##VIDEO ID:yagh9yp8YFo## e e e e e e e e e e e e Township planning board regular meeting for Tuesday August 6 2024 adequate notice of this meeting has been given in accordance with the open public meetings act njsa 1046 on February 7th 2024 proper notice was sent to The Courier News and the Star Ledger and filed the clerk at the township of Bridgewater 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 provides 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 flag Al to the flag flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all Miss probes have a roll call please here here here here here here here thank you m propes at this time I'd like to open meeting up to the public any members of the public wishing to address the board on any land use matter other than the application that will be heard this evening please come forward at this time seeing none hearing none we'll be beginning this evening with item number 10 from the agenda that's the master plan Amendment open for a public hearing the amended housing plan element and fair share plan Miss sarmad would you like to give the board some background on this item yes thank you very much so um this is mostly just uh procedural meaning that there's no substantive changes to the housing element being proposed tonight um actually the this the housing element was amended back in November 2023 which was done even thereafter what was already effectuated so what was written in in November 2023 as an amendment to the housing element fair share plan was already effectuated by a reexamination report and by an ordinance change and then was just put forth in the housing element to to make sure that it was um basically Tak into account historically when you look back at what what's included in our in our housing element so I'll give a brief history of the kind of the third round affordable housing steps just so we all know it's clear and then um hopefully it's you know if you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them and then um what I'd ask is that the board approve that uh and I'll give you kind of some some background of why we need it approved um so the original housing elment fair share plan was adopted uh August 8th 2017 that was based on a settlement agreement in the third round settlement agreements were signed between fair share housing center and the town and the municipalities um and that was the settlement agreement was signed on February 28th 2017 and the What's called the Judgment of compliance and Repose which is when the court acted upon it after faering compliance hearing showing that the housing element and the settlement agreement is fair uh and reasonable to uh low income and moderate income households uh that was filed by court order December 8th 2017 um the housing element was amended November 25th 2023 but prior to that um the there were ordinances adopted um in 2022 so ordinance number 22-17 which is October 12 October 11th 2022 uh was a resolution that was passed for that um sorry an ordinance was passed that date and that ordinances was was adopted to effectuate the rmd 26 multif family residential Zone which effectuated the changes that were then put forth in that uh housing element from November 2023 more recently the Township in order to have everything put in place before the courts because that's how the third round was done had to go back before the courts to amend the J the Judgment of compliance and propose um which was done May 21st of this year um and one of the requirements of that new court order was essentially that we provide proof that the housing element from November was adopted it was never formally adopted it was prepared uh it captured everything that had happened to date it provided this whole history that's what the amendment is really limited to however we never the planning board never adopted that housing element and so what I ask of the board tonight is essentially to um simply adopt the housing out fair share plan by resolution so that it can be uh then submitted to the courts to show that we're in compliance with our updated J thank you mrman that review does the board have any questions regarding the testimony given by Miss serman Mr chairman I have a a brief comment and then and then a clarifying question um for the benefit of everyone in the room particularly certain residents that are here this is a reflection that uh the mayor and the governing body take this uh responsibility very seriously uh there's certainly been a substantial amount of work that's happened over many years many mayoral administrations um so as background my my my clarifying question is what we're talking about here is the current requirements recognizing that there will be new regulations that are coming down the pipeline potentially as soon as this fall correct correct these were previous mechanisms that were used to satisfy the third round housing obligation okay and and just for everybody's you know knowledge the the the the goal posts are changing yet again uh or at least we anticipate that to be the case so um the fact that we are in compliance is is certainly a feather in our cap it certainly puts us in a position uh that is different than some of our neighboring municipalities uh but unfortunately when the when the next round comes uh everything everything starts fresh again okay thank you coun questions no uh but this what what the benefit will continue to provide us is that if we are in compliance with our Judgment of compliance and Repose we will continue to have immunity what's called immunity from any Builder remedy lawsuits through June 30th of 2025 any other comments any comments from our members of the public hearing none seeing none I'd like to ask the board if we have a motion for approval to adopt the amended housing plan element and fair share plan dated November 25th 2023 that's Mr papus I'll second that's Miss Sora I have a roll call please yes yes yes yes yes thank you very much Miss San we're going to move to item number number 11 on the list that's a preliminary investigation of an area in need of Redevelopment and that's the municipal yard way site at block 349 Lot 2 commonly known as 136t Hill Road and this evening who will be giving that presentation hope that'll stay yeah a little bit of an exhibit it's an excerpt from the uh plan that you've already have um good evening uh for the record my name is Michael Sullivan I'm a principal with Clark Kon hint in Trenton New Jersey we're a planning landscape architecture and Architecture Firm um and I am the Redevelopment planner for Bridgewater I'm for the record I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey I've been licensed since 1992 member of the American Institute of certified planners and I'm a licensed landscape architect in the state of New Jersey um the purpose of tonight's hearing is to focus uh on uh whether this property the municipal yard way site should be designated as a Redevelopment area and this process began when the township Council uh directed by resolution the planning board to study this area and for my firm to investigate the evidence and the characteristics of this property to determine that such a determination uh as your attorney has probably told you is is provided for New Jersey's local Redevelopment and Housing law um and within the statute of Redevelopment area is defined as uh an area determined to be in need of Redevelopment pursuing to sections five and six or those areas which do not meet the criteria in five or six but uh are necessary for the Redevelopment um within section five is the criteria and without getting into each one of them generally uh Redevelopment areas are unproductive or areas in a town uh sometimes deed blighted areas um but they're properties with conditions that are either detrimental to public health and safety or the welfare for various reasons um obsolescent conditions or unproductive conditions a preliminary investigation which uh we prepared is an analysis it's a compendium and summary of an analysis of the property's characteristics relative to the criteria within the housing law in section five um and to determine whether or not it should be designated as an area in need of Redevelopment the preliminary investigation that was prepared by me is dated uh July 16th 2024 it's draft and the reason we keep it draft is because there may be evidence that's brought up at the uh planning board that we didn't consider um and also so that we can once we do have a recommendation from the planning board we can include the resolution in that plan and finalize it and send it off to the governing body for their decision um so tonight I'm going to present a summary of my findings and the evidence that we found with respect to the Redevelopment uh and this will include a description of the physical physical description of the property and some general information about uh what the land uses are what the zoning is and also uh the evidence that we found and the determination um uh jumping ahead just to give you a little preview is that we did find that it does meet the criteria for redevelopment area pursuant to se subsections C and H of the local Redevelopment and Housing law so the location the location of the site it's at Foothill Road Road 136 Foothill Road Road um and it's got the municipal uh land uh Compost Facility yard waste facility on it uh it's owned by Bridgewater Township and it's got no assessed Improvement value to it and it has not had that uh we look back to 205 there's no assessment value to this property uh it is in Municipal ownership so there's no taxes coming in from this uh and it's unproductive um south of uh it's located south of Route 27 and near the route 28 inter interchange and has Frontage on Foothill Road where the access to the municipal yard way site is and uh prominade Boulevard um the commercial uh uh plan development the size of the site is 31182 Acres as I said the current use is the municipal yard way site the township has an agreement through 2025 uh with the company Nature's Choice Corporation to operate that that yard was site uh it's coming to a close uh the yard was site occupies approximately 3.5 Acres on the site uh it is out of the it's a minor part of a 31 acre parcel um the existing structures of the yard waste facility are you know a temporary office some blocks for storage of outdoor materials and some of the processing areas both bul things uh but there's no permanent structures on the uh on the property the undeveloped portion of the property uh is approximately 28 acres is primarily wooded wetlands and we do have a wetland lineation we'll talk about that later the zoning is planned retail commercial and public development Zone which is the same zoning that Costco has and Trader Joe's has and it's part of the larger planned uh commercial Development Area over there um and that zoning requires 25 acres minimum to develop and it's only 31 Acres so it doesn't meet that criteria uh permitted uses include uh commercial and Retail facilities manufacturing um public uses research laboratory um essential services and Agriculture and horiculture um so that's the basics of the site um we have an aerial here this is contained in the um in the study the investigation and it shows the the site at the middle block 39 lot two um the aerial is dated from March of this year um and you can see the the Costco and Trigger Joe's to the South 287 to the East Boulevard wraps around East and Ro cutting through on a diagonal Mr chairman can I just suggest for maybe a couple of minutes you turn it the other way so that everyone in the audience can kind of take in the essence of it and then turn it back to us just so that everyone can can get the visual is that that would can that occur without interrupting your flow okay great okay so as I said before um the Criterion that we see uh Criterion C and Criterion h under the statute uh are applicable um due to the characteristics of the site so let's talk about Criterion C for a second under Section Five of the of the land local Redevelopment and Housing law Criterion C says at Landa that is owned by a municipality the county a local Housing Authority Redevelopment agency or Redevelopment entity or unimproved land that has remained so for a period of 10 years prior to the adoption of the resolution the resolution is to study the property so it's 10 years prior to the governing body resolution and that by reason of its location remoteness lack of means of access to developed sections or portions of the municipality or tography or nature of the soil is not likely to be developed through the instrumentality of private Capital so that's the Criterion I'll explain why um as I said before the majority of the site is composed of wooded wetlands and we have a wetland delineation that was done for the property the township uh commissioned um the majority of the property is is Wetlands it's first of all it's been unimproved for a period of 10 years we look back at historic Aerials going back 10 years there's been no development other than the municipal uh yard waste facility that's there um so it's remained that way and that's not we don't count the Yard Waste Site in that but we do count the majority of the property so 27 acres has remained the majority of this property has remained unimproved 10 years uh as I said there's no assessed improvements the yard waste uh facility is All Temporary structures and there's U there's no U permanent structures there um but the but the thing that really uh links this to Criterion C is not just the vacancy and the unimproved but it's the the condition of the soils and the topography and because 27 Acres of the property is wetlands and it's been delineated right and I'm going to turn this around now and show you the areas that are this is an exhibit from the investigation and uh the purple areas are the uh buildable area or Upland area the green areas are delineated wetlands and the orange areas are presumed 50 foot transition areas or Wetland buffers that would be required by the state assuming that this is intermediate value Wetlands on the site and I and and I've been out there there's beautiful Woods out there this is uh you know those beautiful big trees um it is a wooded Wetland um so what you can see here is that the majority of of this is green and orange this is the yard site here in this there's up here here and over here and over here and to the nor so we've got these fragments of Uplands that could be developable some level but the delineation of wetlands um is really a surrogate for topography in soils and also vegetation but the statute doesn't talk about vegetation it talks about soils and topography um the delineation of wetlands requires a three-part U test you have to find Hydro ology which is topography and water interaction at that holds water surface water so you find water or either intermittently at the surface and that's due to topography you also find soils hydric soils okay so that's part of the Wetland delineation so when this is delineated like as as it is now with the freshwater wetlands the soils and the topography are the reasons because they're creating a wetland condition that this has been unimproved and vacant for more than 10 years um and so we can apply Criterion C to this property because of the topography and the nature of the soils as it is uh through the Wetland delineation the second Criterion is Criterion H and Criterion H is What's called the smart growth area Criterion and it's not a Criterion that the courts have said you could use on its own um a smart growth area has been determined by the state uh let's let's roll back a second the state plan identifies planning areas in the state and the state plan's been around for a long time they're trying to update it now we're we're going to see if it happens um and the state plan delineates planning areas one two 3 four 4B which is environmentally sensitive and It designates Centers and the office of planning advocacy several years ago decided that they were going to determine what constituted a smart growth area because smart growth areas are mentioned in the state plan they're mentioned in the Redevelopment and Housing law and they're also mentioned in other like uh for instance the um the qualified allocation plan for affordable housing mentions smart growth areas right so they defined it and they said that planning area one the Metropolitan planning area is a smart growth area well the entirety of Bridgewater is in planning area one so because we have another Criterion that we have linked this site to and it meets we can also link Criterion H which is smart growth Criterion so we think there's plenty of evidence for Criterion C and Criterion H um and as I said the municipal uh yard Wass facility does not have Wetlands on it um so it does not meet Criterion C on its own but the majority of this property does but the statute allows for redevelopment areas to be delineated or designated where portions of the area may not meet the criteria but they're necessary for the effective Redevelopment of an area that does meet the criteria and so there's evidence here and I State this in the report that the municipal yard waste area should be included too as well as the other Upland pieces because you really can't use them without the other the other thing about the municipal yard way site is that um if uh let's say an entity were to come here and be able to fill some Wetlands because you can fill some Wetlands U they could use that uh site for redevelopment but also for access to other portions of the Redevelopment area so the summary recommendation is that we find substantial evidence that it meets Criterion C Criterion H and that the Upland areas of the property should also be included as an area of Redevelopment for the necessary for the effective Redevelopment of the of the property um and that's a summary of the preliminary investigation and I'm I'm pleased to answer any any questions about the investigation thank you Mr San for that review does the board have any questions what do we think all growth trees you have um a feeling as there's a lot there's a little there's moderate number this site I would not say there's old growth trees in there there are lots of trees this hasn't there's not been a lot of activity in there I believe there's been some old roads that were in there or driveways that you know these areas where we have um where there's no Wetlands um there are some big trees in there but they're not old I wouldn't consider them old growth they are wetland trees there's Pin Oaks in there there's red Maples um I might have seen a hickory in there there's so much poison ivy on the edges of this place uh it's hard to get in there deep but there's a lot of there's a lot of it's a wooded wooded Wetland area yeah you fory obtaining a letter of interpretation from njd as far liation yeah the township has applied for that yes Mr chairman there's a couple of couple of observations that I guess I'll also put in the form of a question um you know looking particularly at this map that identifies the wetlands um looks to me seems to me that um what has been built in that General vicinity um prominon Boulevard and and the Costco and and and Trader Joe's in that building uh the hotel seems as though they've basically built where they could build uh and that's why what we are left with is um you know some some some places that are uh applicable but a lot of it that is is wetland and is unbuildable so that that's no mistake correct correct okay so so so in the planning process for prominade Boulevard you know they use the same criteria and that's why you know that's why the Costco is where it is and it's not 100t further north in all likelihood presumably yeah okay thank you Mr chower please no no with the smart growth areas are areas that the state through the state plan the state plan identifies areas where they want to support growth and Redevelopment uh the state plan and that's starts with centers which are cities and towns and things like that then planning area one which is like a you know here and then it goes to pa2 which is suburb I think PA pa2 pa3 and it's and it's sort of a graduated level of how they support development and Redevelopment and growth and so when we say that this this is in planning area one it's because the state policies support growth and Redevelopment and investment here that's what the state plan was really designed for the state plan was designed as a funding guide essentially and a policy guide for towns so by having Redevelopment areas in planning area one you're consistent with the state policy for growth and investment and Redevelopment can you put it I can't hear I'm sorry okay yep thank you thank you it always helps uh 3.5 acres are basically y West yard right yard West 3.5 Acres 3.5 AC okay so are you suggesting that you know if uh we have to redevelop it then we include the 3.5 also to make it all 31.5 Acres that's correct the okay the the purpose of the Redevelopment statute is is to get unproductive properties and this goes back to the to the to the previous law um it's to get properties to be productive from a tax standpoint and to be productive parts of um communities right so in considering this for redevelopment which is the step after the township if the township Council says yes we you know we want this to be a Redevelopment area you do a Redevelopment plan which would set the stage for um uh Redevelopment of this property and you would want as much of this property available for redevelopment as possible so you would want to include that okay so your basically recomend your study shows that it could be redeveloped that entire no question okay there's no there's no question this could be redeveloped and because you do have an ability to fill some Wetlands you have an ability to get transition area waivers to move some of the transition areas for Wetlands around um the a Redevelopment plan for this could allow for growth that could accommodate that in some way but to but to get it off the of the tax roles as a zero and get into the tax roles as something positive which is the entire basis of the Redevelopment statute thank you my recommend so so my my recommendation findings is there substantial evidence based on the local Redevelopment Housing law that this entire property should be included in a Redevelopment area I'm not saying that the entirety of the pro uh property should be redeveloped I'm saying that to to maximize the potential for redevelopment it should all be included but the state has a lot to say say about how wetlands are filled or transition areas are waved and that's going to have to be somebody thinking about it Beyond this phase you know the Redevelopment oh no it's a very it's a very small amount yeah yeah and and if I may what what the board's being asked to do tonight is to whether or not to recommend this parcel to the township Council as an area in need of Redevelopment but then if that happens and then if the township Council if if the board recommends hey this this lot should be an area need of Redevelopment and the council agrees they'll vote and they'll formally declare it in area need of Redevelopment but then it gets kicked back to the planning board uh and Mr Sullivan to come up with a Redevelopment plan which would then decide how much of that you know how deep do you want to go you know how how intensively do you want to develop the site what sort of uses to have on the site things like that and then just they Upland areas and and and just to be clear the orange areas are Uplands too but they are we think that they would be within a transition area for the Wetland so there there's some restrictions there the areas the areas outside of wetlands the total area that is not that is Upland um that is not a wetland buffer also so outside of the buffer and outside of well just the purple area is 5 Acres total but it's disaggregated through the through the property those are the same Zone it's the planned no NOP it's the planned um the planned retail commercial and public development Zone it's the same this is the same zoning as the hotel and Costco and Trader Mr Sullivan um we discussed briefly about how some of these areas could be potentially filled or how maybe some access points could be created with some of those transition areas if the state so deems it's appropriate how often do these conditions of this specific site how often would you say could they change or have they changed uh have has the soil composition changed in in the last 10 20 years um is it a detriment to the councilman's point um it seems as though everything else is kind of grown around this one area here uh so does that mean that this site is taking on a lot of the uh storm water or sheet flow from the surrounding areas I I I can't answer that because I didn't prepare the Wetland delineation and and I haven't looked at it from a uh a drainage standpoint so I can't say that for sure but it's a relatively flat area um it's landlocked by roads and new development um when I walk when I walked the perimeter of the site it felt like it was lower than Hotel it was lower than Costco there's a little burm and then you come down and it's lower so there's some impoundment there how that impoundment got there um I can't say it could just be natural as well so it it probably was if if this development all occurred around it it there was probably some natural drainage feature there or Wetlands that were already starting they could they have increased over the past 25 years they could have but I couldn't say and and for members of the board and members of the public would you be able to give an example of a smart growth um planning uh example so I I think I read from your report the metal lands uh or potentially uh the pine baronss are those examples of a of a smart growth planning no those are examples of environmental preservation areas those are that's where uh outside the only places in those areas where development and investment and Redevelopment are encouraged are really within centers towns Villages and the pylons is Villages right it could be 10 houses and they encourage it there um but those are Environmental Protection areas those are higher level protection they're at this end where cities you know are at this end so Bridgewater is right here closer to the cities than the Pinelands and the metal lands okay so you wouldn't consider this an environmentally protected area or in need of Environmental Protection well I I think the state already has said that as if these are uh if an Loi says that these are freshwater wetlands then there's policies to protect it clearly there's buffers so even though the site is within um Metropolitan planning area planning area one you know you still have to protect natural resources and the state plan itself says that even in the even in the planning areas where growth is focused there's still an Environmental Protection aspect to it and to maintain environmental systems uh obviously water and flooding uh are very important in natural communities any other questions yeah Mr chairman just a a a process reiteration I know we've discussed this before um uh and I I keep my handy dandy memo here so because I certainly don't know this uh by memory um the Redevelopment uh is a is six steps we are now at step number two so step number one was when the council adopted a resolution authorizing the planning board to undertake this investigation this step two the planning board is conducting a preliminary investigation including public hearing on notice so that's what's I guess about to occur Mr chairman right um and will adopt uh a resolution recommending or not recommending a Redevelopment area so this is really you know the first opportunity for the public to see and hear this potentially react to it but there will be multiple opportunities uh further down the road for the public to be engaged in this pro project and to comment on it thank again the comments from our board one more question Mr Muro would I be accurate in saying this property used to be owned by American cyanamid the research and development Wing I I don't I don't know the answer our research did not go back that far maybe 40 years we didn't go back that far just something in staring in the back of my there m we have not um there may be associated with with the construction of uh promad Boulevard or the adjacent commercial development but it's not something that we needed to see in order to understand what's happening now existing on the site well I think I think that in getting back to what your attorney said we're we're sort of a step away from that it's not until we look and see what the potential the site may be from a standpoint of uses that we might look at that if there was um any connectivity uh or adjacencies that made sense then whoever was developing it would have to look into that I'm just saying m [Music] we we C so as part of the Redevelopment plan itself we wouldn't look at it prior to a determination by the governing body but if they say yes let's figure out a Redevelopment plan and that's something we should look into before we start looking at that of course we can look into that than you Mr any other comments how about from our professionals Sid I have no questions thank you Mr bki no specific comments but I I think I Echo the concerns or or at least additional scrutiny should be given about the surrounding drainage and how that those drainage patterns exist certainly but I think that um Mr Sullivan has expressed that certainly you know the state will basically dictate what can be done within those Wetland areas protected areas and really development would most likely occur within that Municipal yard way site more than anything I don't think there's there would ever be a a plan contemplated to redevelop all 30 acres and build something a massive complex I don't think thank you at this time I'd like to open up to any members of the public that wish to ask any questions regarding Mr Sullivan's testimony please come forward at this time seeing none hearing none Mr PE it sounds as though a simple vote in favor yeah we would need a motion either to recommend that the uh that a recommendation be made to the township Council to designate the area and area in need of Redevelopment or conversely to not so whoever makes the motion can who would like to make that motion oh wait there's a member of the public oh there's please uh state your name and address for the record oh Dana caparoso uh 65 Twin Oaks Road um 65 65 Twin Oaks Road T Oak Road just wondering are you planning to relocate the municipal waste site like for you know yard waste and everything are is that part of the plan or are you just getting rid of it all together if I well I mean I mean redeveloped Mr P you want to take that the the plan would be to uh maintain a yard way site somewhere on this parcel okay so so residents could still drop off all their yes we would become very unpopular very quickly if we didn't offer that time that's my concern so all right thank you returning back to the board would anybody like to make that motion prevy stated by Mr pick I'll second to recommend to rec to recommend that's Mr cor that's Mr chowri I have a roll call please yes yes yes yes yes thank you very much Mr thank you for your attention and your time be well thank you thank you very much moving on to our Land Development application portion of the evening just a reminder that the H hola application will will be carried to October 15 2024 so this evening we do have a continuation of Leonard Gerardo and that's block 718 Lots 1551 Mountaintop Road good evening Mr chairman board members members of the public my name is Michael silbert I'm an attorney from the law firm D Francesco baitman and I'm representing Leonard Gerardo this evening board is already familiar with this application with the applicant having appeared before the board on May 21st 2024 and July 17th 2024 I'm not going to resmar the entire application uh I'm just going to focus on a few key points so first of all and I say this with the utmost respect keep in mind that this application is for subdivision approval it's not an application for site plan approval the primary focus of this application should be on the creation of of the Lots rather than on the single family dwellings to be constructed on those lots importantly the applicant is not seeking any variance relief for deviations from the Township's ordinance for the dwellings shown on the plan so although the homes depicted on the plans that the board is familiar with were conceptual I just want to remind the board uh as I'm sure you likely recall that at the end of the last hearing as a gesture of good faith the applicant agreed to generally construct the homes in the approximate locations as shown on the revised plans this application uh does eliminate a pre-existing non-conforming condition on lot 50 I think this is rather significant it's a lot coverage non-conformity so the application will in fact constitute a significant Improvement to what already exists on the overall property uh the applicant concluded the July 17th hearing by presenting its professional planner Mr Alexander doy and Mr doy provided planning testimony under the C2 criteria supporting the bulk variance relief requested for minor deviations from the minimum lot width required for the proposed Lots in assessing the C2 criteria and we went over this at the last hearing the board should evaluate the benefits of allowing the lot with deviation in the context of the entire proposal so the focus should should be on the overall advantages of The Proposal rather than just the specific deviation and this is in reference to the pollen case the focus of a C2 variance is not on hardship as is the case with a C1 variance but on advancing the purposes of zoning the zoning benefits resulting from the deviations must must of course serve the community not just the applicant these advancements of the purpose of zoning if demonstrated represent a better zoning alternative for the property and that's set forth in Kaufman the waren township planning board so speaking to advancing the purposes of Zing Mr doy testified that the storm water management proposal and reduction in law coverage which will bring the law coverage into Conformity with the Township's ordinance provides a public benefit under purposes A and B of the ml these improvements he testified promote Public Safety the general welfare and help prevent flooding again for the community the applicant willingness for example to exit the grinder pump agreement early benefits the general welfare by relieving the Township from maintenance responsibilities ahead of schedule with respect to purpose C and this is very important when you're considering a sub subdivision excuse me excuse me give me one moment I'm sorry about that Mr silbert would you like to take a five minute break chairman thank you very much I apologize will be in recess for 5 minutes no no Mr chairman we're gonna respectfully requests that this application be carried to a next possible uh date neighbor I don't know if the board's in recess or they're still I don't think a vote was taken or anything do you want to change the if you want we can move to another uh we have one other item on the agenda we can go to that if you guys want just thank you that that if you settle things down in 30 minutes that's a good idea I appreciate it thank you thank you Mr silbert I apologize again do we need a motion to essentially we're going to move on from our land Mr chairman is a motion required to accept the the the request to suspend consideration of the case yeah just to be safe suspend consideration of the case who would like to make a motion I'll make a motion to suspend consideration of this case until uh later in this evening that's councilman Cur in a second by Ashley cor all in favor I I moving on this evening we're going to move to our board minutes we do have three sets of minutes up for adoption this evening if I could respectfully ask we'll need some order in the room please okay the first set of minutes up for adoption this evening or for approval are from April 16th 2024 from the regular meeting there any comments or changes to the record hearing none who'd like to make the motion to approve the minutes from April 16 2024 make a motion Mr mcor appears that he was present on that date M April 16th April 16th okay so Mr moror okay Mr magora who'd like to second that I'll second that's Miss sakora could I have a roll call please yes yes yes April 16th yes yes yes any comments or changes to the record for the minutes from May 7th 2024 hearing none who'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes for May 7 2024 Mr papus could have a second please as Mr Wang could have a roll call please yes yes yes yes Miss propes how do the third set of minutes look sure no pressure that's Mr cor that's Mr banger could I have a roll call please moving on the agenda this evening we're going to switch our Focus to let's see number nine that's a courtesy review for the Bridgewater Ron School District the middle school classroom Edition that's block 5 65 Lot 19 commonly known as 128 Marywood Road and who'll be representing this review this evening do we need the tripod good evening everyone my name is Frank MSO I'm uh the school architect my name is uh my name is Frank and I'm from Solutions architecture uh we are an architectural and interior design firm located in Verona New Jersey uh we've been the uh School architect since prior to the referendum uh and uh we will be representing I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey and we'll be representing the middle school edition for you tonight good evening and welcome can you all see the the plans that are on up I don't know if you have them on your screens in front of you but we we have our set and we can see what's on the screen so perfect so we're here to present the uh middle school edition uh that is being constructed with the sole purpose of allowing the district to provide full day kindergarten uh in town uh the primary schools currently house grades K to4 this is going to be a multi-step process which will move grade four up to the intermediate schools uh thereby up freeing up classroom space for the full day kindergarten program the second part of this phase is to bring the sixth grade into the middle school creating a traditional 6 seven and8 Middle School by doing so we will be freeing up uh the space in the in the elementary to in the primaries to create the kindergarten and allowing a full uh uh Middle School uh once the sixth grade moves up to the ele to the Middle School uh the projected number of students will be about 1,750 uh and it should be noted historically this building has has had as many as 2100 students uh when this was a six seven and8 with trailers at the time so we're not creating an uh a a structure that's going to house any more students than what the building is capable of uh especially while adding the addition as you can see from the images we are adding uh a basically a fourth Wing to the Middle School school in the uh corner of the building near the entrance Road um the addition will be connected at two points uh thus creating an enclosed Corridor so there's no real concerns from a security standpoint um the review of the building is that the the review of the addition is that it's not as large as the other wings uh and is only enough to accommodate uh what the district needs at this time um so as we go to the blowup of the blowup plan you'll see that there is an enclosed Courtyard um uh here there is an enclosed Courtyard here there are two access points into the existing building uh and the building will be a two-story structure with connection links uh and uh it will require the existing utilities from the existing building serve that structure um at the North northernmost part of the addition we are providing an access point an entrance into the building as well well as a seat wall and then a stair up to the upper roadway so that they can access the buses at the southeast side the other access point there will also be a seat wall and Gathering space and a walkway that leads out to the roadway so buses can be accessed the addition will stop short of the steep slope that comes into play on that Hill uh and will allow uh no major retaining wall work necessary in order to const ruct the the structure um it also includes an electrical service upgrade that will accommodate the load of the addition as well as Future air conditioning for the for the school there will be a new fire service that will be located on the Southeast uh that will feed the building and will be accessible through an underground meter pit the electrical service and switch gear will be also on that Southeast Corner uh this uh providing access to the building all utilities as I said earlier are being fed from the existing building so uh it's it's um everything is contained as far as the floor plan of the existing of the of the new edition the new edition will contain 13 classrooms new classrooms those are what you see in the blue color uh they will create uh have one small group instruction classroom here uh there will be three science labs those are in the uh yellowish color uh a copy room for the staff office storage room there will be two sets of uh toilets one per floor one elevator two stair Towers uh and there will also be renovations to the existing uh in the existing bu uh building for the faculty room toilets uh men's and women's there will be two classroom re classrooms renovated in in the other south side of the existing building as well well as access points since we're taking over classrooms to provide access into the existing building we'll be renovating to create an office and copy area and a smaller resource room so that being the plan and the layout for the existing uh addition or the new addition we're going to show some depictions of what this building could will look like uh based on the renderings this is a view from the top of the stair top of the new stair near the near the drop uh there will be a this is the the first view that you're going to see driving onto the property so uh we will provide a there's a glass area the vertical columns that you see that is part of the connecting link that connect the building together it's twostory connecting link on the left is the beginning of the addition proper and then to the left of that you'll see the Bridgewater R and School District brand that's a sign that will be prominent it will be illuminated back it uh so that it'll be visible at night as you come down the stair as you come closer down the stair you'll see that kind of student area where kids can convene there'll be seating walls and accessibility into the addition as you drive further around the loop from the upper upper level you can see the alternate side those are the classroom that's the classroom wing and those are the classroom windows that you're looking at here's kind of a bird's eyee view of the secondary link and the secondary access on the Southeast Corner um the architecture is similar so that the building you know this Blends in with the existing structure uh yet provides uh some Aesthetics this is a closeup of that area on the Southeast side so you can see the the plaza area the small sitting area as well as access points to the building and to the courtyard the next image is a view inside the courtyard as if you came through these doors you now have a view of the courtyard the classroom Edition as well as the connecting Link at the back side another view of the courtyard looking at the major connector the two-story connector uh that connects the existing building and then finally we have a bird's eyee view of that uh connecting link the last component that we wanted to address is that there is the existing Bus drop off and pick up areas so the existing Loop Road around the school which runs here can accommodate a total of 56 buses total right now that are currently being uh utilized are 36 buses for 7th and e8th grades they expect to add 10 to 12 buses for for the sixth grade and this plan basically confirms that those buses will fit around the queue without issue the parent drop off will also continue to function as it currently does uh however it will be starting a little bit closer towards the fields in order to accommodate that space that is the entirety of this uh presentation in terms of of what this building will look like the what it includes uh and as far as the utilities are concerned and site work um we do also have with us Keith Smith who is our site civil engineer if there are any questions that the council may have we can uh certainly address would Mr Smith be giving any testimony this evening or just simply questions very good any questions for Mr messo Mr chairman I have um uh one there was a comment made uh I'm going to I'm going to get my directions wrong um so I guess I'll I'll I'll just try to point to it yeah there okay pretty much um the location of the um Bridge order R Regional High School uh logo specifically there was a comment that it would be lit and visible uh and certainly I understand the importance of um uh you know of of identifying the building uh and the district I just want to make sure that we do have some neighbors uh specifically uh I believe there's one home that's on marrywood a couple homes that are on Foothill that are you know whose backs are to your building I just wanted to confirm that they would have no detrimental effect uh from from that plan the intent is that it's back lit so it's lit from the back so you'd see a halo effect on it but the lighting is not bright it doesn't project Beyond and throw beyond the the facade of the building so it shouldn't be an issue and I'm sure the district will make sure that it is timed so that it is on and off at appropriate time so is it is it uh accurate to say because I pres I'm not immediately familiar with it but there there is there is uh lighting along along uh the Loop Road correct correct is it is it fair to say that uh even at night or in in in uh times of other times of dark of of of Darkness that um uh it would be no brighter than what is already seen by the Light the sa essentially the safety lights from from the from the Perimeter Road that is fair to say okay Mr M my kids are not in the middle school yet uh so uh my question is that access that we're seeing now on the screen is that new bus access or is that uh is that an existing point of drop off for pickup that is the the bus does drop off at those locations but this stair is a new stair to the to that addition okay does drop off further nor further north down the road so that it it ties into to the existing uh addition okay so to the councilman's point there is existing Street Lighting in that spot already for okay um I Heard a question down this way I'll come back to my thoughts question um generally when we uh develop anything for the school systems what is our Outlook is for 10 years next 10 years or next 15 years because the students uh number will always increase you mentioned about 210046 78 um and what is the rate of the student growth in Bridgewater School District at the present time this addition was constructed based upon current numbers as well as what we're seeing is a declining enrollment in terms of capacity um we design buildings and we can only design buildings for the current need the Department of Education will not approve a surplus if it doesn't currently exist or if there's not a project that's been approved that will provide an influx of students so if we even if we wanted to design for more we couldn't by uh state law uh do you have any facility for charging electric buses I I don't know the answer to that question uh do are we providing electric charging stations for buses but the district doesn't have currently have electric buses this CH just a bus okay there's also no requirement for putting the charging then okay thank you Mr chairman actually a comment was made that now links two parts of this meeting um you made the comment that uh uh you're designing for current needs and I guess those that are reasonably anticipated based on demographic studies correct correct um we had a a presentation earlier talking about um uh the housing plan element and fair share plan um I made a reference that the goal posts there seem to be changing um Bridgewater takes great pride in being compliant um and that's a credit not only to our current mayor but also previous administrations we've had that as a very high priority in this community um but For Better or Worse new rules are expected uh in November uh or October November sometime in that in that range that would take multiple years to have effect of course now it's certainly possible that Bridgewater is um uh provided with a certain number of housing units uh uh affordable housing units that we need to provide it's certainly possible that some number of those uh housing units are going to have school AG children in them I guess I find it ironic that with one hand Trenton is saying You must build housing units and with the other hand they're saying but you can't get out in front of the anticipated need of where to put these students when they need to be educated right you know I make that statement I don't know if you have a reaction to it or want to react to it you know it it seems to me like there is a bit of a lack of coordination here um you know because it would seem shame if Bridgewater and the other 500 communities in 500 and something communities in New Jersey make plans such as for additions like these and then Trenton comes down with new rules new regulations new numbers new expectations and now all of a sudden a future board of education is saddled with a massive problem so I can't speak for the Department of Ed and or the state of New Jersey for that matter what I can tell you is we have had several referenda projects in the planning phases where the townships themselves have had several projects up for approval not yet approved before the council before the planning board they had not yet been approved we propose those to doe the department of Ed will not approve anything or will not consider anything that has not been approved because who knows what's going to happen the development could not get approved ultimately they could be building this and then the development goes belly up and it doesn't happen so Doe's policy has been and we've faced it before that they will not consider numbers even enrollment potential enrollment even if it's shown in the demographic study from stuff that hasn't previously been approved by for for construction so that's what we've been faced I can't speak to I certainly agree with your point there's an irony here is what I'm what I'm simply trying to say is that that that the school district appears to be in good faith and conscience trying to do the best job it can to prepare for the future yet the future could change in an instant from additional regulations from Trenton agreed Mr B 2005 and 20 6 there were 2174 students uh in the in grades seven and 8 uh in the middle school at but or six seven and8 but that had trailers as well so they were able to accommodate with trailers 2174 students this addition will provide that same Surplus as the trailers did but we're only putting 1750 kids so there's still a 500 something student Surplus that that we can you know would the building would be able to accommodate bu they had in the past so it's it they had in the past so the way a school district accommodates additional additional capacity is they increase class size or they they uh in include their schedule in their schedule more classes are filled per per you know s day or seven period day so they have ways of of controlling the capacity of a building through the use of the classrooms the biggest issue for most school districts today for capacity and being able to have this influx is not that demographics are are blowing up it's that uh special needs and special ed limit this the number of students that can go in a classroom so in many districts a lot of full-size classrooms which are 800 900 ft have six kids in them so if we divide those rooms we pick up a classroom so these are things that we try to do in the course of planning for the building but yes the building at 1.67 and 8 did accommodate 2174 students correct correct yes say again any any all of the primary schools that from grades from grade six you know once they complete the primary they they move up to six grade so every school feeds the middle school yeah yes uh no this building is smaller so this this addition if you look at the main site plan again the the image this is this is the wing on on that side and then our wing is shorter so it does have 13 classrooms it does have uh three science labs in addition and a small group instruction for instructional space but again that was based upon when we're going for referendum and we're putting things before the public obviously budget is a huge huge factor and huge concern as well as the enrollments that we need to accommodate so this was what we needed and this is what we constructed do we do we have an answer on that I think the district is working on how to rec reconfigure and reconstruct but yes this could be most likely would be used sixth grade for the yes through the design of the addition our Engineers have evaluated the existing utilities and felt them felt that they accommodate we are doing an electrical service upgrade for the addition but the balance of the utilities are amendable to the to the addition it'll strictly be the Middle School Entrance will still be the Middle School Entrance this will be an egress uh you know an area for them to uh come in from the buses and come out of the buses so it'll only be Ingress erress during uh drop off and deliver and pickup times but not during the day will be some kind of secure vestibule I have another question chairman how uh so since it's a brand new building uh coming from the tech side will you also have a fiber connectivities to all so that at least in in Futures so that at least video and video streaming video or any other class uh So-Cal virtual class can be obtained by different in institution or teachers can be easily shown in the classroom yes technically we work with the district's uh it provider who can provide that all the the classrooms will have conduit and and feeds for wiring that can accommodate all of those spaces every room will have that technology availability thank you Mr Meo is there a power generator uh proposed on the addition there isn't okay is that something that would potentially be U consider in the future and if so would that be placed on one of the rooftops of one of the new uh proposed buildings it depends on the size of the generator and what we're accommodating um you know most of these generators if we're accommodating a wing this size would be significant in size so uh it it would probably not be put on a roof and again going back to capacity I I don't see it on the site plan here but um how will if anything how will parking change in relation to the upgrade on the uh on the site [Music] any other questions um Mr chairman two two two items have Arisen um one is I'm not going to have my directions right but the corner of the building um have you essentially locate no of the addition this one here yep thank you um glad to see we're on the same page worries uh it's the talking with my hands that's working right um You Picked that spot because of the topography the land because you did not want to get into any um uh engineering Solutions with the existing Hill is that is that accurate it's an accurate statement we we we needed the spot we know knew that we wanted to add a SE another Wing similar to what is there we also knew that we couldn't go to the roadway because we'd be cutting in significantly to the hill so it it the location is in fact strategic okay and then finally what is the anticipated timeline uh for construction and then opening of this Wing two years construction okay thank you thank you thank you any other questions yes Mr M um with the elevation you showed the other day um previously of the stairways has any consideration been made for Ada access there is Ada access from the southeast entrance there this this entrance is the topography so slow steep that it would be very difficult the ramp would be significant in in length and lighting was mentioned before I don't see any Lighting in your elevation and looking at the plan view we're showing less than one foot candle on those stairs in some places is that [Music] sufficient Mr MC any other questions Mr chair just Mr Atkins sure what's the current uh number of classes for the brms for the Middle School itself Middle School I I don't have that information with me do you know what the Max Capacity is for students uh currently it dep it varies so the Max Capacity based upon the Doe's longrange facility plan is a specific number the Max Capacity based on District use could be another number and that 2174 when it was six grade 67 and 8 would be in my opinion the max capacity of the building 2174 currently right 2174 was what it was in 20052 2006 those numbers haven't been there right now it's only 1,500 okay and one question about the buses uh how many buses are expected to be needed there are maximum uh 54 but based on uh expected no the the maximum number of buses was 56 there are currently only 36 buses being used and the school projects 10 to 12 additional for the sixth grade and so what would that bring it to uh it's 36 46 to 44 buses 46 48 thank you thank you Mr Atkins chman if let me ask one more question please well since we had a pouring rain today for about 1 hour every road was flooded MH for at least time being so in this particular case do you think that flood water will basically go into the entrance I'm going to let my engineer respond to that one yes they're being collected into a subsurface system uh that's been sized to reduce the the flow from the site itself so uh We've accommodated that with um with draining system there's one actually in the courtyard and there's one exterior okay so that you already have taken into account then yes okay I mean perfectly honest that you get some rainfalls there's nothing that you can do but we have provided for uh the meet the state um requirements for the storm water management thank you Mr Wang I'm sorry Mr trer would you finish with your point yes please thank you height of the building around 20t 20 feet no 30 ft it has to be more than 20 30 ft tallest point okay um how high is um is the is a light the the logo how high is the logo I would say it's somewhere between 25 and 10 25 10 uh do you know compare is the the road you know is um the building is um the roadway as you come in is approximately 12 feet higher than the entrance so the stairs themselves okay there's a changing grade of 12 feet from the uh from the roadway down to the bottom of the stairs so that's a view from the roadway as you go around the building okay it's like a high halfway halfway of the height just above the roadway so you can see coming in so this this building the black the black part the glass one um is is taller than the existing uh buildings right yes okay it steps up it steps up about 4T higher than the existing building 4et uh are those um you know the glass the glass I don't know what's what's inside is it going to be illuminated during the evening the night the glass the glass will be tinted so you won't visually be able to see the students inside so the glass will be tinted and it will be illuminated at night but since the glass is going to be tinted it won't project like a glass light box you know a light box okay all right thank you thank you Mr Wang any the comments change years now yeah it it would it would occur that following September the intent would be to get it to land on a the start of the school year so 20 months to 24 months would was our projection for how long this will take so we want to make sure that it's ready for that next school year you're welcome like to ask our professionals if they have any questions thank you Mr chairman I only have uh two questions one is related to um the roof roof mounted equipment that's shown in the elevations I'm I'm looking at [Music] sheet a 10.0 which shows the various uh perspectives that focus on that one yeah um and I didn't know if there was uh presently any screening of those on the on the you know okay and is there any screening that could be added to uh kind of Shield any of those uh there is but it's pretty typical throughout the rest of the building uh to have it exposed that they're exposed yeah okay um all right I think I mean I think the building is beautiful I just think that could add you know an element of kind of screening something that's generally less nice looking understood um so just a recommendation thank you um and in particular on that kind of lower portion um above the building connection I think that might go very far just because it a little more visible closer to the you know pedestrian level okay um and then as this might be nitpicky um but again just a kind of question is the perspective I think go back one further showing the the the mounted sign the building mounted signage yes is that um like kind of skewed it's not straight As in the logo the letters are a little bit tilted maybe 20% is the logo is tilted that's intentional yes okay is that just for like more modern it's the Lo it's the way their logo is imprinted on it's tilted oh okay I didn't know that thank you very much any questions Mr wisnoski yes thank you Mr chairman I was just gonna ask um well the question was asked by Mr chower but I was just gonna ask Mr Smith to elaborate on the stormm Water Management facilities um and I I just wanted to to acknowledge that there is fairly extensive system here certainly I haven't reviewed uh the design in general but you know I trust that Mr Smith designed it to the latest storm water regulations and for meeting all the reductions necessary yes increases in impervious surface yes in in this case there is no increase in vehicular service so water quality is not an issue at all far as groundwater recharge the the soils here are not really accommodating the groundwater recharge so our system has been designed to provide the reductions that are required for the 210 and 100e storm events and then I just had one followup question to that thank you um where is the I guess the question is is there a discharge point for this system is or is everything sort of self-contained no everything actually there is a u a pipe that starts at 15 in and ends at 18 inch at a head wall at the stream on the far side of the school and it runs through the connecting Corridor for each of the uh connecting Wings if if you see the upper all up to the corner above that oh here the the school itself the overall school oh here it is cor almost come on up come on up I was just curious about the dischar where the discharge would be there is an existing head okay I just didn't see it on the plan here hold it down they what I was this is where the market goes so basically there's existing storm system that goes through here to an outfall at the stream very good that is thank you thank you Mr W Mr M I'm assuming you did receive the uh uh letter from our fire chief Tom Scalera I'm just if you had a chance to review it uh as far as the placement of the fire department connection uh you have no issues agreeing to those no terms okay any other comments from our board or questions given that this is a courtesy review we typically don't uh hold it open to the public but if there are any comments from our public here this evening please feel free to ask at this time hearing none Mr PE given that this is a courtesy review that's it You' been cous hopefully the uh representatives of the the board you know had their ears open and heard what the you know suggestions and and questions and concerns were and be got it accordingly much very good thank you thank you very much good luck okay let's see if I can get back here just your oldest Mak sure okay we're going to return to our application portion for this evening and we'd like to resume if that's okay with Mr silbert first of all Mr chairman and uh board members board professionals and uh members of the public that are still here I just wanted to apologize for what had happened earlier um we were appreciative uh that the board afforded us an opportunity to speak outside and um I'm very sorry for what happened I don't I don't really have words but I'm very sorry about that um out of your control it is unfortunately um I would ask um that if the board obviously we're we're before the board again if the the board would allow me to call uh our last witness and proceed forward with the application we would like to do so um but ultimately I understand with what had happened that uh it's it's uh up to the board here so please bring them forward thank you if I may enter my appearance Samantha Alfonso on behalf of the neighbors I'm a Tekken um I did want to on the record request an adjournment based on uh the prejudice caus by the Outburst of the applicant thank you very [Music] much so I was in the middle of my uh introduction but I'm sorry Mr chairman from a procedural standpoint do we need to react to that or is that just simply placed on the record as a request I think it's just on on the record as a request I'm not sure I mean I think if any Prejudice was issued I think it was to the applicant I would agree with that um and and certainly not to um anyone not being the applicant so I would agree yeah thank you Mr P thank you coun Mr silbert thank you Mr chairman I I was in the middle of my uh introduction but I think um I think it makes sense to just call uh Mr Doty and he can take uh questions I think he concluded his testimony at the last hearing and uh it was not yet opened up to the public or to uh objector counsel that is where we left off for bring him back please and Mr chairman since some time has passed can can we um allow uh a limited number of board questions I know we had a bite at the Apple some time has passed would we be would you permit us to ask a limited number uh of of of of questions just so that we can kind of get back to where we were I think over the course of the last three hearings now uh We've exhausted the question and answer um and I believe that I'd like to hear what Mr Dary has to say and I think we're at that point we're going to try to conclude this all right yes your point good evening uh Alexander Dar professional planner recognize I still on oath um as I concluded my La uh last uh appearance here testimony wise uh really you have a chance for the public to come up and cross um but for a quick synopsis um we are here for minor lot width there is no other variances on the table we've had uh a lot of deliberation discussion about a lot of other development aspects that could happen on this property if it was viewed as one lot um because there are two lots in question that are under common ownership if the other lot were to be developed separately or if three lots were more appropriate what those substantial detriments would be and what those uh uh benefits would be the essence of the C2 case law um and and you know where this came from and we uh testified on the record to a Supreme Court case uh referred to as Kaufman that really looked at a very similar application um that we proposed here um and I went through um all the public benefits and the advancements of M land use law um and I concluded that this has not undermined the intent of the zoning um this is a better zoning alternative which is the essence of a C2 um and there would be no substantial detriment to the public good um and that the benefits of the application as a whole substantially outweigh any detriment and that approval would be warranted um and we uh went down uh discussions about what some of these public benefits were and I believe Council was uh in the middle of kind of summarizing that as far as the current build out being over lot coverage these three lots would be under the improvements with storm Water Management Systems the moving of of the buildings going forward to block any Scenic views the um abundance of the replacement of trees and so forth and the overall neighbor continuity from a visual standpoint and again uh uh to kind of just do a quick sum uh summary here I think from a planning standpoint these homes are more appropriate with this uh particular area in this immediate neighborhood on on uh a mountain Mount viav and uh Mount top a I'm sorry and uh that a larger home would be certainly out of character here um and that uh that was really the the general conversation um that we had uh that the deviations in lot width and for the record we'll put them back on there we're looking at a lot width of 143 147 and 141 uh the requirement is 150 again those are the only variances on the table um the lot areas compliant the side yard setbacks for conceptuals where the building envelope would be would all comply um and this application brings with it um State art industry best practiced engineering and development standards and modern living arrangements and uh more more aligned with this immediate neighborhood so I'll just kind of conclude with that and uh we had it open kind of to the public so we'd like to open it up uh commission Mr chairman to the public would any members of the public wish to comment on the testimony just heard I don't believe there's oh if you could again please St your name and address thank you I think the board had a lot of great questions at the last hearing so I'm not going to belabor points I promise um I do have just a couple of questions from the last hearing the the plans weren't changed at all no Provisions were made since the last hearing don't believe so no okay so my understanding at the last hearing and I don't want to testify excuse me okay okay I understand that you believe that the three lots is a better zoning alternative is that in you know versus the two Lots with two homes I I do for this for this area yes is that based on the houses being the uh proposed 12,000 Square fet which would be the maximum I think it's based on a layer of the homes size and scale but also the surrounding properties and and their lot width um in relation um and though we do have two lots and and we keep having discussion that if there were two homes these two lots are under one common ownership he could sell the lot off he could build the one lot in itself um and this I think uh when we look at this U application for for the overall betterment of the Zone um this brings with it just at The Fringe if you will the 150 Mark um with more palatable siiz homes um so the scale the massing and when we talk about the the overall integration of the neighborhood and continuity of the neighborhood I think would be more in line than one large home or potentially two large homes yes okay so let's say they're not two large homes but it's two appropriately sized homes for the neighborhood would that be a better zoning alternative than the three proposed with the same appropriately sized homes for the neighborhood it again would two appropriately sized homes for the neighborhood on the existing Lots right so around 8,000 square fet I think 6 to 8,000 square ft has been the testified number that would be about the maximum for this neighborhood that the market could support I I wanted to say this we're not proposing two homes we're proposing three lots um if if he wanted to do two he could do two and I'm sure he could make this the size of the homes um meet the max bulk requirements he could or or scale them down but um I think it's important to note we're not proposing to proposing three okay so for the benefit of the application then to the community though right I think that it was testify that it's really the aesthetic how are we to be assured of that positive when we don't see when we're not seeing it and we're being told right it could just be so also the benefits come for this application why we're here to to kind of ask for those concessions for better storm water management to avoid building on the null the hill uh and to ensure um that every other minute detail that kind of layers into the overall Aesthetics and and continuity the neighborhood are looked at when we look at the two homes we wouldn't be here and if you you know were to build a permit you know he could build them where they want and I think you know fact opens the door for um more of a negative impact uh more of what my interpretation with the neighbors concerns were um so it it's it's a layered kind of approach about what what brings it to a better zoning alternative than just visual but certainly I think the scale and size is is is is U is the first uh major um benefit when we talk about what could be there and what we're proposing and then with the concessions that the board uh in Institute on uh in in sorry imposed upon the application this um with the engineering uh to the site I think um certainly a lot more uh benefits here than just Aesthetics at this point and did you study the average lot sizes in the neighborhood yes I I believe we had an exibit packet where we uh went over the lot sizes and lot widths did you did am ietting yeah I may forget I thought last are and we weren't sure what the numbers were yeah t the color tax map I think we marked it exhibit 8 to um it that was a a standalone exhibit was just a a tax map we don't have it I think the it's here a Township map I think yeah obviously public record into detail about establishing what was the neighborhood versus bottom of the hill I wanted to ask questions a couple about that I know the board members went through this a little bit last time too but the lot WID for 49 because you're saying that the proposed Lots at three lots at around 140 to 144 is going to be more consistent right in this neighborhood the size and scale I'm trying to understand how you got that if you look I'm sorry if you look at the um tax map and in their overall surrounding properties they're cons yeah are they all more than 1.25 Acres the lot 49 just the neighborhood average we are looking at the the lot width as far as as that um the neighborhood continuity and and the overall um but certainly the Lots go deeper the scale and size of them even with even with this three lot subdivision we are oversized by lot area um which or all of the other Lots right yeah it's the lot with a lot of the narrow lots are actually deeper just so the records clear see we're referring to exhibit A6 which is the partially colorized tax and if you need to refer to it we have it here thank you just thank you I think um Council we we had a very brief debate about which was more important the lot width or the lot area um and I believe uh members of the board they both I I think members of the board brought that into question and uh I think uh I had a different view than um the town uh planner where I said in my opinion lot area um is is the base um because it sets the stage for where your F would be your impervious coverage and so forth um you get properties on curves properties in C the Sachs you get neighborhoods that have a smaller lot wi if the lot area complies I think it sets the foundation because we had a debate about when you're in the R40 Zone R50 r60 um that lot width um and given these these uh minor deviations and lot with the fact that we comply with that lot the lot area um I think really sets the tone for you know the appropriateness of um um for this application so setting aside compliance though right all for consistency right the argument is that the benefit to the community is that this proposal makes these lots more consistent with the neighborhood Hood I believe they also testified though that the storm water management uh that's being imposed was the benefit to the community and the reduction of the current bu building uh lock coverage as well right now this the current uh existing conditions on the site um are over and these the these three lots the yield would be less than than what's there today and with that being being said the lot of area we we do comply with so you know we're really talking about the lot with um so I know some of these lots are under siiz um and they have smaller lot Wiis um so we think uh from a planning standpoint uh from a development standpoint that given these existing conditions in its neighborhood um coming around that bend that it's more appropriate um and uh to comply uh with the lot area um but having that small deviation a lot width and versus to clarify lot 50 is what doesn't comply with lot coverage right because right now the other lot is just wooded correct so overall lot coverage is going to be decreased even including the three Pro houses the driveway is surpris the lot coverage right now in lot 50 is what what's the number currently lot 50 hot 50 coverage is 1962 requirement is 18% and that doesn't account for what's the proposed the coverage is much higher after the Steep SL calculations we don't have that number but it's significantly higher what's the proposed lot coverage so the proposed lot coverage is yes I believe we're looking at 99.33% 9.73% and 99.79% that includes the houses and the driveways and everything yes and that 9% on each [Music] this this was a a question I had raised I think at the last hearing and I don't mean to interject in between the cross- examination or introduce anything new but I asked a question based on the bulk table and then the hillside development calculations they didn't match um I don't know if we were going to get a revision we didn't get a revision before tonight but those don't match the the footnote in the table does say that the improved Lot C coverage and F are above as shown in the steep slope impervious and steep slope F calculations but they're not uh in the steep slope impervious for lot 50.01 it's 8910 for 50.2 it shows 7149 and for 51.0 one shows 7393 uh which is uh in order 16.2% 12.9% and 13.5% so I'd like that rectified not between this or maybe as a result of this cross- examination but maybe Mr Styers can come up and just provide some clarification on that because I don't think we got at the last [Music] meeting Mr silbert would that be acceptable for Mr Styers to return to the podium Mr chairman are we U finish with the public portion questioning because I have some questions are there any other members of the public that wish to comment on this testimony just heard testim if we could I'd like to have some comments on this testimony please hi I'm Susan Willet um I live at 1871 Mountaintop Road um I know I mentioned this before but I just I'm a little more nervous than I was before in the last s I mentioned how um hard it is when I know that there's rules about how many trees to cut down and um then people go ahead and do it anyway um and there isn't anything we can do about that um and I understand that but just based on and I don't mean to be personal here but based on the Outburst I saw earlier today it doesn't look like compliant Behavior to me and it just makes me nervous and I'm not not throwing aspersions and I feel bad about the whole thing but I just that made me nervous about knowing that you guys are talking about here's the rules you're supposed to follow and we're trying to trust some people and it doesn't seem very trustworthy can that's can I respond to that yeah sure sorry as uh the township planner um I just wanted to maybe I don't know if this was clear at the last meeting there are levels of layers of protection after this board approves anything a developer doesn't go on and just go develop their site without any oversight uh it's they don't pull their permits and then just go get to build after uh any hearing where there's an approval they have to go through what something called a resolution compliance process meaning that they have a resolution which has certain conditions uh the township professionals the town engineer the town planner and any other professionals that are involved including you know Fire Health Department Etc the approv Road opening anything like that is included in a resolution compliance very extensive process and that sets the stage for any revisions they have on their plans from the the results of this meeting are complied with on paper right when they go and get any permits and they start building there's inspections the engineering department has inspectors that go out and make sure everything's happening as it's shown on the plants every single tree that's supposed to be protected stays protected every tree that supposed to be planted gets planted driveway locations down to where they're shown on their final PL so there are light levels of protection that I want to offer that are it's not just someone's going to go off and it's matter of trust uh certainly not they have to post inspection escrow afterwards uh if that's deficient we stop working they stop working until they you know pay for the process so um there are layers uh from you know the town to professionals the construction Department building department that make sure that everything moves forward as it should okay um thank you for that and that makes me feel a little better um the only other question I have and I I just is just kind of I'm sorry if this is repetitive or redundant from the last time is that works only up until the house is bought by somebody right they they can in theory they might have rules but they can kind of do what they want right not really I think you'd mention people doing things that they're not supposed to be doing that happens all the time you know I you know you can't police that I understand that you so you as the neighbors can certainly you know you don't want to snitch on your neighbors but you can go up to your neighbor and say you know I see you're Paving your driveway did you check with the zoning department you can you can start to um you know make sure your neighbors are good neighbors by asking questions like that oh you're removing some trees did you get a tree permit not to be a bad neighbor not to be a nosy neighbor but to do those things because you wouldn't know if they got a tree permit or not unless you ask them and you don't want to go call the zoning department and say hey someone's pulling trees down I don't think they got a tree permit when maybe they already did so to be a good neighbor you can go up and say Hey you know I'm very concerned about the storm water I'm very concerned about the tree canopy I'm very concerned about XYZ did you do this did you do that um and I think that's a way to be a good neighbor and if you feel like they're you know continuing to do things they shouldn't do then you call the zoning department we have a zoning officer and we do enforcement for things that you know shouldn't be going on okay all right thank you no problem and Mr chairman on this matter if I may um you know the fail safe at the end of the process is certificate of occupancy if if you know you could have a house that's 99.9% built or they think it's 99.9% built and if things were not followed that certificate of occy is not going to get issued so that that's really like your your your end protection if you will um and then as properties turn over to a new owner at a later time they need to the property needs to be what is accurately portrayed and if it is not well then that isn't that's where there are instances where after the fact uh uh homeowners need to potentially come before the zoning board because something is not in sync thank you councilman other members of the public yes Barry Walker 1699 mop Road my one concern is the is the fact I think you mentioned this evening about water and the rain all the roads are flooded those two houses which are built where I think the current owner lives in right now if you were driving that road the next two days it's half the road is covered in a large pond about 30 feet long and about 10 ft wide it's excuse me sir this just you know this this portion of the meeting is so you can ask questions tesy then there'll be an opportunity so is there a plan to alleviate the water flow onto the road which is currently happening in the existing development that's there and this is part of be the subdivision of that correct so um part of this application one of the benefits I testified to was the storm monor management that would come with this application um which currently as you just mentioned is not on site um and I testified at the last hearing that my professional colleagues before me set that stage for me to testify of of the benefit that come so the engineer had testified in great detail what those storm water management requirements uh uh measure did that engineer go up there under conditions like we had today I'm not the engineer I don't I don't have answer I'll just ask the question since you're testifying to that and did anyone go up there and see the existing conditions which actually might be there tomorrow or the next day those conditions would remain um if with with the current condition but as an engineer you should be trained to look a planner I'm are you an engine plan he's a planner are you an engineer no okay so Alle allegedly your engineer said that that this could happen so I'm just asking the engineer I mean there's engineering is facts and there's Engineering in that you go witness what's happening you know I mean when there's flooding I walked into the building here at the township building and the the front Foy area was flooded so in the time so just asking if the engineer has done any studies in that way the engineer's already testified as to the storm water management plan at the last hearing so he can't he can't call him back to answer questions there's there's really a actually no need to we we're not going to keep retiga the same okay issues over and over again right so testimony one thing though to keep in mind is if they came and just did two lots a minor subdivision didn't need any variances there'd be no storm water management in place there'd be no conservation easement there'd be no stipulation as to where the homes would be located on the Lots all of which they've agreed to do so there actually is I mean I think there's been a lot of benefits that have been portrayed by the the testimony so it just seems we're going in circles understand we've had ample testimony and uh stipulations made on the record to address these questions none of which you know if we went to again to two lots none of these would be made there'd be no none of these protections to the public so Mr chairman can I have some questions Mr pus Mr Walker's finished I have questions I'm not finished I was interrupted by the attorney but thank you very much for asking but I was done in the stipulations I understand that there was a previous subdivision dunge right next to it and you mentioned that there were Riv in it that water is an issue so moving forward I understand this is questions to them I'm posing to you that in consideration you might want to think about things like that in the plan because I recommend everyone in this board to drive up there tomorrow sometime or the next day and you'll see what I'm talking about thank you I think I don't know if you were here the last time um the previous two times the previous yeah the previous two times when uh if it was left as is and they built one home or or two homes there would be no storm water regulations that the state would require the township require with this one it triggers more storm water management than than what would happen if it were to stay understanding I do understand your concerns yeah believe me I'm saying is the existing one that was done previously which I think would have triggered maybe they've changed since then is not adequate that's what I'm indicating you the even in the current trigger that has to happen that may not be Advocate enough in this scenario and I recommend that they be checked I I just want to just just really just water this down no pun intended um what we're trying to illustrate is though on paper three lot subdivision three houses may seem like a lot going on and there's some some things that we need to uh get through about existing conditions concerns neighbors have about the trees you know looking down on a twinx road the the null the views and that regards but what we're trying to illustrate is though this sounds like it's a heavy development it's less intensive less detrimental than what currently is there or what could be there we talk about tree removals I believe I testified last time there's a net of 70 trees coming on SES trees in various shies you know of that regards the storm water management the impervious uh driveways we talked about that would be feeded into the properties and the various systems in place it it on paper or to your ears three loss of division sounds a little too much but one house I'm not is a little bit more detrimental than than what we're proposing this is a softer application for that neighborhood I understand the application I've had a subdivisions done where on my where I live very close and can be subdivided again I'm not complained about that I'm concerned about the management of it and once it gets done it is actually going to work you know that's my question you're what you're planning and what's engineered when it doesn't work because it's currently not working in the previous plan that was done so that's all I'm allowed to ask that question correct I I think um the engineers if they have done to the extreme levels as the the the eight Ines of rain are going to have the next three days right and and I think um the engineers are are on top of that um hopefully you know yeah allegedly yeah you know one of the you know far field Mr P I do believe we also have is it a condition that our Township engineer is going to be working closely with the applicant should this application be approved oh yeah for any other members of the public okay that closes the public portion for this witness Mr papus you had a question yes um Mr uh U you just this might be a slight reiteration but an expansion of questions that I've asked previously the lot width that is proposed for this these Lots is the reason for this application before this board correct correct okay it's not the storm waterer management plan correct correct so so you know a lot is being said about storm water management that really that's been prompted by the application but that's not why you're here correct you're not here to talk about storm water management you're here that's that's not we're here to talk about everything and and that's a the reason what what prompted the application is the request for relief from the lot width no that's not why you're here why are you here then to a major subdivision for three lots that are less than the 150 foot wide requirement correct would that's a yes or no I can't testify but I just well then let him testify I'm asking him I'm asking him no matter what asking him so is the is the reason for the application a variance that is being sought for the lot width that is less than the requirement in the zone no we're here for the subdivision major subdivision and it comes with three minor variances for out withth okay but it is the the variance that's that's prompted the you would review this application with or without variances okay understood but you are asking for relief for lot width yes okay um the um Mr duckery in the I think the last hearing you spoke a lot about the uh comparison of lots in the neighborhood uh this is a zone that requires 150t lot width as I said a moment ago um is there any detrimental effect is there any reason that having two conforming lots of 150 ft each and one lot less than 150 ft is that detrimental to the Zone plan of Bridgewater Township and then I'd like M sarman to ask that answer that question too did you could you re restate that question so you're proposing three lots that are in the subdivision that are under the 150 foot wide width requirement in the zone my question is I had spoken about this at the last meeting you could could have presented an application with two lots that are fully conforming at 150 ft width and then one only one lot instead of three lots that are non-conforming with the 150 ft wide lot requirement so my question to you and then to Mrs sarmat is is there anything detrimental to that type of subdivision application to the townships Zone plan because you all tend to talk about Zone plan and these you know phrases that that you all use I think we we did discuss this in great detail that the aggregate of these three lots being uh slightly under um 150 would not be visually impairing and and detrimental to the fabric of the neighborhood as as to the uh the one lot Standalone um that that given that would be you know next to the 150s would be a lot more noticeable a lot more visually impaired and you know I I want to remind uh the board that this was the original proposal that uh the app the applicant had put together um and that with discussions um with the professionals that this was a better alternative and and I just want to reiterate this again exactly kind of how the Coffin Case played out as well okay that that was the previous planner and she offered her opinion but then she didn't have the authority to Grant the subdivision approval that's why you're here correct the professionals offer their advice and most of the time we adhere to their advice but the board does have the ability to make a decision that may or may not be exactly what you as a professional or as the board professionals offer um that's just a comment so so if the if there were two conforming lots of 150 ft each um the width of the lot to the to the U I guess the West the existing lot is again how many feet wide the the join joining property how many feet wide is that lot the west of the subject property the existing lot Thee the neighbor neighboring lot what's the width of that lot Frontage of that road a lot number one to the left 49 49 thank you I think that's the objector one of the objector slots 225 225 okay and then the lot to the east what Lot number is that the 52.1 52.0 one what's the lot Frontage on that asking the Mr dockerty yeah what's that4 106 okay so I guess my thought here is and I'd like to propose that there be a change to your um your submission that would allow for two conforming Lots on the western western part and that the new lot on the eastern part would be one adjacent to that 106 foot lot would be the one that would be um non-conforming it's my that's my that's my request for your consideration as one board member i' wouldd like to con concede that the applicant is 100% willing to to do that and in the first hearing I said that if the board has a preference as to which lots to make non-conforming or not the applicant is 100% willing to do that if the board feels that's best I I just wanted to say that the building envelope when you're building a fully conforming lot will obviously expand but the building setbacks will stay the same no matter that that won't have an impact on the on the setbacks so I just wanted to make sure the board was aware of that um but I I did want to make that concession that we're we're open with to working with the board on that 100% I'm not going to offer testimony as far as the detriment I don't think I think we did at the last hearing have a similar discussion about um more so about the numbers about what the the relief would be if it was the scenario you just described where there were two conforming lots and one non-conforming what the deviation from the lot width would be um for that third lot and I for me you know no matter which way you cut the Lots up into a subdivision even your scenario versus what they've proposed just it shows that they can they can't do a three lot conforming subdivision so you know it was mentioned no matter what they would be before this board for a major subdivision and also no matter what they'd be before this board with the with the variance relief um whether it be for one lot two lots or three lots um what I will say is there their only variance relief is related to the lot withd and I think you'd ask a question about uh I don't remember the specific question was I know you'd post it to myself and Mr dhy um and I had mentioned that uh I didn't feel like there was one bulk standard that was more important than any others it was really a combination of how all those things interact again because Lots can be bigger than uh than the minimum in a Zone they can be less than a minimum minimum in a Zone and so can the setbacks and everything like that um and so uh you know I'm not going to provide any testimony like I said about you know the detriment that's the proofs required by the applicant but as far as um how the Lots were laid out I think the applicant has presented them in a way that they think was you know symmetrical in some way that these three lots would have you know less visual impairment I don't necessarily disagree with that and having them all be the same um or you know a similar deviation rather than one with a much larger deviation because that one lot will um might may may look have a visual look that uh isn't congruent with the others it may um it's hard to tell if 17 to 20 ft well no matter what it'll be more than what's proposed right now so depends upon what's built on that property too if you have a a you know house uh that is appropriate to scale with the lot size or the width and I'm sure if you drive up and down that road you'll see houses of different shapes and sizes and some of it is related to the width of the lot or some other consideration yeah I think there's there's a few unknowns with that um as far as we don't know if these are going to be built uh you've seen other you know newer subdivisions along roadways that have very very similar looking homes as part of those like you know F lot subdivision so if they were all going to look of the same character of the same materials of the same style then it may look odd if they are going to be built uh individually for uh individual buyers of the Lots then they could be you know there there is a very varied architectural style very varied home sizes setbacks along U Mountaintop across the street very different from the the the south side of the street so um I don't know to come with that they've you know testified that this is really related to a subdivision so we don't have much say over the architecturals and design and they're exactly right um but we can really only look at right now conceptually the footprints and things like that um so no problem M Mr chairman I have just a a couple questions because I I want to go back to an area we talked about last time and and I think I need to correct some numbers are these questions going to be okay yes um um you know we talked about how how how much house can you build on this combined lot and I believe that I took a simple 15% rather than in reality I need to do a hillside development reduction um so I I just want to make sure that that's clarified we can't build uh 24,000 square foot a house we can build uh you know it's closer to six and sixes to about 19,000 ft a house um you know I'm just by that number I'm just adding up the 701 the 6292 and the 5957 um so I just wanted to First clarify that the second is I want to just confirm my understanding that um under the plan that's on the table the house that's I guess closest to lot 49 would be up to 7,1 square ft however if we were to do nothing uh you know you were just to try to get a building permit for that lot that's there uh I'm going to presume for a moment that the maximum floor area ratio is going to be something between 12.75 and 11.37 some something between those numbers so just for the sake of argument I took the halfway point which is 1206 and I calculated that you could build a house on on existing lot 50 of 10,000 over 10,000 square ft I you know again we're we're rounding off you know You' have to look at the at the hillside calculation so I guess if there if there's a concern of the resident at lot 49 or for future residents of lot 49 and they were concerned about the size of the home and the placement of the home on lot 50 could the argument be made this is the plan you should be supporting 100% because if you do nothing you could build a 10,000 ft house anywhere you want in the building envelope under this plan you can build a 7,1 sqt house and we've discussed a voluntary reduction of the building envelope am I accurately seeing this I'm I'm going to answer it just because I don't think it's I think you're asking about a stipulation or cons that exed home built the answer is of course yes as of right home this is the develop develop as and builds one Manion so this I see this as an opportunity for the to limit the development but of course working within the confines of so to answer we talked about we've talked about I'm sorry go ahead to answer your question your initial question this should be the application you for the answer is yes all right and we've talked about the the the the the the front yard setback likely being somewhere in the 90 to 100 foot range it could be again on the existing conforming lot it could be a lot further from the street as long as you're still in the building envelope and that house depending upon where it's put could substant could be a substantial detrimental View to a detriment to the view of the neighboring homeowner okay going back to the square footage of the homes you know because there seems to be a not a difference of opinion but I want to make sure we're all everyone in this room and everyone associated with this is aligned the numbers that are that that we're seeing is 7,1 6992 and 50 957 as as the three Square footages does that include basement okay and when and you know cuz I want to make sure that we're everyone I want just to make sure everyone's align that assuming we're talking about a two-story house that means between the first story and the Second Story finished space it could be up to those numbers well and that and that that's exactly what I want to can kind of get out during this hearing so that there's no miscommunication later um um you know I want to make sure that there's full alignment of whether a basement would count or would not count as part of that so that you don't have a situation where you know you you know you've built a a you know a a house and then at a later time the homeowner comes to the building office saying hey I want to finish my basement and they're told hey you can only finish some of it so so I don't I don't know okay so what you're saying is when you go to submit plans and the f is calculated if somehow you know you didn't think the basement was included but it is and there's a problem then you go back to the drawing board pun intended to somehow come up to a point where the whole home by the definition uh of f meets the 70001 okay cuz cuz I I believe that the two places that are going to determine whether it's a basement or is a seller by our definition is going to be the height of the basement and the other is going to be whether or not uh you know how much of the basement area is below grade I I think those are probably the two things that are going to indicate whether those get calculated or not I don't have directly okay okay all right very fair well we're on the topic because this is very similar to that impervious coverage issue just to make the record clear uh I appreciate Mr kers you know putting getting some clarification and asking those questions again there are things that need to be rectified and reconciled on the plans where those numbers don't match I I'm not necessarily sure that the numbers that were just thrown out as far as the max are actually I think they're above the maximum actually pursuant to the F table on the cover sheet of the plans so I just need some reconciliation of what's the correct number from the applicant as all all I ask is that a condition that the plans will be revised so that they accurately either the footnote is accurate or the table is accurate whatever it is just so when we're going through reso compliance we have some idea of what where to look thank you that condition already got it okay and and then you know to to to kind of dovetail on on what was said earlier by Mr papis I I guess ultimately we may be left with a decision uh assuming that we're we're we're willing to Grant relief the two flavors of relief one would be the 150 the 150 and the 133 the other would be the more even 143 148 142 in the event that we go with the 150 150 133 we're creating a situation where you know two homes are larger one home is definitely not going to be able to be as large but that happens to be the home that's sitting next to other homes that are not quite as large so I guess the kind of the question that you know we would have to consider is you know should that home be smaller because then it's more similar to the neighbors to the east or should these three be seen as a block together um and thus the reason why they would be of similar size because uh you know the lot WIS would be similar so you know you know I'm not I'm not sure exactly how that's going to square out but I think that that's that's really what we're talking about assuming we're going to Grant relief and those are the two FL flavors it's are they equal or are these two equal but the one to the east uh uh is more like its neighbor further east well in theory the homes still could be the same size with lot with different well when I say the same size I mean maximum size I mean someone could choose to make the homes the same correct I'm talking about maximum size covers will be less covers will be different okay thank you if I May um I referenced the bend in the road because lot 49's uh property line ends right at that bend so you kind of come around this Bend and then starts the new so that we're talking about and next to it it's not a straight you know line where you can set back and see there's there's a curve in that in that road there um for this why um I put a great emphasis on on purpose eye of of the ML and I think we had a a unique conversation about a sub neighborhood identity character and and I'm not sure if that's where you were going with uh with the physical features um um but I just you know would like to reiterate that I do think what we proposed here um is is aesthetically more pleasing um particularly as you come around that bin there is that distinctive uh separation so that's your argument for the three the three relatively equal lot widths as compared to the two conforming and the one less conforming yeah you would put that if you what you were saying is you would put that next to lot 49 it would be nearly 25 ft smaller um in that b and then come back to the larger Lots again um so that's no I don't I don't think that's I think if if any of the lots are going to be under sided it's going to be the one to the east not the one to the West okay I thought you were referring to lot 49 sold entire time no I'm referring I'm I I'm again assuming that the numbering is right I guess I'm referring to lot 50 2.01 5 two1 you know whatever whatever that lot is going to the east that's where you're proposing that smaller lot okay well I think so yeah you were referring to it because the other Lots next to it had a smaller lot all right and and I just want to make sure that your comment that you made about conforming you know other than the potential for lot with being non-conforming everything else you are committed to conforming including if we end up with that 150150 133 solution okay thank you all right thank you thank you any other questions from Mr Dy oh he's still SW in Mr silbert do you have any other Witnesses or any other testimony that you'd like to present M SED have we satis thank you I just had one other item um that I think from the last hearing um was unresolved and that was a question from Mr Atkins to the applicant I think to Mr Styers related to the tree removal calculations as I had noted looking through the tree calculations there was at least one tree that was not identified on the removal which calls into question exactly what Mr Askin Atkins was asking um and I don't know if that was reconciled um and I you know I'd like to see what the applicant has as far as that it's actually yeah okay thank you does that satisfy as long as it's a condition um and that the applicant is willing to comply with the tree ordinance uh removal and replacement then that's fine by me thank [Music] you Mr wisi are there any unresolved engineering questions from Mr bur's report no I believe we heard a lot about storm I'm sorry I forget the microphone here we heard a lot about storm water certainly um and you know we understand that these are sort of prototypical lot development plans um and uh one item that I think I did hear mentioned was you know once a a plan is put forward to develop each of these Lots individually you know those storm water management uh designs would have to be reviewed um you know by Mr Burr possibly by me assisting him um but certainly we'd like to make sure that you know any proposed stormm Water Management facilities and I think I this is what I heard before uh this evening I heard that those uh improvements would also include and go along with uh you know operations and maintenance manual that would be recorded at the County as well as on file at the township and be available to the homeowners indicating which of those stor Water Management facilities are ultimately constructed on the site um and you know that those would would be basically go along with the home as as part of the approval sort of in perpetuity to address these storm water concerns which obviously are ongoing and becoming more and more Amplified over the years I think those are that was really the largest thing that we were we were looking at certainly in addition to the tree removals and replacement requirements because that also does go long way to addressing storm water and runoff I think those are the the two main items that I wanted to touch on very good Mr P have we satisfied all conditions and requests uh yeah except you do have to give the public a chance to comment generally on the application with that being said are there any members of the public that do wish to comment on the General application Dana caparosa 65 t Road just confirming that conservation eement I'm at block 78 lot 64 right below just confir that's part of it okay that's all thank you thank you m c anybody else me so I'm semma and I I live in lot 49 um sorry I have to object to this she's represented by coun I think she can make a comment she can't cross-examine your Witnesses but I think it's it's kosher I promise not to cram um I just wanted to point out that Mr Gerardo lives in lot 52 and his next door neighbor is lot 5201 those are the two properties that are 106 Frontage those are two properties that have been subdivided in the past I think that's why Mr Walker was bringing it up because that's where all the water is accumulating on the street so if there was any storm water requirement for that subdivision it failed miserably so just because we're talking about storm water management in this venue doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to be successful I just want to point that out the other thing I want to point out is that starting from lot 48 which is my next door neighbor if the if Mr jardo and his neighbor's lot was not subdivided Ed starting with my neighbor it's 150 ft Frontage minus 225 the current house is 225 the vacant undeveloped blot is 207 the two subdivided properties would have been 212 and then 177 so that expansive Road has very generously sized properties on it even though we've talked about you know other are areas of Mountaintop Road Mountaintop road is a really long road it goes on forever so I just wanted to give you like a visual of of what's going on it's a very rustic natural environment um and so my objection Mr kers you were mentioning you know building a massive house first of all I don't think a massive house you know um I think the houses are being built for in you know investment in resale so I don't think building a massive house is going to generate the resale that it needs to generate putting a unusually sized house on a lot is probably not going to be attractive to a buyer but my objection wasn't how big his houses next to mine it was about just putting more concrete and hardscaping in the neighborhood because the beauty of Mountaintop Road it's like going to a Botanical Garden how many houses do you want to see in a Botanical Garden that's really the points so um however wanting to be neighborly understanding that there's some more um concessions that could be made because we're in front of a council and by them asking for the three lots I actually reached out to Mr jordo several times to try to get um an agreement so that it doesn't so that it doesn't take away from the beauty of the neighborhood and one of the things I asked for was that he didn't cut down trees unnecessarily especially along Mountaintop Road and that he would only be removing trees that were in the immediate way of the driveways he was building I asked for um the three houses to look different architecturally and style-wise so it doesn't look like a development area so I actually sent him a list the last time we were here he indicated that he might be open to um accommodating my request I asked him not to get any closer than 40t from my property even though he's 60 feet away right now um anyway so I've been trying to um uh work with him understanding that he's got goals he wants to accomplish but understanding that I moved into this beautiful area uh with the intention of enjoying the natural preserved environment that it you know accommodates so that's what I'd like i' wanted to say thank you just me a minute just for your information I've been to that property three times now which property which property property that's U being uh discussed right now there three times and I was there this morning so we are familiar with the area I believe okay I hope you agree with me that it's got that natural yeah thank you uh I just first of all just want to say thank you guys um uh you're asking really good questions um and I appreciate that um I came in here not expecting you to care to be honest um and I've seen that so I really do appreciate that um as you make your decision um I just want to say that I think we what we all can agree on is we want to preserve that Natural Area I want to preserve as much as possible the deer and the groundhogs and the skunk and the raccoons and the Flying Squirrels and all these really beautiful creatures in the that I know were there were there um and I've watched disappear as as people have um uh degraded some of the the natural elements of that area so as you make your decisions if you could just keep that in mind um uh how important it is to keep the uh keep that Natural Area uh as pristine as it can be yet still allow people to live there and build houses etc etc thank you good evening again board members uh I just want to summarize the points here miss teken has tried as she indicated again to you personally just for reasonable points for the buffer between their properties for trees to be protected and to remain she's asked for what they height they would be planted at and we did not receive a response uh we she did not receive a response to that bullet point list that was specifically requested so that's why I'm here to ask for assurances for Miss teken that those reasonable points are considered as part of the resolution one that I think hasn't been included yet is main keeping those uh the uniqueness right or some different colors or architectural differences I don't know how that could be worded perhaps your planner could with that resp Miss sorat I believe she's looking to see if we could impose put some type of condition that Provisions them to or forces them to put three different styles of of homes on these Lots I mean as part of the the variance you know the board can impose conditions usually related to the variance not okay with it though what was that we're okay with it as long as okay with it then we just we concede I'm I think we'll have to work probably with the applicant when the resolution is drafted to figure out the right language that um there differental Styles a lot yeah we just make sure that the homes don't look uh the same they'll be designed differently different floor plans and different styles that's totally totally fine with us as long as the applicant agrees and that's fine okay anything else M the only other item is protection for the mature trees along the road and I think you might already have that in your plan but I just want to make sure it's in the yeah I mean we're going to comply with the with the ordinance as far as tree removal tree replacement I think the plans that were presented to the board already show that we're trying to preserve those Street trees that was a major um that was one of the applicant's major intent intentions were to preserve them so as to not have to provide New Street trees so I think we're naturally um abiding by that I I don't know if I'd want to concede to a condition to that but I I don't think it's uh material because we're we're going to comply with that um don't want to remove the street trees we have to have Street trees I think you testified that you keep preserve as many as possible yes yes we did that's the case that's that's what we intend to do Mr chairman since this is our chance for collaboration um I I I just want to make sure that as a board we we can consider as many accommodations as possible um again in the spirit of collaboration so I know one of the things that was of concern was style of the house we've addressed that street trees we've addressed that and I think the board has addressed all of her other okay concerns here okay so so you know from from the standpoint of the of the applicant again you know this might be a an unusual question is there anything more that needs to be placed onto the table at this point where we can collaborate the 39.9 is where no we're we'll comply with the township setback requirements and the set the are the setback requirement is what now on the plan is 30 I'm sorry I know what they're shown on the plans but I'm not going to encumber the property to create harsher setback requirements just just because this is where right I don't feel assured because the applicant says that these are conceptual placements and then tells us we should feel comfortable because this is the placement that is going to be it's the placement let me let me suggest a compromise here um um so first of all what what is the setback [Music] requirement what what is what is what's the setback requirement 20t 20 feet 20 20 feet side yard all right would would the applicant stipulate to Center the house on the property we've already we've already agreed to construct the homes in their approximate locations what I what I don't want to happen is 30 years from now because I have clients that come to me to ask me to address these issues where the board imposes a condition that's uh not consistent with the ordinance that forces the applicant to to go back to the board so we're going to build the homes generally in their location which provides that 40 foot buffer but I don't want to encumber the property I'm concerned about 20 or 30 years down the road that's that's my concern which is I I do already have a a condition down that they would construct the homes substantially as depict on the revised plans right so that would be about 40 ft side yard from lot 49 not 20 it's a big difference right but I I would remind Council that this is the time for comment now and the time for why why I slightly open the door so I I'll take responsibility I got to agree though I I think they met a lot of these things and W we nitpicking here they're agreeing to comply and being substantially and not moving substantially off of what the plans are I don't understand if they comply with the township regulation what is the other problems that we are facing here I mean where it is 20 ft or 25 ft or 40 ft I mean I can understand the neighbor should live with the neighbor without fighting but at least if they comply with the regulations then they should do it and as a good neighbor they will probably allow us 10 ft 20 ft more than the uh requirement so that should be okay instead let me just ask ask a question of Mr silberg and to illustrate where I'm going here M MH um unless there's some unusual topography and there does not appear to be unusual topography here is there any reason why a home is not relatively centered on on a property I think that anybody's gonna I don't know how to answer that question because if you own property you're going to develop the property whoever you want to develop it within the confines of what the Township's ordinance permits but I just want to go back as a as it we didn't have to do this it's it's a it's a gesture of good faith when I stipulated that we will construct the homes in the approximate locations where they're shown on the plans that that's a major concession that's not okay that's that's and where the plan it shows is relatively centered yes it is okay that's that's that's what I want to accomplish I just I just want to make sure that this home does not get built so it's there's a 25t sidey yard over here and a 65 foot or whatever the number would be over there but if that did happen councilman that's I'm I agree that that's silly but that's what the ordinance allows you to do it it's it's I don't know why someone would do it but I just didn't want to do something that would create an encumbrance on the property that that the property is already restricted by what the ordinance permits and that's I'm trying not to deviate from that but we we meet all of the requests that have been requested of us we we meet just naturally correct me if I'm wrong you moved the driveway to in between the existing house and the new house that you're building right am I thinking the plan the right way no yeah yes correct yes between between the current house between 49 the way they laid Maxim theer dve that's the face of the house that set the house so it's actually set as far over away from her as possible and the principle we use sorry with the previous planner is technically we try to put it 10t from the property so that's what 10t 35 the set two dve Mr unless there any other comments is a good time to run through the the conditions at maybe this is a question for I'm sorry Mr PE if I could how approximate is approximate from our standpoint imposing uh restrictions on the property how exact can we ensure that these plans be realized what do you mean when when they stipulate to having the homes be substantially we depicted on the plant yes I mean I think the the eye test I I mean there's no scientific uh formula that we can apply but you know they have them sort of front loaded pretty much centered that's where they're going to have to be you know if they come back and say hey it's we want to put it on the crest of the Hill because we're going to get a better view that's obviously not substantially where they are but I mean it's not going to be done with like this is your exact box and you have to stay in it it's just front third of the property centered driveways will be where they're depicted on the plans and to a similar response that I gave to a member of the public earlier when when they submit their final plot plan when they actually go for building permit for the homes there's going to be oversight from engineering and from planning because it's flagged as a planning board application hopefully uh that the resolution controls you know those plans so um there will be some oversight before the building permit is issued based on those plot plans that they submit also the final permit will be basically also you know you will be R you will be reviewing the final permit condition anyway right building permit conditions or certification I should say the subdivision will would be part so if this application look favorably upon resolution compliance will really only be related to the subdivision plans that are proposed the final plat for the subdivision anything further when they actually go to build the homes because that's really not I mean it is something we discussed at this board level but it's not part of it they don't have to do them in tandem those building permits that will be sought for the homes themselves will be separate from this however they will probably be flagged by the build department for the professionals to review those things because there are conditions attributed to this property that are within that resolution that's what I talk thank you thank you Mr CH Mr P should we go through that list yeah now understand that the conditions we've had three hearings and the plants have changed and so there's going to be some redundancy here just trust that you know I'll mesh them together at the end when when doing it so in addition to the standard uh conditions applicable to all uh applications you know that they'll they'll act in accordance with their testimony and representations will'll pay their taxes and escrow get Outside Agency approvals uh all that good stuff that uh the applicant will stipulate to meeting all bulk requirements in the zone including uh F impervious uh and setback uh they'll meet all applicable storm water regulations and will record the storm water management plan that the operations and maintenance manual for dry Wells and the previous pavement will be recorded that relates back to the last you can see the flow of the the testimony where where these come from um they'll get a uh letter from the applicants engineer stating the findings regarding the wetlands uh if any uh no developers agreement would be required there'll be a conservation easement over the rear yard setback area which is the rear 75 ft of each of the Lots soil tests will be provided to the board engineer um the maintenance uh for the storm water stuff the perious pavement um in addition to recording the onm manual uh with the county clerk there'll also be a reference to that in the lot Deeds that it's up to the individual lot owners to maintain the prvious pavement and the dry Wells uh the applicant is to excuse me investigate the gravity lines uh for the uh sewage subject to the board Engineers uh review and approval and if feasible they'll do some easements uh over those gravity lines get so the township can get in and if if need be uh uh applicant is to provide slope calculations to the board engineering uh landscaping and trees uh to the review and satisfaction of the board profess naal that includes the street trees um they will comply with all the review memoranda uh except as otherwise testified including but not limited to the Sewer authorities uh July 10 updated memo that that's redundant it's going to be a a grinder pump that has to be noted on the uh the deed for the particular lot uh if wetlands are discovered on the property relating back to that condition uh several conditions ago but if wetlands are discovered they have to be delineated uh with monuments and the conservation easement will also be delineated with some sort of monuments uh so everybody knows where they are and those monuments will be to the satisfaction of the board engineer uh the tree removal and replacement calculations will be provided Ed to the satisfaction of the board's professionals um any existing trees being used uh for the street tree calculations uh if those are identified during construction as being sick or dying they'll be replaced relating again to the storm water the P the type of the perious payment and the maintenance and operations manual is to the board engineer satisfaction the homes will be constructed uh in accordance with the zoning tables depicted on the plans the homes will be constructed generally where shown on the plans the existing grinder pump agreement servicing the lot will be cancelled and that cancellation will be recorded with the county clerk figure on the final plans that are submitted the all the various figures and numbers will be reconciled uh the applicant will comply with the steep slope maximums for the F and impervious cover requirements and that the homes will be in different styles and I'll have to figure out the phrasing of that but they won't be cookie cutter type construction so if I forgot anything now's your chance to yeah to that and if if the applicant has any disagreement with what was recited hit the M Mr PE thank you all right very good that was right I don't know if that's a condition that they're going to put it over yeah they're going to put it over the whole rear setback area was about the conservation easement I just any board commentary Mr Pi yeah just Advance my uh request about the lot wids so that's really the decision on the flavors Mr silbert sorry I couldn't hear not sure what was just said Mr Pap has brought up the lot with um and and what was the what was the question with respect to it would you like to rephrase the question Mr pupp just would restate what I asked earlier that I proposed two conforming Lots with with and then the one non-conforming to the east of the property if if the board's preference is that we that we do that we will agree to do that would you I don't know if the board would like to deliberate to State I don't I'm not sure what I think yeah no I think there needs to be deliberation and a motion made you know I would just make a motion to accept the the plans as presented um with the variances as requested subject to all the various conditions and if that doesn't go down I guess another motion could be made then for the two and you know two conforming and the one of 133 yeah sure will the board vote 131 131 or [Music] 133 yeah just I'm I'm just thinking procedurally how to do that I think the cleanest way is just to put the one up to a vote because if if people are inclined to do the two conforming with the one greater non-conformity then vote no you know on the the first motion well unless you want to do you know a will of the board that's what I was going to you know if if there's a preference Mr chairman if if it would be okay with you as the applicant we would like to hear perhaps some deliberation on what the board's preferences and and then we can certainly amend the application based upon some of the feedback we get I don't know if Mr pek if you think that's suitable procedurally we can Mr PE I don't I just want to offer my opinion based on you know we the professionals here had had done an entire review based on plans that were submitted showing the dimensions um and all the setbacks and everything even conceptual so the entire plan we see today if we scrap it for something it's not something I would advise the board to just vote on and approve on the Fly because everything would change every single number shown in that bulk table change the lot area the lot widths the setbacks the you know a lot would change uh and so I I I would just advise the board that you know that could potentially delay this Vote or at least advise the applicant that that's my opinion um that I would like to see those plans and I think the board should want to see those plans what you are saying that for 13 one the setback will be again have to be discussed for at least for a 13 yeah we don't know if it's 131.5 133.5 we don't know what that what the conforming and non-conforming lot widths would be specifically so we would be voting on a variance that doesn't even have an exact number right good if we have the lot the length of the frontage of the lot and we subtract 300 we have a number but they let's say that they decide to make one 151 152 and one like so there are there's a greater variance into that one just based on what when they start to look at things so um you know there's no specifics to it yes I think it's a it's a decent idea um but I would say the applicant should explore it and this board should want to see the plans um prepared to show it can we but if the board EXC if I could just but maybe to I think Ashley's point or Nan's just see if the board is even interested in that if the board isn't interested in it then you vote on the application as presented I'd agree that's probably fine I would just want to warn that if we did move forward without those plans that we there could be unknown consequences to it that we didn't get to visualize and think through and a final if we approved that to go to our final plat we could be dealing with something we didn't even realize we were we're pro we're coming back if they're we would have to definitely come back back with the revised I think so Mr let's go for simple you can deliberate and get a sense of of the board and the applicant be can be guided accordingly okay with that we can close that portion of meeting open up for deliberations based on that first as the application came yep I'll begin with you Mr CH I am for it as the application was presented yes original that makes sense that all the three will be looking same I like to have at least neighborhood looking similar rather than two big and one small uh and now we know all the variance for the application as submitted that's what we went through three days so I would not like to disturb that one Mr banga as presented chates made sign improvs all three of the differents they will be a benefit to the community I think having equal size L will make more sense than having a small I agree say the same thing they would Council MC you know I'm comfortable with either approach and um um definitely sensitive that we could create chaos unnecessarily and uh We've uh we've been here three nights so uh I'm comfortable with either approach uh and obviously that includes the relatively even uh distribution plan look basically I'm looking at three equally sized frontages uh I just have to walk out of the front door of my house and look at the houses across the street which were built recently as opposed to my house my house is in a non-conforming area right now those across the street are 150 ft I I I have no problem with uh equally sized bu of juice Mr pis Mr wayang Mr Atkins I also agree on the equally sized Lots uh we discussed about the planning board having being able to have the control over what's going to be built there and I think that in doing so having the three equally sized Lots it puts oursel in more of a position to Future proof what's taking place I've seen situations where sometimes somebody 40 years ago built a home in in a corner of a lot and it's catty quartered and they're like no one's ever going to build behind there and then short you know there you go 40 years later somebody builds a home you know perfect Center and and that home that was built cat corn looks strange all all a sudden so I feel as though having three conforming Lots probably helps a situation down the road um with that being said um do we need a roll call on you need a motion we need a motion you need a motion for the application or a motion for well I mean if you're in if you're so inclined you could make a motion to approve the application as presented with the conditions that stated that you stated yep okay I'll make that motion I'll second it that's Mr s cor and that's Mr chowri uh before we vote on that uh um Miss probes could you uh just briefly bring us through who's eligible to vote because I know we've been here this is the third night now and I know there was some discrepancy early on okay did not hear the tape to become eligible okay okay if you would like to repeat the role then yes yes yes yes yes believe that's all of them correct you need mine too we don't have sakora oh good yes thank you motion carries thank you very much and uh thank you for indulging us this evening I'm sorry again for what had happened earlier not in your control thank you very much very well I know that's not easy what are you supposed to do yeah you can't I think just the coming events coming yeah that's right no that's it we're there been recovered a lot of grand tonight no we we did very anti clima just a bit oh I know I know you didn't miss Pros would you like to look at the calendar uh for the month of August I think we discussed an 8:31 date is that uh is there any business on 8:31 that shouldn't even be scheduled okay okay I'm sorry our next schedule meeting is the 20th correct no business on the 20th so no no meeting on the 20th meeting on the 20th no I had the 31st or something it's fine August 31st August that's fine it's not August 31st is a Saturday what's on the 31st then then then I have my August completely wrong heree sep September 3rd right do do we have anything in the month of September uhhuh okay for the 20th or for okay okay that's October right there's no meeting on the 3D either of September well that'll depend on Council action correct all right so just to officialize it uh any meeting potentially Mee for 8:20 is canceled okay I'm not sure if we'd have a quarum in this room okay any other comments tomorrow okay well that I'll take a vote for adjournment or a motion for adjournment I'll make that motion Mr cor second I'll second councilman Kur all in favor I that was maybe I'll see maybe be here I actually may not be here either that was an actioned meeting