to flooding and do we need better drainage in that area
and you're asking for a waiver to not subdivide which might I don't know might provide better drainage. it. This is just a waiver request to show the location of drainage within 200
feet. We do show the drainage within the frontage of the property and then some going down to Hunter Lane, which is the flow of the water. So, I'll just go to the plan. We show as far as going up Konosoga
should be to the south left hand side of the page. I don't think Anything within 200 feet up there uphill though, right? That's uphill, correct? Coming down the hill starts. There's two bas located directly in front of the skin
here and the one on our sidees the road on this road and then drain pipe continues down towards Hunter Lane which then continues onto Hunter Lane
and goes down that way. Um I guess uh but there is one other patch basin that connects to one on Konosoga right at the intersection here. So the only reason for um the waiver request is to
not show anything else because I believe up this way isn't anything anyway and this one might be in the proximity of 200 ft but there's no reason to show it because we're not really affecting it at all. As far as any flooding goes I haven't The property is fairly flat in nature.
Very uh slight um slope going towards the intersection of Kova and Hunters. So as far as anybody, I haven't seen it. Uh I do not live there every day, but I have visit many times. I haven't seen anything like that. just just to follow
along a little bit, but if the the lots Okay, so you have lots and if those lots were to be developed, that would create more imperous surface and there could be more more flooding. There could be flooding in that area,
but you're confident that what is there now in place will handle um runoff? Yes, it will. And from what Mr. Simmons says any of the grading we will be directing
towards Konis Stoga. Okay. Um so this way it's not pocketed or going onto any other properties in the area will be directed towards Konosogga towards those existing catch basins. Thank you. David, anything on uh
uh runoff new construction, zero or no additional storm water or is that just commercial properties? I I think in this particular situation uh they basically are going with the lot sizes of the zoning in the area and
presumably when Konos Stoga Trail was created years ago and built uh they looked at the lot sizes and factored that into the sizing of the storm drainage system and then any new construction of the home has to comply with lot coverage and what exactly to
the best of my knowledge the applicant isn't proposing. Well, there's no homes shown on here, but my assumption is that they're proposing if they put homes on these new lots that in fact uh they'll meet the impervious coverage requirements and and must meet all the
zoning requirements also. Correct. Set back. Correct. Thanks. Anybody else have any questions? Just have a one quick question. Actually, more of a comment. Mr. Simmons had suggested that you remove the hedges from the right of way if you would
consider putting additional plantings to tr to replace the ones that you're pulling um in in other areas obviously that just to consider it. Thanks. Sure. we couldn't do additional plantings um on the properties as long as you know
there there will be room for it um when the layouts that we have already completed just to make sure everything works properly there there will be room somewhere on the properties for some additional plantings anybody else ready for a motion for public
anybody from the public when I when I swear you in uh you uh do not have to give your street address unless you want to silence to tell the truth whole truth and nothing about the truth so I do name and whatever town you live in I am Larry Dr. live in Sparta and Konos Stoa. Hey, just a few
questions. Is are they are are we prop are they proposing a reszoning of the lots to allow multifamily homes or is it still going to be single family homes? Single family. All right.
And did you require any waiverss when you did the septic plan? We did not for those two other uh for the two subdivided lots. We did not submit uh for um an application for the septics as of yet. We have to wait for
the lots to be created first. We will be doing that in the near future I believe. And then um when we do that uh we have to follow state standards so we cannot deviate with new construction. Uh earlier you had said there's going to be three new septic systems. So are you
ripping out the old septic system? No, we did three sets of soil logs for new septic systems if the one for the home was necessary, the existing home. Um, at this point in time, it's not necessary to replace that septic. Okay. So, you'll be installing two two new ones. That's
correct. Two new septic systems for two vacant lots. But if the existing home, the certain is it a bedroom or a bathroom that that triggers a new bedrooms? Bedrooms. Yeah. So, if the existing home is renovated and they put another bedroom, uh, I'll leave it to
the engineers. They they if if in fact, and when I did my site inspection, I saw they did a lot of exterior cleanup work, if you will, to to improve the existing home, but it's uh an an older home. And if they did in fact add an additional bedroom, uh, Mr.
Stewart would have to analyze the existing septic disposal system to see if the septic tank and the disposal bed was sufficiently sized for it. If not, they'd have to enlarge it uh or construct the new septic bed at that time.
All right, that's all the questions I have. Thank you. Anybody else? Hi. You saw me swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So I do name and time that we live in. If you want to give your
address, it's up to you. Mike the Gaddy. Um I've been spotter. I'm the owner of the adjacent lot um on Hunters. So I just had um couple concerns. Um I understand well first a question. Uh it seems like this hearing is about reszoning those lots, not what's going
to be built on them. Right. It is not about reszoning. Oh, not reszoning. Dividing the lots. It's just dividing lots and they're coming with a variance free application. Okay. Which means that they their compliance is compliant with local zoning. They're single family
homes. Uh and even though the one home has the home, the others do not, those must be in conformity or the new owners would have to come before the board. Okay. So, so there there would be another process to get the building
approved, the proposed buildings. If it's invariance with their if the applicant sells the lot and the person buying it has a fully conforming property, they would get a building permit. Okay. Gotcha. Gotcha. Gotcha. So, um
I don't have a concern with the lots being divided. Uh I have two concerns though. on um as as somebody mentioned earlier and I'm sorry I don't know who did um the drainage is an issue in that area. So the the whole area runs
slightly downhill towards my property and just the way the house is set. It's an old house built in the 40s. All the water pools in the backyard and I have a constant issue with it. I have foundation issues with it. So my concern is that adding a new dwelling right
behind me with more imperous, you know, surface area um would exacerbate that. So So that's a concern I have. And and the other concern stop that. That's a fair question. So I'm just jotting that down. Um all
right. there's uh some things that we can do to help mitigate the situation as far as runoff going towards your property from this one during the construction process and actually during the engineering process as well. Um we can put some things in place that could help that such as a small burm along the
boundary line just either to divert the runoff towards Konosogga or basically to help block it coming onto your property up to a certain extent. uh we could do that and this way it'll basically that small berm if it doesn't cross over the berm it could
infiltrate into the ground at that point rather than travel onto your property. Yeah. So there's some mitigation that we can do. I can't guarantee that it's going to be uh 100% um all the surface runoff coming off our property because that's the direction it's flowing now. But we will try and
mitigate the situation to help help you out with that. Yeah. No, that would be good because you know as it is now it's an open field right. So you know and as you can hear we get a lot of rain. Uh so it does rain a lot and and um there is a lot of ground saturation. So again so
these plans are not showing what's going to be built you know not knowing what's going to be built and how the gutters and drains are going to flow and where the water's going to flow. If it gets pushed to Kostora I think it's fine because as you pointed out there's a couple of big catch basins right there right that are designed for that. I think that'd be fine. My concern is that
if that's not taken into account in particular with the the layout of the house and the design of the of the gutters and the drains, um that would increase the water coming onto my property, which I don't think anybody intends to do, but but it's a concern I have.
Yeah. Yeah. Um and and the other concern I have is is and again, this is about the the lot, not the building, but my house is kind of small. It's an old house. It's a it's a it's a remodeled Cape. So, and the sun's always behind the house. So, if if the property to be
built was the maximum height, it would it would block the sunlight to my house pretty significantly. So, I don't you know, if that's a valid concern, I don't know. That would be a problem because we can't place a condition on the applicant that is different than any other person
in town. Just as you could raise your home. So that would be it's called restrain on alienation which means that you can't have discriminatory regulations got property. Okay. Well, those are the only the only two an inch
over the height that need a barrier. Yeah. Yeah. So the the height is 35 ft. Um I don't think that's a big deal. Um I was imagining more like some humongous home. Um, I I don't think that's that's Yeah, I don't think that's likely to be a concern, but it is in particular
because it, you know, the that lot is like to the south of my lot. So, the sun's always in the southern hemisphere. So, you know, I mean, it would be it, you know, if you if if a big ugly house was built, it'd be an issue. But if if a normal house is getting built, I don't
think anybody has a concern. Um, so, but the drainage issue is a is a is a real issue. So, those are the two comments I had. Thank you. Did you did you want to add a condition and the applicant agreed that on? No. No. No. Big ugly houses.
Pick the color. Matter of just help you out. I do. Jenny Derek's tap into Sparta. There's some very large old trees on the property. Are is the intention to take them down? That we're bad shape. Could you please, if you're going to
address, you have to be sworn in, please? Yeah. Just the applicant. Anyway, I'm sorry to tell the truth. Tell the truth and not the truth. Have a God. Yes. Name for the record. Joseph Lefkin. Joseph, do you live in town or out? Uh,
like a pack. And uh, you uh, you're one of the owners of the property being a subdivide, correct? And you heard what was said here today by the engineer and the planner and by your attorney and your engineer. Yes, sir. Uh, and you and your wife are in court with those conditions that were discussed. Yes.
Now, there's question before you as far as the trees. Okay. So, two several of the trees have been removed that were dead. uh two of the large trees were removed because they had uh branches cut off years ago and then filled with cement. So they were rotting. So for
safety purposes, they were removed. The two really large trees that are still there have no um uh plans on removing those. Now just for the if there is no tree ordinance in Sparta, the new owners
could uh do what they they want to do. Okay. Thank you. But this owner has no intention. Yes. And on on the part of what we're going to build there, we're going to build within what fits in the neighborhood. There's no reason to overbuild um and
not make it fit the neighborhood. Are you building it yourself? Yes. And you're going to live in one of the units? I will not be. So, you're going to sell all three? Possibly. Yeah. And what what's the intent on the existing home? Uh rental for now?
Thank you. Anybody else from the public? You're leaning forward. You zomb. Oh, help me God. And name and name is Pedro Julio Maderos. You live in Sparta? Yes, I live in Kanosoga Trail. I've been
a resident in the town since 2003. Uh, I can tell you the character of the town and our and our neighborhood. I feel that this subdivision of the of creating three lots versus just two to change the
character of our neighborhood. Um, I would argue before everyone, why three? Why should our zone be only 14,000 square feet? Why shouldn't it be a
consideration when you consider other zoning areas within the town? Um when they build the different uh when they read when they develop an area, they made sure that there was an you know those lots were much bigger whether
it be 2 acres, 5 acres of land and considering any new construction. Our our side of town is the one of the oldest parts of town. Um, so I think that's probably why there's only 14,000 uh square feet for the zone, but I just
would consider uh I think most of our neighborhood would would not be opposed to seeing the two lots and building on that construct, you know, building new construction on that and allowing uh that to exist in that way. I just
think that dividing it into three um will just have a negative impact in our comm in our neighborhood. When you consider the Remax building and what that changed the medical building, the other you know another Ephesus another
building was built up in that area of Kanosoga Trail just on the side of Woodport Road. We have seen dramatic change in our neighborhood. Uh, so just I would consider I would ask the board, the planning board to consider um our
neighborhood and its character. I I just add I'm I'm the board attorney um and I don't live in Sparta. We have a beautiful neighborhood, a beautiful town. When I drove by the property earlier, when you look at the lot sizes and what's inform you with the area,
this applicant on the subdivision and it's similar to the you can't put a condition on that wouldn't condition on you. So, it's again, you can't restraint the property uh with some type of alienation to it if it's fully
conforming. So, if the board was to say you can only have two lots, uh as the board attorney, I would say we're subjecting ourselves to liability because it's fully conforming with the neighborhood in the lots. This lot is I
beautiful lot. It's the one of the largest lots there, but right across from it around it are smaller lots that so therefore even though this is the one lot is going to three, it's still fully conforming. So the board is hardressed
to deny an application which has no variances or deviations. Well, I would I would then ask the board to consider um the environmental impact or you know, for instance, the neighbor who's up against this uh consider worried about
water runoff. I've I've literally one time literally had my one dog uh run out. I was I was fostering a dog and he he went off into that property and I felt so bad having to go on my neighbor's property trying to chase my dog.
It had rained hard as you could hear some of the rain today. Um there was a lot of saturation. Uh muddy, very muddy. My foot was sinking into the ground. Uh that area particularly was to the back of the house around the area where the
uh um the pool was but definitely around the back of the house. I could remember. Um I would the other thing I would consider we drive on Kanosoga Trail the hedges the way that the the growth is it
cuts into the the road and um of course you know maybe the previous neighbor didn't manage that property so that that the hedges wouldn't be so out into the road. Uh so whatever is done up in the front there, you have to consider how it
impacts uh you know just regular traffic and also visibility. Um the other concern I would have is where would the driveways come out? Would all three properties come out into Konesoga that close to the to Hunter
to the corner or is one of them look out the plan? It is council uh Stanley they're they're all coming onto the street. Yes. Yeah. And again if you look at the neighborhood of the the
driveways of your neighborhood and David the the requirement of the driveway is there a local requirement on driveways bas basically one of the things that they look at is what is the steepest grade of the driveway? I believe off the
top of my head, subject to checking the township's limit for a grade of a driveway is maximum 15% and the driveways going into these lots because of the relatively flat grade it's nowhere near that. Again, the other thing is with regards to sight distance,
while we mentioned clearing out the vegetation and perhaps as uh the board member mentioned, moving the vegetation back to restore some of the vegetation on the lot. We didn't want that to get in the way of the sight distance for a vehicle exiting the lot. So they had
safe vision up and down both ways Konos Stoga Trail before they pull out. But again, Konos Stoga Trail in this area is on a tangent line, if you will, and it's relatively flat. So I'm not foreseeing any problem with sight distance subject
to getting rid of the vegetation. Do do we know the the approximate age of the existing septic tank and field for the existing home? I believe it's about 20 years old if I
remember correctly. It was replaced but I'm not 100% sure of the age though. I I would say somewhere around 20 years old. They must comply with right with that. So if they felt that it was warrant to be replaced then the state would be whatever the regulations are. Not their
call. No. Agreed. The health department. Okay. I was just curious as I know they did proper testing and if you recall the uh applicant agreed to a burn to make sure the water goes to the street. Okay. And I guess the other thought would be
um the square footage of any of these houses. What would what were they anticipating? As of right now, they're seeking no variances. So therefore the municipal setbacks have to be complied with and the height has to be complied with and
that creates the square footage. I gotcha. So it could be somewhere from 1400 or so. It depends. That's over my pay. Understand. Thank you. No further questions. Anybody else? Hearing nobody else, I'm like to move to
close. There was one more just real quick. I Maria Madaros. I also live on Konos Stoa. Um I just wanted to uh let you know that most of the houses on that street and behind us are double lots.
There are a few like mine not, but most people have double lots. That's all. Okay. Hearing nobody else from the public. I'd like to uh make a motion to close close it to the public. All those in favor? I I
the board you have before you an application for a subdivision as set forth on the record. You had the plan of Mr. Stewart and his testimony under oath. You heard the representations of uh the property owner to comply with the uh conditions we talked about by the way
of uh the BM uh the septic comp. with the engineers report and u the planners report by way of uh just really technical corrections on the plan more uh more detailed on the engineering plan
by way of relocation of utilities to avoid uh easements uh to the best and that the hedge removal uh and best efforts as far as the hedges being removed in the front to have them uh moved back uh similar or like natured
ones not within the right of way line of sight of the properties. That's basically what I have on my notes. Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion? I'll I'll make the motion um to u accept
um application 25- 733 with conditions. My name is Christine Dunar. I'll second Celeste Luciano. Thank you. We have a roll poll, please. Celeste
Luciano. Yes. Ernie Ragstead. Yes. Councilman Mark Scott. Be clear. What what are the conditions? Those are the conditions that you noted already, right? Well, the conditions are set forth. Uh most of the conditions were in the engineers report. Uh we discussed uh
because of the line of sight, the shrubs being removed, but uh best faith effort to replace them behind the line of sight uh not in the setback area, the runoff to the street, uh full compliance on the new construction with regulatory
construction laws. Uh we also talked about the uh uh the utility lines to be relocated so there's no need for an easement and addressing the utility pole which may require a utility easement. That's all on David's report. And then
also on the planners report there was some corrections by way of plan that was acknowledged by the engineer. The engineer also set forth uh you know the juxtop on lot 90 01 uh on the chart
should really be 90.02, but that was self-explanatory and uh the uh there was a representation they'll revise the plan accordingly. Uh and I would think council the plan could be revised incorporating the comments of the engineer and the planner 100%. And then
just to add to that the meets and bounds with the deed dedication. Yes, the that's the rightway is on the plan and as David had said uh it'll be a condition also. Thank you. The the meats and bounds of the right away and it is set forth well in the plan. It's 3,440
uh square feet and it's related to a dedication for the township of Sparta for road purposes. That would be a meets and bound deed dedication in fe which is an ownership interest and the burm to mitigate the water runoff to the neighbor's property. Correct. Directing
that burm runoff to the street. Does the board get another bite at the apple on on the uh on the on the water condition at the time of uh building approval? Uh the board it doesn't, but the town does uh because when the
construction is built, it has to be built to building code requirements. Again, this is a single family home. It's the most favored of community developments. So, uh, you know, you the requirements are pretty straightforward
just as they are in any of the homes in the neighborhood, but if there's a variance, then they would have to come back in front of the board. They would normally come back before the board of adjustment in the building department. Do they get a copy of all the conditions? Uh, it will be in the resolution. Uh, they will
get that. Uh, the zoning officer would receive, let's see, the proposed plan on one of the, uh, new subdivisions. uh and and Dory does an excellent job of looking in the engineer and of uh the setbacks to make sure they're in compliance and therefore no variants are
required to get a building permit. If there is a variance, they got to come back before. What was the the width of the burm? Is it spanning the three? I was just going to put the BM pursuant to the board engineers. Okay. With that, Would you amend your
motion to include the additional or the clarifying comments? Clarifying. Um yes, I will do that. Um, I would like to um propose that um applicant uh the
application 25-733 um be passed with um conditions um read by our attorney and one being that our board um engineer will um
uh look at the berm situation and make sure that there will be the size of the berm that will mitigate the water flow adequately. Yes. Yes. Adequately the size of berm will
adequately adequately um prevent um direct the water into the street away from neighbors homes. Good. Celeste, would you like to re I will second that motion. Thank you. We start with the roll call again. Celeste
Luciano, yes. Bernie Ragstead, yes. Councilman Mark Scott, yes. Brian Zimmerman, yes. Christine Dunar, yes. Vice Chairman Robert Otto, yes. Chairwoman Joan Ferman, yes. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you for all of the comments from the public as well. We appreciate it. some if you don't mind both. Okay, you got time. They might got you got I got you. We'll we'll blame we'll blame Fred
because we need the meet and bounds. Now Fred, my father is Alfred and he goes by Al. hanging in there. I still can't believe you're stored engineering with the other store engineering
and funny. Okay. Uh, other board business. I have something to bring up and hopefully you will all appreciate it. Um, we don't have any
any applications before us for July 2nd. Um, so I wanted to make a recommendation that we can take that date off. I'll I'd like I'd like that very much. I I'll first second and third that. Okay.
I don't know. We actually just thought that when we set the calendar, we had already determined that, but maybe not. Maybe I'm wrong. No, we normally don't have it that week, but this past reorganization, it didn't work out that way. Okay. All right, then.
Then I'll second that. All those in favor? I I Okay, good news. Shows no post. All right. Um, we have some updates. Uh, town council, no, no update. We didn't
meet. Yeah, you didn't meet. Okay. Uh environmental commission. Yes. Thank you. Um Christine, can you move that mic? Thank you. Yeah. Um so, um we've been busy as usual and um we did have our rain barrel workshop that was well
attended and I made my first rain barrel. Yes. I'm proud of myself. Um, I do want to mention before I forget that we had um two folks from the
public. One was a Gail Burn um from Lake Sagena and um I know that she uh expressed that she really appreciated um our salt uh watch monitoring because her um lake is
impacted by high levels of road salt contamination above the threshold of um ecologically uh safe. So she expressed that and then um we also had another woman come um Tammy I
don't remember her last name um and she is an advocate of composting of taking care of food waste within our community and she says if they can do it in Brooklyn everybody's required we can do
it in Sparta and so she's um working on this and um reaching out to Anjek and Sustainable New Jersey and other towns who have implemented um such programs. So, we'll
be hearing from her again, I'm sure. Um I did let her know that that was one of the um resolutions we're recommending that the town council pass. Um it's called the municipal food waste
reduction resolution. There's actually two bills in our state legislature and um the resolutions would encourage the state to start thinking about this and be serious about
things like composting and changing permitting so that you can use your compost in your garden and and doing the right thing. Okay. by reintroducing organic u matter rather
than adding to our um our waste. Um so um so anyway, she was very happy about that I think. Um and we also just as a reminder um we have two other
resolutions that we're supporting. Packaging and paper product stewardship act resolution and the um New Jersey Climate Super Fund Act that we're recommending. And these resolutions
um if they're adopted by the town um they the town is not obligated in any way. It just shows Trenton that we think these issues are important and we would like to see some action on them from you.
So we're hoping our town council will seriously consider these um and pass these three resolutions. Have you asked for them to be drafted? Oh, we have we have little examples for you and you can, you know, tweak them.
Great. Yeah. Yeah. Um and we will be um by the end of June, we will be also um reading well our chairperson will be making our annual report and we'll be approving that and that will be available. That's all I have to share
with you except for one other thing. We are um we're going to have a speaker on July 10th. All of you who have deer in your yard eating your plants. And if you don't, I don't know where you live in Sparta, but I'd like I'd like to know
where that is. actually um we're going to have um an NJD person come and um help us um kind of troubleshoot the areas and kind of set up um a path towards uh mitigating this problem
hopefully especially in the Lake Mohawk area. Um so that's our next speaker on July 10th. Um, and we also are going to have a speaker very soon. I don't know, maybe Rob, you know when it is, but this is a
really important one for the planning board, and I hope you all come to this. This this might be before the July 10th. I doubt it. It's probably after, but this is all about preserving our land. And um we're going to have um we're
going to have the Ridge and Valley Conservancy, our local conservancy group, come and explain um all about that um and consider our new open space plan at the same time. So those are the two
things coming up, I think, this summer for speakers. So I hope you can make it. Welcome. was just going to look up that uh composting um Tammy Tuller and um just just to
piggyback on there um she had mentioned it's it's the law in the city um and her initiative idea is to create a municipal yard waste composting site. Who's going to collect it? Could we engage with
local farms to help schools? and she obviously wondered zoning permitting issues. So, she did show up. Um, and then for minor site plan, um, we heard Messer um, and referred
that for full board um, review. Um, the art project uh, new sign um, we've asked that they conform to the ordinance. Um and uh the particulars with portable
signage uh IV rehab um similar notes conform to the sign ordinance as stated for that zone um and then uh tranquil leaf um which we're sending to full board um due to the nature of the
proposed retail and I think one other application came in but I want to take a look at that. Thank you. And then I'm sorry, does that mean you only have one pending? Uh yeah,
it just came in today. Unfair would have been done. Okay. Okay. Oh, well and um just having having ongoing discussions about
uh I I feel like we look at these applications kind of on a case-byase basis. So I would love to kind of address some of the the underlying design standards um and inconsistencies across zones. So, I
don't know if the governing body, Mark, um if you might be able to help us get a little traction, um I know that the governing body would would need to empower uh the planning board to to look
at that, but I can just tell you uh I I'm a little bit frustrated um because I would like to really quickly review these applications and get get um comments and
responses back to the applicants, but I feel like we could we could take a look and tweak the design standards, make them more universal. So, but it has to come from the governing body. we can't just decide even though every
application that we get we're consulting these uh standards and just so so maybe Mark if it's okay with you that uh I would send the letter to the mayor and council uh requesting that the the
planning board be able to look at the design design standards. There's issues on signage, there's issues on color, on lighting that uh makes it a challenge for the subcommittee because uh if there were clearer design
standards as uh Rob was saying you can check off and I think Brian also that that this would just make uh that committee easier. So if it's okay with you I think I I would send a letter expressing the concerns and asking permission for the planning board to
investigate. No, I agree 100%. I mean, when you look compare our ordinances versus some other town's ordinances, their theirs are usually much tighter than ours and and clearer. So, yeah, that would be great. Thanks, Ken. And thanks. It's it's it's Thanks. Yeah. I
mean, any support because it's something that probably would be more properly uh done through the uh the master plan effort, but we don't I I will not make it. I think it'll help the applicants as well. it. Yeah, it's going to happen. If
we could say, okay, in town center, you know, X zone, right? Here's your standards. There you go. You know, C1H, here's your standards. There you go. Yeah. And as you said, I mean it, you know, yeah, it's a master plan issue, but this is something that could kind of
help the master plan committee in identifying these even before we get to that point because I I agree that's one of my biggest things I see in our in our whole thing is is the inconsistencies throughout the zones on how we I you
know, uh the terms we use, the you know, all that. It should be consistent. And I think it came up in the survey for the master plan, but I think I I like to think it will help Yeah. business owners, you know, we can do a quicker
turnaround uh those of us that are reviewing these applications and I'm hoping also the planning and zoning office because they do a lot too to kind of um try try to make sure that we're looking at
everything that might apply to an application. So yeah, I I think you know looking forward this is exactly what we're dealing with is why you review your master plan a little faster than
than our town has. And I think that's why we have the hodgepodge because what we have is we have addendums. We have addendums and and and the addendums are written that aren't necessarily the same every single time, you know, and get it consistent across the board. So
yeah. Awesome. And in the surveys, Rob was right. It did come up uh you know traffic and something else and then design standards was right up there. People wanted to see a look at the town. I mean if the design standards were consistent throughout all the zones in
the town that would really make the town look much more uniform and much more adorable, attractive. Um yeah, I I wholeheartedly agree with that. I want to add to that
uh town center TCC zone is a little different than ED zone. So you don't need the consistency from ED to be you know the same standard as TCC zone. So that's kind of where our thought process is. Yeah. At the end of the day it's
going to help the applicants as well. But the but the terminology should be the same. And you know I mean yes that I that's you know yeah I agree there's different areas of town that have different looks to them. I mean you know Route 15 is not the same as Lake Mall
Plaza you know but on the other side of the coin you know it just like I said terminology that's the biggest thing is we're you know not to mention they're so convoluted that I had to put together a chart to say if you're in this you go to design
standards, but then if you're in this zone, then you also need to look at these standards. And then if you're in another zone, you look at this, this, and this, and people don't know where to go. Yeah. And and with the White Deer Plaza thing, I mean, that's obviously that came up with the um affordable
housing. Um but that zone as historic, I mean, there's also updates we can do that we we haven't done. Previously, it was Yeah. Previously it was you know signage should should be natural materials. Um I
think previously previously when it was a different zone altogether it was must be um but you know I think that's something that could be adapted now with uh synthetic materials that have the look of natural materials. So, this is
this is another thing like common sense uh update. Uh it doesn't need to be natural materials cuz just from dealing with some of these applications in White Deer Plaza. Hey, why did you replace that sign with Plexiglass? The other one was really nice. Well, it
rotted. Okay, fair enough. You know, but if we can if we can achieve that same look with like a Hardy or some other material, we should do that. But we need to get it we need to get it in there before we can recommend it.
Um what I would like to see eventually for for um the minor site plan committee is um a video somebody to do a video and to uh you could actually hold up or you could have you could show examples,
you know, for each of the zones, you know, as they as here would be something that we would recommend like this and and and also guiding them through the process. this, you know, a little bit, you know, thank you for, you know, welcome to Sparta. You know, we're here
to help you with your application process. And then just kind of take them through this the steps and then hold up some examples or slides of examples of of what uh is um what we're shooting for, what
we're trying to achieve in each one of these zones. and and as you have the photo, tell them suggest uh building materials or whatever else needs to go go along with
that. Um they I'm I mean my heart goes out to them. They have it's a lot of them this is a very new process and they're trying to do their best and move it through but the it's the terminology and and everything that is a stumbling
block to them. So, anything like that that we can do to make it um you know, a little bit more um understandable will be more efficient for you and for everybody
else. Uh I think and with the staff. Yeah, I think we can uh we can at least get design standards in a graphical form. That's something that we had talked about. Um there there are some that exist and I think also in prior
master plans, Celeste probably would know better, but uh that each zone kind of has like a little intro that says, you know, the overriding theme I think for Sparta is this like rural um rural
look, but then specific, you know, TCC would be this and ED would be this. So, I think we absolutely should have that. And rather than kind of having a hodgepodge, I'd like to kind of see it just as a a logical step-wise thing
starting from most restrictive historic zones to, you know, zones that are um designed to accommodate uh business like ED zone. Actually, the lighting would play into that. You'd have more of a soft light in certain
zones. you'd have maybe a brighter light in other zones. Yeah. Y and I think to Christine, to your point, I believe the business development committee subcommittee was going to put together a brochure. That was the last I
heard maybe a month or so ago. Are are you on that? Yes. Are they still considering that? Yes, we're there seems to be a lot of things that are in motion right now. Okay. And yes, that would be great. Yeah, that would be
perfect for the business committee because they're involved in marketing and they would know how to do a good marketing video, you know, to help our applicants. And we're coming up on the 100 year for the Lake Mohawk area 2027. So, we should
definitely have that represented, but probably video, not actual film. be George Washington. That's true. Are you? Yes. Crossing Crossing the lake.
Cross the walk. Sure. Whatever. It'll be a Okay. So, thank you. We've got that covered. Um, anything else? Just on the agenda, I'll have the resolution on the uh capital improvement. and I wasn't at
that meeting and the minutes are now available so I'll I'll get that for you next meeting. Okay, no problem. And then just the master plan subcommittee was the only other update. Um we met beginning of June. We have a letter that um I just sent to Dory that uh the
subcommittee approved. It's going out to all of the stakeholders. Thank you to Jenny for giving all the emails on that. Uh so that will be going out um in the ne whenever Dory gets a chance to do it and then the leads will follow up and
make the um meetings and they're to take place all through um the summer and into the fall. And we also um had a very good meeting speaking with Brian and Tendola from Neglia um regarding the circulation
and transportation piece uh that we wanted to do and we were originally thinking well let's just focus on the transportation vision piece but he said what he was going to go back and do was create a hybrid so it would have a piece of the circulation a piece piece of the
vision. What we liked most about the vision part of it is that he would go out to the community and the stakeholders himself and he would have at least two meetings. He recommended October after the summer when everybody's back in school and get a really good feel for uh what is happening. But he would do all of the
data piece beforehand. So um we should have that proposal back to us he said early next week and uh we'll go over that and um add that to the list of things that we are going to be accomplishing. I think that's about it for now. And
anybody else have anything. All right. Who wants to do this time? Meeting a journ. Oh, Jenny. Jenny's still here. Anything from the public? I'm looking. It's empty, but Thank you. All right. Um, motion to adjourn. Ernie, you're on. Motion to
adjurnn. Ernie Ro. I'll second. I'm seconding. Celeste. Celeste.