##VIDEO ID:gKt4v5m8v1s## so um this is the uh planning board meeting um for August 7th in accordance with the open public meetings act PL 1975 chapter 231 adequate notice of this regular meeting of the planning board of the township has been provided uh if everyone would please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge of Al to of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under indivisible liberty and justice for all okay so Mark Dancy asked to be excused this evening councilman and Barson here Theodore Chase here Robert Lort here Sammy shoban not here Jennifer ragna here Mahir Rafi Charles Brown here Robert Thomas here Rebecca Hilbert here chairman orini here um so we have no minutes tonight um but we do have a number of resolutions so first one on the docket L'oreal USA okay Bob Lort Samy sioban Mahir Rafi Rebeca hbert and Mark Dancy cannot vote I'll make a motion to approve second second councilman arson yes Theodore Chase yes Jennifer ragno Yes Charles Brown yes Robert Thomas yes chairman orini yes uh second one is bsr3 logistics logistical Acquisitions just Rebecca Hilbert cannot vote on this one move to approve second councilman arson yes Theodor Chase yes Robert Lort yes Jennifer ragno Yes Charles Brown yes Robert Thomas yes chairman marcini yes third one's Executive Drive investments just Rebecca move to approve councilman and barison yes Theodore Chase yes Robert Lort yes Jennifer ragno Yes M oh she's not here Charles Brown yes Robert Thomas yes and chairman arini yes last one Cal Sterling LLC uh councilman and Barson and Charles Brown cannot vote move to approve second Theodore Chase yes Robert Lort yes Jennifer ragnell Yes Robert Thomas yes Rebecca Hilbert yes and chairman orini yes um oh let the I didn't let the record show Samy's here um sorry I didn't see you come in so no discussion items tonight so we'll go directly into general public comments of this portion of the meeting is for any comments not associated with either hearing tonight either Chad rossback or 1231 properties those will have uh hear um um openings to the public of their own where you can comment on anything um related to those applications so this is just for any general planning comments that the public may have so with that I move I move to open the meeting to that second all in favor I anyone wishing to speak please come forward to the microphone say your name and address seeing no takers for this part move to close all in favor I okay so the first hearing up is uh Chad rosback so pln 24003 and um you're up well the board may be wondering why these are hearings and not minor subcommittees because they have variances good evening Mr chairman members of the board Peter Lanford appearing on behalf of the applicant uh this is an application for a minor subdivision uh for a parcel of land owned by Mr rosback at 41st Street block 449 01 Lots 42 and 43 uh the application is to take the existing lot which is 32,000 square feet and to create two 16,000 ft Lots retaining the existing home on one of the lots and building a new home on the second lot uh this evening I will call Mr rossback and I will also call our uh site engineer who prepared the subdivision plan and then Mr obrien to present planning testimony to justify the variances that we are seeking uh if we can have Mr rossback sworn take M swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you got I do please give us your name and address Chad rossback 4 First Street Somerset New Jersey thank you Mr rosback you're the owner of the property uh in question correct yes there that's correct and do you reside at for First Street yes that's correct and with whom do you reside uh I reside there my wife and my three children who are present in the back okay and how long have you owned the property uh 14 years okay and you are seeking uh approval to subdivide the property to create two lots is that correct yes that's correct and on the subdivided lot that is would be currently vac you're proposing to construct a dwelling is that correct yes that's correct and for whom are you constructing that dwelling that dwelling will be for myself and my family to reside in okay the present house that you reside in uh how many how big is it and how many bedrooms does it have uh the the present house that I reside in is a ranch it's approximately 1,000 square ft and it's a three-bedroom okay and is it adequate for your family's needs uh no it is not okay and so your intent is to to build the new house behind so to speak your existing house although it fronts on second and then uh either keep the other house and rent it or sell it correct yes that's correct okay uh one last question uh in the report uh that was generated by the TRC there was a question of the location of the pipelines on the property uh the pipelines that are shown on the plan were those pipelines dimensioned and located by the pipeline company yes they were all right you call the pipeline company to come out and locate them for you yes I did and the engineer then put them on the plan based on the location of the pipelines by the company yes that's correct okay and also as part of the application uh your driveway to the proposed house was would be across the pipeline correct that is correct and did you discuss that with the pipeline company yes I did and do you have an approval should the board Grant this application to build that driveway across the pipeline I do have an approval from Enbridge correct thank you I have no further questions of this witness any questions from the board just one question Mr chairman um there is um some grade a sidewalk and some grading in in their easement was that discussed with the pipeline the grading uh I'm not sure of in my neighborhood there are no sidewalk so I'm not sure there's a sidewalk for the proposed for the proposed house and to accommodate the house and the driveway the plan shows proposed grading in the pipeline easement was that discussed with the pipeline company the pipeline company was provided with the notice of the application I don't know of Mr rossback uh spoke did you speak to them about the grading we went over everything that had to do with them in the pipeline and the easement setback uh I guess you're referring to the sidewalk for the house that was all talked about with them and they were okay with everything did you say that you have something in rating from them I I do I have U I'd have to sip through my phone but I do have a email confirmation uh that I signed stating what I intended to do and they verified that this was okay by them correct and we'd be happy to get that Supply it to the board um Mr Lanford you're aware we have had an application recently where grading within an easement has was an issue so yeah you know it's one thing to have improvements over it but then you're also changing the grade in that easement so we will get you the paperwork uh to make sure you and the engineering department is comfortable with it thank you any other questions for this witness if not you can move on Peter Mr Fletcher there's right hand only swear to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth to help you got yes I do thank you Mr Fletcher for the record State your full name and your business address yes Paul J Fletcher uh business address is 54 West Pawn Road in hopan New Jersey okay and Mr Fletcher you are both a licensed engineer and a professional planner in the state of New Jersey I am and this evening you you will only be providing engineering testimony and no planning testimony correct that is correct and the subdivision plan that is the subject of this application was prepared uh by you or under your direction that is correct okay can you describe the subject property and Mr just note that he's accepted oh I'm sorry thank you I'm sorry yes the U subject property common known as 4 First Street Lots 42 and 43 in Block 44901 uh it's a through lot with Frontage on Second Street and First Street the existing house uh fronts on on First Street it is 160 ft wide uh 200 ft Deep Street to Street uh total of 32,000 Square FT Property is located in the R20 Zone and uh applicant proposes to subdivide the property in half uh leaving the uh the existing home on a lot with Frontage on First Street and creating a vacant building lot with Frontage on Second Street applicant further proposes to construct a new twostory single family dwelling um uh with the facing facing Second Street there are a number of uh variances uh associated with the application uh firstly lot area uh this is in the R20 Zone where 20,000 squ ft is required 16,000 ft is provided for each lot the other variances are for uh rear yard setback for the uh proposed house uh the reard setback would be proposed to be 20 ft versus the 50 ft that's required and for the existing home uh the rear yard setback would be 40.2 ft versus the 50 ft required uh with those exceptions uh all other bulk standards are met with regards to setback lot coverage total impervious coverage uh Building height Etc Mr since you're on the topic variances let me just ask a quick question so in in the TRC report the third bullet the variance for distance from a gas transmission line I know Mr rosbach went over that um as his discussions with the um pipeline company what's the existing condition how far away is the current house from that pipeline uh it's about from the nearest gas line about 50 ft okay so this would then reduce that just by Dent of building the new house to from 50 to 25 would be the nearest setback I mean obviously the existing house would would not moving so it's going to be set back the same amount as currently the existing house is in violation and that will not change the new house will be a new violation to the five point but I'm just trying to get it what the closest thing is now because that way you know if it was 100 fet and it was complying and you're going to 25 ft that gives me more of a question than that I understand uh and just to reiterate what Mr uh rosbach mentioned uh he had uh he had the uh the gas company actually stake out uh the uh pipeline location uh we went in the field with the survey crew we located those flags so that the uh depiction of the gas line location as shown on the plan is is is accurate now Mr Fletcher you've had an opportunity to review the the TRC report from the township of Franklin dated June 19th uh 2024 is that correct that is correct okay uh we will not talk about the variances because Mr O'Brien has to earn his fee this evening so I'll let him talk about them um the with respect to the property is it now serviced by uh public the existing house is a serviced by public water and or public sewer uh it's it's serviced by public uh sewer but I believe there's a well okay and with respect to the new house uh there is water in the neighborhood and if if we can get water to the property is it the applicant's desire to service it with public water if available if possible otherwise he would be uh putting a new well in putting a well in yes but the new house will be serviced by yes correct Mr Fletcher yes can you please put the mic closer to your mouth so they can hear you is that better yep that's better thank you the next comment for the record uh that the Franklin Township historic preservation advisory commission had to review the application uh I appeared before it last evening and they took no issue or exception with respect to the application sent us that information so that's good um let's just go back to number three a second on the water main so you're going to um adjust your plan that shows an existing water main where according to Township records no water mains exist on either Street um so I don't know how you tap into water um you have to be on well unless you no there there is actually water line over on Maxwell uh which is across from this property we may be able to access access it uh so our position is if we can if we can bring water to the property we will uh if we can't we can't but uh we'd have to work that out with Mr ha and the water department but there is there is water in the vicinity it doesn't front along the property but Maxwell is is not too far from the subject property okay just just make sure your plan's correct because if it shows Mains on first and second and there isn't then yeah and Mr chairman just to speak to that issue um our ordinance has a in the bulk table there's a a footnote in the R7 Zone r10 Zone the R15 Zone where if any lot you know R7 Zone if you have both Public Water and Sewer the minimum lot area is only 7500 R1 if you have both public water and public sewer it's 10,000 R5 If you have both Public Water Public sewer it's 15,000 but if you lack either one of those the minimum lot area becomes 20,000 Square ft presumably the public purpose of that is that you need a larger land area perhaps a need for greater separation between septic systems and Wells so I think there's a clear you know zoning purpose that's repeated in our ordinance that if you're lacking either public water or public sewer the minimum lot area should be 20,000 sare ft uh and the applicants proposing 16 yep I mean at least as of this plan and we can only judge the plan is is before us tonight which is going to be well well again I I would hope that the board would rep accept our representation that if we can get public water to the property we will right I know you intend to but rest of tonight we have no evidence that you can we have no input from the water department so we can only judge what is before that is that's correct Mr arini but uh Mark's comment raises another question in my mind is there is there any way that the the project can be designed so that we get one conforming lot out of it maybe the one with the new house is 20,000 Square ft the H the side with the already existing variances is 12,000 I I don't know if we can get it it it it's funny I I looked at this today and I discussed it with Mr Fletcher and one of my thoughts and you know sometimes I have trouble being a lawyer sometimes I want to be an engineer or a planner uh was to move the lot line uh for the new lot closer to the existing dwelling to make the new lot bigger whether we can make it conforming or not uh without creating a problem I think when Mr Fletcher looked at it we we said if we took 10 feet uh we first of all would eliminate the issue that was raised in this in the report uh concerning the uh storm water management and I Mr Fletcher I think the discussion was that if we took 10 feet off the or we move the lot line 10 feet closer to the existing house uh then the rear yards of both properties would be the same that's correct they would both be uh 30 ft uh to answer the board members question uh you would need to add uh the the new lot would have to be 160 by 125 ft to be conforming uh that would reduce the uh lot with the existing dwelling to uh 12,000 ft well the bigger vacant lot would suit the proposed bigger house a little bit better and it leaves a little more space around it and it has a little more room for the well that might go there and then there's a you know the other the pipeline just just a thought based on what Mark said our standards are we we don't we haven't I can't remember and I'm not saying we never did it that we granted variances I know we've granted variances to building Lots in this area often all right but usually that was a lot someone came in they wanted to build a house on it I'm not sure that we've ever subdivided a conforming lot into lots that are not conforming with variances that's a little bit of a concern uh I know nothing ever affects the master plan just like the traffic engineer says nothing you know traffic never gets worse even if the developments huge but I think we could do better with this I have one question for Mr Fletcher Mr over here Mr Fletcher yes where is the existing well for the house it's not shown on our plan ago is the reason I'm asking that is it on the is it on the lot that's going to contain it is in the front of the house so it it this the subdivision line will not impact by the existing levels all right thank you if the members of the board want us to look at relocating that line and if that becomes a and again I I know having been here enough you don't like to redesign an application on the Fly because that's not not fair to anybody but if the board has the sentiment that perhaps you know the plan and uh would best be served and the board would look more favorably I'm not going to say they're going to approve it but at least more favorably with the Rel location of the line we would be happy to go back to the drawing board and resubmit a revised plan and and and see if if the board likes that better than what we have in front of them this evening yeah and I appreciate that and and I'm going to ask the board to give their comment um I'll just start uh because I've been thinking about this a lot um it it's not so dissimilar from about the other application I either in in principle so I like Bob suggest question uh to make this more conforming uh it is at the bigger house with a 1,000 ft house and on a smaller lot the variances may be exacerbated for that lot but they're a little more tolerable because it's a smaller house so as I see the applicant has a couple of choices they could reduce the size of their new proposed house to reduce those variances um or and still risk you know we're subdividing conforming law into two non-conforming or I like Bob's plan better get the new lot as close to conforming as you can place the larger house on it which makes sense right because you'd want more area for that house and the 1,000 ft house live with a little bit more variance because it's a smaller house so to me that makes sense that's my two cents um I'll start with Sammy I'll work my now yeah I was just curious to know what it would take to get more confidence about the connection to Maxwell for the for the water because that seems like that would be a we can look into that if if we're going to do you know redesign this a little bit we can also follow up on the issue of water yeah because I think if we have the public then you said it drops down to 15 is that right no it doesn't it it's still a 20 but it must be a 20 more so than if ever was it is R20 let me just explain it just a little just so the board understands I think the planning intent of that requirement yeah this is the R20 zone so they require 20 period but I think the assumption is that R20 is sewer and has and has water but we have um again on the lot on the zones that permit smaller Lots you can have smaller Lots in R7 r10 R15 but if you're lacking either one of those the ordinance basically says you have to do an R20 lot you have to have that 20,000 Square ft so you know and I wanted to bring that up to the board because again that runs through several zoning districts and it's a consistent requirement that you know the town Zone plan says we want 20,000 foot Lots if you're lacking either one of those so I wanted to bring that to the board's attention because they are asking for variances and they're lacking public water and Mr or if I may before you continue your discussion I spoke to my client and if water is available we would be willing to extend it to both properties which may be a compelling reason another reason for the grant of the variance that we're taking you know the new house and the existing house off Wells well when I was looking to buying this Township there were two things I never wanted septic and well I got half of my wish I have a septic but um it is what it is and knock on wood so far so good though there have been failures in my area so anytime you can tap into public util ities I support that and if that is the case then both of these Lots if we can do it would be serviced by both public water and public sewer that's all I had Bob look Qui Bob anything to add to what you said no I said what I needed to say Charles yeah um as an urban planner I'm a fan of smaller Lots I think it's a greater use of of the land that we have available um however the variances are created here simply for the need for a larger home of which you have the property to expand this home into a larger home to accommodate your needs um I can't see a need beyond that other than you know Financial benefit and so to set of presidents to go against the zoning that we have here for that reason unless Justified unless there are other reasons that the planner State then I'm having difficulty uh accepting it I also um think that it would be out of character with the community but if there is a compromise the compromise will be as Bob stated make the new one more conforming uh but right now I sit on the fence I think I have a slight preference for the two lots being the same size or at least closer to the same size I don't know that the new house being bigger justifies that much of a change between the two but I want to hear also discussion of the variance for setback from the pipeline if we have a intership requirement for that and some of us at least will remember what happened in Edison some years ago and a pipeline blew up and burn down at least one structure um so I'm a little weary about I think the new house would be even closer to the pipeline and I don't see that there's any way that that can't be the the case um now I'm sorry I'm bringing something else into the question that I was asked but um I I still would prefer that the two lots be equal or more nearly equal in size ma'am so I have a uh different angle if uh the sole purpose of uh splitting the two lots is to accommodate a larger family have you thought about uh building an extension to the existing house uh I know one side is going to be old and the other side would be new so that's an option that plays in my mind maybe that's not an option for you but given that um there are just too many uh C variances that are being requested uh if we have to choose the lesser of the E two evils I think I like Bob's idea make one conforming lot or as close to a conforming lot um and uh and cut the other SI other side down that might be preferable I don't know I have to see the revised plans sorry go ahead jennif no that's okay um I think everyone up here has made great points um I think the issue right now is we're we're talking about hypotheticals because we don't have an answer on the water situation if the water's going to be well that sets up a set of issues if it's going to be a main line it sets up a different set of issues so you're asking us to to think about something where we don't really have all the information we need so that's that's my concern at this point and and again the issue of the water that came up this evening I understand some of the issues that were were raised by Dr Chase and also by Mr Brown I understand we haven't completed Our Testimony It's Our obligation to convince you that you should Grant the variances that we are seeking and and again we haven't gotten there yet but I would at least get like to get the plan before you that would be the most preferable plan whether you're going to vote it yes or no that's up to you but again if if you don't like the existing plan and think it could be made better I would like the opportunity to make it better and then you do what you have to do last certainly not least I everyone took the great reasons I was going to hit but I think I have to agree with Charles and RAM until I have a better idea of why you won't just do an extension instead I don't think we can justify the variances and then again agreeing about the water great one thing Mike I think when you come back might be a good idea to really lock down with the uh gas pipeline that it's okay to the grading issue is not going to be an issue just one less thing to talk about then be happy to do that so Peter did you get what you need from us I mean I think you have some you know pretty pretty clear Direction at what would certainly make your case more palatable than what we have before us tonight I I see it and I understand it and I'm suggesting that probably if we can carry this to October because I don't know if we can get everything together by September I mean Mr chairman do we want there are some I don't know if the members of the public here are here for this application but yeah we'll we'll we'll we can open since we've had enough testimony let me um get them squared away with a new date and for that I go to the boss um October 2nd is not available October 16th is uh Macedonia Church and why why don't we put it on for that night I'm still working with Macedonia to deal with the issues that you raised at that hearing so we may be ready on October 16th we may not be but if we move it October 16th uh I should be available to present it and I think that evening it won't take that long to make the presentation and then we can move on to Macedonia yeah know that sounds good I mean we I mean it's not a a warehouse or something we have to go to architecturals or traffic or anything so we we know what we're dealing with we know the issues and we can Zone in on that okay okay so then the Chad rosback uh docket number pln 24003 will be moved to October 16th at 7:30 p.m. here at 475 deont Lane um if I noticed you guys all said you're here maybe for this one this is your notice but it'll also be posted on the website um with that date in case anybody else in your neighborhood excuse me needed to know about it so it will be posted there as well uh do you need an extension Christine or are you good deadine for actions 921 if you give us an extension I will give you an extension until the end of November and I will if I remember tomorrow send you a letter sounds sounds good so U since we have had some testimony and and there may be members of the public here tonight to to give testimony we certainly want to um make sure the applicant hears any concerns from Neighbors Etc uh I move to open the meeting to the public uh for discussion on this application second all in favor I meeting's open to the public for anyone who wishes to comment please just state your name and address you don't have to be sworn in unless you're yeah that's yeah yeah comment or question huh comment or question if they do both both just want a clarification okay I'd like to SAR in please right here oh thank you raise your right hand s swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God I do give us your name and address please my name is Cynthia bacon I am um a resident of point Pleasant New Jersey myself I'm here representing my surviving parent who is a resident and owner at 1440 eastn Avenue which is a property that AB buts um the subject property here it backs into it's in in the back okay may be the wrong the lot the lot uh it's block number 44901 lot 16 can you identify the property that you're is it you said it was your mother so it's my my mother's property she's my surviving parent okay and can you just give me the address of the property the mountain block I'm sorry of course it's 1440 Eon Avenue yes that's that's within the prop no it's within the property area it's it's around there it's off of Maxwell I'll also make note that um a neighbor of my mother um dilia Perez is also present she's at 14 1434 East Avenue okay which is uh right on Culver street right there I'm sorry Walnut sorry in a while okay we ready yeah okay thank you so much all right I want to thank you for the opportunity to be present tonight and respond to the variants that uh variances that were proposed um I also want to acknowledge my neighbors whom I've never met so um uh and and and their team as well um I'm present this evening on behalf of my surviving mother um and for the property that we' just mentioned my siblings uh I have three siblings um we were born in Somerset we were raised in that home 1440 East Avenue um my parents have remained in the house my mother is um uh got a medical condition that prevents her from being present here I have her power of attorney and I represent her we maintain many deep connections to Franklin Township and specifically with our friends and former Neighbors in that little neighborhood um my parents' property as I said nearly abuts the corner of for1 Street backs up to that area um and the home located there um and the the property itself is visible from uh my parents backyard so my purpose um for being present is to stand up for interested members of the community myself my siblings um my mother um my neighbors um because we do have concerns about this um now we submit a firm objection to the variances represented here we don't submit a an objection to building a larger home on the existing property I mean um I think that's a wonderful thing but we do object to um subdividing um an existing conforming lot into two non-conforming lots and then seeking variances to improve or build on the non-conforming Lots we notice we have noticed that there's been a recent um uptick if you will in um approvals of uh building on non-conforming Lots um I think the distinction perhaps and I don't know about all of them but I think the distinction perhaps there is that um those non-conforming lots were purchased by somebody um or owned by somebody and a variance is sought to um you know build there um on those on those properties here we have a conforming lot um and a need for a larger home on the conforming lot um and we um uh instead of just building on the larger lot we're looking to subdivide and therefore we're stacking variances as way I would see that um we feel this way because we have a very deep and like I said uh lifelong connection to the community um my parents purchased their property on Easton Avenue in 1957 built their home they've been there since then they um have kind of adapted along with the corridor the Eastern Avenue Corridor when we moved there well not moved there when we were born there um eastn Avenue was nothing more than like a concrete pathway that went through you know uh um that part of the township and we thought nothing I mean there was there was literally no traffic the traffic was calm enough that we thought nothing of running back and forth across the street to visit with our friends and our neighbors right things are very very different now my parents have adapt to that as things have gone on they've also adapted to life on a pipeline the pipeline runs through a corner of their property as well years ago um the pipeline um in and it may have been in response to was right around the time of the disaster in Edison um but the pipeline um uh required that all trees anything that was covering any of the aspect of the pipeline right of way be removed so that they could fly planes over and make sure that there was nothing obstructing um my parents coalesced with their neighbors um you know sought Council to make sure that their interests were and their safety um was uh taken care of and so you know we have a huge concern about what goes on on that pipeline aspect as well um so now to the matter before us right so our neighborhood is remains zoned is residential there are different little pockets of different things along that Corridor but our neighborhood right where it is it it remains residential like I said we're aware of a go a growing Trend where developers are purchasing those smaller lots that are available and they're obtaining variances to build on them um this is a variation of that Trend I guess I learned I had a question to ask but and and that was what was the purpose achieved by the initial request to subdivide when it appears that there's an interest to um as we learn to um have a larger home which is a very loud thing to want to do and um possibly the answer to that is just build a larger home or develop the home that's existing into a larger home um zoning regulations as I understand them they guide constru ction and expectation um they respond to hardship right um they're used to resolve problems so it's difficult to understand why we would create a hardship in other words two non-conforming lots then have another Spate of variances that we need to address um when there may be a very logical and easy solution you know there are other interests at play here it appears right um possibly economic possibly something else um we're creating hardship here rather than just resolving hardship the Optics here are undeniable situation presents a most questionable application of land use principles in my opinion right there are there is a conforming piece of land and now we're talking about jumping through hoops to create all of these other different variances it just it doesn't look right it doesn't seem right and as somebody who's been in this neighborhood in this area watching all of this creep of um you know different kinds of land uses it's really it it tugs it really tugs very hard and I would just ask everybody to you kind of step back and and think about what it is that we're actually doing here um and then I wanted to mention um because it's of particular interest to my family in connection with um the variances that are sought for the non-conforming properties um the pipeline the pipeline is known to everybody who lives along there um it like I said it it passes through my parents property um I rely on the board to know you know you know your Authority here you know what it is that you're able to do um but in the interest of safety and as an owner that's nearby um my family unequivocally objects to this request um as it concerns you know being near the pipeline and and building near a pipeline then bu building near the pipeline I cite in particular that disaster in Edison um there are countless other disasters um uh with the Texan Texas Eastern pipeline um Edison is not an isolated incident I'll give you a few other examples May 5th 2020 an explosion in Kentucky August 1st 2019 an explosion in Kentucky January 21st 2019 an explosion in Ohio April 29th 2016 Salem Township Pennsylvania explosion November 2nd 20 uh 2003 Kentucky explosion March 13th explosion in North Blenheim New York um I have more but you you you understand what I'm getting at right this is not an isolated incident things do happen um without exception you know it's our position that there should never be a compromise of safety standards within the easement and right of way of this pipeline um particularly in a saturated neighborhood these NE neighborhoods do have properties of different sizes if you will um most of the Yards remain very large um I shouldn't say very large they're small by many other standards that go on um but they remain large um but it's a saturated neighborhood and it's um it's one in which you don't think about this pipeline but you think about it when you start thinking about it right so now we're thinking about it um so to summarize the instant variance applications present more in in this opinion as an opportunity to address desire rather than need there a need to build a larger home the larger home can be built on the existing lot it's one thing to purchase their own uh an existing non-conforming lot and then seek variances in order to be able to improve that lot um this matter presents as uh uh the creation of non-conforming space that in turn creates the need to seek a hardship variance and so on and so on um in view of all of these arguments many of which I I was hearing as we were going along um and in view of safety and the interest of public um we respectfully urge the board um to deny the application for the variances thought thought I'm happy to take any questions thank you thank you very much and and I think think like you said the board asked questions kind of along many of the lines that you mentioned so appreciate it I'm a little uncomfortable uh you know I thought that we were opening to public discussion to give input into the application in terms of potential modifications and things like that I I I respect the lady's right to object to it and everything but I think that's premature in this part of the hearing because they haven't given any testimony yeah I mean I I I did want to well I mean opposing the application is you know testimony and and of the public or their their opinions um if they don't if they don't think that variances should be granted why would they suggest modifications you know such as such as we suggested to the applicant so I I'm ly comfortable with that given the amount of testimony we did hear tonight but Peter clearly wants to say something and I haven't closed the public yet so want don't you do that um does anybody else want to say anything um I do know that you mentioned your neighbor who holds much the same sentiments that's noted um because you're you know been all the meeting is recorded so we've got that so um we knowe that that person feels the same way or you represent that um does anybody have anything different to say than um are um you you have said if not I'll make a motion to close okay all in favor I Peter two things uh first of all everybody is sitting here this evening saying that this is a conforming lot lot is not conforming your ordinance prohibits through Lots this lot is a through lot it has frontages on both first and second street so the lot in its present situation is in variance today I'm not going to get into the planning testimony because I think it's premature it's premature but you know I just when you when you go home I don't want you going home thinking that it is a conforming lot when it is it's conforming to lot area there are I mean you we didn't get to the planning testimony so we really don't know or you didn't provide testimony as to how it's currently out of compliance correct but you're saying it's out of compliance yeah but I don't want you to put your heads on the pillow tonight and say boy this is a this is a non this is a conforming lot when it's not uh second of all I would hope that uh I may have some questions of Miss Bacon I'm not sure she's going to come back in October okay so I will Reserve to if I want to if I need to ask her questions I don't want to tonight fine especially since you're likely to change the plan and and give them what we heard so there's no sense talking about something that may not be your final proposal correct thank you Peter uh do do duly noted about the U existing conditions so with that uh we continue to October what is it 16th 16th and uh you've given us till the end of November and you're going to send a letter and so I think we're good um onward we move to 12:31 and thank the board for the uh thoughtful um input to the applicant tonight appreciate it yes Peter was the sheet filled out from the people that were here for you would have preferred he a plan you haven't been around for a long time whether we do something wrong which I was again all right you can start yeah um please use the mic M my name is Dominic serero and I represent 1231 in this application the two members of 1231 are seated uh to my right uh because of the chairs I'm going to ask them to remain there for now and then I will bring them up if there's any questions directly for them um this application is and if I can preface based upon what I've heard this is a conforming lot the only problem with it being a conforming lot it is a giant it is over 25 5,000 square ft in an R15 zone so in looking at it in addition to it being a giant lot it is sectioned so that the area that is on Wheeler and approaching the residential area uh is a existing garage an existing big driveway uh that uh but the houses on Wheeler we looked at it the idea was that yes it was going to result in two non-conforming lots and we did consider the fact that we could have made one a conforming lot but that would have made the corner lot on Hamilton uh substantially smaller so that from a planning standpoint and planner will explain it we felt that that would be more consistent on a C2 with the zoning that is in the area uh it wouldn't be any restriction on the amount of a house that could be built there uh and still be conforming with the rest in the neighborhood so um I'm going to ask Mr Fletcher to come back Oh I thought you ran away have a SE let me ask the first two questions Mr Fletcher you are a licensed engineer correct well how about we just and I'm going to ask you to accept them right let's swear them first yeah all right okay okay raise your right hand tell me swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you go yes I do that one yes I thank you your name and address has not changed in the last hour it was not thank you and and your testimony in this application Mr Fletcher is going to be as an engineer a planner or both both both all right he is accepted thank you Mr Fletcher I I'd like you to address uh the application and the variances that are required uh as a result of this subdivision and specifically as to to each lot the variants that are required certainly you have an exhibit for the board uh we do not um have a mounted uh exhibit assume you each have copies of the plans and yes I my feeling was and this is my fault I thought that the board had having the plans would have posted them themselves up on the on the board well yeah I mean this is It's a public hearing so the board expects and and in the TRC memo we we put a note that you should come with a with a laptop so it could be projected onto the screen uh I understand uh I uh did understand that and uh I think Mr Fletcher felt as I did that the board was going to have uh it posted and I apologize uh perhaps I'm old school I sorry I don't have the technology to to do that right now how did you develop the plans I meant the technology have a laptop here and screen I understand I have a I I grandly have the pl shared with anybody who's here on this application I Mark what what what do you think we should we should do without the ability to I mean it's I I was going to PT it back to the board I mean it's it's usually at a hearing there's at a minimum they're on a board um but the board has the board has been actually asking applicants to move away from that because that's even sometimes hard for the public to see a 2x3 foot board yeah so for years now we've been putting it Christine puts it in all of her correspondents I you know we put it in our reports that we want to project it up on these screens so when that begin just talking about this lot and that lot and this variance and that variance everybody can see what they're talking about and not just hearing words yeah I mean I think we need that to be able to evaluate it I mean I don't know how the rest of the board feels I see a lot of head nodding I mean if you don't have the technology to do it you can you guys can project it right I mean you just need to be able to have a um thumb drive or something to be able to do it right I mean let me take this one uh I we this computer I cannot this is this is actually recording everything and it has the agenda and everything so we it I don't mean this in a nasty way but it's not our job to make sure that's up there and we personally don't have it because our function up here is to do something else it's not to project fine stuff so you will need to come back with the ability to show us the plan and for us to be able to see it well I I do think that Township has computers it seems to me I've seen them used in Council meetings to put something up on the screens well somehow it has to be worked out but you guys can work it out but we can't we can't evaluate it tonight without any exhibits to refer to okay uh I'll confir Mr Fletcher as to uh doing it we have a we you have to give us an extension as well Christine this is where you come in deadline is 9:20 so they're going to have to give us an EXT attention to whenever they can come back whenever we can accommodate them Mr chairman if you give it I don't want to set a pressent here we've been trying to push I mean I I have a laptop I could go back to my office it'll probably take a few minutes but you know I could probably project it off of that off of my laptop well I think if you can do that can we first see how many members from the public are here um anyone from the public two I can come um I mean I don't want to State the gentleman's age but he stated his age as a reason for why he isn't you know prepared tonight to use the technology I think we can be show some empathy given that and um grab the laptop um all right so let me go get that take a five 10 minutes um so we'll we'll we'll journ till 8:40 is now 8:45 and I appreciate it this was a surprise to me and I uh apologize to the board do do you have the plans on a thumb drive or something such that they can be plugged into they submitted it to us I think Mark's got it Mark got it I he has them on his computer that's true all right anybody need a bio break now's your time e e e e e e e e e e e e e and my thanks to the board Mark very much thank you we've got three screens working which is more than good enough so uh we're we're going to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good so please proceed thank you sir yes thank you to continue the U subject property commonly known as 1231 Hamilton Street uh lot 55.1 in Block 348 located at the intersection of Hamilton Street and uh wheeler place it is a 2,648 foot property has an existing two-story frame dwelling and garage driveway uh close proximity to to the intersection the house setbacks of the existing home are uh 25.2 to Hamilton Street uh 15.7 to Wheeler Place could you put uh sheet two up on one of the screens perhaps thank you uh the applicant proposes to subdivide the property uh creating uh two lots uh the uh interior lot would be dimensioned 90 ft by 124.80 ft in depth U the corner lot would be irregular has having 91.4 two ft of Frontage and the similar depth uh but it's got a wider rear line of [Music] 139.3050 Zone and variances are required for uh lot area uh interior Lots require 15,000 square ft uh we're proposing 11, [Music] require 18,000 ft we're proposing 14,410 Square ft uh there is a requested uh variance for lot Frontage uh on the corner lot uh 91.4 2 ft along wheeler place and for the interior lot 90 ft along wheeler Place versus the 100 ft that's required in the zone 120 for the corner lot there are two existing uh violations they uh and they are the front setbacks uh of the existing home from wheeler place which is 15.7 and from uh Hamilton Street uh 25.2 the setbacks from wheeler the front yard required set back in the zone is 30 ft uh because Hamilton is an arterial Road a County Road uh the required front yard setb back from that road is 45 ft so again we're uh those existing conditions but they are uh and they're not exacerbated by the proposed subdivision would you now address as a planner whether or not it is more preferable to have a undersized lot noting the dimensions that you just testified to then a almost twice the size of the minimum lot sizes which one would be more preferable as a lot my opinion as a planner is that the proposal we're making is preferable to keeping the uh the over size lot which is 70% in excess of what the 15,000 square foot requirement is in the zone uh this is clearly not a C1 variance it's a C2 variance where the uh benefits can significantly outweigh any detriments uh we need to show uh uh that the purposes or some of the purposes of of the municipal land use law uh would be Advanced by a deviation from the zoning ordinance requirement and I believe in this case we're uh promoting uh goal a where we uh promote the General Health Public Health uh safety and general welfare I think by providing new housing stock for the citizens of Franklin Township uh is promoting the G welfare one of the the goals is to provide adequate light air and open space and I would point to the fact that the uh the new home meets all required uh setbacks uh with regard to front yard side yard rear yard uh lot coverage by building and by impious coverage and therefore I believe it is therefore providing the light air and open space that is required by this particular Zone Mr Fletcher let me ask you this as to the present zoning again would a 25 or 26,000 square foot lot versus an 11,000 square foot which one would be technically more volatile of the uh the present zoning technically more what which one would be in variance to the zoning intent of that area the R 15 well uh the two lots we're proposing are uh consistent with the goals of the R 15 Zone uh they're very close to the 15,000 rather than being almost twice the size so I think it's a better zoning option uh to have two lots in this uh location as opposed to just one on the new proposed lot what size house could built on it without variances uh we're proposing a footprint of 1750 so that would be about 3,100 Square ft of living space would that be consistent with the neighborhood especially on Wheeler yes it would with 25,000 be consistent I believe that would be the largest lot in in the neighborhood the frontage on the existing house is on Hamilton Street not on Willer correct the house uh faces uh Hilton are you correct and to the rear of the house but still on the lot is the uh a large garage a large driveway a large apron area that would be on the wheeler side of the lot correct correct what planning standpoint effect of baller lot remaining on Hamilton Street to the zoning I think it would have very little effect uh the effect of this uh project would be to put a new aesthetically pleasing home uh an entryway into the uh neighborhood on Wheeler place I think it would be an improvement to the neighborhood uh potentially uh add to the value of the existing homes with regards to the uh ports uh so before we we continue there so we we've heard some planning testimony where you're um you gave some justification for your C2 variances um I'd like to hear from our our planner um Mark um could you give us your um uh planning opinion um that is to say if you're if you're finished defending the the C2 justification I have not finished the planning testimony okay we can wait till that cuz you we kind of delved into that now we're going into the reports so do you want to finish the planning testimon planning then yeah that would be good yes yes Mr Fletcher is testimony as to planning um we also have to show that the uh the variances will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zone plan and zoning ordinance ordinance or the master plan clearly uh this ised to be uh medium density residential uh area that's what we're proposing uh I think the inserting a new home to an existing development uh that will be consistent and uh tically pleasing built to the new modern uh standards of uh can you please hold the mic closer to your mouth I can't hear you I apologize I I was saying that it's my opinion that the variances will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zone plan uh or the zoning ordinance uh since we're proposing a home uh of um medium residential density uh essentially consistent with the art the goals of the R 15 Zone that's basically my planning testimony concluded your I I just like to hear from Mark um and get your your planning um perspective on on this for the c2s well I I I guess I first I have a few just a few factual um Corrections um you know I've heard a few times that this is almost twice the required lot area that's not true um this is a corner lot the minimum lot area requirement is 18,000 Square ft not 15 so this is this lot is about 7600 square foot larger than required um I I also just I just don't I don't understand the testimony as a planner what's I just don't understand what's violative or wrong with a compliant lot you're required to have 18,000 you have 25 in change that's not a zoning violation that's a compliant lot um I've also heard some testimony that's kind of net opinion um we've heard that the the proposed lots are consistent with the neighborhood but no testimony to back that up um we have had you know some situations in the past mostly with the zoning board for undersized lot cases which which is a whole different thing but usually it's part of the negative criteria they'll evaluate the neighborhood and show that there's lots that are consistent with that size you we haven't had anything that so we've heard testimony that's consistent but nothing to support that testimony that's been provided to you um I just just looking at the lot right here that's 82 Acres um that's I think 30,000 if not more square feet um so I just don't understand you know again they as a planner I don't understand how it's a better zoning alternative to have two non-compliant lots than one compliant lot so that's really all I can say at this point I haven't heard any compelling testimony to contradict that and can I ask Mark the other thing in your TRC report that impacts what you're saying and all of these variances is you're noting that there's a possible existence of a wetland area and and it says a letter of interpretation shall be obtain so if there were Wetland areas that required buffering that would um or would that I'm asking a question uh potentially impact the building envelope and the setbacks and variances that the applicant is testifying that they have it could depending on the presence of the wetlands the the the delineation of the wetlands and where they are where they extend to and what type of wetlands they are and if there's a buffer associated with that do you feel as our planner that we can evaluate this application tonight in the absence of that Loi uh that's a good question um I mean ultimately I me let's say it was a I don't know if if the variant the wetlands exist or they don't if the board was to end up approving it it's under the D jurisdiction anyway if the wet LS are there and if there are wetlands that require 50 foot buffer even if the board was to Grant the variances and the D doesn't Grant those permits they're not building it but I I don't know if that issue is necessarily critical of the grant to the variances more so than the issues we discussed before about proving the C2 I think those are far more critical to the answer of whether the board has enough information and sufficient testimony to to Grant the variances I agree okay thank you I just say that I don't want to give the impression that anything that was said was to mislead the board trying to emphasize the fact that all of the rest of the homes other than this corner lot this lot does approach close to twice the minimum lot size that is required that was the only point that I was I think and Mr Fletcher was trying to make not that that uh knowing this is a corner lot um there's no question about that what I an opening was trying to explain was that could have cut this lot so that uh as I've heard before this lot would have been a conforming lot but it would have left the corner lot exceedingly short as to the required 18,000 Square ft um I think what Mr Fletcher was trying to say was that from a planner stpoint it is more preferable to have a two lots that while not conforming still are more adaptable to the neighborhood then making one 15,000 square ft and the other one somewhat four four or 5,000 or more square feet to the existing lot um and that's why the effort was made to try to cut it into the two lots with both being non-conform forming but still conforming to the neighborhood hopefully that was the impression that Mr Fletcher and I were trying to uh portray uh and and I have to tell you that point of that was hearing a prior application here as to why we didn't look to cut it so that one was conforming and the other one was nonconforming so actually I'm I'm glad you raised that issue um I I don't like to do a bake off between applications but there's U certainly some similarities so as you noted just now if you were to make if you were to try to do what we asked the other applicant to do you'd have an 18 and a seven to make that conforming and and I mean you have an 18,000 in the corner right that would be conforming you have seven which is very very different from the zone so we would want you to do that with the other way yeah so you're trying to split the difference um and make both palatable for lack of a better word the issue that doesn't distinguish you from the other application is that you have a conforming law and you're creating these variances um because you want to subdivide it for whatever the reason may be and I think the board struggled with it in the last application probably will struggle with it when that application comes back and is going to struggle with it in this application because and I think this was brought up in the last application there are areas where there's all these Lots when they were laid out um in this area were were use a word that's been bandied around kind of weird um and and the way they were weird is you know they're got various amounts of depth or width it doesn't but they're a lot somebody would try to build on a virgin lot rather than subdivide it so that's another thing the board is going to struggle with but I see a parallel more than a parallel an identity with the last application is we're subdividing creating variances where we could have a conforming lot as it is now and truly conforming as Peter said for the last one um you know there there are areas of non-conformance there um that he didn't get to lay out but he will when come back and but here we have I think something that's truly conforming so we're going to struggle all right I think what the problem was was that um it's a 15,000 minimum square foot on Wheeler M but a lot of people on Wheeler chose to build it on as you've indicated bigger Lots so it's changed that that initially changed it from the zone mhm to some bigger Lots uh and I think what we're talking about is looking at it from 15,000 down to 11,000 we're not talking about going from houses that may be built on 20 or 25,000 Square ft MH uh and measuring it against this lot proposed lot but for example if if the example Mark gave about the on 82 Acres they were to come in with a subdivision probably going to be compliant every way CU it's huge um again we're we're going to struggle with the C2 criteria right um it's not a better zoning alternative it's not better for the township that I can see in any way it may be better for the applicant but the the better zoning alternative and said light and open space I I mean that was one of your criteria I don't see how how that can be said when you're adding building you're by definition decreasing open space and circulation and all this other stuff so I'm I'm not so abely sure I'm in board with some of your positive and negative criteria arguments either okay but a requirement was for this application if it was to be passed was that the big garage would have to be knocked down and removed the apron concrete big area per impervious would have to be removed so it does comply with that part of but it always did because all the variances are not for lot coverage lot area uh build a floor area any of that kind of stuff is not what you're asking for so those whether you remove those things or not you're still going to create that because you're drawing a line well but again we could move the line it would just make a much more non-conforming corner lot yeah and I don't think we would probably advise you to do that I think we're going to have to judge this on its merits yes I just want to make the point that as you have testified you have the garage you have the paved turn around space and so forth and then the existing house and this is the evidence that whoever built those made full use use of this 25,000 Square F foot lot they perhaps wanted a 25,000 square foot lot so that they could set the garage away from the house and at least they certainly used the 25,000 square foot lot so I don't see any argument that two undersized lots are better than one to 25,000 square foot confirming lot which is one 100 only 142% of the minimum remember what a zoning law sets up our minimum sizes for Lots you can perfectly well have a lot larger than the minimum set by the zone raw in fact in many cases it's desirable well I other than the fact that I'm sure and this house was the existing house in the area long before any of the houses were built on Wheeler so that's that the other thing is I I think what's telling is I think the neighbors are in favor of this it's an improvement to Wheeler in that area it's an improvement Dominic excuse me go there how can you say that please it's just straight how are you saying that the neighbors are in favor of it that's why we have a public portion we'll hear from the neighbors I I understand and if we don't hear from the neighbors the does not mean you're in favor of it no but we can we can judge this on its merits so I mean you can continue I'd like you to address the TRC report uh now that you've finished with it we've finished the planning discussion the variance discussion as much as we can I think beat that horse uh let's try to go through the TRC report and we'll see see where the chips fall I apologize U paragraph one talks about the uh different variances that are being required we've been discussing that uh number two asked whether we had uh uh gone to adjoining properties to see if they could sell us more land I think uh yes we presented the two letters to the uh to the joining Property Owners with no response from them are they submitted to the board yes yeah go keep going while Christine looks for that uh number three we had some discussion about Wetlands uh the D mapping does show uh possible Wetlands on the adjoining property uh uh I feel comfortable there's no Wetlands on our property it's conceivable there is and there could be a buffer from that Wetlands however the house has set back uh an adequate distance it's I think 59 ft uh from the rear property line uh I don't see it affecting uh the uh the ability to build a house uh where the board to approve this application uh however as Mr Healey mentioned we're subject to the uh approvals of U NJ DP if required so it looks like four and five are statements of fact six you already testified that those going to be removed we need some Pest Control here um number seven there's some confusion on labeling uh the 17t dimension is actually the width of the driveway so the setback is 19.34% [Music] [Music] um number nine talks about the existing uh service lines I know we show the proposals but not the existing ones on the on the Corner House uh we would revise the plans to show that and number 10 we understand meter pits would be required for the proposed house and the existing property and we have no uh no problem with any of the requirements of the uh Township sewage Authority which is uh in paragraph 11 number 12 uh we note that number 13 is contingent upon um yeah we we have got a tree removal M uh ordinance requirement table on the on the plans I understand it would be further reviewed uh should we go to the building permit stage uh we would be agreeable to obtain any official addresses street addresses from the uh 911 coordinator and we understand that all fees uh need to be paid uh as uh as required if the ordinance uh is passed and uh we certainly agree that uh CAD generated data files would be uh submitted as required okay thank you um let me go back to the TRC report I think we could address everything there let let me open it up to the board for any questions since I think we're we're through most of if not all the testimony looking I'll look left this time for I I just don't know if I have a clear enough idea as to why this is a better zoning alternative and you did mention some environmental factors but again we're seeing that that's not really the case with adding impervious cover the wetlands possibility so if you want to take any time to clarify why it's actually better than the conforming lot I know we've talked about it but I'm still not clear on it well we are providing storm water management uh in accordance with the uh Franklin to subordinates uh there's a seepage pit propos which will be collecting the uh roof water uh for recharge and storm water mitigation I I understand that but that's kind of just addressing the problems you're creating and I don't see how that's a better alternative to what exists well the the thrust of our argument is that by eliminating uh you know a a garage an old garage and driveway uh constructing a new single family home that will be aesthetically pleasing uh will be an uplift for the neighborhood it will be a positive impact okay thank you that's that's my our position and let me clarify I'm not um I'm not U requiring um as we were giving feedback to the last applicant um you know if you have no questions that's fine if if you do have a question that's fine uh I I I don't mean to put anybody on the spot but feel free if you you can if you don't have any questions if you do just raise your hand and ask we'll ask it any anybody down here first all right no okay Jim Paul I thought you mentioned in your testimony that you thought there' be a positive impact on real estate values if the application was approved that I hear that correctly okay are you a licensed real estate professional in the state of New Jersey thank you Mr Fletcher I am not in the pra of Mr Mar correct or a licensed real estate broker I am not thank you um Jim you wanted to say something about the uh letters from the uh I had an opportunity to review the letters uh and they both had the original certified return receipts signed by uh the people involved and we take uh council's representation uh that there was no response uh I'd like to move them in as exhibits A1 and A2 Christine please thank you Mr attorney um let's open to the public um do public have any comment on this application please come up to the microphone give your name and address please turn the mic down yeah now if you can raise your right hand for me please Solly swear to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth to help you go little louder yes I swear okay and your name and address please my name is Edith Baran and I live at 452 wheeler place okay just get real close to the mic they're they're they're not very sensitive okay perfect well first of all okay I already said that so yes um we live at 452 wheeler place we are the next door neighbors of 32 no 12:31 Hamilton Street and just last month we um had our 3year anniversary anniversary of becoming first-time homeowners and it has been the happiest three years so far and this is why we oppose to this proposal we love our home as it is we have an awesome yard and the perfect amount of privacy between each neighbor this is why we fell in love with this house in the first place my kids in love enjoy our big backyard well not not as much of a maybe our Terrier enjoys it more than we do but it um we don't know what exactly is going to be built here but I just know it's going to affect the whole Ambience of the neighborhood we've been there three years lovely neighborhood small quiet street good amount of space between each neighbor um so um yes we do we did get the letter and honestly we're here personally personally saying we're not interesting in selling any part of our land and yeah thank you thank you thank you hey Bill long time no see how you doing well Carell 25 Spring Street uh I think swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you got I usually do yes sir will the case today you raise your hand very fast all righty um couple things when researching this uh discussion um I the first thing I noticed is that the last time this land was sold um the bill of sale said $500 you know whatever the is on the township website $500 which struck me as odd the second thing is the applicant is in Hillsboro okay so um this this site has lasted lived a long time or you know been around a long time which means that and I know it's been sold so he got what he bought okay the property as was stated is is actually very consistent with the neighborhood you know there's like I think the smallest lot is like a half an acre okay there are other bigger ones but the smallest slots are half acre to so even though you're trying to make an argument for the uh zoning the fact of the matter is relative to their comment it has the the the street has a Aviance for lack of a better word um the thing struck me oh so I did I say I'm wondering if this is a rental rental property if I didn't I'm just wondering you know land speculation rental property the whole thing okay um um a 3,000 ft house on 11,000 square ft it would be like a white elephant in that neighborhood okay so it's not conforming at all all right it just it would really change um the whole look and the other thing that's um I would want to know from the board is when they subdivide that lot is it only just a building lot could it become a street could it do something other than be a building lot um and that's my question to the board um thank you well I'll answer that I mean the proposal is to subdivide it for the purpose of building a single family home not I mean if they wanted to do anything other than the zoning is for single family homes so if they wanted to do anything other than that they be going to the zoning board for use variants and there is a lot on Willer street that is 34 acre so slightly below a half acre sorry my my bad I did not close the public portion and seeing nobody else come forward from the public portion I move to close all in favor okay um I would like to um ask Jim to just give the board um a brief summary of of the positive and negative criteria for C2 um relative to what the applicant provided thank you Mr chairman I'm going to leave it to your own ears but I did not hear the applicants testimony identifying what the benefits were to the township of Franklin I did not hear anyone identify what the detriment might be and I didn't hear any analysis of how the benefits substantially outweigh the detriment most of the testimony was that this is a better zoning alternative but all that is is a shorthand phrase for the required analysis of saying what are the benefits to the town not the applicant what are the detriments if the application is granted and then doing a wang analysis if you heard it great but I'll leave it to you thank you Jim any other comments from board if not um I'll um I the I've always been instructed to do this and Jim again I would make a motion to approve um and then uh we would vote um or do we do it in the opposite I don't any board member can either start the process by either a motion to approve or a motion to deny okay so that doesn't matter okay so um I I'm I'll make a motion to deny uh based on the the fact that um I did not hear myself a um analysis I heard a lot of conjecture um I did not hear an analysis that was a Quant quantitative or even very qualitative um weigh um that would give the board the confidence that the benefits substantially outweigh the death reans um and and the character of the neighborhood um is clearly um from those who live there um and and what we can see on the plans um and from the date in the township um not 15,000 foot Lots but substantially larger and I think this would be um out of character so I I would I would make a motion to um deny on that basis I'll second okay before I pull the board if you agree to say deny and you want to say I agree with what Mike says that's fine if you have other opinions on why you want to deny it you you have to give that okay if you want to approve it do they have to a yes vote is to deny okay so it's just to deny the best way to put it the yes vote is to deny okay okay so who seconded I'm sorry Mr Lort okay thank you okay councilman and Marson yes you chase yeah and I point out that all I heard was Mr Fletcher's opinion unsupported by any factual assertions that is better to have two lots rather than one if we were to accept that argument if that were to be accepted generally it would simply destroy all zooming we if If This Were a precedent we would have to approve any application that created undersized lots and I'm not prepared to do that I think a point of our zoning is to set minimum sizes for lots and as I said earlier there's no requirement that Lots be as small as the minimum allowed thank you Bob Lort I will deny Samy oh sorry oh yes yes Sammy Shan yeah I vote Yes and for similar reasons uh in fact that it wasn't even factual some of the testimony it's a 40% difference and there's really no reason to um you know to say that that has to be the the the the most that we can get out of the land it's there's a minimum and it's great that the that they've exceeded it but not enough and I didn't hear any real weighing of the detriments similar to the other things and the reason why I'm explaining is because we were told before that when we deny we should explain or approve so I am explaining my thought pattern there so thank thank you thanks Sam Jennifer rag now yes and let me explain why as well for those very reasons um I empathize with the public comment um as someone who also lives in a neighborhood where um it's been around for a while um I think that a lot of people when they go to look for a house they look at the community they look at the area and they have their criteria for what they're looking for in a neighborhood um similar to what uh Dr Chay said if community members move into neighborhoods because they're looking for certain things and then all of a sudden that neighborhood can just be changed I I I think it just destroys the whole criteria of what you would look for when you go to find um so that's why I'm saying yes to the denial thank you Charles Brown um I'm G vote Yes um on the basis that I don't think it was um accurately articulated whether there would be you know benefits and detriments um but that's not the sole reason I don't think we heard that in the prior case neither so I don't want to set a president here for saying that's the reason why I'm I'm voting yes and then we hear one in the next case and then use that as a reason for saying yes to that one uh yes as in in favor to that one want to be clear um I I the the the thing that decided it for me ultimately was the neighbor I think if there was um a sale of property here to expand the the lot size I probably would have been more in favor mainly because this encroaches closer to New Brunswick where the need for more land I think um I mean the need for these bigger Lots is less so I mean we could explore greater density there um but I'm going to say no I'm say yes yes I got you yes no Robert Thomas I don't think your mic's on I yes I agree with the reasons that uh have been stated uh in addition I really didn't hear any compelling to tell me why again in this particular instance in this neighborhood why uh two a a conforming lot uh should be changed to two unconforming lots I also think that the oversized lot of the size of this lot as it exists is more in keeping with the neighborhood than a smaller corner lot and an 11,000 ft lot that would be created for it woman thank you am I able to say something else I don't know just on the record uh we've been saying um a compliant lot and this came up in the previous case but when we've been saying out of compliance we have been referring to the amount of square feet we haven't been you know comparing compliance along with lot Frontage and so forth I meaning I mean to answer you that's a great question I'm just saying that's what conforming a conforming lot to me means it's conforming in all ways um what we heard in the last application was there were elements one of it being a through lot um that was non-conforming um in this case my understanding it is conforming as presently constructed right okay uh Rebecca hbert uh yeah I vo I voiced my concerns earlier about the criteria not being met for the variances in my opinion so I'm going to agree and vote Yes okay chairman orini um yes since I made the motion you know my thoughts so um the board has voted unanimously to deny um that wraps our business tonight Christine we are back uh the third week in August we are back on September 4th and we will be out at Route 27 so when I send you out your email it will have like very large that we are going to uh Route 27 I ask that you get there early because if there's a lot of people you have to park way far away and you might be late to the meeting so um I'm I'm going to ask Jim to check with the applicant because I told them very clearly unless they had uh this is uh what's it called Onyx right this is onyx that's correct we're not going anywhere um on September 4th unless they can tell me that they have access if they can't tell me they have access I'll hear them in 2030 I don't care if I'm still alive and here but um they're not going to be heard September 4th so I'm going to have Jim check on that okay Jim if you just like to communicate your findings to Mark and I just so we can and I will alert the rest of the board uh per say to what and if if that if they don't have that and they don't have it by then then there's no plan I always said that I'm not going to change um so maybe if we got to schedule something else in here we could do that but you you I was just going to say that Davidson properties is also penciled in on that date so it just if Onyx is not coming you may not have a snow day we call it uh you may actually have to come but that would be here not in but we'll communicate everything to you so as minimum we're off till September 4th correct everybody enjoy the rest of your summer because by that time it's The Unofficial end of summer so back to scho fam scho