e e e e e e win good evening and welcome to the Bridgewater Township planning board regular meeting for Tuesday July 16th 2024 adquate notice of this meeting has been given in accordance with the open public meetings Act njsa 10 4-6 on February 7th 2024 proper notice was sent to The Courier News and the Star Ledger and filed with the clerk at the township of BridgeWalk water and posted on the bulletin board in the municipal building Please be aware of the planning board policy for public hearings no new applications will be heard after 9:30 p.m. and no new testimony will be taken after 10 p.m. hearing assistance is available upon request accommodation will be made for individuals with a disability pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act or Ada provided the individual with the disability provide 48 Hours advanced notice to the planning department secretary before the public meeting however if the individual should require special equipment or services such as a Cart transcriber 7 Days advance notice excluding weekends and holidays may be necessary what everyone please rise to salute the flagi to the flag the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice Miss probes grab a roll call please here here here here here yes please Mr a here thank you Miss probest if there are any members of the public this evening wishing to address the board on any land use matter other than any application that will be heard tonight may do so at this time hearing none seeing none moving on we do not have any board minutes for adoption this evening but we do have a few resolutions for consideration the first one is for Galleria construction block 172 lot 11 bua Parkway and Leon Court there any questions comments or changes to the record Mr chairman I might the agenda that was posted and distributed had um voting lied to our that's really for internal purposes so you have in front of you has the accurate voting record for each resolution so because that error was there I'd like to elig thank you Miss Pro Galleria also fora both resolutions Mr Mur Miss Sora Mr Bango M chardo and Miss Quello here very good I do have a I do have a comment on the Galler one um I know that there there was conversation about the temporary fence versus the permanent fence and I'm not sure that anybody reviewed the minutes I did try to find the minutes I couldn't I couldn't find them myself either and I I seem to remember it different than it was written on the in the minutes that were portrayed I seem to remember it as [Music] Perman no request for the audio the next day contract the applicant came in they worked it out themselves what I application neighbor that so it should be taken care of okay it wasn't done as a matter of this board the applicant agreed based on whatever they remembered and whatever settlement they want to do with the with the nebor and we know that to be true we we know that the fence permit was was submitted by the applicant and offense per would only be for a permanent fence okay all right I just want to make sure that was okay Tak care I believe thank you does that answer your question Mr thank you any other comments change to the record hearing none could I have a motion to adopt the gallery construction resolution I'll make that motion that's Mr banga could I have a second please I'll second that's Mr mura and uh Miss probes if we could just reiterate who's eligible to vote Mr MC yes yes Mr Bango yes thank you Miss probes moving along we have a resolution for SEMA that's block 95 lot 11 that's 1545 Washington Valley Road any questions comes or Chang to this record hearing none could have a motion to adopt said resol resolution I move so that's Mr mura could I have a second please I'll second that's Mr banga could I have a roll call please Mr mura yes yes yes thank you m probes okay moving along to our application portion for the evening just a few updates before we move on uh if you're here this evening for the uh holah House application and that has been carried to October 15th 2024 in case once again you're here to hear that that's been carried to 10:15 24 uh the second announcement being uh the municipal yard way site here in Bridgewater uh essentially up for uh review to be considered for as an area for redevelopment um so after all uh statutory requirements have been met uh that will come uh before the planning board most likely on the evening of I believe it's 8 6 so that would be August 6th notice to follow notice to follow Mr chairman can I just add your announcement with new noes to be provided thank you m prob okay no other announcements we can move on to the one application we have this evening and that's the return of uh Gerard uh Gerardo Le Ardo that's black 17 Lots 50 51 Mountaintop Road thank you Mr chairman uh good evening board members board professionals members of the public my name is Michael silbert and I'm an attorney at the law firm D franccesco baitman located in Warren Township New Jersey I have the responsibility of representing the applicant this evening Leonard Gerardo welcome Mr silbert board is already familiar with this application with the applicant having appeared before the board on May 21st 2024 I would like to recap and resmar the appli quickly so the applicant is seeking major subdivision approval together with bulk variance relief for property located at block 718 Lots 50 and 51 more commonly known as 1926 Mountaintop Road subject property is a 3.78 acre tract it is located in the Township's R40 single family residential Zone district and the property currently contains an existing single family dwelling on lot 50 the applicant proposes to subd provide the property to create three New Lots proposed lots 50.01 50.2 and 51.1 the existing single family dwelling will be demolished and the and three new single family dwellings will be constructed on each new lot following subdivision approval as previously mentioned the applicant seeks bulk variance relief to permit a very small departure from the minimum lot width required for the proposed Lots minimum lot width required is 150 ft and the applicant proposes a lot width of 143 3.58 ft 147.21 point8 ft for each new lot respectively each of the New Lots are in excess of the required minimum lot area by approximately 15,000 square ft so to be clear the minimum lot area permitted is 40,000 squ ft and each lot is approximately 55,000 sare ft as discussed at the last hearing the applicant had the option to configure two conforming lots and one non-conforming lot as it relates to lot with however the applicant elected to space out the lot with departures over the three proposed Lots with the intention of creating the least amount of impact impact to the neighborhood as it relates to the requested variance relief the board's professionals at the last hearing agreed that this was a prudent approach from a planning perspective the board will also note that the conceptual dwellings depicted on the revised plans have been moved closer to Mountain Top Road in accordance with the feedback and requests made by both members of the public uh board professionals as well as I believe some board members at the May 21st hearing as a reminder the dwellings on the revised plans have been shown for conceptual purposes so as to develop the proper storm water management for the project that would meet the D storm water regulations while the dwellings are conceptual in nature they are also being shown to demonstrate to the board that the development can easily comply with all others owning and bulk standard requirements set forth in the Township's ordinance including lack coverage f and perhaps most importantly all side yard rear yard and front yard setbacks if this subdivision is approved each lot will have a plot plan developed that will show the actual development of the lot and if the developer or future homeowner decides to construct a pool or patio for example they must comply with the maximum coverage and F requirements or they have the option to go before the zoning Board of adjustment and seek the applicable relief this application as proposed eliminates a pre-existing non-conform condition on lot 50 where a lot coverage of 19.625 lot coverage is permitted this non-conformity does not take into account the township steep slope calculations where the existing non-conformity is actually much greater than the 1.62% departure so this application will constitute a significant Improvement to what exists on lot 50 in accordance with the boards and the board's professionals recommendations from the May 21st hearing the plans have been updated to utilize the 10 foot Contours to develop the steep slope plan and the hillside development information on the plans as such the calculations for f improved lock coverage have been updated please note that with respect to the density calculations pursuant to Bridgewater Township's Hillside development ordinance I'm referring to section 126 D- 266 A2 uh that it is based upon the total number of dwelling units on a tract not on a lot so as a reminder the township defines track act as the collective area of parcels site and pieces of land or property that lie within the same zone or maybe and maybe the subject of a current or prior development application so as the reason why I bring this up is the application does in fact comply with the permitted number of dwelling units on the subject track which after the required computations based upon the entire track size actually amounts to 3. 3.25 dwelling units uh that would be permitted on the entire tract for purpose of this application three dwelling units are proposed one dwelling unit per new lot as previously stated with the exception of the lot with variance relief requested this major subdivision application is fully conforming with the township zoning requirements before I pass uh pass the Baton off to the applicant's uh first witness and recall Mr Styers I would like to just preemptively address some of the issues raised in Miss alonso's letter dated July 15 2024 uh first point is that res judicata does not bar making a new application for subdivision approval or modification or enlargement of previously granted approvals this is very settled case law this board should be very much familiar with this uh this board I would imagine has historically heard hundreds if not thousands of subdivision applications over the last 50 years involving tracks of land that have been previously subdivided I imagine that you will hear testimony from our planner this evening in support of C2 variance relief that will justify the relief being sought however I just want to be very clear that there's nothing in the municipal land use law nor is there any case law that prevents the board from granting relief as it relates to the dominous Varian relief being sought this evening um the letter also references a what I would characterize as a highly ambiguous private deed restriction dating back to 1957 of note this restriction does not preclude future subdivisions or reference any prior board imposed restrictions so as to Bar the applicant's proposed subdivision application perhaps most importantly though is that this ambiguous deed restriction in question does not and I want to be very clear does not run to the public for example it does not specify that is in place to afford adequate protection to the township and the general public this restriction referenced in the letter should really not be a topic of discussion this evening it is however it was however in the letter so I felt it appropriate to address it now um I would characterize it more as a as a last ditch effort to try to hold up this application but I don't think the board should play into this and I'm not trying to be controversial it's just that there is settled case law as relates to private deed restrictions and whether they are within the board's perview during a hearing the Restriction referenced in the letter is a private contract so to speak private covenants or restrictions of record affecting the use of parcels or land and I'm I'm going to directly quote from the uh or reference the Cox book uh which is this book here that we deem as the land use Bible section 19- 3.4 of the 2024 Edition uh states that the existence of such a covenant should have no bearing on the board's determination of an application such a restrictive covenant is in the nature of a private contract in no way affects the jurisdiction of a land use board to approve an application Andor Grant variance relief so while I recognize that I cannot control what the board takes into consideration and its deliberations of this application I would respectfully ask the board to disregard this argument in consideration of this application since it does pertain to a private contract and I would ask that uh Mr peek who is who is probably familiar with this section of the Cox book and has seen um things like this before as I just referenced uh would if he agrees with my analysis advise the chairman and the rest of the board that it wouldn't be appropriate to engage in in Dialogue on this um in in the board's determination of the merits of the application I do have a couple of housekeeping items uh just very quickly the applicant will provide the board with an updated tax certification prior of the adoption of a resolution should the application be approved and that's in accordance with the planning Department's report 2.0 dated July 10 10th 2024 also as a condition of approval the applicant agrees to comply with Mr Genova's updated sore utility letter dated July 10th 20 24 and will revise the plans accordingly during compliance I do have two witnesses this evening Mr Styers who will address the revised subdivision plan and our planner Mr Dary um and he's here to address the DI Minimus variance relief relief requested in connection with this application under the C2 standard um so I don't know if if Mr P if you have any anything you want to add to that um I think M Alonso uh oh absolutely is looking to be sure thank you well first I was going to ask Mr peek if you wouldn't mind uh explaining my defeat on the first point the race judicata you're I I did agree with him right I had a conversation with Mr peek and I understand uh your point with regard to Yes um it won't be counted as a self-created hardship right U because you're going for a C2 variance um but I did want to point out a couple of things if I can um the township of Bridgewater has an ordinance uh that allows right gives the planning board the power to hear subdivision applications in certain cases it's specific in the ordinance that it can hear subdivision cases in the case of a hardship variance or for a special permit so although you're going for a C2 variance here I do think it's important that we hear some testimony with regard to how they should be heard by this board to begin with and uh are consistent with that ordinance wait are are you suggesting that the planning board does not have authority to I think C variances no I think the but the township does have a specific ordinance that only requires it it only allows the board to hear those types of applications for the C2 portion if it's considered a hardship variance so I think you have to give some testimony right why this is peculiar I you know that's a a novel argument okay um I'm not I've not uh I I would disagree I would I I don't think the municipal land use law contemplates such a restriction or exclusion um I think the municipal land use law um would Trump any local ordinance to begin with and that explicitly makes Provisions for both the C1 and C2 variances and the C2 variances can be granted without having to satisfy some threshold of hardship or something like that and I would see if our planner Miss sarmad has anything to add unless I'm missing something I'm not familiar with any ordinance that posts that restriction as Mr PE noted the ml um is what governs um the different types of variances and outlines um what is required um under those variances and then case law has supported you know what those variances are so unless if you have that ordinance section I could give you know a quick a quick look at it 126-1 and the reason why I bring it up is because a recent May case which case Kate may but I don't have the full site right here right now have to give it to you later Mr P EXC me Mr chairman may I be recognized yes please so Mr peka I we're hearing this in front of this body because it's a subdivision correct correct um zoning board has no authority to uh do subdivisions okay so is your are you is your suggestion that you're you're before the right board but that because you're before this board we can only Grant C1 relief not C2 relief no I feel they should provide testimony as to why this property fits a hardship criteria I do think they have to prove that anyway the the Supreme Court has already weighed in on this it's the Kaufman case versus planning board of Warren Township it's this is very clear this board has heard and I have represented maybe two dozen applications um seeking and being granted C2 relief so I I don't know why we're respectfully entertaining this this is clearly the right board board clearly has jurisdiction and the mlul as well as the Supreme Court of the state um permits an app an applicant to seek C2 relief and again I say that with all due respect but if not here then where so I guess my question for Mr pek or um the applicant um it it's their option correct of of whether they want to pursue C1 or C2 relief yeah but a C1 just doesn't apply I mean if they this is C2 variants and the board I mean I agree again it's a novel argument it's interesting and I'm trying to find the code just to to read the ordinance but I mean I I agree with Mr silbert uh understand but are are you suggesting that they should seek C1 relief at least provide testimony to that effect yes and but I mean what what but we still have the authority to Grant C2 relief correct I understand yes what it's a weird little yeah what I'm what I'm hearing from from Miss Alonso is that in order to pursue a C2 variance that the applicant first needs to show make some threshold showing of hardship with the property which would be as far as I know a first uh in the state you know it's it's one or the other you don't you don't do both and there is you know the calman case is the one that first explain the C2 uh criteria so I mean it's an novel argument but putting on my my judge's hat I I I would have to deny that thank you s I know you had a comment as well oh I just wanted to note um it would have been helpful if um Miss Alonso could have provided the section of that she was referencing as an exhibit or as evidence because I can't 12611 doesn't seem to exist um and so that's I'm having difficulty finding it it's under powers of the planning board um yeah so I don't I I believe that's probably stipulated for a copy of what the ml sets forth um but I don't see anywhere in that section um under powers of the planning board culating that there has to be a a requirement well yeah it almost is a moot point and irrelevant because the mlul uh as well as Supreme Court precedent would would surely uh take precedence over an outdated ordinance if the ordinance for some reason does say that um I assure this board that the board has the power to Grant C2 relief as it has done or at least heard cases on probably hundreds of times and the applicant uh will put on its application and they've made the determination for this that uh C2 relief is the proper Avenue for the applicant to pursue yeah and there's also some some language before that in that same section it goes you know the planning board has the authority to the same extent and subject to the same restrictions uh as the zoning board so basically it's to me my interpretation is that the planning board in a V if a subdivision or site plan requires C variance relief um you know bulk variance relief then basically the planning board can step into the shoes of the zoning board and exercise the same kind of powers so it's 126-1 11b yeah now I mean in my opinion this board clearly has jurisdiction over the application you um if everyone's okay I think I just have a couple of other points I just wanted to put that in the record okay go ahead Mr um I did want to know I I we put our letter in which provides the whole summary of the subdivision of these Lots um and I understand right the board uh and the applicant doesn't feel that should be considered here but I do feel while this isn't a question for the board the board can consider the desire of the neighborhood and the prot the desire of the predecessors entitled to this property to maintain the wooded character of the neighborhood and of this property which is very wooded but wouldn't that play into the proofs that the applicant has to show for the negative criteria where the applicant has to show that there's no substantial detriment to neighboring properties thank yes so I think it's important for the board to note that these Deeds all the way back from 1967 contain this Covenant and references to it to maintain the wooden character of the properties and of the neighborhood and if you look at Google Earth if you drive by it's extremely wooded you'll notice okay and with that I feel the board has the right right and the duty to look at the locations of the homes that are proposed on the lots to make sure that are not going to over uh eliminate trees as we heard in the last hearing they weren't sure how many but it was over 30 well the board has does have the power to attach reasonable mitigating conditions on the grant of any variant so buffering is certainly something that the the board uh often considers in connection with Grant of bulk variances and the uh neighbor Miss teken has really asked for that and for a couple other things she wanted to have more of an ongoing and open discussion with the applicant it was difficult um and they were not able to come to an agreement which is why I'm here today she is hoping that there is still possible resolution here or at least right the board will consider her concerns while considering this application first she's asked now that the proposal be changed to uh allow for two conforming Lots with two single family chairman I'd like to object to this the applicant's time is now to put on its application if um M Alonso would like to make an objection on behalf of her client certainly more than welcome to do so but allow the applicant to present its application to the board this is becoming an objector Cas now which should wait until the applicant has put their testimony on I agree and I think if there are any questions that are pertinent to discussion we can hear them when that appropriate time comes as well okay I apologize I I did uh you know we have asked for time to speak with the applicant and delays and that was uh met with we going ahead they're allowed to go ahead sure their application so they they don't have to delay yes but the board then cons consider we haven't even heard his testimony yet opposition we've heard a lot of testimony heard some we have not heard at all okay thank you thank you Mr I I just have a question for Mr silur sure [Music] um um your your client Mr Gerardo he's the one that purchased this property in 1957 or was there another intervening owner was uh I believe or multiple intervening owners owners that's correct I I purposely and and Mr uh Mr councilman I'm I don't know going with these questions but I very purposely didn't want to discuss any of the details of the deed going back to 1957 because I didn't want to waste the board's time and I wanted to move ahead with with our app no I understand I just I'm just trying to trying to create a fact pattern and the fact pattern is that between May 17th 1957 and the owner whenever ownership when did Mr Gerardo take ownership approximately pull the Deeds out um I looked at so many Deeds for so many things the last couple of days so it's uh not fresh here all right well let's let's just say recently if that's what Miss Alonso 2015 okay and there have been at least one or more owners between 1957 and 2015 yes okay thank you Mr Silver thank you for previously updating us to where we are this evening um please bring up your first witness thank you and and uh so my first witness is Mr Styers um he was sworn at the last hearing n do you remember where the exhibit numbers left off I have it here believe we left off at A3 which was the steep slope overlay okay so this should be A4 no this is from the last meeting oh okay this is A1 and A2 oh okay cool A1 was the colorized landscape plan and if you recall at the last hearing uh Mr Styers prepared an overlay or an alternate plan which is A2 and Mr Styers your license remains in good standing and you recognize your s under oath yes great thank you so uh Mr Styers why don't why don't you show the board where we were at the last hearing um so this is is a one that was presented to the or shown to the board this was the colorized version of the originally submitted plans uh if you recall the houses were back uh roughly 120 ft or so um as I testified it was there's a ridge line right here and we set the houses on the ridg line um from that point um I guess shortly before the first meeting uh U the neighbor contacted our client at regarding um some of the I guess objections to the the plans and so what we did was we didn't have a chance to fully revise the plan so we made the overlay to present to the board so what we did the overlay A2 showed the three houses moved approximately 100 feet to the North or closer to uh Mountaintop Road um we did go through all the testimony U as far as the plans and I think we responded to many of the uh the comments from the from your professionals and then essentially ran out of time so that was an opportunity to update the board based on our testimony and discussions um to and also an opportunity to reply to your professionals comments uh all at one time and come back to the board tonight so that is what we've done so that those revised plans now now show essentially the formal three houses in in the locations that are 100 ft towards the front um and then like I said I we took care of some of the comments um I know your planner suggested having a conservation easement uh we have added that to the plan so that corresponds with the rear yard setback so that's a 75 foot conservation easement um we did have plantings in in the rear here I did actually have a meeting with the neighbor uh teeken sem um Sean Tekken ham sorry on June 10th and we did walk the site um she just did express some of her concerns to me and I thought I tried to incorporate them um one of the things was with the conservation eement one we wanted to leave it alone so we removed these trees and what we did is we supplemented along the side property line that's common to miss teken A's property her property is to the West here so you can see on the revised plans there's an enhance buffer in this location to uh buffer the new house from hers um I think one of the other things that we talked about is the houses being closer to the front that opened up her view a little bit better um the valley is obviously to the South here so there's no blockage of the views that she could potentially have um any of the trees that are here now are existing and would remain um removal of the house uh that's currently there now gives a little bit broader view of the valley so I think it would be an enhancement um the rest of the uh items were like I said the comments from your professionals and we did get an updated review from Bill Burr and you can see that probably um half of the comments are satisfied and some are just me um is there uh Craig is there anything in the Genova July 10 memo or the Burr July 10 memo that you can't comply with other than you've testified you know to um if if I can just go through a couple items in Mr be's report and I'm sure he'll he has my back if I miss anything but um so can you just confirm based upon the uh relocation of the conceptual dwell to the front of the property that there's no disturbance of over 30% slopes in accordance with the hillside development ordinance that is all the okay and uh I'm that was on page four I'm dropping a moving back to page three so the discussion or the topic of sidewalks uh it was at least discuss at the last hearing we're requesting a waiver um to provide sidewalks along Mountaintop road is that correct yes and and why is that request being made okay um so there the proposed drywalls have been relocated to the front of the new dwellings is that correct yes um can you just point out on proposed lot 51.0 one where that dryw well is proposed not specifically shown okay so Mr bur pointed that that would that might have been mislabel or just we failed to label it but we'll revise the plans and label it but it is there okay um and so you did absolutely touch upon this but your opinion is still that the the the perious asphalt in the front is the best option for for the applicant I again I know these are conceptual but that's your that's your professional opinion yes because the what speak into the mic um okay I'm just gonna see if there were any outstanding comments from Miss zad's report um so I spoke about this to my in my introduction but is it your opinion that the uh density calculations is based upon the total track size as opposed to the individual Lots C those and the total tract can uh after the computations of the calculations you did uh provides for a density of 3.25 dwelling units is that accurate okay and we're proposing three so would you agree that there's adequate space under the um Hillside development ordinance to accommodate the three proposed dwellings within the tract yes okay um I don't remember if I asked this at the last hearing but the applicant is proposing what I have characterized as di Minimus lot Frontage relief uh well lot withth relief my question to you Mr Styers is as an engineer um do you think that the public or the neighborhood would be able to discern a difference between a conforming lot size or a lot width and a non-conforming lot with when the differences are as in as insignificant as what the applicant is proposing this evening no so is it fair to say that the only way somebody could tell that the Lots has being proposed were uh unders siiz those so to speak at least with respect to lot withth would be if they were to take it take out a tape measure and measure it that's the only way you'd be able to tell okay um so you've already done this just want to make sure it's on the record I I believe you already put on the record but all the calculations in the site plan have been updated uh with the revised submission testing testing I just want to make sure that the calculations throughout the site plan have been uh corrected and updated in accordance with the homes being moved forward yes okay um so in Miss sarm mad's report I'm looking at page 10 under steep slopes 1 a it says the applicant should testify in how this demarcation can be accomplished as a more permanent visual marker Miss armat I believe is referring to where the 30% slopes kick in towards the rear what was your opinion as to a a visual marker um I mean they are in private property so I mean you're going to have the conservation easement along the back so that's going to be in your Deeds most likely we we can put um Iron pins at the intersection of the um conservation easement and the property lines that the marate that but as far as a fence or something like that I think it's a little bit excessive so uh we can stipulate of course to providing in our in our Deeds that conservation easement isn't is in existence we can even reference should the board approve this um the board's approval so that there's uh a track record so to speak [Music] um just touching on something that we spoke about at the last hearing couple things so the to accommodate the board's concerns the property deeds will reflect will reflect the requirement to uh maintain the pervious pavement as a condition imposed by the planning board throughout the duration of its existence that's that would you recommend that we do that yes they would have an operation and maintenance manual that would be filed uh with the Deeds okay and we can even separately include that in the DED just so there's uh protection um the driveway apron in the front that won't have any pervious pavement though right no it would stop at the right away okay so the Township's not going to have any responsibilities with respect to that um we uh did speak about um our agreement to supplement the existing Street trees wherever necessary we can work with the board's professionals on that those are actually on the revised plans great thank you um and the last thing that I that I raised at the last hearing is that did you didn't feel that there was that a developer agreement would be necessary that we can put these conditions uh with at least with respect to the um perious pavement as well as the conservation easement in the deed so I guess my question is do you think it would be necessary to have a developers agreement no okay I have no further questions thank you thank you Mr Silver thanks Mr sers I'd like to open up to the board questions I have a couple questions this a COR um you explain the grinder pump again that has to do with sewage yes so basically it's uphill so the sewage coming out of the house would drain to by gravity to the the pit fills up the pit and there's essentially there's a pump in the pit so that pumps it out to the road and there are number of there's probably 15 20 houses that are on Mountain to top they're under this similar agreement so it pumps out to a force main comes down to this manhole right here then it becomes gravity goes down the hill home right now the all of those or I'm pretty sure all of them on mountaintop have licens agreements that the township maintains them till 2027 at which time then it would become the responsibility of the property owner so what Tom janova is saying is it's a new lot basically we're gonna whatever cancel that agreement right so now instead of Township maintaining property owner would main they're they're all over the place I mean they're they're it's like a package little system and uh they they work very well got it so this homeowner would maintain early versus the other ones because it's a new um yeah is there any kind of uh like operations or maintenance manual or anything like that that goes along with the grinder pump or something that should be like noted in the deed no I don't think so okay I mean it's not something you know like the as far as the maintenance of the storm water this is more like it's almost like your hot water okay if if it Mal functions you'll know it call a plumber you'll know it quickly yeah um just you know a question on that um does a pump like that have any warning that it's about to wear out or kind of it wears out and the homeowner has a pretty big problem and has to fix it urgently um I mean it is a pit it's probably a lot of them are between 50 and 100 gallons so and there there are alarms on it so you know it floats to a certain point pumps out but if it gets to that that level then it'll set off an alarm and I believe um that you know you have a light on there and everything so yes um before it starts spewing on the ground I guess what you're thinking is that there are alarms when it gets too high and that um you know so the concerned homeowner would pay attention to warning signs and get professional assistance quickly yes I think what we looking at something similar to a homeowner who has uh relies on well water when a well water pump dies it dies normally dies hard I'm sure there's a like a septic tank recommend a certain number of times a year that you get it dur certain number of times yes got it could you R for the board with the type of maintenance is included um I don't know specifically but again I guess theoretically if power goes out there there are you know safety factors like I saids up to a c overflow alarms and it's designed to to to keep the level relatively low so there is flex if there's a power outage or the pump fails there there's there's Flex built into the system okay um number of trees added removed I know you talked about not putting some in the conservation putting on the side now know that for you like the number um okay and then two more so I was the one who brought up the perious pavement because had troubles with prvious Pavement in a facility that I run the thing that I had brought up is specifically The Edge between the road and the driveway I forget what you had said of how far in we're would have regular pavement perious P okay if it's concrete well more of my fear is Damage Done to the driveways and I wouldn't want the township and driveway because know what the damage can like and then I know that we talked about putting it in the deed I know also many homeowners don't talk about don't read their detail and knowing that this might change hands m is there a required permit I maybe were if somebody were to pave their driveway somebody was going to go pave their driveway in bridgew do they have to get a permit ahead of time they were over on their impervious coverage probably okay so it would trigger then because this would be a coverage issue that's why we're putting payement here no theirs is not based on coverage Mr cers can probably elaborate on that yeah I I think there's also there's also a reality that needs to be over a there which is when a person paves driveways um you know they're just Paving driveways so even if you were close to impervious um you know I I'm unfortunately I think that's something that would probably happen and may or may not be caught after the fact happens sometimes um while we're on the topic because I think that brought up a good point I think it was discussed or touched upon at the last hearing but I think Mr Styers you should go through the Alternatives of why the prvious pav P dri driveways are being proposed from a storm water quality perspective versus a bio retention Basin which you noted about tree removal but maybe clarify for that for the board kind of what the your options are for storm water quality techically speaking CL prob and it could in theory be pavers instead of e thank you that's I have one question please yeah uh I'm actually more uh curious about the prvious payment so what you are saying that for the regular payment from the street there will be 1 in uh offset or or it will be flush with the prvious payment and it will be flushed um the concern is always on the maintenance you know as many of us basically are expressed it so will the mainten M uh requirement will be part of the uh Deeds or it's not necessary Mr P that we engineering could you restate the question the maintenance of the prvious portion of the driveways will be part of the Deeds as a conditions or it is not well it can be I had asked before if if uh the maintenance of that should be in the deed so that's certainly so you already considering right okay we agreed to do that okay okay yeah I think how how was that enforced later how do the township have any Township has no authority to it doesn't unless it's um coverage related this storm water related so then why do you put a condition in the deed if you can't enforce it would include I think they're talking about the maintenance manual we were requesting that there be a maintenance manual included um and then it was attached to a deed then the homeowner would be aware that they had perious pavement because otherwise they may not be aware they may not follow the maintenance manual but it's intended just the way that you'd have a a storm water management Basin maintenance manuals why wouldn't there be similar deed about the grinder pump should be Exar I mean I don't see the differentiation between the two do you got any objection to having a notice in the deed for that one lot with the grinder pump no objections conclud it okay under the new Arrangement the new property owner would be responsible so why wouldn't you want the property owner to understand that in a deed you know clausing the deed about the grinder pump versus just the driveway I don't I why wouldn't you so then why the clause about the driveway I just think the grinder pump is more important to the property owner I understand I understand but my my point is if if the applicant through you Mr Styers is suggesting that you want a deed to a deed Clause to inform the property owner that the driveway material has to be maintained why wouldn't you want there to be a clause about the grind P we we will we will include a clause based upon your recommendation we have no objections to it so we'll we'll include one in the deed along with the with all the other references that we stipulated I have that noted as a condition should they get approval I I have it go ahead while we on the grinder pump the exist there's an existing agreement in place with the township do you know what that entails it's it it entails that it's the Township's responsibility to maintain it up until 2027 um being that there was a there are New Lots being proposed and based upon the the report issued by Mr goova we're agreeing to essentially terminate that agreement early and take over responsibility of either the existing or new grinder pump uh to be in installed in association with this subdivision application um one thing I'll just note is that for a the for major subdivision the board chairman will get to sign off on the deed to ensure that the deed does properly reflect any of the things that we're stipulating to including this this evening so I just want to make sure the board has that assurance that they get to look at the deed before we do anything Mr chairman I have a couple questions and maybe it's a following up on what Mr Stars just spoke about Mr Stars you spoke earlier about I'm not sure exactly what topic you were speaking of you were saying that the application quote complies with State regs I wasn't sure what I don't remember what you were speaking about okay and um you also talked about the I'm trying to use uh this is this was what I thought you uh mentioned that the approach to determine o the overall tract and you were speaking about the entire lot size and you were determining lot coverage what what was the you said that there was an approach that the township had established and could you refresh my memory I don't remember what you were referencing specifically MH okay H the SL steep slope is what you're referencing then okay or the steep slope right and then but that's not the only provision of the township requirements for subdivision well you you just you made mention that you you make through that handwritten set of instructions that there's a an approach to determining again not using your words lot coverage and and right it's sort of what you can implied well it's what what what Mr STS is referencing is section or subsection or I'm sorry chapter 126 section 266 the the handwritten notes that Mr Styers referenced mirrors the ordinance however it has diagrams but the the calculations in that written handout that that I looked at is the same thing as the ordinance and and just generally speaking what the ordinance sets out to do is calculate the density for the overall track whatever that is take that number so we had 3.25 round it down to three then you calculate the F and the lot coverage that's permitted on each individual lot based upon the steep slopes okay so now I I I understand that is that what you were referencing okay um but that's not the only ordinance that an application has to be uh measured against correct well I was speaking to steep slope ordinance in the I understand but that but now my question is moving on moving on that's not the only ordinance that an application has to be measured against still un unclear the question so is the steep slope ordinance the only ordinance that an application has to be measured against no you have to take into account the entire land use ordinance okay okay so you were referencing the steep slope steep slope ordinance in that commentary okay yes because that was one of the comments in Catherine's U okay um could we talk about the lot size now sure so it's what zone is this again R40 and that is a what lot re minimum lot size 40,000 and uh the existing property is how many square feet uh there are two of them lot 50 is almost 85 85,3 51 is 7948 and the proposed three New Lots are what square footage 54 876 55 323 54 692 and um and the width lot width requirement and proposed required is 150 50.01 is 14358 502 is 14782 5101 is 14180 okay m armit in your you have a report that I'm looking at back from April and you have a uh table on page four yes and uh under the on the first section of that again uh have the description and the lot area and minimum lot width and then there's a a another variance that's noted here could you uh describe that again yes so um kind of the Genesis of why Mr silbert and Mr Styers have brought up the howto on the hillside development calculations and that um is that exhibit well it was an ed exhibit but that um which I was provided tonight as well um clarifies basically and it literally says the following is a step-by-step description of how you the applicant should proceed with calculating these things because uh from my perspective and how I interpreted the ordinance um and what appears in that zoning table was that you could apply the steep slopes the hillside development calculations against the lot size and me I mean it might just be me but also it was just how I was interpreting the ordinance which included to meet the purposes goals and standards set for in article 34 the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance relating to minimum lot sizes and density of the de development shall be modified in areas of steep slopes greater than 10% so as I read it I thought there was two categories there was the lot size and the the density but as kind of clarified by this howto um as well as Mr ERS who has I think some anecdotal experience before the board for many years use utilizing the hillside development calculations it really the lot area is not a consideration of the hillside development calculations it feeds directly into that density calculation so I was mistaken um and that that second row showing the after HDC after Hillside development calculation really is not applicable here um so you know it all goes back to the my interpretation that there was there was um not only um reductions for Hillside development calculations for steep slopes for f and impervious but also for lot size and density which would I thought made sense um for you know a case like this but in reality the lot size is really related only to the total overall density of development which they do meet and Mr silbert has noted a few times tonight just uh to preserve the record I'd like to enter that into the record as an exhibit um we can mark it as A4 and and uh can ident identify it as the original steep slope calculations we should Hillside steep slope development calculation prepared by John E Leon Cavallo on and want to spell it I start from the beginning again sorry Hillside steep slope steep slope development calculation prepared by John E Leon cavalo thanks and it's not dated and Mr peek um if I may borrow that just to provide a copy to uh members of the public if it's okay Miss sarmad I'd like to borrow that just so that members of the public can see what I'm referring to what we've just made part of the record while they're doing that kav cavalo Leon cavalo L E o n c a v a l l o I guess I have one more question for Mr Styers um Mr styes the you uh I asked about the lot width and you described the lot width um that each of the three would be um less than the 150 ft uh is there a scenario where there could be um changed to any of those widths to have one or more of the three New Lots conforming um I think we briefly discussed this at the last meeting that we had a prea meeting with former planner Scarlet Scarlet Doyle and we did mention that do we make two of them comply and the last one exacerbated and between us we felt that averaging amount so to speak because you can see that it's kind of a little a little bit of a lot width and a lot area so you can kind of make them all relatively the same and that's what the little bit of the deviations are so that's where we came in so after our discussion we kind of split up not exactly but I remember but I'm asking you what is can that be done yeah and what would that what would that what would that I'm just asking a qu let me finish asking the question what would that look like in your opinion which lot if you could make two conforming slots by width and one un you know not what would that width lot withth be approximately what would be the non-conforming one correct that's my 16 feet a little more than that 17 18t or so and which which of the Lots do you think that would be well of course with the neighbor to the west being here an attorney I would say make the westly lot okay thank you thank you any other questions I just have a uh you mentioned a Wetlands consultant you mentioned a Wetlands consultant has he had the opportunity to walk the property uh he did not I did contact him to today so I said kind of if we get approved tonight he would probably be out there in the next week okay just uh something we did in the past is that if wetland are determined uh they should be delineated so that they're not wiped out in the future obviously if they have an impact on the application we probably return to the board yeah we did ask a previous applicant to actually put signs up on their Wetlands to show where they were thank you Mr Atkins thank you just a point of clarification uh you mentioned earlier there would be 30 trees removed is that correct 30 remov 30 removed is that net or is that for U planting additional okay so then you have computations based on rep does comply with requirements because it seems that on sheet three uh at least 48 trees are to be removed they have to be over a certain size over a certain size yes so what's the size then that are short six in six inches okay and so that's where the 30 comes from yes okay thank you for those of us in this room that don't have a set of plans could you uh briefly just show essentially where the buffering of trees is or will be proposed um Che so we have uh there would be we kind of revised it from uh this kind of generic so we have a um probably about a dozen Evergreens in this location uh then there will be uh three decision there's kind of a mix they like um dog woods so there's kind of a a land because there's a landscape replacement or requirement there's a foundation requirement and then there's replacement and then on top of that the street trees so we've kind of taken into account all of those between the mix of the replacement trees the landscape trees we even have uh Foundation plannings along the front of the house and then we did call out what we felt were Street trees and then supplemented on top of that and then just to finally answer your question so they're they're again spread out the along the property lines but they're a Better Mix this time and then the bulk of the trees are obviously along the west Lily property line okay and are there any existing deciduous clusters that are going to remain and and where would they be um they're not NE necessarily clusters they're kind of they're spread out through the property um you know if you were to see it from Google Maps it looks like a completely wooded lot but if you were to walk it not so much it's just got to got very good canop so the trees areed out that you know okay and and I'm assuming the the proposed uh buffering would conform to the neighborhood and what the neighborhood looks like today for the other thing is that we're fitting in amongst what's there now okay so you don't want to start crowding stuff out then all a sudden one's going to kill the other so you want a healthy growth of the of the Landscaping as well so trying to fit it in to what's there and like I said most of the removal is in and around the houses and even the grading is relatively tight to the houses it's just unfortunately it's the removal of the old house that creates a bit of the most of the disturbance and most of the trees that are in the rear along the slope a lot of those are set to remain oh yeah okay yes okay they will be in that they said that conservation e is following the rear property line or rear setback line okay I had a note if we could just go back for a second from the last um meeting here about dry Wells uh Mr bur obviously not here this evening to speak about it but um are they adequately sized or will they be adequately sized um for um for maximum improved lot coverage yes okay I mean if there's they are sized right now and the and the computations have been added to the plans so based on what you see for the houses they are sized for those houses if something somebody does anything bigger or in addition to they would have to supplement those drywalls and uh lastly we talked about the pervious driveway surface at nauseum uh but uh again in in Bill's absence here um essentially because the maintenance is such an issue would you be willing to work with Mr bur's office while that's being uh constructed absolutely okay could we make that a condition of approval Mr pick yeah okay I do have some other questions but I believe they're going to be a resered for Mr Dary any other questions I just want to have a clarifications you said that you'll be removing 33s 33s right so when you replenish it it will be equally distributed in all the three lots um like I said you can see on the plans there's again there's different criteria the types of trees that are being planted so there's replacement there's landscape Street trees and then also Foundation plantings which are the bushes Shrubbery so between all of those we comply with the ordinance so it's not only replacing the 30 trees we're replacing well beyond that well my question is actually not related to what you are doing now but suppose um one or two of the tenant will like to sell the property and new tenant will do something else and you know then again the same three issues comes in individually rather than as a whole lot that's the reason I'm asking the questions so the if it is equally distributed whatever the your criteria for all the four different type of the treats are so if it's equally distributed at least it will be remain the same constraint or same basically uh you know advantage to all of the three tenant I would say that the the tree plantings would have to comply with the plant okay that's what you're getting uh not exactly I'm just suppose out of the three owners two owners sell the property tomorrow and a new owner comes and they want to develop something else then again the three calculation will come into the effect but if you basically design the uh design now to have a equally almost equally distributed that three densities for each and every lot that that problem will not occur that's the in future I'm not I don't know if I'm uh addressing this but if 30 years from now a homeowner wanted to change the Landscaping on one of the three lots they would still have to comply with the Township's ordinance if they wanted to change the Landscaping so while they have flexibility to change it the ordinance still would Prevail they'd have to go to the town Township depending upon what they're doing and seek a tree removal permit is is that accurate yeah okay I don't know if I if that's once it's all planted I think and you really go back to the ordinance again for example you're permitted to take three trees down a year a matter of the size and you can also document that you know the tree is dead so you kind of fall back to the ordinance again as opposed to the development itself yeah I should know I a CH person for a sake rep thank you question okay thank you question um I have a few while we're talking about the pre removal um Mr Atkins brought up I did look at the removal um on sheet three versus the table on sheet seven and there there there's at least one missing tree that was that's shown has removed an 8 in an 8 in seater in front of the existing home that's not shown on the T in the table so even just one one missing tree from the table kind of Sparks an interest and maybe let's look at that we can check it and double check that and if there's any additional requirements then uh or additional plantings required then we'll have to you know compensate but I want the board just to be aware of that it was a good question a good catch from Mr Atkins but I just wanted to look through and there was there was at least one that's not shown on the table so um I still have the stick figures on my desk so I can go back and check it okay I can understand how that can that can be difficult um as far as other questions that I had um to go through um I as mentioned I agree um with the way the hillside development calculations were applied uh I do not believe as noted on table one on page four of my uh view memo that the variance for lot size can be contemplated it's not something that the hillside development calculations contemplate um after looking through that ex exhibit and so um that's there's no I I don't believe there should be a variance imposed um for the lot areas there um in looking at the while I'm on bulk rags in looking at the um kind of the scenarios that's been posed about having the Lots be um somewhat congruent in size rather than have two conform in lot width and then one seek a variance um for a greater deviation from the 150 foot width um it does appear that the side as as proposed for the homes the size of the homes that the side yard setbacks could still be complied with um they would be reduced obviously but it looks like the total and combined sidey the single and combined sidey yards could be complied with but they would be lesser um and from a I think I the question was posed to me at the at the first hearing but I do believe that the congruent nature of the Lots will probably have less of an impact than having one outlier that would have a greater deviation I think visually um there probably will it it probably will be unapparent to most people passerbys um you know I think the greatest deviation is for the proposed lot 51.0 one which is 8.2 feet and the lowest one being 2.2 feet approximately so um visually I don't think you'll you'll be able to notice it [Music] um as far as the street trees provide I do I do appreciate Mr uh from the first hearing it was brought up that um to show compliance with the street tree requirements along Mountaintop Road um they were seeking to utilize existing um trees on the site which is fine that's allowed um but I did want them identified and Mr styes went through and he did update the plans to show those and I would just request that the applicant or um ask if they would agree to a condition that upon inspection uh when inspection's done after you know um when construction's underway that um if any of those trees are in poor condition and they're dead or dying that um they they would be replaced any other trees identified to comply with the street tree requirements we can absolutely agree with that thank you um and then the kind of the the biggest thing and I think it was kind of still um something that was on my mind from the first hearing and I think probably took up a big chunk of the the time before we ran out of time uh that night was was about the perious pavement driveways um and I think you know Mr Styers has given the background to why that um alternative was chosen and has been proposed I do think there's still quite a bit of uncertainty about what that's going to look like I really probably would like to see something more not no pun intended more concrete um but I mean more so about the options that they have for pervious pavement whether it be perious concrete perious pavers because the maintenance does differ between those two they have their differences in maintenance and their differences in issues that arise um but I do think that that is something probably that um either this board can advise um as part of the resolution uh I think Mr Burr should definitely be um the one who monitors the next steps with that so even if there hasn't been a decision made by this board that Mr Burr can look at what they um offer as far as their storm their overall storm water management plan their options for construction for pervious pavement or pavers or whatever or Swale as Mr Styers had brought up and any kind of maintenance man uh manual and Mr Burr can look through those um and determine if they're adequate or not and I'm I'm certain that he would hold them to a very high standard to make sure that it's it's adequate be acceptable absolutely acceptable and it a a stipulation of the I'm putting it in as a condition that yeah yes I think it is should Absol absolutely be a condition selection of the perious pavement and then the operations and maintenance manual are subject to the reasonable review and approval of the engineer stipulated as said Mr chairman I something that Miss Sid said prompted a thought uh Mr Mr Stars I think you had said earlier that the proposed lot coverage under this plan would be less than the existing yes uh could you go over those numbers one more time out as shown the existing in square feet 16771 and then if you were to add together uh 50.01 is 58 50.2 is 5382 and 5101 is 5356 what does that add up to comes in just shy of 6 16,000 okay if the um thank you if the there were only two lots in this if this was only divided into two lots two building Lots it's two Lots now but if the other portion was developed into a with a single family home similar to what's proposed what do you think the lot coverage would be uh probably pretty substantial because I mean I think I testified that the two houses would be between 10 and 12,000 square fet and that's the size of the home you mean okay okay and um what type of since we spent so much time talking about the driveway what um under that scenario what kind of a driveway material do you think would be utilized similar to what's proposed here yeah you just have larger larger building Footprints would be the only difference probably twice three times as many drywalls okay thank you and while we're talking about impervious coverage just to confirm the were the prvious pavers included in the in the improved lot coverage yes good okay um and then the only other comment I had um Mr silbert um posed a question to Mr Styers related to um kind of a visual marker for the conservation easement similar to a lot of the um kind of conditions that are being imposed regarding um attachments to a deed the conservation easement I think is important uh in that it's protecting that area from being uh Disturbed uh the steep slope area in particular it's over 30% steep slopes back there um and I I think Mr shy had had noted that he would uh agree or recommend an iron pin or something to that effect that off fence would be too much and I definitely would um would recommend that that be a condition um over time the um the conservation easement could get lost in its importance um at to each subsequent homeowner so it just becomes a piece of paper whereas when you live on your property that's more uh you know your day byday so um I definitely think of visual marker that demarcates where that starts um would be helpful to the to the Future Property Owners in the past the board has seen other similar applications where we uh we proposed a monument of some type uh something more permanent uh regardless I think anything a surveyor can you know put down and then identify in the future is helpful one thing they do in Franklin is they put the pin in just in front of the pin they put ax post up so it's kind of that helps you find it better It's Kind like cther said it's that the lineat so you know the pin you'll never find unless you're a surveyor so the post would help you find that thing so I mean that I mean it's just it I'd like to keep it open if we could so if we put the post up you have that demarcation but you also for the view once again the the proposed condition I have is that any Wetlands areas uh as well as the conservation easement would be delineated by some sort of Monument uh the selection of which is subject to the town engineer fa enough great any other questions I have no other questions thank you board have any other questions okay at this time I did have a question remind me of the character of lot 49 66 65 64 surrounding L themselves mly specifically around sets and character of those properties you R through those numbers again 49es really we can focus on I'm just curious to your the sets the overall character of those properties got an A5 for thank you least visually is that right but you're saying that it's going to be very similar but if you youate BAS 4 think to the south of that is now being unchanged so um that's you know there's a few reasons that why we mov the house is 100 feet forward okay 49 49 actually these five Lots were part of the I think the subdivision that was brought up in 1957 so these five Lots were all 150 ft wide and then the previous owner uh Mr damio I guess really a resembled uh the two lots that he has now and then also U sold 75 ft to lot 49 create what it is now so lot 49 got larger essentially did a lot line adjustment essentially what we're doing is almost putting it back to where it was 5201 uh looks like they were subdivided similar to this Philip find it f excuse me following up Mr banga the Mr Stars those the prop the houses what's the setback the join joining joining property to the west and the two to the east that he's referencing what do you think is the um setback from the road the edge of pavement Road would be wherever we have plus approximately 10 feet probably close to 90 feet or so so which lot our Lots no I'm talking about the lot to the west of this of the subject property and then the uh the two lots to the east sorry I got same thing and then the lot uh setback for the three new houses you're proposing the road like I said be about 90 ft okay thank you thank you Mr P any other questions from our board no at this time I'd like to open up to any members of the public to POS questions regarding Mr star's testimony evening Dana caparoso uh 65 Twin Oaks Road um the one to the southernly portion oh sure uh Dana caparoso c a a r oo and I'm directly to the South I was the one who expressed concern over the storm water runoff um and also even still with the tree removal um in terms of um Mr Styers you said it was you would replace it with strawberry Landscaping Etc and you did mention the canopy there now there's a lot of oak trees in the area a lot of older trees that are I don't know how tall they are but quite tall absorb a lot of water um what impact if any could the removal of those trees have and are you distinguishing with how many trees are going to be removed moved that are you know the 80ft tall trees the 20ft tall trees and how many and how can you compensate for the removal of those trees with Shrubbery and Landscaping um most I can say is that yes I mean we based on the Ordnance you're supposed to look U determine or identify the trees based on their diameter is what we did it really doesn't take into account the height of them so the diameter is then um you have to replace by certain number based on that diameter and that's what I said that you know whatever we we moved we met compensated based on what the ordinance required as far as your property is concerned like I said we we took into what you said we moved the houses forward so from that high point on the property going towards you nothing's going to change with the exception we're actually removing the house so that's going to go back to natural conditions um your environmental impact statement I don't it just said a lot of trees would be removed I know there was one portion that talked about the type of soils there that if there's a lot of removal of of vegetation that there's rapid runoff and erosion are any of those areas impacted or will any of those areas be impacted by the removal of these trees um I understand you're saying it's based on diameter but if if the ordinance only allows removal of Three Trees per year um that's normally of the but like if I wanted to remove three trees or dead trees from my property I would have to take that into consideration get a permit whatnot um what is the impact to the environment when you're just removing trees because they're in the way and you're not considering how tall they are you're just considering diameter we are again we're restoring I mean it's not the same size tree but at some some point it will be or conceivably could be but we're also providing uh storm water management again is all going towards Mountaintop um we actually did have um actual soil testing which kind of contradict because the what is in the environmental impact statement is General conditions it's off of County soils maps and things like that um subsequent to that we did do actual soil testing which is the percolation on the soil is on the site is still pretty good and that's the reason we proposed the dry Wells so the recharge on the site is probably better than in the general characteristics that we got from the County soils man I I tried going on the town's website I didn't see any of the updated plans and even what was discussed the last time with the overlay I'm not sure if that's available or not um because the the information that's on the town's website is still from April 15th that was the most recent submission so I kind of shooting from the hip here and hearing what I heard today I didn't have the benefit of reviewing any of those plans prior to today's meeting because they were not on the website the agenda said either come to the office or you can click on this link for the documents and that's what I did and they weren't weren't available um so so that again that's one of my concerns was again with the size of the trees is there any way to go through the property and determine how many of the larger trees are going to be removed I mean is there a way to limit the removal of some of the larger trees as much as possible again the only place we took them down was where we had the houses and the dwellings the green tried to reserve as many Tre we and you also said you're moving the drywalls towards the front of the property will that have any impact with regard to the storm water run off in the drainage towards the south of the property where the rear of the property originally in the PR set of plants we did have them in the back of the property back of houses over the top of the hill so again we moved the houses 100 feet forward we move the dry Wells from the back of the houses to the front which essentially preserves that Ridge line everything going to you the removal of the existing house is going to get better drainage wise there's no existing house right now above I just have vegetation and trees above my I'm at lot 64 I'm directly so directly by that one that has no no no improvements at whatsoever one yep um and you said there's going to be a 75 foot conservation asement is that 75 ft between the rear property line and my property line your property line and the rear property line are the same thing right but I mean my where that where that steep slope is 75 ft towards mountain top the rear property line and are you leaving the trees and vegetation that are there are you removing them and replacing those we're leaving everything the way it is okay um is 75 ft sufficient to preserve that slope so I don't have to worry about mudslides and rocks and everything impacting my house that has been there since 1963 from The High Point towards you okay so the high point going towards Mountain Top is where all the development is going to be right but there's still going to be improvements on the lot that were not there or not there now so that's what I'm again I'm concerned about is that going to be a sufficient easement whereas it's going to prevent like excessive storm water runoff and the storm water runoff from the from the develop drainage the north right but it's still once you develop it has to find a path and and it's going to follow gravity my house is downhill so that's why I'm wondering what is the impact going to be in is 75 ft um conservation eement where you're leaving all the all the vegetation okay stay the planting we had here took them out okay it's going to just stay as is okay so you'll leave the existing vegetation it's going to be undisturbed okay thank you I don't have any more questions thank you uh hi my name is Susan Willet w l l TT I live at 1871 Mountaintop I'm on the other side the side that you just said the water would go to across the street oh okay across the street um uh I don't live directly across the street from these properties but uh uh but it does impact um so I have a couple of questions um relating to trees I've watched development on my that street I've lived there for nearly 20 years I've gone through this process before and um most of the people cut down all their trees I've seen it happen too many times when you put in the new trees are these ones um Native are you just I mean how how are you determining what trees are going in to replace that place the 30s a list in their ordinance and which are native okay that's good um and how do you and I don't know if this question is for you or for you folks I just don't understand and I'm sorry because I didn't really come up here to to talk too much um how do you ensure compliance like you were talking about these great things about um putting it in the Deeds etc etc you're supposed to get permission to cut down trees you're supposed to get permission before you put down a driveway how do you see ensure compliance because I've I've watched it people Paving driveways and I've watched trees being cut and I didn't know that there was anything anybody could do because it just happened and I'm watching this character of our neighborhood which I bought my house because of the trees and the old growth um how do you H how does that I don't who the question is I'm asking this do I don't know how you these are conditions of approval that we put in place for this reason it' be conditions and then the zoning officer or code enforcement or anybody else who you know if if you noticed something that was possibly inv violation of of a condition of approval you could call the zoning officer and they would investigate and that's really enforcement have fallen down but but I'll I'll if I may I'll go one step further I'm just trying to because I'm no I'll I'll explain the process I'm going to give you a very honest answer um presuming that that these homes were built a certificate of occupancy is not issued until the entire project is properly inspected um and that means everything and that would mean all these conditions and everything that was agreed to so at the time when these assuming there was approval these properties were built you and the community can rest assured that whatever is in the plans whatever we agree to that is what you will see right at that time now what happens a month later a year later 5 years later 10 years later and this is where I'm going to give you the honest answer we have standards in this community for how you're supposed to maintain your property when you you know you can pave when you do not exceed uh uh impervious coverage you can cut down subject to you know a certain limitation in terms of the caliper Andor uh uh the number per year can I tell you that every one of our 15,000 properties in this town abide by that all the time no they do not what the challenge that we have as a community is we absolutely want to maintain the Integrity of our zoning code but at the same time we are not big brother we're not sending drones up in the air and checking how many trees are on every property so you know there is a balancing act between homeowners being able to do what they reasonably want to on their properties as they have rights to but at the same time still following our you know our our laws um but you know in all cander you know can you be assured that these numbers of trees 10 years from now 20 years from now the honest answer is no um what you get in a hearing like this and what you get from a proceeding like this is a commitment to the buildout is going to be defi is going to be well defined and monitored and will be the basis for issuing a certificate of occupancy and I I I appreciate that and I didn't know there was such a thing as a manual um because if that really is something that happens then that can hopefully help and you talked about a monument to Mark where the wetlands were I wish that had been in the properties near us too as well so I appreciate what you folks are doing and asking these questions by the way if you ever want to know any more about grinder pumps I have one I can answer your questions about what that all happens um those are my my questions for now thank you for your time okay is there any way I can show something has electronic exhibit she wants to showan can we uh do screen mirroring that's okay thank you um if I can I can just show it like this I can bring it up to board members if you like how are we going to I but also but I think that should be marked as an exhibit well you could provide a copy of that we we Pro we may have an exhibit we brought one that is the tax map so I I don't mind if you want to use our exhibit we haven't presented I wasn't sure we were going to but that's I think it's sheet 63 so you know that's it is uh marked up this one I think she just needed it for demonstrative purposes I don't know if you want to put it in A6 uh it's an objector ex whatever you wanted 01 yes you don't want to use it oh it's not good enough well not that because it's all marked up and it's not just showing I'm trying to show the whole neighborhood sorry I can't it's the current tax map of the Town trip of Bridgewater tax map it just doesn't have the dimensions marked sure well we'll call it 01 but you have to provide um Miss propes with a copy of that tomorrow if you canil her a PDF Mr STS if you could just take a look at this and show the board This Is lws 50 and 51 right that's the lots that you're proposing and you already talked about this but lot 50 what's the lot wi 22474 okay and lot 51 20774 lot 49 9 it's like 250 225 I think I'll give you that sorry um and uh what is that 408 150 and then 47's 150 MH and then going behind to Twin Oaks what's the lot width of lot 67 31 I think correct I think it's like 330 hard to see over 300 let's call it over 300 okay lot 66 50 65 221 and then the last one in that big block right is 647 okay so all of those were 150 or more uh yes so when you were talking about the Lots in the neighborhood that are under 150 in lot with you're really talking about across the street only on mountain top in the neighborhood I would not consider Twin Oaks to be in the neighborhood you don't consider that to be in their neighborhood number one it's probably 200 feet down so you're looking far over top so I would not consider that the neighborhood I would consider the neighborhood Mountain Top okay so essentially you have 47 48 the three we would create would be approximately 150 so there's four there's five the uh two to the to the East are less than 110 the one to the east of that's 177 and then if you go across the street you're in the 13s mhm with about 10 houses okay but that you mentioned is what uh zone is across the street R50 right and behind us lot 67 lot 66 65 64 R40 but again R4 would be more restrictive and yet they're smaller Lots which are across the street [Music] May I a follow-up question so the different sides of the streets are in different zones which is not unusual um but in this specific spot it feels like those R50 houses are are each a little more like an R40 house that smaller and then the other thing to note is lot 49 really lot 49 and lot 50 where there was a lot line adjustment amongst them of the previous property owner so technically speaking you had 47 48 49 50 all want 50 Lots so what happened was between 49 and 50 there were 75 ft conveyed to the pro existing property to the West which created the size that it is now so like I said all of those were part of a a single subdivision and all the Lots were 150 each which again creates that consistency in the next that's not with report show you correct me if I if I'm wrong but if if you left the Lots as is you the lot sizes would be 224.210 where you could put massive homes on them compared to splitting between three and being more comparable in size a lot of times that's what I also say is that um the board is really controlling the size of the houses so if you didn't approve this I mean we for three years we worked on a house for the applicant before he decided not to do it that was 12,000 Square F feet un not replacing the existing house it was absolutely massive that's already con conforming yes and with no need to come to a land use board exactly building permit why didn't he decide to do that I at the last hearing it was discussed that it doesn't fit it doesn't fit with the market conditions it doesn't fit with a neighborhood at that size didn't do it so he's looking to do something more consistent with the marking conditions right and he could do that with two lots correct but they wouldn't have to need to put a 10,000 foot house on it just because he might have the lot coverage capability the ability is there and the application with the application is we're here for a major subdivision to create three New Lots it's what the applicants here for spent all the time and money to get here I understand like the the hypotheticals that the opin is really trying to do something that's consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the board has the opportunity to control that I guess right I'm arguing that it's not consistent I'm trying to show that it's not consistent right based on all of the lot width and the lot sizes in the area but if I may go on uh time for questions though right we're still at questions we have a direct we still have questions only questions based on his testimony you mentioned the uh square footage of the proposed homes is 4,000 square fet at the last hearing you were going to see if that's correct roughly speaking yes okay is that the maximum that the homes could be proposed since I understand there're a concept plan there are no architect plans this is purely conceptual is that a good estimate for what the maximum size of the home could be footprints that are shown are appropriate for the house for the Lots okay but it's not the max they could be bigger um they can go up to what's U permitted on the zoning chart right I'm asking you to estimate because you estimated that you could put a 10 to 12,000 foot house if it was two lots as it is now can you estimate what it would be if you have three lots maximum um second so the maximum floor area ratio for each of the Lots based on the steep slopes computations is lot 50.01 would be 6975 uh lot 502 would be 5958 and the last one would be 6161 so that's all they could do the maximum fa okay so 6 to 7,000 square feet right okay keep in mind the applicant would have to come back before the board when we discuss a structure they do not have to come back before the board if they're complying correct so you don't plan on coming back to the board with floor plans and architecturals correct so let me look at this a slightly different way um we have a certain amount of property whether it's divided into divided in three it sounds like we can have about 19,000 square feet a house if there's two of them and they were theoretically split about even that's how you get almost 10,000 ft a house otherwise if you split it among three that's how you get to your numbers that are in the 67 range am I looking at it the right way put simple terms yes okay right because you know the percentages are are going to be this are going to are going to are going to work no matter whether it's it's one one lot two lots three lots I mean theoretically you could combine this thing into one and then you could build a conference center practically right um but going back to to to realistic Market viability current conditions are supporting homes up to the 3500 to 4,000 foot range uh I'm not into it too much other than you know what what I do what I would say that you're probably correct and and and a a home to be built that's larger than that even if it could be there's there's not that many buyers that that can afford that or that have the needs for that right okay all right one last question I promise um did you have a chance to see what the current condition is of the existing home is it structurally okay is there any way that home could be saved um I did not go through it I was in the back of it when they were uh doing the soil testing I mean it's very overgrown um basement doesn't look like it's in good condition so I mean again money's you can do anything with money so it's kind of question I understand thank you that's all I have thank you this buus thank you um I I do have a copy of the original subdivision which has the 150 foot lots and I believe there was a deed um 77 or so there is 50 1957 and then 1967 I think 67 late 70s I think there was a transfer of 75 ft between two properties were were there were multiple uh resubd divisions uh or lot line adjustments done between the 60s and 70s between not necessarily this property but amongst the current configuration of the Lots so and they're all amongst family members to be honest with you I it was you know like said Mr Dam relative okay that closes the public portion for this witness Mr silbert um I would like to to call my planner if the if the board will will indulge me we we do have some time okay great so uh Mr Dow was sworn in uh and it remains under oath from the last hearing so I'm just reminding him um he did not testify last hearing though um so if you would be so kind to put your credentials and educational background on the record in the field of professional planning certainly you're already sworn but I thought you were sworn already but um we might have never never heard to do it twice do you swear affirm that the testimony you're going to give in connection with this hearing will be the truth and nothing but the truth I do all right could you state and spell your name for the record Alexander dowy last name is d g h r Ty professional planner my license are current in good standings and uh if you would please place your educational background and credentials on the record as a professional planner certainly um my education at a Rucker blow with a Masters in City and Regional planning concentration development Redevelopment certification of public policy I testif finance capacity on a weekly and daily basis um the professional development officer for APA New Jersey uh supervising planner for the town of Dover um uh testified um before this board has accepted as a professional I've uh presented at the league of municipalities uh State development Redevelopment conference I'm immersed in the world of planning chairman I would ask uh Mr dar's are acceptable to you and the board that he' be accepted as a expert in the field of planning are there any objections to Mr D's qualifications no objection please proceed thank you before you you start I was just wondering if uh in the time that you've been sitting in the in the audience if you had a chance to look at when that ordinance was adopted referenced earlier this evening um I believe it was uh 126-1 B um my uh yes I have um my minor was uh 1985 okay and there's a there's just a little part of a case I want to read um I'll ask you what to identify the case if you're familiar with it um it was adopted or it was decided in 1988 um although personal hardship was not a permissible per permissible basis for the old C variance nor is it now for a C1 variance it may be a basis for a variance under C2 provided that the evidence shows the purposes of zoning would be ad Advanced and the benefit outweighs the detriments as uh in all C2 cases this is Kaufman versus planning board of Warren Township Supreme Court 88 it is so this case was was uh decided after the ordinance of course and um do you know can you just touch upon that pae that case a little bit Yeah certainly um I do want to just also point out for uh history um C2 came out in ' 84 that's when the ml was amended was 84 this ordinance that we were talking about 12611 was 85 and we hyp we looked at section B of that but if you read further in section c there is some additional language where it talks about other variances that may be applicable in the subdivision and so forth because prior to 85 uh really 84 I mean let's face the mlu was adopted in ' 84 um you know by the time municipalities catch on to what's happening and it's implemented it's new um it's in the scene um but prior to that yeah there was only one C variance it was a hardship variance but not not everything is applicable to hard hardship and then the C1 has its own categories as what defines the hardship topography um the lot width um in ability to uh to cure it you have uh existing structures on on properties that may not be in compliance with the zoning setbacks and you know that in that regards so there's some hardships related to the physical features of the property and existing structures on the property um but the C2 recognizes the idea that there's some dimensional relief um that can be granted that doesn't necessarily fall under the I ideal scenario of a hardship um you know and and how do you prove the hardship so the C2 came out in 84 um and it took a while for municipalities to understand what the C2 was so the Kaufman case that came out in ' 88 really sets the stage for what a C2 is there is a lot of similarities with the Kaufman case what we have here um I'd like to tell the board that this case has been heard it's been ruled and um it's and we can go home tonight um but this the Coffman case was for a minor subdivision every municipality can define define a major and a minor as their own way and over a Minor's three L subdivision Bridgewater it's a major a lot of towns it's two and three but there are some distinctions to be made um but this case cofman was a minor subdivision um I believe it was Doug and Mary Lou submitted an application originally for a uh minor subdivision where they also wanted to comply with the um lot withth requirements uh for for their application in order to do that um one of the Lots they were trying to create would be what we call a flag lot um where it would have a really narrow strip and it would come back and open up like a flag on a flag pole now that is really frowned upon in planning and overall neighborhood fabrics and development nobody wants a house behind them in their backyard you know that kind of narrative uh and you don't really see too much of it generally speaking mpali um have shunned away from that and that's what we talk about the underlying tent of the zoning characteristics neighborhood in that regards so they came back with a revised plan similar to what this application is here where they took the lots and they found um it was more acceptable to have two lots with the deviation of lot wi that way they were more in in Conformity with uh with each other than versus one conforming one in lot with not um so when I say there's some real uh parallels here to those two uh this application of C um there really is because we could as we've testified to and and as the board is aware we have adequate whiff to make two of these Lots conforming and there'll be a deficiency of approximately 17 to 18 ft for the other lot question here is that 17 18 ft visually impairing or is the deviations of 6.42 or 2.88 or 8.2 um um uh deviations and lot with visually uh impairing to the neighborhood fabric um and and as a planner and I believe your planner mentioned it as well um and the prior planning um um administrator um this is a better alternative than having one lot noticeably deficient in lot width um to where from the public realm it would be noticeably visible uh we had did have a discussion just a moment ago about what constitutes the neighborhood make up and and in that regards planning really is difficult unless there's a really hard physical lineation um and a used uh to be balanced when does the public drive down the street no that's the R40 that's the R50 that's the you know it's really hard to Def differentiate that typically it's easier when it's an industrial facility versus you know uh a a commercial brick and mortar kind of amenity downtown you know those are you can really tell when you're in a different Zone residential is fairly difficult typically we don't really allow you know fences in the front yard either so where do you have these hard front yard delineations um Landscaping that kind of ordeal but to pick up 8 ft or six feet or even 2 feet with a visual eye you know I'd be hard pressed to say someone can do that and and say that so uh visually invasive that you know it's more substantial of a detriment here than the benefits um that an application like this could bring um with that being said this application you know talking about the talking about the steep slopes talking about impervious coverage densities f um and the likes want to bring everybody back home we're here for a lot with variance no other Varian is on the table um this has been looked at and reviewed quite a bit uh we have again for the post it is a a major subdivision we're classifying it there are existing as is today two lots we're we're creating an additional lot one other lot but in order to do that we are doing some adjustments with the the prior lot line to have a visually aesthetically pleasing uh uh neighborhood fabric going up uh Mountain View so with that being said the Varian is here again uh we have a lot deficiency with being proposed um of 6.42 um 6 feet. 42 in for a lot 50.01 uh lot 50.2 that deficiency and lot width is point it's 2.18 um and then last 51.1 is 8 ft .2 in so um those are the variances on the table um I do want to just uh point out the exhibit that uh we were referencing before uh that zoning map uh the one I gave you was so up thank you so the uh uh easel no we never did so that'll be uh A6 we call that partially colorized tax map here where the lot width requirements are 165 to this side is the R40 Zone which we are currently in and our properties respectfully are right here 50 and 51 as we've talked about the null the mountain back here as we as we've heard nearly 200 feet elevation above it would not classify this as the the context of the neighborhood individuals that live below this is what you see when you drive down the street that's your neighborhood what happens behind a property does matter but in this particular case this layout this topography this is a distinctive neighborhood though we do have a split Zone here at the road as I just mentioned before driving down the street will you as a pedestrian and regular Jo moo going down going home do you know that that's the R40 and that's the R50 no unless you know zoning you know you you know you're you're not going to differentiate the two though we may have some larger Lots behind us I I would argue that that's not the neighborhood cross from us and all that in pink I would argue as the immediate neighborhood given the context of of of of the layout and topography here everything in pink is Lots below 150 so when we talk about the context and and the built environment we are more conforming with what's out there today and as we've heard to put a larger house here I think would' be add ofare I think the architect really drove that point home countless times but when we talk about the essence of what we're here for we're asking for lot width variances across the street and this is block 713 L 21 139 uh lot lot Frontage lot 20 137 Lot 19 137 lot 18 138 lot 17 128 lot 16 128 lot 15 122 we're more we're larger than the the UN lot frontages than those across the street from us and they are in a zone that requires a greater lot Frontage now I say that because in order to Grant relief for the C2 the benefits of the application as a whole would have to substantially outweigh these detriments that one may feel uh by granting the deviations uh in the variances here I can argue um I don't really see any uh substantial deviations with um or substantial uh detriment here with these deviations we're looking at 6 feet 2 feet 8 feet imperceivable in the public eye I don't think it's going to erode the intent and the Integrity of the Zone I do not we are not proposing to put a 7-Eleven here or a Costco these are single detached residential dwellings and a single detached residential uh uh residential Zone we are putting the use where the use belongs we are talking about discrepancy of lot width that is really imperceivable by the public eye I do not see a detriment a lot of the concerns that were raised um would be otherwise a detriment right we're talking about storm water managements we're complying the removal of the trees uh 30 trees are coming down a little bit more um while sitting there listening we have 42 trees coming on site five Street trees and then the buffer trees are 23 collectively there's 70 trees coming on site was my initial calculation I know there was some discrepancy about the actual count of trees being removed but I have a net gain of 70 trees uh I'm sorry uh um 70 trees been implemented plus the 39 various shrubberies that they put on their landscape plan so I think when we talk about environmental degreg we've brought the properties forward we're not on the null I think the developer and the applicant would love to be on that hill to get those Scenic V Scenic views that are out in the distance we brought them forward we understand there might be some impacts below stor War management the um the buffer zones of steep slopes we brought them forward um when we look at this application I do not see any detriments to the surrounding properties I know there were some concerns about the neighbors uh still having access to views and so forth I do want to remind the board and everybody here tonight um that the applicant could put a fairly large house in the respectable location and it would not be in front of this board it would not have gotten a notice to the neighbors and and so forth they would just went to the building department pulled permits and all of the concerns that we were talking about by way of views and tree removal and so forth they wouldn't be up for discussion um so I want to just point that out there that you know though we are here to look at everything and turn over every Rock and and look at everything in great detail the scope of this application is for lot with variance no other variances have been triggered everything else would been conformance with uh the requirements by Bridgewater Township Code and ordinance here so the retrieve removals that will be reviewed and looked at in in accordance storm water management your engineers are are you know next level that's going to be in compliance anything out out of the ordinary the basis have been covered we are really here for the C to relief the benefits here what are those benefits we're providing new housing stock for a growing population homes that are built to political building and fire codes uh we have um the more efficient use of land we have oversized uh Lots uh and in lot areas and lot width so we have more efficient use of land we're also going to draw in um appropriate densities and appropriate locations and we talked about the densities in F we're going to we're also going to look at um adequate light air and open space we're not asking for any setback variances I know there was some discussion on the front yard inside yard there's no setback relief being sought here tonight we talk about uh purpose ey of the Mr Banus law uh to um have a desirable visual environment I do think these three lots are more desirable visual environment for that immediate uh neighborhood especi particularly the neighbor um then versus is one fairly large house or possibly two very large homes so I I I do think we advanc many purposes of missible land use law um from a negative standpoint the detriment again I I do not see a substantial detriment with these applications I do see a lot of positive a lot of benefit here and as far as you know sometimes development is not pretty we have to take down trees to develop um we have to you know you know find Creative Solutions for storm water managements as regulations increase um and the red tape gets implemented you know from the higher s and uh njds in that regards and um I also want to point out here when we talk about this application um what we have here is an applicant who you know took took back what could otherwise be a fairly impressive property and impressive uh house and to figured this is more suitable for the neighborhood so when we talk about um looking out for the general character of the neighborhood and and the community um I think the applicant did that way before we got here um and with the prior discussions on what if I did subdivide it this house does not fit in this neighborhood right so when we talk about the Integrity here in the neighborhood fabric um I and that's really what comes back down to the Kaufman case is you can grant the seed to relief with the understanding that this is more in character with the neighborhood this deviation this this slight deviation you and in the cofman case they put put on much what I just did here surrounding properties that were deficient a lot with so bringing granting the relief for lot with because it is in character and keeping with the neighborhood can be seen as the benefit and and you do have grounds to grant that that relief here um what I also want to point out here is when we talk about the lot width deficiency what we're not talking about is lot area there's the lots are conforming sizes even with the deficiency and lot width so um with that being said I'll include I don't want to belabor the board uh unless Council I just have just a couple very basic questions so under the C2 criteria I'm going to speak to the positive criteria it's true that you only need to advance one purpose of section two under the mlul correct correct yes and you've listed a myriad of purposes under section two under the mlul that would be Advanced to the community by way of this application right so when we talk about advancing the ml um you know they don't number them letter to them so we can we can make an argument we're advancing purpose a um which is to um to uh encourage missile action to guide uh the appropriate use of uh use or development in all lands in the state in a manner which promote the public health safety and morals andural welfare I think we can point to um a large amount of what we discussed in these past two hearings um as keeping with the um the public uh morals and general welfare um and safeguarding that by way of moving the prop the houses forward by you know um complying with the steep slopes and the storm water management and so forth these buildings would be built like I mentioned before to applicable building codes which you know um over time they do uh evolve but with that being said we could also talk about purpose C adequate lier air and open space as we do not require any setback relief side yard rear yards and so forth we're not encroaching on that um we could talk about uh purpose e um which is establishing the appropriate densities and appropriate locations we are not seeking a density variants here um purpose G um to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for variety of uses um um for both public and private according to the respective environmental requirements in order to meet the the needs of all New Jersey citizens we're not going to the steep slopes we're not going to those buffer zones we're respecting those uh constraints purpose I desirable Vision environment and purpose M which would be um the view of lessening the cost of such development for more efficient use of land um there's no need to go into uh virgin Wilderness to uh build a home we have a suitable residential neighborhood we have sewer utilities and everything right here so it's certainly a more efficient use of land here so we definitely Advanced many purposes Mr Wan law not to steal your thunder but yes C2 is also to provide a better zoning alternative this in my opinion these deficiencies a better zoning alternative than one large lot or two large lots that would have large homes um and then we spoke about the Sher for subdivision done sometime around approximately 1957 do you are you familiar with that discussion this evening yes okay and the lot widths um back in 1957 pursu to that subdivision was 150 fet in width is that accurate yes do you think that this application uh essentially restores the lots to their original size that was uh construed back in 1957 when this subdivision took place I I do and I think what's important to knowe is um as we Define the character uh of that um neighborhood though the cross street is a different Zone this is the character of that neighborhood and it's more in alignment with that um um you know when I look ac across the street at my neighbor's house and it's 50 times larger the lots are larger you know that's my neighborhood right but if I can look across the street or drive down my street and there's some continuity here um I I think we certainly restore the intent of that zone and then just one final question so there was a lot of conversation in discussion tonight about storm water management in large part that's that's one of the reasons why the conceptual drawings were included on the plans um is it your understanding that the 2023 storm water management regulations are much more onerous than what prev previously existed everything today is next level whether it's storm water management whether it's building codes whether it's fire codes everything bu building today is modern whether it's 20 years ago whether it was 35 years ago 40 years ago you know today these regulations um you know they really do Safeguard the public and and they've really picked up on prior Generations development and fine-tune that so these properties here if there is a storm waterer management issue a runoff issue these properties would be um in my opinion and you know I'm not the engineer I have to stay in my Lane but in my opinion these properties would be state-of-the-art uh for this neighborhood as far as you know these concerns of of storm water management and but and then staying in your in your lane as as a planner uh in the sense that the existing lot coverage um is more than what would be uh accommodated by way of this application do you think that plays in at all because um let me just lay a foundation for the basis of the question you have a vacant lot now and you have an existing lot coverage that is over than what's permitted in the zone versus an application that's three lots but will be less than what exists on one lot and I I yes I with your statement um and and I I think that also is the undertone of just how big these properties uh um are and how big these houses and you know to get up to that null the extensive driveways and so forth so um to kind of bring this back uh we definitely alleviate some of that um but I think it is an impressive feat that we have a vacant lot here with two homes now we have proposing three and there's there's less of a a lot coverage in in the cumulative uh measurement here so certainly less intensive um by way of that but um the storm water management um the loot coverage in in that regards I think the best thing here particularly for the the resident that lives behind it is pulling that forward and so forth because steep slopes do matter but um the engineering here on the site I don't believe there's going to be any adverse uh impacts here and I'm not the engineer and I and and I have to rely all my colleagues and other Professionals for their Foundation before me um and from the the banter that went back and forth in discussions and detail I I believe engineer has engineering has been covered in great detail there will not be any substantially adverse nature of storm storm water runoff bring those houses forward water goes down gravity we're staying away from the null those trees are remaining there's water enhancements improvements to managements I don't think there's going to be any impacts here so with that I'll conclude um I believe the application um uh warrants approval and that the criteria has been met and I open for any cross okay Mr Dy I'd like to open up to the board for any questions for the testimony just heard Mr chairman I have some some questions Council I'll try to get them all in one shot but I can't guarantee that um I like to look at cases like this by the numbers and proportions um those are very important to me um now if I'm not mistaken and I'm going to round up and round off a little bit um well this one I won't we have 10 between these all all these Lots we have 16489 square ft okay corre is that correct yes I mean I just added you know the two existing I take 15% of that and whether there's one lot two lots three lots 12 Lots um we can accommodate 24,000 and change worth a house 24733 to be exact I just took the 164 8.91 and multiplied by 15% I'll Trust your math I'm following you oh yeah please trust the math okay I'm not trying to mislead you I'm I'm just just all right so so so am I right in thinking look we could make this one lot theoretically and you could have a 24,000 ft house on it it could be two lots and you could have a pair of 12,000 sare foot houses on it without need for relief or you could divide it into three and you could have three h Homes up to 8,000 feet without having to seek relief for uh F correct believe I'm going to go with you yes right okay and I'm not trying to mislead you I'm just I'm just trying to you know kind of move us hopefully in a in a in a a rapid Direction um so focusing in on on um this document I have here this is the uh the final plat um showing the um the building envelopes so since these this is a lot of property so the building envelopes are substantial yes correct so what's shown here is three the three lots you propose if it was somehow subdivided in half and we had two the building envelopes would be even larger correct now when when we call it a building envelope you could build anywhere within that envelope without needing to come to a land use board you'll get a permit to build yes with the caveat that more times than not the front yards have to be of the prevailing uh um average for the street okay you don't want one house forward at the front yard 20 yard I'm just for a I'm I'm I'm I'm trying to understand is two lots here better is three lots better and I guess what I'm thinking is if two lots are better if two lots are better you could build much larger homes much further away from the street than if you had three lots is that sort of conceptually correct and if and and and again if it was further from the street it's going to run the risk of blocking more of the view from the lot to the West correct right and and I'm glad you're bringing this up because from my perspective from where I was sitting um the big concern that I first was under impression was um views and you know um and Preserve desing views or allowing for views whichever um so to answer your question um whether it's one lot or two lots to houses could be larger um they would not be in front of this spard they could get a build a building permit and they could essentially plop it and there would be no discussion about hes and in that regard and there and there could be highly negative consequences to the homeowner directly to the West yes okay now we're we're at so so turning attention to the to the three LW condition can I just ask on the two lots so if it if it remain the two lots would that trigger any storm water management I'm not an engineer but if you're going to build today you're going to have to be in compliance with the storm water management protocols and regulations um if if I'm not mistaken where's the engine no okay then there would be no dep on theur there we go because of the major subdivision it triggers because of the disturbances over an acre Mr but yes that that's what triggers it the nature of how much you're disturbing sorry I didn't no no it's all right we're we're all trying to advance this together all right now I'm looking at um uh the grading and soil erosion control plan sheet six of n for the purpose of um there were three conceptual Homes located on it yep um and those homes are approxim imely in the 4,000 ft range my font's too small to see see that I Mayan that's a question for Mr Styers cuz cuz he he PR prepared it this is sheet six of nine I I'll sort of hold it up um the homes that the homes that were placed there again not exact homes but for illustration purposes only um were those are those anticipated in like that 4,000 foot range yes okay all right and and they again based on this conversation we've now had they were specifically moved 100 feet closer to the road maintain uh um uh you know a more consistent Frontage not harm um uh views from other property owners correct that was the that was that was what you were trying to accomplish with this plan yes okay so going back to the to the three lot condition and talking about Frontage so we have 433t of Frontage roughly this is where I'm going might round off a little bit 433 feet of Frontage so am I to understand well if you were to split it absolutely evenly you'd end up with like a 144 a 144 and a 145 you chose not to do that you chose a 143 of 148 and a 142 correct yes so they're almost equal but not exactly correct all right on the other hand you could have created a 150 a 150 and a 133 we would not be here well we would be here because it's a subdivision but there would be no relief sought at the 150 no relief saw at the 150 and then arguably slightly more relief saw at the 133 correct okay so now my question from a planning standpoint because I know there was conversation that was referenced from uh Scarlet Doyle um and you know I'd like to make sure that the the people in this room are on the record properly is it your planning opinion and I'm going to ask I'm going to ask the same question um that given the choice between you know one you know 144s or one you know kind of your plan 143 148 142 relatively similar or to have two that are conforming and one that's more severely not conforming can you describe why the three that are that are slightly non-conforming is a better approach than the two that are conforming and the one that needs more relief I I was to say this the one that would be substantially uh unders sized by lot with um I think as the opposing Council demonstrated a lot of the surrounding properties are larger so you're going to have this kind of sandwich and and and packed in here um and then you're going to have you know larger Lots I think it's more visually intrusive and add out of character out of play and uh this particular layout here is imperceivable from the from the from the naked eye okay and and and your point of view there that would be my sim similar perspective is that um you know while normally you'd like to lower the number of variances because logically that would seem like you're planning more within the confines of the zoning um zoning is irrelevant when you're driving down the street what you're going to notice with the with the the the way the lots are configured is if anyone puts up a a fence uh between the properties the way the houses are situated that likely the deviation of 20 feet or you know 15 to 20 feet on that single property where two are conforming in 150 ft each is going to be noticeable 20 fet will be noticeable to someone's eye naked eye six eight feet won't won't be especially if the three of them are you know Unison and flexibility on what someone would ultimately want to do with that property would be lessened because already starting at a at a less wide lot as I mentioned earlier they're still they would still be able to meet the setbacks with the proposed and have some wiggle room with what the the the Box basically that's been shown on the plans for the building footprint so likely it would reduce the lot area a little bit as well um but they'd still be able to meet the step back so I don't think that's real concern my I'm more concerned about how that one would stick out and would be probably visually visually able to notice it whereas when you have the three in sequence that are have a minor deviation from 150 fet no one driving down will notice the difference that it's 150 or 145t okay and I think this may be my last question thanks everyone for your Indulgence to try to get everything together um you talked about the concept of neighborhood and I buy that Mountaintop road is is is the neighbor neighborhood do you also subscribe to the concept of a sub neighborhood where even just a few houses together represent kind of a unified entity that people would look to and say yep those those that's a sub neighborhood within this bigger neighborhood um I would concur yes I never heard it called sub neighborhood all maybe that's my own phrase I should tradem Mark it um but so so my question is this these homes will presumably be built at roughly the same time they're not I you know at this at this presumed price point I'm sure they're not going to be cookie cutter I'm sure they're going to be very distinct but there will likely be rough similarities between them um is that an accurate expectation personally I would assume uh I don't like to assume in this line of work but yes I would assume that given if you're building three homes you get the wholesale price on you know certain materials and Concepts and in that regards I would imagine it would be some similarities um they're but how similar I haven't seen the proposed Concepts if the board proposes them to be uniquely different by facade that's the reason I'm ask the question is for the person that's driving or walking down the street X number of years from now and they walk by and they see three homes that are you know roughly the same you know they were built around the same time they're roughly the same you know dimensions and all that you know does that create a positive visual appeal uh you know as compared to the approach where we're going to say bigger bigger and squeezed in um I think when we talk about big and in size for for buildings I think it's a a um a better visual um than to have this this towering giant next door to you but as far as Aesthetics um I do think it's a little anecdotal your your perspective of what makes aesthetic aesthetically pleasing nebor may be different than mine um I I don't personally do not like when every single house looks exactly the same that's why purpose ey is a desirable visual environment through good Creative Design and Arrangement and techniques um where that means one has a ptical one has a uh you know that kind of ordeal or columns or one garage two garage whatever that is but by way of scale and massing in a house I do think larger homes should be with each other and smaller more modest homes should be with each other that's why we have F typically F was for warehousing in in in that regards we've seen that come over with the residential why to stop these parachute mcmansions dropping into because we met the lot area uh lot with setbacks but here we have this massive house um because they found some loopholes so I do think by way answering your question size and scale of houses that are relatively the same close to it are more aesthetically pleasing than Barger houses mixed with tinier or more modest homes okay thank you for your Indulgence Council MERS other questions Mr chairman I have few um Mr Dy uh you could you refer to that tax map like you did earlier uh just want to um ask you questions about the frontages of some of the other Lots so um Lots again 49 is that what's the frontage of lot 49 she okay and lot 4850 47 150 okay and then to the other side Lot uh to the east 52.1 52.1 is 106 106 and 52 is going to be 106 and 53 53 is 177 okay going in the other side of Mountaintop um lot 15 what's the frontage of lot 15 lot 15 across the street yes mhm 122 lot 16 128 lot 17 128 lot 18 138 Lot 19 137 20 137 and 21 136 okay um thank you um so I guess my question for you sir would be um with the varying um lot frontages to different zones um you have three New Lots that are proposed to be Frontage of 133.5 147.5 and 141.5 I asked earlier about if this this Mr Styers if um instead of three lots created two conforming lots of 150 each and then the other one was like one someone said 16 ft so it would be 134 133 um when you take into account all of the other lot frontages from the lots that you just described running from 150 it seems to the West the lots are wider and then you move to the east for the most part they're narrower and across the road they're they're narrower um is there anything negative about that is there anything negative about having two additional conforming size Lots one creating one undersized lot similar to what is directly adjacent to the east in 5201 and 52 guess that's my question is there anything negative about that I think the visual impact is the negative imp Act is because it would be sub it would be in my opinion my professional opinion very noticeable even with lot 52.0 and lot 52 being at 106 each so going from in lot 53 177 and you go to East moving West 106 for lot 52 106 for lot 52.1 it was suggested that the next new lot could be 133 ft and and then doing having two 150 ft frontages and then so on moving West so your your propos I would my concept here that I'm putting forth and just trying to get some reaction I'm going to ask Miss sarmad for her opinion um is there anything negative about that creating instead of three undersized Lots two undersized Lots one excuse me one two conforming Lots one undersized lot is there anything negative about that from a planning perspective well I I say say it again I think the visual uh um would be the negative here because it would be um extremely visible um from the public realm the naked eye that that's a smaller lot as you see the uh the larger Lots kind of come at the bend um and you will have that sandwich effect um I think when we look at the deficiency here um you know we're at 143 147 141 you know some of the Lots um across street are comparable they're in the 30s a little smaller they in the 20s um but by way of making two of them 150 and one of them you know say uh 130 um this Arrangement is um you wouldn't be able to pick it up you would just drive through they would look 150 um you know in the public realm but that 130 would look 130 if not more drastic and the reason I asked the question and is is because I'm trying to weigh that the township has a an R40 Zone and there's standards and if we don't try to adhere to standards wherever possible then why do we have this area zoned R40 um so lot with is one of those unique uh dimensional requirements where it's a standard yeah standard every Zone has a standard for lot width it's not unique to the R4 I'm saying it's one of those bulk variances where um when we talk about the Zone um sometimes the lot width is is very important but there's some features whether it's a curve where in that regards or prior subdivisions in in that capacity where you may not get the lot with but when we talk about the Zone itself and and and really what sets the foundation for all the other bulk requirements to be built off that is the lot area it directly affects so I when I hear the term R40 and I love when municipalities do this because I already know it's 40,000 sare ft mhm so when we look at the essence of that that zone they're larger Lots now can you get a lot deficiency on with and and fan out and so forth but to have that area that room that elev room that adequate open space for me that that lot area when we talk about the zones and residential zones um is important because we can look look at very similar application that I believe I was just in front of this board uh where the lot area may not have matched we had lot whs that were deficient but they went miles back and the area fit so you know when we talk about what is what is more important and the intent of the Zone I would like to argue that the lot area the size because we can have 150 square uh foot width frontages but 20,000 ft Lots right so when I when I see the the essence of the zone that that lot area in my professional opinion sets the foundation is more important to hold sacred than I think a lot with particularly at these numbers because the lot area really deems the size the scope of the buildout the adequate like I said the setbacks and so forth um and and if this was substantially undersized which I don't believe this is by lot with 120 115 100 then yes I would argue that this is this is eroding the intent of The Zone plan we're talking 141 147 in the ballpark of 150 imperceivable I don't believe there's going to be a A disruption in that that that zone fabric going up mountain top one last question then I'm going to ask Miss sad to answer the same question um what I understand your perspective you're saying that the area is probably a more important feature or standard um I appreciate you offering that opinion what what um what's the percentage what's your philosophy both generally because you're a planner but for this application I'm homing I'm assuming your philosophy would not just be applicable to this application what is your philosophy about um what percentage is a DI Minimus reduction in the standard I think it's relative to be quite honest you would site specific U characteristics in that regard is neighborhood uh buildout um I I honestly I don't have a arbitrary number to put on it um okay that's an answer okay thank you sman you want me to answer your first question and the second question sure both um I don't necessarily share the same perspective as Mr dhy um I do think that um a deviation from zoning alone doesn't necessarily rise to um degreg or um counter to the purposes of zoning and I I look more globally at the purposes of zoning um so the R4 Zone in all of its bulk standards looked at collectively create kind of the character of that zone um however there are lots that are oversized such as these there are lots that are undersized there are lots that have deviations from wi so lots come they're not all standard um even though the Zone prescribes it that way not every lot has has enough and some have too much um and so when I look at deviations you also have to look at how a lot with deviation might impact other bulk standards may impact the lot area it may impact the setbacks on the building it may impact um the coverage you know so take I look at all of those together to see if that's a Dev and contrary to the zone and the purpose of the Zone that's put in place um and with that your second question um about what would be considered Dom Minimus I personally never use the word Dom Minimus um uh simply because every board treats A variation differently every board that I represent or I stand before can can hold um the bulk standards to whatever level and and a deviation from them to whatever level it can be 0.1 away 0.1 feet away from a deviation and every board looks at that differently so I would NE I never call it Dom Minimus whether it's small or big uh from a numerical standpoint um because it can be small or big to a board depending on what their zoning and what their master plan regulates and how they've um you know dealt with it over time if their master plan has a goal that says we should not be allowing um subdivisions that have lot with variances there you go that that's what sets the standard for the township for the municipality and so um we didn't really get and I'm just kind of segueing my answer into some of the testimony we didn't really get any kind of evaluation of the master plan nor did we get I think testimony related to one of the requirements for the C2 maybe I missed it about how this represents a better zoning alternative which is a requirement uh established by The Kaufman case and so um I'd like to hear that because I think it does feed it does answer some of your questions and also at the same time um presents the testimony that's required as one of the proofs for that variant so if Mr dordy could I think under the calman case should be also including how does this proposed um condition present a better zoning alternative for the property and that for the board's edification that means not just the purposes of the owner will be Advanced so creating three buildable lots that could be sold but rather how does this benefit the community as a whole right so the community as a whole be advancing the purposes of muse law um which I went over in detail um and and and called them out as far as um advancing the purposes uh of a better zoning alternative if you will I did Circle back to that as I I felt Council was going to um you know bring that up this in my opinion is a better zoning alternative than strict adherence um we do have a growing community housing and so forth more efficient uh use of land which circum uh circulates back to the advancing miss or land's law so to allow this uh deviation I do believe is a better zoning alternative here than to let's say the proposed concept two compliant one substantially shorter or just one fairly large lot one fairly large house or two fairly large lots and two fairly large houses so by way of advancing a better zoning alternative it really does come in a more holistic approach when we look at what could be there and and what is out there as far as the neighborhood um so I do think that when we talk about a better zoning alternative here um it is a better zoning alternative to have more modest homes here um on these Lots at as I read them off again um 143 147 141 um versus the the compliant or Andor the alternative the larger um so I do think this is a better zoning alternative at a holistic approach of what could manifest on these properties um as far as um the intent of the master plan again this is a residential neighborhood residential Zone master plan speaks strongly in preserving the character of residential neighborhoods and again this this application does that um so um again I do think the board can look at this application favorably with little to no detriment with the propos yeah I can just follow up and ask um did you notice any 25,000 sqare foot homes uh in what Mr councilman kers characterized as the sub neighborhood no no and did you notice any 12,000 ft homes in what was characterized as the sub neighborhood I think it's more in line closer to 12,000 but I don't have the actual ruling wait no no no let me let me ask it again did you notice any 12,000 square foot homes in this sub neighborhood existing no okay so there's no 12,000 square foot homes in this sub neighborhood from my understanding I again I don't have every the sub neighborhood what we spoke about I I don't have Council I don't have everyone's property in their houses generally speaking you've seen Aerials this whole hearing so you can say with certainty that there is no home in the neighborhood yes yes okay so I asked you earlier whether you whether well I should ask as an alternative a better zoning standard um consider whether the municipal land use law is Advanced yes okay and you only need to identify one but as as Miss sarmad pointed out it must serve the community at large correct and you cited um you cited that this application advances purpose I right desirable visual environment yes now I just asked you a number of questions related to the scale and size of the development from the standpoint of a community would you agree with that correct or at least looking at the sub neighborhood yes would you agree that by way of this application the board is actually controlling and advancing purpose I by by by ensuring that the scale is appropriate based upon the surrounding sub neighborhood I I would and I that's why I mentioned a holistic approach you know with this deviation we have to look at what comes with this deviation and without this deviation what could manifest there so yes concur I I agree and this this is a permitted use correct residential home and a residential neighborhood we don't have any issues with density single family right no F no lot coverage yeah okay Mr chairman I actually do have one another question related to what was just discussed you know we talk about um you know proportions and that's very very important um I guess maybe this is a question really more for the for the applicant um you know what we're seeing here I'm again going to refer back to uh the grading and soil erosion control plan sheet six of n only because it has you know the the conceptual you know homes place there what I don't think we would want is um to to have oh well the building envelope permits and the size of the property permits we're going to build 3 8,000 ft homes um I I I think that that that would not represent what you um at least have on paper and what we anticipate might occur in this neighborhood at would your client consider as a condition some um uh shrinking uh of the building envelope that will essentially uh you know ensure that you can still build you know a nice size home um but would provide some um uh uh insure Assurance to us that we're not going to end up with 3 8,000 square foot homes your your ordinance will already ensure that you can't that the developer it is impossible to develop conforming homes that are 8,000 square feet it's it's not well I think I think you well you mean I think you could floor no the Flor a ratio will actually restrict it based on the hillside development calculations we restrict the homes to what is shown on their zoning table so 7,000 6,000 5,000 total square feet not building footprint basement finished basement first floor second floor we we've demonstrated the worst possible scenario this is the most developed the property can be we've conceptually shown the worst possible scenario didn't Mr Styers I think he said the maximum f is 6975 for one of the Lots 5958 for one and 6161 right it's correct and that's not footprint that's F so if you're building two stories of course the footprint would be much smaller I can't I would imagine that these will be at least two stories their Hillside development calculations for their impervious coverage and their F will will basically dictate how big the building footprint can be and how many square feet tall total the house I guess where I'm going here is there was conversation about how we move the homes closer to the road so they're going to be about 100 ft from the road that's going to be in line with the rest of the neighborhood it's also not going to encro potentially not going to encroach on the view from the neighbor homes what Assurance do we have that that's really going to happen the the the developer and the applicant has made an application for a subdivision and is requesting a lot with um sorry variance relief for lot widths the concerns that are being raised right now throughout over the course of the hearing have absolutely not a shred to do with a lot with variants nothing whatsoever the developer has shown possible building envelopes that conform to the Township's ordinance this is what the ordinance allows the developer to do now I understand that there's a lot with variants but all of the other things we've discussed this evening are things that are way outside of of the variance relief being sought and the possible detriments associated with the relief being sought well but they're related because if we don't provide the relief then we don't have those potential negative consequences I would like I totally disagree with that the I think the point of the testimony that you've heard this evening is that the alternative to this is that this case doesn't go before the board and all of the things that we've discussed is not going to be included in a resolution well not I don't want to use the word encumber but will not restrict the use of the property because we're here the board has the opportunity to say you can have a home that's the that it has the maximum F of the numbers that were just listed the maximum loot coverage numbers that were just listed the the board has the opportunity to control storm water management on the property I don't want to provide testimony but I think that we've heard that it's an improvement to existing conditions it would be subject to the 2023 storm water regulations which are much more restrictive than currently what exists on the property so by the applicant coming forward presenting this to the board uh again the I don't mean to Str off course here but when when I use the term di Minimus I'm using that term in relationship to whether it constitutes a substantial uh detriment or a substantial impact so i' I've classified the variance relief as the Minimus because if we've as we've heard this evening none of the variances that are being sought would be uh discernible to the naked eye no one would be able to tell that these variances were being granted this evening no I and I understand that portion of it but ultimately you know we as a Bridgewater Community the people that live on this street they're going to they're they're going to see this whatever is built and I I guess I'm I'm just looking to understand what if any protection we as a municipality we as a community have that you know what is built ultimately looks something kind of like this Mr K if I ordinance I was I was going to say something similar with what Mr silbert brought up was that this application is for the subdivision and we are talking about something that isn't going to be under the purview of this board eventually when it goes for building permit the homes won't have to come for site plan necessarily but this board what they are able to do and we have been doing is talking through the consequences of Permitting the variants which I think you have every right to do you're looking through what are the potential consequences and I don't necessarily think that what Mr silbert said about the this board is is looking over and establishing what the f is the f is actually established by the hillside development calculations which probably pre-existed or came after this house probably pre-existed which is why the coverage is over what it is right now it pre-exists because the hillside development calculations and steep slope didn't come into play but that new lot next store would be subject to those those same Hillside development calculations that we're applying here certainly there are other things like storm order management and other conditions that have been opposed of the uh imposed over the course of this hearing that they've agreed to that we are allowed to do as part of this which is no different than I think what Mr kers is trying to get is what are we what what can this board have the applicant agree to as far as what can we expect we're walking through all these consequences but it's all for not if the expectation is lost in and there's no condition applying it this board previously in in Prior applications that I've approved or walkth through compliance resolution compliance for has imposed conditions about uh making the storm order management larger on the site for for um relative to the size of the home they have restricted the size of the home or the placement of the home so I wonder Mr peken how we can incorporate some of the conversation that we've had depending if the applicant is agreeable to it so some of the conditions that we've talked about you know the setback technically they're in conformance with the setback but the setback for the zone is 50t so could they could they have we imposed a condition that it has to be 7 77 feet only thing I'm thinking about that that could accomplish the goals that have been um enunciated here uh would be some limitation on the house size a condition you know building footprint not to exceed whatever and thus far as I saw it from my memo which basically said you can't go past the f as established by the hillside development calcul it's not not a square foot over is what they have agreed to thus far in the response I don't think they'd have an option they have to comply with the ordinance that's basically complying with the ordinance correct right but uh and it's also in the absence of if the hillside development calculations ever changed that they would would agree to that that's I don't know if that stipulation was made clear but that that would that would that would whatever is approved as part of this I don't see them being liberalized anytime soon but yeah sure I I guess where I'm really going here is I would feel like I have not done my duty if the net result of this is if if the net result assuming there's enough votes if the net result is something that kind of looks like this I would feel that I did my duty I I think that we've had constructive hearing there's been good faith there's been there's been a a good back and forth however so that would be a good outcome what would be a bad outcome is that if you know we'll know that homes are going to be 7,500 feet and they're going to be 150 ft from the road they're going to they're going to block The neighbors's View they're going to do all these other things that to me would be a very negative outcome of this process so I'm just looking for guidance on how we can get to a relatively winning uh uh scenario where again assuming that there's a majority of the board we end up with a with a condition that looks by and large like this and and not a situation where the homes are dramatically larger or located in a different place on on the properties could we could we say something on the the setback of the of the home put a stipulation on it so that it's not further back than what the new overlay that you shared from the beginning right couldn't we do that can I can I I guess the question really Mr silbert is the the conditions that are shown in the bulk table are not just demonstrative for the purposes of this application are they what will be complied with at the time of building permit and no difference that's correct okay that's that's the Assurance I think the Board needs because I would have the same concern that this was just for the purposes of presenting what a home could look like and then when it came time to submitting a building permit and each one could come in on its own that the separate Builders could say well I don't like it 77 ft I want to go just right up to the 50ft front yard or I want to go 150 ft back because I want the views and so I think as long as we have those assurances that the conditions will be based on the zoning table on their engineering plans on their site plans as revised based on any the testimony that's what the board is comfortable with I can just so the applicants told me that we can we can generally agree to construct the homes in their approximate location you know with there must be a little bit of wiggle room what what I'm trying to prevent really is uh an unnecessary encumbrance on the property that is unreasonably related to the relief being requested where that these conditions do not have anything to do in my opinion with the lot with yet the board is requesting that and the applicant is agreeing that he will construct the uh homes as generally shown on this concept plan but um the reason why I'm I'm apprehensive about it is just because in 30 years if the ordinance changes or in 30 years if uh someone wants to make a a renovation or an addition I I don't want to do anything to encumber the property that will prevent that homeowner from doing that um that's my main concern particularly in light of the fact that these types of conditions would not be reasonably related to a uh very insignificant lot with variance that's that's my concern and I'm try I'm failing to draw the Nexus between um certain conditions and the relief being requested where if not for the lot with this is as of right subdivision subdivision and I believe that the if the board's going to impose conditions it should be there should be a Nexus or a relationship imposed uh or created between the variance relief being sought and the condition being imposed with that being said I the applicant has uh stipulated to constructing the homes in the approximate locations as shown on the plans this evening and I think the last thing we want to do is to box you in be like uhoh I need to be 5 feet this way I need to be8 feet that way that is not the intention the intention is that that again I hate to just keep you know showing this to everybody that something you know reasonably close to this is what shows up on that land just um I I understand I do understand the board's concerns on 100% I'm trying to to protect my client's interests and and really I'm trying to ensure that there's uh no unreasonable incumbrances on the property I I don't want to be caught in a situation where a variance they got to come back 30 years from now and um you know they have to remove the condition in the approval um I just want to make sure my client's protected in the long run that's that's my concern that's why I'm dragging this out really okay so so I don't know Mr peek if I made life easier or harder of how we're going to condition all that but it's going to be a delight but you know that's you know that's I mean again I I you know councilman my my biggest concern or my my apprehension is that you have your ordinance and if the applicant ever wanted to depart or deviate from it they have to go back to the zoning board so that's that's my that's my major concern is that well and I and I think our my position maybe maybe others is it depends on what you want to do if you want to do some you know can it will since these are large properties is there a pretty decent amount of wiggle room to do what you want and get a building permit in the future without triggering uh uh uh relief probably but you know at some point if you want to do something big maybe you will right and that's exactly why I I I raised that the issue that I perceive that as of right the applicant can do so much to the property um just as of right okay so I I don't know if we I think we can probably craft something I think Mr PE well I mean that that they'll construct the homes as generally depicted on the pl and I think and they'll they'll conform with the zoning table that's on the approved plans that wasn't that bad well I think I think just the zoning table that's on the plan may be less restrictive than the hillside ordinance no it is no it it includes the they have two different calculations one without the Hillside and then one with this required provid is this Hills I don't think that the the zoning table was updated to match I think I believe from the first hearing that the Sleep steep slope calculations had changed actually they had rerun the calculations based on the Contours they' used the intervals and I don't think your zoning table actually matches which is a good catch it matches the steep slope allowances the the applicant has stipulated to complying with the Township's F requirements Mr Mr Silber I think I think you're just misunderstanding it's a it's a housekeeping issue those will be updated as part of when they come for resolution compliance these plans will have to be up to Snuff as far as those numbers so they will have to match what's in the seep slope calculation and that will be updated in the table when it comes to resolution compliance if that makes sense it was just your your steep slope floor air ratio table on sheet one does doesn't match the zoning table no no they're I'm telling you that they're different [Music] oh understood and you will comply with the maximum though because you're right now what what so so this is what's confusing is your zoning table is showing a value for the f let's say for lot proposed lot 50.01 that's higher than your HDC calculation below it is 26 Square ft bigger on your zoning table than it should be for the maximum so that's confusing anyway what will what I think should be changed in the zoning table is essentially what is shown in the steep slope FL ratio table because those numbers are lower again we'll just comply with the ordinance we won't go above the ordinance um again this is a subdivision and we're agreeing to comply with the ordinance so as the ordinance requires us to steep slope calculations we will comply I I realized Mr silbert might be frustrated by the procedural that this is a subdivision and we've discussed you know the the concept conceptual buildings but a lot of the testimony and this is the problem I'm having with the impass rout right now and I think the board is perfectly fine in the way it's moved forward and Mr P can correct me in his legal perspective but I think we're we're on the right track um is that we heard testimony about visual impact of homes and the Alternatives and so we we are we heard testimony in the alternative so we have every opportunity I think to consider what's what happens when you have the three lots and so you know I don't think it's independently the board you know going astray here we heard it from the applicant side too so as you know if we even though it's late in the night and we've we've been at this for a while I think the board's perfectly fine in considering these consequences and imposing the conditions that are perfectly related to the testimony we heard and perfectly related to the application before us so I I think you know I don't know what else the applicant has as far as and the justification is that you know you end up with with three lots that you know are very viable versus two that are viable and one that's much less viable so you know I'm trying to get to get to a solution here you know and and again you know I I just want to make sure that that you know we don't look back on this x number of months or years from now and end up with something that just looks a lot different than what it feels like many if not most of the people in this room think we're headed Mr chairman if I may I seem to before in the past that we made a strong suggestion to the contractor in the development as to the size of the house as to the footprint so many square feet if I remember correctly it was on Foothill Road correct are we at that point would this be something you'd entertain absolutely not it has nothing to do with the relief being requested okay it I'm not trying I know I'm getting frustrated I'm not trying to it it doesn't it's not related there's no Nexus between we're seeking again approximately 8 feet 6 feet 2T lot withd variances to to uh encumber the property so as to require that the footprint be a certain arbitrarily be a certain size when the applicant saying we comply with every single Township required ordinance except for those lot wids I'm I'm not giving on it so easily because it doesn't there's no Nexus to it I think I I think I can help here I mean there are homes in the area there's one looks like lot 47 6363 square feet um lot 49 4922 lot 52.0 one 5880 lot 52 6240 6 6 sorry 6740 those are all very similar to the maximum house size that they've already said stated and that's on the same side of the road in the same zone so I I mean I think I think I can help in that we didn't we didn't say those lots before and he did the did the work on finding it just add to that Mr Styers has I think I think you know uh confirmed that the home size the think these Max sizes what were these uh maximum yeah the max the maximum size of the home 6975 59 58 61 61 should be well within the character of the the um well I don't want to say the within the character because some of the the homes are like 2,800 2900 sare ft so you know you could take that both ways but the max in terms of at least that side of Mountaintop Road uh those those square footage that Mr Cyrus has validated should kind of appease the rest of the board I would imagine based on based on what we have that's currently in existence Mr chairman it's uh 10:30 and uh we I think still have we still have to get have questions from the public we still have to have and and Mr Burr's not here I don't see how we can finish this tonight we're certainly not taking any new testimony this evening and your point we still have members of the public to hear and I don't think I've exhausted all Miss San's questions either so um with that uh Mr silbert um would you entertain carrying this meeting to a later date sure uh Miss propes what do we have open that's for 86 right so 86 and 820 they're both essentially free to carry this okay how does that work for you guys it being August can't well August 6 have those other yeah but we let's see what August vacation time let's see what there team availability is just wants Ro of the board to make sure every's available for the six so that the applicant knows I'm gonna just call Quick roll available for Mr CH yes please yeah 86 is okay inative probably not we're good for the sixth as well are we running into do we need to get a consent to extend time to a date certain will you consent to extend time whether or not it's needed through uh August 31 right of 2024 yeah that's fine thanks therefore Mr probes we will carry this to August 6 2024 and no further notice yeah no further notice will be published or served good thank you very good thank you Mr silbert actually 86 worries me well we have what the master plan hearing and then we have the Redevelopment hearing right that's on the yeah that should be too much this should be maybe another hopefully not more going to blor we should have a ring like ask transition I thought we actually got to keep it yeah well that last bit that inder bought up that was a good some good detective work like the the homeze is adj like right I think we're just getting down like how big yeah but it sounds like even if they even if they maxed out what they could get under the ordinance it's still going to be consistent with what gave a limitation it's a different case yeah but the the big thing is in my opinion we are that if we left at two and if we piss them off enough they're going to stop it all they're going to say fine we'll build two Mega homes backwards  you 24,000 ft of stuff we're F water we're not going to do anything like that and screw you if we flood your home doesn't matter put it on top of the hillside all your foot we're getting the benefit of the wells dry Wells the environmental changes do I love that it's not conforming no but I think it's yeah I got to hit the head big time I need to eat before I Str no I was going to just walk out see I have I have a way to go so I'm always hit like seven minutes M probes we've uh discussed August 6th and we've also discussed what's the other date in August 2020 okay uh what does the calendar look like um shortly afterwards okay okay okay any other comments but that'll take a motion to adjourn we're done that's Mr Papa second hi second that's quite a few of all in favor yeah we're all in I yeah they're very different they're uh they're like want sidewalks to nowhere and warehouses my home it's so opposite