was given in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act by the board secretary to at least two newspapers on December 27th, 2024. And this meeting has been posted on the Township Bulletin board electronic message board, WCTV, and on the Township website. Please join
me in a salute to the 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.
>> We have a roll call, please. >> Mr. Dagustinino >> here. >> Mrs. Grimaldi, >> here. >> Latana >> and >> Mr. Lrada >> here. >> Mr. Zitko >> here. >> Mr. Rivera >> here. >> Mrs. Osmond >> here. >> Chairman Gats >> here. >> Let the record reflect. Also in
attendance are attorney Gary Antonio, board engineer John Yakimick, and board secretary Grace Kish. >> Okay. So, on to the public portion. So, if members of the general public want to participate in the general public portion of the meeting, please click the
link on the website uh and listed on the agenda to join the webinar. if you are at home or uh you will be asked to state your name for the record and we ask that only one person speak at a time. This public comment portion is only for
non-aggenda items. Time is set aside later in the meeting to address questions or comments about current agenda items. If you are participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star six to unmute. At the end of the general public portion, no further general questions or comments
will be accepted. And of course, if you are in the audience today physically, uh, just raise your hand and you will be recognized. Okay. Motion to open the public portion. >> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> All right. Anyone in the audience? Anyone at home? See no hands. I'll ask for a motion to close the public portion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> All right. Approval of minutes. Those
members with a strike through or not able to vote due to absence or not being a member at the time of the meeting September 16th, 2025. Um, anyone have any issues or comments,
corrections? >> No, not for me. >> Nope. All look good to me, too. Um, okay. In that case, motion to approve the September 16th, 2025 minutes. >> Motion. Second. >> Uh, roll call.
>> Mr. Dagustinino? >> Yes. I approve. >> Mrs. Grimmaldi? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lrada? >> Yes. >> Mr. Zitkco? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rivera? >> Yes. >> Mrs. Osman? >> Yes. >> Chairman G? >> Yes. All right. New business. Uh the
application for request for Christopher and Kimberly Bendic an addition and alterations to 754 Cotch Peak Avenue block 4103 lot 24. Uh we did not receive or um all the paperwork that is needed
for the board and the professionals to uh make give a report and make an informed decision. So, we are going to carry it to the next meeting. Carrie, is there anything that we need to do? They shouldn't do we need to take a vote on whether they need to republish or
anything or I mean just for the board's information the um the a Mr. Yukimick had asked for a survey which was only provided today I believe or right and apparently that's that survey while it was very recent from when they bought
the property in March or April did not depict the current state of the property because there was an addition that they they were doing getting permits for and I guess somewhere along the way they changed their plans which required them to come in front of this board and you
know it was sent to us by my question is the report should have an accurate depiction of what is on the property now, especially something an addition plus it may change impervious coverage which they're also requesting a variance for that. So based on you know that we
we decided it was not uh carry. Yeah, it was not complete. Not complete, >> right? That's really the line. I I think we're also going to need since there was an addition done um and it's relevant to Mr. the comm's analysis. Uh, as far as
height, yes, we're going to need some uh more numbers on that. And we're also going to need the original plan submission for the addition. >> Okay, I have that so I can send that. >> Okay. And they're aware they need an ASV survey. What else? Um,
>> calculation >> calculations on building height. I talked at length with the applicant today. >> High calculations. And I could call the applicant back tomorrow to advise about uh the original plans for the addition. >> Okay. >> May I ask if it's twocar garage and he
already made it a onecar garage only? I mean because he built a onecar garage in front of where the two is. >> To my understanding that's not true. He got a permit to extend the building to
put in um to keep the twocar garage and then has decided during construction to change it to eliminate one. That's my understanding. >> You did you go up there, mister? >> I have not yet. No.
>> Okay. Well, there's pictures and it's obvious, but the type of house it is >> and how he built this onecar garage that there's no way he kept any of the twocar garage that was there. I know that it's a ble. >> We we will get to the truth.
>> Yes, we will. Yes, we will. But not tonight. Uh at the next meeting. So, that would be carried to the next meeting and we'll be there's no need to republish. I don't >> I mean, I wouldn't think so. I don't think anything is changing from their
notices or anything. >> No, I Well, did you see Did you look at the notice? >> Um, I looked at it. >> Only if it's I would say only if it goes from a Z a C to a D, >> but it's not. >> Right. >> Right. And we won't know that until we
get the additional information. But if it does go from a C to a D, then they will have to read. It will be separate meeting. Yeah. >> So I think I think the notice is adequate for now. >> Yes.
>> Because it's the variance is just >> a the number of garage bays and impervious service coverage. >> So those are C variances. >> Right. But if that does change then they will have to renotice for the December meeting.
>> Correct. >> Right. So this is October. So they come back November. properly notice and then what happens in the >> if the middle has to be stopped and then they come back. >> No, we'll know before the November meeting before that. >> Yes.
>> Because they got to get a survey and we'll know if it's a hype variance. >> Right. When they come in and it's oh there's an additional variance or now it's a different type of variance. Then we'll say okay November meeting. >> Yes. Before the November meeting we will know that and if we don't know that then it will be carried again anyway
assembled. So, um, and Grace, uh, I'm sure you'll be in touch with Mr. E can make on that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. So, um, >> any more questions or comments on that?
>> I have lots of comments. >> All right. So, on to old business. Uh, resolution number ZB2516 to approve the application of Jose Penfield to extend resolution ZB 2419
for a new single family home to be located at 662 Jefferson Avenue, block 3102, lot 9. Uh, did we have any revisions on the resolution? If you know, but I have a question. Did we receive uh the paperwork showing that he's the new
owner of that >> and the proper plan showing the way it was approved >> proper revised plan? >> No, we we received proof because what happened is this was approved last year and then we had Mr. Penfield making a
request to extend it and asked Grace well we need proof who is his brother-in-law sold it to him. >> Yeah. So he provided a recorded deed. Okay, so we got that >> that shows it is now owned by an entity. I think it's like the the property address and also showing a certificate
of formation that shows he's the registered agent of that entity. So at least enough information to show that Total Build Solutions does not own this property anymore. >> But we also never got the revised drawings to show the changes that were approved at the zoning board meeting
yet. Um well they're >> flipping it. So the driveway was on Jefferson as opposed to it's still a condition of the res. So if this new buyer that's supposed to buying it >> is going to need to provide that. >> So then how can you approve the the
>> it's a condition of the resolution to condition. >> Okay. >> It was a condition of the extension of the resolution. >> No one has come to change anything. It's just extending that resolution. But that still stands. The conditions have to be satisfied. I'm just concerned if we approve app prove it based on the
conditions and nobody picks up the conditions he might get his paperwork. >> We will make sure that he does not >> why I'm sitting in the >> that's why you looked at me like this disclaimer landing possible. It
just happened today in Hawthorne and it and my phone's exploding. So, >> okay. >> So, it happens all over the place apparently. >> I know that, but >> stop it from happening. >> Right. That's what we're trying to prevent. And >> see, I don't Okay. My opinion is I don't like approving anything until every
cross and we have everything in first. >> I agree. >> And then he's right. >> We we approve it and then they can go forward. approving something and still waiting for something for somebody else to make sure that they get it while we don't know if we got it or didn't get it
and then six months down the road we have another big major problem. I don't I don't like it. >> I don't like it either. I just don't know if we can reverse that order by law. >> Um >> so why can't if it goes to a vote?
>> I mean you can vote no, right? And if it doesn't pass, then they could sue us. Um, >> what are you talking about in general? Are we talking >> in general? Yes. I mean, if there's a condition trying to move cases along depending what it is like you could
certainly say come back to the next >> meeting depending on time constraints or come back. >> We could >> you could say come back to the next meeting. >> I hear what you're saying. >> You know, you certainly pass has not done well. >> Yeah. No. Well, that's the board. The board can decide. you guys can decide,
hey, we we we're going to come back next month after we have A, B, and C. Sometimes it might be very minor thing that you might say, well, I don't want to hold this person up for another month, you know, which is a lot of times why it's very common that there are conditions or there are other things
that are not done yet until they know that they have the board's approval decision. I I get >> but you can certainly >> No, I understand what you're saying but I don't even if it's a small thing in the lines >> and that's how I feel.
>> Absolutely. I I don't I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm you have that option. The board has the option. I'm just stating my case and for that's all >> I just don't know if we do have that option under the statute >> for what for this
>> to not approve if there's a condition in the resolution. >> Oh, you're talking about res I'm talking if you're at a meeting. You haven't voted on it yet and you need the board needs more information, >> right? I think he's talking about approving this resolution, >> right? >> No, you said in general. I thought you just talking about in general.
He's talking about this. >> So approving this. >> Yeah. I mean it's it's going to be an ongoing condition that has to be satisfied. >> Yeah. >> I don't I don't think you you can't necessarily stop. >> It's question but I can vote the way I
can vote the way I want. Everybody can vote the way they want and we'll see what the numbers come out to be. That's all. >> Yeah. You can not approve an extension but usually it's like what what's >> I mean come back. We already approved the extension resolution the resolution. That's where that's where it gets
sticky. We already approved the extension. It's the question. We approved the extension with the conditions which are in the resolution. >> Do we have a solid foundation legally to not to vote no on the resolution if that
condition is in there? the condition >> and that condition is >> just because we don't like the way that things are done after it leaves us doesn't necessarily give us the ability legally to >> uh to be on the right side of the
statute. That's what I'm that's my concern because I agree with everything that's been said but if you vote down if you vote down you probably get sued probably has been met. >> That's the ownership has been met. It's the condition that we said in the
paperwork based Kevin just said we do not have. So if we approve it, let's say we approve it and it's subject to that condition and the gentleman never brings it in and nobody sees it or picks it up or whatever, he's
going to get his permits to go ahead and go ahead and we don't have all the eyes and the te's and he'll be half built with it the wrong way and they'll have to stop and fix. >> So I mean I think that That goes back to more the when the application's in front of you as >> No, but no, it's also what you want.
>> No, but it's all approved, >> right? And we said we need this and we don't have it and we're going to approve, but then you don't vote >> then you don't vote on it. What >> you you right. I mean, you go to the next meeting. >> If you voted already to approve it
positions, >> see, that's why when I vote no, I vote no. And then they say, "Well, you can't do that." Yes, you can. If you're voting and then day that you actually vote and I vote no, then therefore that's a vote when the application >> I don't have to vote yes when >> the resolution's accurate of what the
board approved. >> Okay. So, let me ask you this example. We said to him, bring us proof of the new ownership. Let's say by tonight he did not do it. How can we vote
yes or no if he didn't bring in that he actually owns the property as an example? Because >> we would carry it. We would So why can't >> we don't have to >> You don't have to vote tonight. You can carry it. >> That's fine. >> Yeah. >> He didn't bring the stuff in. >> Okay. Well, I thought it was either a
yes or a no deal. That's >> But that holds him up. >> That was my thing. Either yes or no. I didn't know we could carry it forward. >> You could carry it. I carried it. >> But then he can't start. So that holds him up, which is fine. I mean, I'm not debating that part. That's okay. >> But, uh, you don't do what you're
supposed to. >> So, if if if I may, if you carry it, I think the proper courtesy would be for Grace to call him and say, "Oh, correct. >> We need those plans." >> Correct. So, it doesn't keep getting carried, >> right? Keep talking.
>> Well, I I agree. If it's a carry, then she has to follow up and just make sure that he brings in the paperwork so we have it for the next month meeting. Yeah, that's >> because he was supposed to have it >> by this meeting. Correct. >> I can't
or not other than to know that it was. >> And the other piece to think of just from a courtesy standpoint is if we carry it another month, does that now put him on hold until February or March because it's getting cold? >> That's his problem. >> Well, it's his problem if we
>> if we extended it for just a certain amount of time. >> Right. Right. So that's that's that was a lot of the discussion was you know we what did we do six months >> eight months um instead of the full year because we wanted him to get this done and now we're going to cause the delay
>> but that was to put shovel to ground correct once he does that >> then the eight months doesn't exist anymore >> he's selling the property it's incentive to >> I don't know if he knows >> I don't know if Mr. Penfield knows >> what's what >> I don't know if Mr. that pinned knows
the extent of the revisions that have to be made. >> I don't know if he's aware of that, >> but he said he's selling the property anyway. >> He's selling it and he's selling it. >> He said that you bring the paperwork tomorrow. That's what he said when he was eating. I could have >> he that was the ownership. That was the
only And he did that. >> I don't know. I don't remember that we we told him he had to have the plants here. I think we just advised him that they were different than the ones he had. Yeah. >> Well, that the conditions are still open.
>> So therefore, I don't know and if we we can now use that as a a reason to carry it if we didn't expressly say we needed this. >> But he also said that he was going to follow the conditions from the prior own since it was his brother-in-law to
>> Yeah. No, we didn't change anything. The only thing that was missing was he didn't have with him the set of drawings that showed that it was flipped. >> Right. >> We never got that from the previous owner. >> Right. Which which if the previous owner was here, probably the board would have
>> if he puts a shovel in the ground and puts the driveway on Maryanne, then we have every right to stop him at that point and say, "No, you got to fix him." or at whatever point he gets noticed that it's not according to the way the
board approved the plans. So, it's in his best interest to do it the right way because that's going to cost a lot of money if he's got a foundation built and somebody goes by and says, "Hey, the driveway's on the wrong side and he's got to knock it all down and redo it." >> Where that is in the in the resolution? >> Sure. What
>> the condition that he has to have. So, I'm not seeing it. I mean I'm also reading >> condition he has to have >> which >> the appro uh the updated the ownership information well it was the ownership information but it was also the was
condition of the extension >> that right any conditions of the original are going to be in the original resolution >> okay >> which would be attached to this because it's referenced in the resolution >> so it's not in this no it's not reiterating all the variances and everything that we're pro it's just re
it's just approving It's an extension of resolution of CV 2419. >> That's what we look at >> which is rep and is actually part of this 2419. >> Did I miss it?
>> But it said here >> Oh, 24/19. That's from last year, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, >> this is this is the the resolution for this extension for plans to be subitted
to see >> it does say we're all approval. The grant is subre. The granting of this extension is subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the resolution of approval dated November 19th, 2024
attached here to and incorporated here by reference. >> Okay. So, it's under those. It's not a it's not an additional >> this is a resolution to extend. >> It does approval. It does state though in the third to last line in the second
well first paragraph >> um revised plans are due to the board engineer. >> Yes, >> they have not been submitted yet. >> Okay. >> So, that's what I was looking for. >> You put you put them on the meeting.
Um >> yeah, I think we just in the future have to be pretty that we have to put a time period in there >> for that was you know that's our mistake but I think we may have to if it does say that they hop are due
>> for prior to >> yeah I mean but for you talking about an extension or you're talking about a general application where was that what page uh >> it's under new business, >> right? The third sentence from the on the first >> third from last sentence in the first paragraph, not the title. The first
paragraph >> says revised plans are due to the board engineer. They have not yet been submitted. You're looking at the minutes and not looking at the >> in the resolution. In the resolution on page two, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. The I guess line eight. It
starts line 78. Says The resolution >> John Kameck board engineer advised the board that one of the conditions of the approval was for revised plans to be submitted to the board engineer. However, they have not been provided yet and he advised Mr. Pinnacle that the
buyer will need to provide them uh provide that and satisfy all the outstanding conditions. >> I think the safest course of action is to >> there was no date for it, >> right? But it's going to go to the the buyer. >> That's still a requirement. Yeah, they're put on notice that they're
outstanding. >> We've just got to stay on top of it and make sure that's provided. >> I'll call the applicant and let him know, reiterate that we need >> because I wouldn't want to send him back in and get this project done time we gave them.
>> Yeah. you know, and sometimes I've seen this board give a brief approval of a of an extension for a few months for some someone to clean up the yard or something like so sometimes they give a brief extension until they take
care of these conditions and then gave them a longer. So my my suggestion is this. In the future, we're going to put a time period on whenever we need something else. But for the these purposes, if Grace can make
the call and put it in writing to the building department, >> okay, >> that no uh you know was discussed by between by the board. No permit shall issue until the revised plans are submitted as
was discussed as a condition of the extension. I think we're okay to have a record. you have that in that file in the building, right? Eventually, someone's going to come and if they don't do within this time frame, they're going to come back in front of the board >> again for an extension.
>> I mean, I I'll I'll take the blame for that. I should have been more careful in when I was re reiterating the conditions to Gary that we should have put I should have put a time period on it. Um, but I think we can get past and we learn from our mistakes and we'll do that in the
future. But again, I think I'm I'll be satisfied if if you can put it in writing to the building department, CC the applicant >> and uh and make the phone call. >> Yeah, I think unless it's a unless it's a extraordinarily complex application, I
think that should always just be standard prior to our next meeting. >> Yeah. >> Whatever that date is, whatever our next meeting is, >> I would agree. rather than confusing things and saying, "Well, within three months, within two weeks, six weeks, it's always prior to our next meeting."
Unless there's a reason why they shouldn't be reasonably >> if they don't come with we don't pass the resolution, right? >> Yeah. Then we vote our resolution. >> So, I I would agree. >> But I mean, if it's highly complex where it's going to take two months for them to get somebody to come in and do a
different survey or whatever, okay, great. So, we do two months or three months. Our standard, >> generally, it should just be prior to the next meeting. Yeah, I would think our standard going forward should be prior to the next meeting again unless it's a complex uh application in which case we can make >> Mr. G. I have a question. Does the
resolution that we approve go to the building department and he gets a copy of it? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> But we're going to make sure that he >> reads it >> knows about this one if we approve the resolution of course. Um, >> and I mean that protects the builder or
the owner too because now he doesn't start something incorrectly because he forgot that the plans were changed >> over time by the time he puts a shovel in the ground. So, we're doing it for their benefit as well because it's expensive to change things. >> Agreed. And we don't want any more
changes. >> We've had too many of those in the past. So, >> okay. Um, so I think we'll uh go ahead and uh um I'll make the motion to approve the resolution uh under those
conditions again that um the builder will be CCed with a letter to the building department um that we need the approval prior to any permits being issued and preferably you know uh sooner but uh
prior to being issued and you will also make the followup phone call as well to and do I have a second on that? >> Second. >> All right. Roll call. >> Mr. Dagastino.
>> Yes. >> Mrs. Formaldi? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lrada? >> No. >> Mr. Rivera? >> Yes. >> Mrs. Osmond? >> Yes. >> Chairman G? >> Yes. >> Okay.
All right, on to the uh continuation of discussion regarding escrow and fees. The council has requested suggestions from the zoning board. Um we have those numbers upstairs in the office somehow >> upstairs in the lock office.
>> Oh, downstairs in the locked office. >> Um but I'm sure everyone else is completely familiar with all the fees. >> Sure we are. And um so we we can um >> well it is it is on one of the on the
application. It is yeah exactly. Is this all our fees or this is just >> Yeah, I have that. >> It's just for the zoning board but I had the other towns and >> Oh yeah yeah yeah we table I we can but I think did Mr. Mimmick prepare something for this or no?
>> Um not half baked. >> Okay. Uh, I brought I brought uh Oakland. >> Yeah, that means the Oakland one here. >> The Oakland one is sort of like dependent on the number of variances that there are that they're applying for and then you multiply that number by
four and that's the escrow account and it's been working out uh fairly well. I also printed out Westwoods which is right next door. They have a nice table that they have in their code and I could I could bring this up to you.
>> Actually, I think if we could table it and then that way if you can get those to us before the next meeting >> we'll give them the grace take a look at some neighboring towns and get input from the board. >> Yeah. That way we'll have all of that information before the next meeting and
then we can have a better discussion. I think there's plenty of time before they're going to get the budget done to know what fees need to be going in there. So, um I think tableing to the next meeting is fine. Any objections? >> No. >> No. Okay.
>> All right. Um any board member any other issues? >> Uh I have a question about the uh the driveway guy, the applicant for the driveway. What's the status on that? >> Which one? Oh, that's on um Manhattan. >> Yeah,
>> right. >> I haven't gotten a uh followup. Right. The resolution was passed. Correct. >> No, >> it was not passed. >> It's on hold because we >> because of what what's going on when they submitted the plans. The shed is
much bigger than what it should be. That's right. >> And then the driveway. And then we're talking about should we go in the past? Should we go in the future? Should we go hob up? It it was because of um the threshold on impervious surfaces was um
was higher. He reported it being higher. >> If he left the driveway the way it was, it wouldn't be here. You know, it you know, >> I think we approved that last month, didn't we? >> No. >> So, um No, >> I think we did. I think we
>> approved it. Yeah. How do we There were a lot of things we had discussion. >> We had discussion at the last meeting that >> you didn't look at the minutes to see. >> Yeah, I just saw the minutes. I remember we >> it was recommended to approve
>> he was he was grandfathered for most of what he was doing. >> And um >> I don't I don't want to guess would be my guess, >> but >> it's in the minutes. I think I think we put it off at the August meeting and
then we had discussion of it at the last meeting after because I think you and I discussed it. >> Yeah. >> Right. So, hold on. So, I'm I'm sorry, >> Marian. You're you're right. It the old business from last month was ZB2513 where it says to approve the application
of Brian column for a driveway expansion. At the hearing, the board request the optim provide an asbuilt survey which ultimately showed the impurities covers at 35.9 where 35 is the current threshold for variance and then the code changes. But I thought we
were still looking for whether or not we can just I think some of the questions were are we just looking at the driveway or we looking at everything pertaining to the property which included the shed and everything else going forward. And I don't know how I'll be honest with you.
I I don't know how we left it. >> So, we did we did some research and we and we found out when he applied for the various um >> right >> expansions to his property and they all
predated the change in the ordinance which was in September of 2024. So, he was essentially grandfathered for all those changes. Um it's it's possible that his tweaking
of the driveway could have put him over. Um but my guess, you know, but I did a quick calculation and it, you know, it was it was less than.1%. or something of that sort. This is my my recollection. >> Okay. It it it does say the current
approval is only for the width of the driveway. So any other issues found to be out of compliance would still be eligible for a hearing if determined to be necessary. The second >> they have two sheds. >> The second shed and increase in impervious area will be forwarded to the zoning official.
>> Yeah. You were going to send an email to Joe. >> Yes. >> Right. He was going to do an investigation. Something like that. >> So I was I was supposed to send an email. >> So yes, we're still waiting for the zoning official to make a determination on the two sheds. I'm glad I brought it up.
>> So, okay. Sometimes Grace has to do things and sometimes I have to >> if they ever make it. Yeah. I I think that's >> But as far as >> So, so most of it may be grandfathered. >> Yeah. the the driveway is was
grandfathered from what I'm gathering, but the two impervious uh area the impervious area issue from the second shed, did it increase it enough to violate the impervious area where they would need to come back for a hearing. >> Correct. And that needs to be
investigated by the zoning official and have a report back for next meeting. And the fact that there's two sheds because just before that there was only one shed. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Correct. >> The second shed and increase in in impervious area. >> Grace, don't you sit next to Joe Sedic?
>> I do. And I I briefed him on this after the meeting and then I I don't know. >> Yeah, but you always have to have it in writing. Yeah. In writing, I think is what we need. >> Yes. You'd make a good lawyer. >> Yes. Yeah. I probably would $400. >> So, for the record, Mr. Yakimic is going
to send him an email. Sure. Don't mean to sound flipping. So, >> no problem. >> Because it could the answer could be that he could be all grandfathered and that's the end of it. Done. >> Could be, but probably not because of the second shed.
>> Yeah. Right. >> Even if the increase in imperous surface is not enough, the second shed to my knowledge would be a problem. >> Okay, this gets three asterisks.
It's all we could ask for tomorrow morning but the >> hopefully the no mayors will call >> the shed requirements would were would change this past year when they did the master plan. Correct. >> Well, that's what the investigation is going to determine whether it was done
before, after whether it violates it now, whether it violates it then. Okay. >> And they'll make a determination and let us know. >> All in right. >> Yes. Ask Mr. Set a case that we would like to know what the outcome is.
>> Okay. >> Yes, we'll do >> if you would mind the second >> um >> All right. That being the last board member issue or is there >> asked a question? Sure. So, it's hard
for me to have given an opinion before when we were talking about terms on resolutions. >> Yes. I don't understand the purpose of setting the tone and I I I'd love to hear what the perspective is so that I can have an opinion on person comes here
we approve them we give them one year to potentially build and if they don't they have to come in for uh a renewal >> right >> agreed this was because there was a condition on the extension so we made our decision on the extension based upon
the condition that he was going to provide the deeds and he was going to provide an asbuilt survey. So because he provided the deeds but didn't provide the asbuilt survey and again I blame myself. I should have put in a time period for that so there was clearer so
then we could vote on it on the resolution because it's um because that was the condition that we voted on for the extension not to the original approval. I feel that that was uh necessary to take into consideration.
>> I understand. So we don't we're not typically in the habit because I don't ever remember seeing it saying you're approved but you have to do this in a year, >> right? >> No. No. For for >> Well, I'm going to confuse that. Are we talking about an extension or are you talking about you approve an application comes in from scratch?
>> Person comes in. We're over the sideyard setback. We approve it. >> It's one year. >> We approve it for one year. >> It's one year resolution. >> So what is the what is the premise? Some towns do it for less than that. I'm just Ours is one year. So normally Yes. This was because it was an extension.
>> It's a township ordinance. It's under the land use laws >> cuz there was extenduating circumstancuating circumstances on this and we based our vote based on his representations uh as to the extension. >> Oh, I understand this one. It's New
Jersey state land. It's >> it's under the land use law that you get when after you have approval for zoning or planning, you have one year to start the project. >> Yes. >> And if you don't start in one year, then you actually should have to come back and then they ask for approvals, but I
mean you should start almost >> you were here for the Montasauri school, right? >> I was. and they came back the second time saying we need an extension because they ran into problems financing and so forth and it took a lot longer than they anticipated so they needed an extension. >> I believe they should be liberally
granted normally. >> Does anybody know the pre what what is it's cur I'm more curious than anything. What's the purpose of of the term? Why wouldn't it just run with the land? That's my question. >> Uh I'd have to ask your legislators. So
>> I'm just curious. It's not >> I mean in some ways I think it's good to come back here because sometimes you have undeveloped properties or or maybe you have a property somebody got approved they didn't do anything >> neighborhood conditions could change >> and just to come back and see what's go because we had one application I think
where they came for an extension and they weren't upkeeping the property and we gave them a brief extension and said if you don't then we're not going to give you any more extensions. >> We did do that. So some ways it could be good because they're coming back >> that for instance is the same as this
one. There was a condition on the on us granting the extension >> and that was they had to plant clean up the property or we were going to give them the extension. >> Makes sense. >> Yeah. >> So that's why incentive maybe for other issues and like Fred said I mean usually
definitely at least for the first extension there's really no reason not to. >> My recollection I think it is liberally granted. >> Yes. is the state. >> I think the wording in the useful land use laws shall not be reasonably >> unreasonably withheld withheld. >> Right.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. There you go. Any other questions, comments, business? >> I have old business. >> Okay. >> Um Gary and I were requested by a
potential developer in town. Uh now people are going to fall off their chair. uh to build 80 um assisted it was 80 assisted living over over 55 I think assisted living.
>> Yes. a senior senior living >> in a uh very large building comprising three lots immediately north of the Knights of Columbus facility on uh Pasc Road >> and farm
>> we u you know across the street >> I think it's good practice just to listen to them so Gary and I were on the call um and they asked us some questions about certain things we we gave as best
an answer. Of course, we didn't speak for the board. Um my biggest question was um they did not map the environmental constraints associated with the MSOP St. Brooke.
>> Mhm. and um they did not do their due diligence on it and they were taken by surprise kind of at the meeting and it would probably I would say cut their amount in half. >> Plus they had a density that was uh
quite high. I think it was was it 14 maybe or 12 something like that per the average is nine or 10 >> and and I gave him some advice on the application we had last year or the year before I think it was 44 Pasc.
>> Yes. >> Uh where we looked at the densities of all >> multiple units throughout the burrow and I think the magic number was four 4 point something. >> Yeah, it was under five, right? it was under five. It was between four and
five. So that kind of shocked them as well. And so I predict that it's not going to go anywhere. Um because they really didn't do their homework and their due diligence. I think the environmental constraints associated with the brook is really would put a
kibash to it and the owner made representation that if uh we can't build this amount, it's not >> feasible. >> Yeah. To them. So, I just want the board to know uh that we had this meeting. >> Much appreciated.
>> Okay. Anything else? >> All right. >> Um not yet. >> We need to get another board member because I saw that that the previous board member has been um
>> removed, right? I don't know if that came up in between the meetings or if that was before the last meeting >> because I remember you sent me from the mayor and council had formally removed >> an ad yet on the website or anything. >> There's no ad. No, but interested they
should maybe send that letter. >> Can we ask uh Sue to >> put that on for, >> you know, or to ask the U council president if they want to put that on so that we can get term expire at the end of the year in
which case there's only two more meetings >> right um yes because we still need an applicant for for next year yeah so we would >> it's coming up somebody in so I I just brought it up because >> but I mean I don't know I would appoint somebody before the end of the year and
have them serve for two months >> I would like to apply for that one because I don't want to be an alternate I want a regular seat >> same >> so >> yeah so that we would like them to get the process started if we can so that we can then fill those seats January 1st or
January second. >> Okay. >> Anyone else? >> Okay. Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. Motion. All >> favor. I thank you everyone as always.
>> Enlightening.