i s in The Bigs table tonight I feel good I don't know where the okay I couldn't I could barely make out the data so did you say we had get NOS we um we waiting for Marty yeah you want to get started well we can we can work around him tell me okay all right people on yes okay all right uh hesport Township joint L use board meeting for July 11th will come to order um I'm Tom Mckay I'm the vice chair and I'm substituting because our chairman Carl cifer is unable to be here today because of illness uh but um I'll I'll be running the meeting um let's have a flag salute that's the first official order of business to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which stands na indivisible Li justice for all all right um would the clerk uh give us a reading of the Sunshine Law noce was according to the open public all right we have a standard uh order in place that there will be the start of no new business after 10:30 so if it's ongoing at 10:30 it continues but not new business uh roll call please uh Mrs chy here Mr Bradley here Mrs Kelly here Mrs uh mayor Gilmore here Mr toochi Mrs bajio absent Mr Murphy here uh Miss Costco absent Mr Holden absent uh um I forget Mr novita here and Mr McKay here we have a Corum yes thank you all right um I'm informed that the first item for business a is been um withdrawn for the night to be to be listed some other night because of a failure to publish is that correct correct has the applicant been informed of the publishing requirements notice requirements yes and she's going to uh have to republish for the next meeting so no votes uh required for this evening okay all right so case 24-11 uh will be adjourned uh to be rescheduled next we have 2416 Diane and Nick Irvin block 100 lot 55 is concerns an inground pool variance request are they in the audience would please come forward to the podium and be sworn together ask you to raise your right hand please swear orir now my understanding from reading your application is that you want to put in a pool uh and it's uh my further understanding that the variance you're seeking is for impervious cover because you're about 4% over is that correct yes yes cor you have to speak oh sorry it's okay um Kathy is is that in line with your understanding of this plan yes it is um this house is on a uh a circle cuac so is it a cuac or a circle it's a circle a circle yes okay so the back it's a nice size yard but the backyard kind of bends a little and you'll see some of those pictures uh myself and the applicant and the pool company literally tried every which way from Sunday to bring it down even closer uh but at this point uh the the 4% is over but there are no other buol variances that she are that they are requesting right it was very I must say it was very hard to read the surveys because they were in micro microscopic print and I didn't have my magnifying glass with me tonight I don't know if it was my fault or not but um so there are no um there are no um setbacks or sideline problems no they meet all those requirements all right are there other pools can the applicants tell us are there other pools in the immediate neighborhood they are they are postponed yes okay all right uh any questions from the board no I just like to make a comment that I have spoken to the neighbors and the neighbors are perfectly fine and like to see these this nice family get their pull well that's good well that we can't accept that as testimony I know but that's however uh the comment is appreciated thank you you're welcome uh any comments from our professionals on this application no sir none all right um You Do you have any further comments to make uh other than what's been explained no we appreciate your time all right um is this whole backyard fenced or are you putting a fence around the the pool itself it's completely Fed so the backyard is fed backyard okay all right so I have to ask S a public comment on this I don't know whether we have any but at this time I'll open the meeting up to any members of the public who want to comment on this application and this one only so I hear no one from the public uh here present uh asking to speak what about online I don't see anyone online all right is anyone unmuted or anything like that no is there are people online no I don't see any oh yeah okay La of chairman may I ask you a question you may where on this diagram is that pool going to go oh my gosh okay couldn't get any SW I know this helps you Mr Bradley thank you thank [Applause] you I've seen it first all right if there's no public a comment no other questions from the board no other qu no other input from our professionals I ask for a vote can I have a motion uh on this second motion to approve the the requested variance yes yes okay and there's a second yes roll call Mr Bradley yes Mr Mrs Tori yes Mrs Kelly yes mayor Gilmore yes Mr Nita yes Mrs bgio yes Mr Murphy yes and Mr McKay yes all right your um request is uh granted so to speak uh and uh good luck with the pool thank you we'd like to request for a waiver to proceed at risk somebody did uh you you inquire about the at risk portion of that request and you understand that um if for any reason someone appeals this uh you could have an issue with your with your permit yes okay and you still want to proceed yes yes okay thank you uh let's have a vote on that roll call can I have a motion in a second yeah a motion I'm s sorry yeah motion to approve and second all right we got both Tish seconded mayor Gilmore yes Mrs Kelly yes Mrs Tori yes Mr Bradley yes Mr noita yes Mrs bgio yes Mr Murphy yes and Mr McKay yes all right good luck thank you thank you so much all we appreciate it okay is the Joseph uh well was hoping Marty would be here you don't inv to the party F Cara yes Mr chairman maybe the sign variant which I don't think would involve Mr Miller yeah and I don't think it's going to take too long either would you mind we we we're waiting for um our our engineer to to show up who has a letter that you probably seen understood no problem so uh with the um the parties involved in um the Route 38 bulk variant sign for the dentist come forward [Applause] Council Council would you enter your appearance and introduce your client yes my name is Luke grac I'm appearing on behalf of the applicant 1487 LLC I think if you turn that up you won't have to yep you're right slump over like that Luke grac appearing on behalf of the applicant 1487 LLC um one of the principles of the applicant is here with us tonight Paul Simmons and he's standing to my sitting to my left Mr Simmons is it Dr Simmons Sim wife is Dr Sim wife is Mr Simmons all right Paul Simmons would you come forward and be sworn thank you thank you the [Applause] wire and Council has provided us with very nice large color copies and enlargements and uh they are marked or pre-marked exhibits A1 through A4 one and two being photographs and three and four being uh plot plants surveys diag yep more or less good evening members of the board uh as I stated my name is Luke grac uh I'm from the law office of deluka Lewis and Burr and we represent the appli 1487 LLC um whose Principal Paul Simmons is here with us this evening uh the applicant owns the property located at 1487 uh on Route 38 in hesport also designated as block 82.0180 Mr Simmons and his wife purchased the property recently I believe in 2022 um and have begun operating a dental office at that location um through a separate entity uh now we're here tonight for one limited purpose um which is that the applicant proposes to replace the existing Monument sign that you can see um in exhibit A1 um with a pylon sign which will be constructed in the exact same location as the existing Monument sign um and the reason the applicants are making this proposal proposal is um really number one because the existing sign is small it's outdated it's hard to read and and it's really the applicant's desire to allow their customers and and motorists to better identify um their dental office now as I stated there exists a monument sign um on the property you can see in exhibit A1 um and and the existing Monument sign is located 10 ft from the property line where 15 ft is required but it's not a non it's not an existing non-conforming condition um rather the prior owners of this property obtained a variance for this front yard setback back in 1999 um actually when the ordinance required 20 ft a front yard setback of 20 ft in this Zone um so even though the size and shape of the sign will be changing um since a variance was already granted for the front yard setback of 10 ft um back in 1999 a variance is arguably not required um for this application because the setback is not changing only the size and shape of the sign is changing now we understand that because the size and shape of the sign is changing and because the area of the sign that would be located in that 5ft buffer between the 15t and and the 10t that we proposed um would would arguably be more a larger area in that 5ft buffer zone um we we understand that the board is requiring a variance but I want to be clear that because a variance was already granted in 1999 for the 10- foot setback um we just want to make sure it's clear that this is not a non-con an existing non-conforming condition um now we think that a variance could be granted under C1 and C2 of the municipal land use law um now in our view a C1 variance is Justified because the existing improvements as you can see in exhibit A3 which is a survey of the property of the you know the existing improvements on the property um you can see that the the existing improvements are located kind of forward on the property um in other words they're located closer to Route 38 than they are the rear property line um so as you can see in exhibit A3 um the front left corner of the building is located roughly 23.98 ft from the property line uh and and the front door of the property is also um on the Route 38 on the along the Route 38 property line and so the the building also has improvements by way of a concrete Pathway to the front door as well as a wooden um Stairway to the front door along with some minor Landscaping improvements um and so the bottom line is that there's really not enough space in front of the property to construct a freestanding sign um and we believe that's why the the prior owners in 1999 applied for a very similar variance and we believe that's why um this board granted that variance back in 1999 um now you could we we the applicant and I had discussed possibly and the applicant's um sign manufacturer had discussed possibly putting the sign if you look at exhibit A3 to the left of the parking lot but if you put the sign to the left of the parking lot while there may be a little bit more room there um the sign would be located on the far side of of the the access to the to the property and so motorists would miss the driveway and we believe that would be unsafe not to mention it would be more expensive for the applicant um because either he would have to dig up part of the the parking lot or the access way and he would have to connect whatever electrical um access he has on the property all the way over to the far side of the of the access way now to the right side of the property um as you can see in exhibit 83 there's also very little room um if you look at exhibit A3 the survey you can see the front right corner of the building is located 24.9 7 ft from the front property line um and so while it may be possible to put the sign there um there's still very little room and then you start getting closer to the the sideline um and while there may be slightly more room it's just it's less practical um and so therefore the applicant's only other option if this variance were not to be granted would be to tear down the property move it back um and and that way they would have um a little bit more room to put a freestanding sign but we believe that's that's the undue hardship that that's where the undue hardship is posed because obviously you know it would be prohibitively expensive to to tear down the existing structure move it back just to make room for the the freestanding sign now by way of negative criteria um we think that the application can be granted or the variance can be granted rather without substantial detriment to the public good first and formost because the location of the sign is not changing um it's going in the same spot the size and the shape will change but the the sign will be going in the same exact spot um in addition the proposed sign and setbacks are are consistent with the development along Route 38 um I believe the property owners on both sides of the applicant's property both have constructed large pylon signs um so we think it's consistent with the development along Route 38 um and also the existing sign like I said is old and it's outdated um and we believe that the proposed pylon sign would certainly be an improvement visually while also allowing motorists and customers to make safe traffic movements from Route 38 now in our view the variance could also be granted under C2 of the ml um which requires the applicant to show that the deviation from the zoning ordinance will actually Advance the purposes of zoning um in this case we think it will um number one as I as I mentioned briefly earlier um it'll allow uh motorists coming down Route 38 to make safe traffic movements and to better be able to better identify the sign um and number two the sign will advance the purposes of zoning um again because we think that it will promote a desirable visual environment um you know we think it goes to that saying that the proposed sign is architecturally in visually much more appealing than the existing sign um and the bottom line is is it will allow motorists and customers um to be able to better identify the dental office um that's all I have by way of opening comments um there was no review letter in connection with this application so uh if the board has no questions for me I'm going to ask Mr Simmons to step forward to provide some additional testimony yes Council when when you uh when you do that would you um have him speak to us about what's what you're proposing for the facade sign which is shown in A1 underneath the windows well we're not proposing anything for the for the facade sign um on the on the Windows this application only concerns the freestanding sign replacing the freestanding sign with a pylon sign um unless you had any other specific questions I believe that the facade sign is conforming well we'll ask about that um you don't have dimensional information on that facade sign do you uh I don't unless Paul do you have any information off the top of your head about you know the dimensions of this facade sign here so the facade sign replac the facet sign um replaced the pre-existence sign from the law firm and we were granted pyramid to do this so all the existing signage that is shown on the picture weren't ronian office permit process so it's essentially replaced the name of the previous office which we can't keep by and you describe the size of that yeah same size yeah I don't know what that is uh oh so is it 3T by 4 feet or let me Venture a guess that that it's that it's about 8 ft wide and about four 4T deep would you agree with that uh for the facade sign yeah it's the width of two windows so they might 3T wide they might be 4T wide but so it's between 6 and 8 ft wide and and uh about 4T tall so the windows are about 30 in wide so it's going to be 60 in 5 roughly yeah all right okay so just to let you know it does meet the intent of the ordinance it also is using the same frame that when the sitler and sitler were there that was the sign that they had on their facade and it was and and we approved it way back when and I permitted it as well right okay and just give you a little history this was the attorney's office um one of the things was is they did have approval they came back to the board for um the sign back then as well as now um this gentleman has uh done a great job he has totally renovated the inside of this I permitted this uh to go in there about a year and a half go uh due to the fact that he met all the requirements for the parking spots for the use that he had it is a permitted use um so at this point There's a constraint uh on the ground as stated uh we actually looked at the parking lot but by removing any of his parking spots and that becomes a variance issue for him because he wouldn't have met that as per required per seit that you need parking spaces for this dentist office so that is the other reason we we did at different options just to let you know was there any consideration of installing the sign immediately to the right of the wouldn't walk away no and I I tend to agree with this is because the fact is is that um if we take a look up and down 38 this is where the majority of these signs are located and have had been Granite variances and it starts from like the Nissan all the way going West on 38 because there's constraints on these Lots they're not a lot of them are not very deep um but I felt that his um variance would be something to consider to come to the board um I I I myself as a zoning officer didn't think that this sign this future sign um was in a bad location it uh I'm I'm I'm having trouble trying to visualize how high this sign is but uh to use a comparison uh is it about the same height or is it proposed to be about the same height as the uh as the Ace of space sign down the road correct they're allowed to go up to 18 ft high they have to have 8 feet below the from grade up to the bottom of the sign and uh he the size of a sign he's allowed to have 80 square feet and he's far from that yeah all right and this is uh this is an internally one of those plastic internally lit signs that's correct I believe it's illuminated from the inside so you can see the letters kind of on the the outer plastic okay so it doesn't need spotlights or anything like that because of that feature right okay and the color is going to be the same color as black and white it's a purle it's essentially exact same sign as you see it right now on the current Monument just is going to be a little bit up in the air because that's a requirement for internal lead sign right I see that although the the current sign is in blue and not the quibble the exhibit is in Black it looks like blue it's blue but it is blue it's blue yes all right so I'm callor blind um all right um any professional comments on this um we didn't do a report we we did talk to Kathy about it Kathy is correct this is 80 ft is permitted they're proposing a 32 foot sign um the only if the board's considering this I would have two suggestions to ensure that the post for the new sign is no closer than the existing post um I think woulds to try to to coordinate to make sure that we're outside of any uh site triangles uh for that that that shown on the plan and then secondarily there's a small planting area around the existing sign and having some low plantings that are 2T or less in height sometimes can create a more desirable visual environment so some low ground cover shrubs or some perennials um we think would make sense to replace those in there is the sight triangle issue sort of eliminated by the fact that this is this is higher uh the existing sign probably has some sight triangle issues but maybe this doesn't so uh as long as there are certain obstructions that are allowed within site triangles um utility polls certain signs we sort of eliminate that concern if we make that a the proposed sign post is no closer than the existing sign post because the existing sign post actually has obstructions between that uh 2T and 8T area so this would actually have less visual impacts on site syst requirements right and Mr Taylor Just to be clear when you say the base of the the new sign can be no closer than the base of the existing sign the post you mean the near post the nearest post the nearest post nearest to what the road of the building yeah nearest to the road nearest to the road correct no closer to the building than that post no no closer to the road no no closer to the road than that post oh yeah right and and uh does the applicant have any um any problem with the suggested U small amount of low plantings around the base of the sign U to be approved to be approved by the the planner Landscaping no absolutely not no okay good any other comments that's all I have does our engineer have any other comments any comments on this I wouldn't think so okay all right board questions comments seeing none hearing none all right we'll open it to public comment anyone member of the public wish to comment on this sign application hearing none we'll close the public meeting have we had any visitors online yeah no one is online still none okay so we'll close the questions um Bob um we have a an application under two different SE variances asking for a front yard set back for new sign location and conditions are be low planting around the base the base will be no closer to the road than the existing sign is your recommendation that this approval be made both under C1 and C2 as they've asked for it doesn't res okay all right either the can app right right he's he's proposed it under both okay all right and Mr chairman I think it should clarify that it is for a maximum of 32 sare ft yes well we have the exhibit and to the dimension specified in your exhibits the um yeah the exhibit A2 if the if the resolution references it the sign is to conform with that and the dimensions thereon my preference would be to show the 32 somewhere in the resolution so 28 years from now when Kathy is trying to give somebody else a [Laughter] no I hear you I hear you although the Scot the exhibit itself does describe it as 32 square F feet so all right um can I have a motion to approve so moved second second roll call Mr Bry yes sorry it was Mrs bgio correct yes Mrs Cy yes Mr Bradley yes Mrs Kelly yes mayor Gilmore yes Mr Murphy yes Mr noita yes and Mr mck yes all right good luck with your sign thank you thank you members of the board all right uh next and last uh we have the uhara subdivision thank you for waiting C be PTI being patient Council Council would you uh P Pi identify yourself for the record and I introduce your your client and or your Witnesses so they can be sworn thank you uh my name is Robert bleer I'm an attorney um we presented the application tonight for Joseph Tara this is Joseph Tara he's the owner of the property and we also have with us tonight his son David thearon ipate he'll be speaking tonight but he's his business partner we brought him just in case um if we have him in the bullpen in case we need him and I have uh Sam AA who is our professional engineer professional engineer and planner uh who will be testifying so all right you want to want to swear in the applicant and Mr agress the same timear just briefly I'm going to give you the overview um this property um is uh three is actually three lots and we're proposing a subdivision to make it into two Lots now um they are both lots are still uh undersized but of course the three lots were far undersized so um we're trying to make it a little less uh undersized nevertheless we still need a variant because uh they are undersized Lots um the one of the houses the the house that's there is actually over the line of two separate Lots so what we're doing is we're going to end up putting a line essentially in the middle uh the house that's there will be on one one lot and then uh the uh plan is to build on the other line so that's that's the overall um with that I'm going to bring up Mr pakera and we'll have a few questions and then we'll obviously the an answer yeah while you do this give us make sure you give us the ident ification of the street address and um where this where this is located so we so the public uh if there is any listening this is the corner of uh Main and and it's actually 25 Stokes and it's the corner of Main and Stokes and I apologize we apologize the plan was submitted and said New Jersey Avenue that's a mistake from the plan which of course will be corrected on the final it's actually the corner St and and me right and you have gotten um or you have received uh comment letters from tailor and Al Lio correct we have and we're prepared to address those okay please do that with regard to each letter yes we will thank you we will okay Mr uh P you are the owner of the property correct yes that's correct and um what is your experience uh in general I understand you rehab property is that correct yes that's correct share that Bo what's your experience I start a construction business 3 years ago with um working for General conductor I work with him 10 years after that I open my own company Home Remodeling and Improvement but I'm running till now and um I have big experence in construction matter and and you and how many years have you been doing this I'm doing total 30 years 30 years and uh you're now doing this with your son is that correct that's correct it's my partner in my business now uh when did you purchase this property I purchased this property in January 17 2024 okay and um as I said in my opening there there's three separate Lots there correct that's and um the house that's on the property is it true that it goes over two lot lines right now yes that's correct now um tell board uh what is being proposed here as far as the sub we here to propose to subdivide the property in two lots instead of three lots uh so that the existing house will be on the one lot and separate lot is where we would like to build a single committee house now let's talk about the existing house um what it was originally as I understand it two floor are um sorry second two floors with a garage underneath and a small apartment type headquarter quarters in the top is that correct that's correct okay now what have you done uh since purchasing the property to that to that single we have now made uh into a totally rehabilitated single family house with three bedrooms and two bathrooms almost everything brand new inside and all permits have uh been pulled uh the only one thing what we need is uh to U build nice uh Landscaping to make this house a new to give this house new um C appeal now that hasn't been done yet Landscaping okay um if the board grants this subdivision would be your wish to be able to coordinate all the landscaping for the new house and the old house at the same time yes I will okay um but if the board prefers Landscaping to be segregated um you would be willing to to do it for the old house while the yes new one correct okay um now turning to the new house describe for the board what you contemplate uh you're going to build on the on the second L uh we like to build another single family house with uh one garage and diway is it going to be um with prop as proportionally to the houses next door be larger is be smaller about the same size be about same size yes okay and uh you know have many bedrooms how many bathrooms uh will be three bedrooms two bathrooms um and will you be doing this we be getting subcontractors work I going to hire subcontractors professional with license electrician plumers Framing and roofings and it goes without saying all the proper permits will be obtained of course alls okay now uh one of the comments in uh I believe it was the planner's letter was uh concerning uh um landscaping or actually I guess on the on the Main Street side they wanted some uh some ornamental trees of some sort do you have any objection to that no I don't a comment about a an evergreen tree in the sight triangle on the corner of Stokes and Main removal you have no objection toing that no I okay um there was also a comment uh concerning grading uh the grading was a little low there was a comment about raising the grading do you have any problem with raising the grading in the in the construction Pro I don't have any problem all right uh thank you Joseph you want to add anything um no I think that's so uh but I available for any question uh What uh the B may head okay I don't know who your procedure is do you ask individually or you want us to do our presentation no you mean with the um I wasn't I wasn't listening to the last thing you said about you're talking about dealing with the he just said he's open for questions yes yeah um well we'll have questions no doubt but I would finish your presentation okay good particularly uh with regard to the your engineer yes that's that's where we're going with this okay Sam okay you are Sam AGA correct yes our professional uh engineer and planner correct share with the board your uh qualifications please I'm a licensed engineer and professional planner in the state of New Jersey I have a bachelor's degree of architectural engineering and construction management from D University um I both of my licens are currently active in the state of New Jersey and I've appeared in front of numerous boards throughout the state um in both capacities as an engineer I was in front of this court I believe it was about four years ago was the last time IED before this Bo this board will admit you for expert testimony thank you thank you um now you you're familiar with the uh application as a matter of fact you uh you prepared the plans cor the ones that are right on that that uh board there correct correct okay you describe the project for the uh for the board sure label this exhibit A1 I'll call it subdivision rendering uh for the record so just just a brief overview I I tried to highlight some of the key points in this with colors and L thickness different things out of that we can see here that there is existing three lots one two three each of 50 foot with approximately 6200 ft a piece uh the prop the building that Robin referred to earlier sitting on the lot line is the one right here this is the existing dwelling uh sitting further back so in essence we have three essentially nonconforming Lots um our proposal this area over here as it sits today is currently vacant uh basically the trees are outline here and then this is essentially a grass area uh we are proposing to subdivide the lot creating a new lot right down the middle here creating two lots each of 75 ft width and a total square footage of 9375 foot each therefore bringing us a little bit closer to the current ordinance today uh your ordinance states that it should be a 100t wide lot with a maximum uh I'm sorry a minimum area of 15,000 sare ft so we are seeking those two variances for this subdivision but we are in fact bringing we're eliminating three non-conforming lots in favor of two that're closer to the current coordinates um this is the proposed dwelling here we took great consideration in where to place this dwelling where where it's placed now there's no need to eliminate any current trees um able to preserve all the trees on there which are in fact well established trees um this is the Evergreen we will be losing this one here on the corner here that's the one that sits in the site triangle so as a matter of safety that one will be removed um we are happy to provide uh compensatory plannings for that removal which will will show in the form of some kind of ornamental along Main Street um so in support of the uh variances we're seeking we'll just discuss briefly the POS criteria and show that we are um our proposal in fact does promote the intent and purpose of the municipal land use law and to outline a few special reasons um under 455 d-2 um the first one being that this proposed plan does in fact provide in my opinion adequate space and open area you can see that the new lot still provides a a very large um rear yard as well as a side yard for barbecues C catch whatever it may be uh contrary to that the existing lot will have a larger front yard um there is an existing um setback variance that's required here I don't recall the exact Dimension off the top of my head but that will remain so this will have a smaller rear yard in favor of a larger front yard but still providing plenty of open area and then uh item g under the special reasons states that the uh municipality shall provide sufficient space for various uses one of those including residential um which we are proposing an additional residential unit here today which also meets the needs of the citizens I'm sure we're all aware that not only in the state of New Jersey throughout the country there is a severe housing shortage so at this point in my opinion every good um reasonably sized house that we can provide is an asset to the community as well as the area um item I under the special reasons says that we create a good uh visual environment specific design uh you heard testimony about additional plannings Landscaping uh the applicant Mr F took existing underutilized somewhat neglected house that is sat there um you heard about the beautification that's going through conver of garage essentially not even useful into a a nice useful free bedroom two bedom house which is a highly desirable housing unit um in today's market for small starting out um and item M under that to support the positive criteria the municipality should encourage development by means of lessening cost of construction different developing aspects um this is a clear block there's no clearing involved there will be very minimal rating there isal tree removal in fact the only tree we're removing is for a safety reason so therefore supporting the fact that this will decrease the construction cost by still providing um an adequate D and then to touch upon the negative criteria we we Pro that um the variance can be granted without substantial for the public good uh by granting this subdivision all the other um criteria for the bulk standards will be met and we are eliminating two three non-conforming lots in favor of two that closer to the current standards and finally we're providing additional buffering additional landscaping and beautifying the existing uh under underutilized Welling and the final problem negative criteria is that will not impair uh the intent of the zoning ordinance so we we can support that by the fact that we look around the neighborhood there are several houses that currently do sit on smaller Lots 50 foot wide Lots um so they are there they've been there a while and and from what I understand they're successful establishing so that in turn proves in fact that our variance of 75t wide the reduced um overall area is in fact supported by other establishments in the uh municipality and and in that immediate area Okay um I believe that testimony covered the planning and Engineers comments uh you have reviewed both those reports um have did you see any um issues with any of the comments I did not um I spoke with both uh Taylor and Mr Miller and advise them that we are willing to satisfy all the comments in their letter objection to uh any comments in the letter okay so so to be clear this is the July 10 2024 alimo letter and um you're in agreement with satisfying um both the minor subdivision checklist requirements that he points out as well as uh conforming or or uh complying with the plann comments one through 15 and the general comments that is correct yes and specifically there was a question whether it's going to be done by uh deed or map file we're going to be fing by deed by deed okay and then uh to again to be clear we have the May 15 20 uh 24 letter uh from tailor design and um they have eight General comments and um are you agree in agreement with um compli Ling with each of their comments that is correct yes all right thank you Mr McKay that that is our presentation uh obviously we're available we want to hear any more further comments from the planner and the engineer and we're open for questions certainly uh with regard to uh the planner's comment about uh landscaping and um color of the building sod is issues that sort of thing um Mr Taylor is that something that that we would want to have uh the applicants engineer at the appropriate time or the applicants well the applicant is the Builder confer with you uh at the appropriate time well I think from one standpoint uh Mr aresta indicated that one of the purposes of zoning that he believes is Advanced is the creation of the desirable visual environment based on the architecture the improvements in the landscap board has to agree with that I don't I haven't seen any architecture we've heard that it it's going to be improved I don't that may be something that the board wants to see um for this site um so while I'm I'm happy to to do that in you know normal site plan applications and other applications I think the architecture this is a COR lot it's pretty prominent this is close to a 40% deviation in lot size um which I'll I'll ask Mr agesta some comments on but from in terms of the Aesthetics I would defer to the board members as to whether or not you would actually want to see what what that house may look like and whether that would impact U your evaluation of The Proposal all right any while we're on it any other comments on your comments um nothing in particular I'll I'll probably touch on a few and and after the board members go I may ask Mr ARA and and the additional questions okay Mr gleer what what what can you uh tell us about the architectural issues it it it's kind of a chicken and egg kind of thing I mean we could have come in with a full-blown plan and shown that whole thing um the way I view these and the way I've handled these in similar situations is that we ask for uh a subdivision approval subject to um you know additional drawings and that to be submitted and we have no problem with that obviously if we came back and that wasn't approved then the subdivision goes away as well so you know at least we know that we're you know uh progressing in the right direction before we spend uh a lot of of money I mean obviously if you're going to reject the plan altogether then then we have nothing but I we would be willing to take that sort of approval Mr Kingsbury what's your thought on that subject to proposal that happens frequently can make a condition upon board approving the AR plans right and that approval can uh doesn't necessarily require reappearance of the applicant but I'm not that authority to your plan well that's the issue that's the issue yeah they to the board and the board has to vote that this will create a desirable visual environment well we can't do that without seeing it we can't do that without seeing it we have to have a second vote once we took a look at the conditions of the proposed architectural renderings I've actually seen it in both both areas sometimes they they give it the planner Authority sometimes the board comes back um I I it's totally discretion yeah I I we're willing to I I I I sense that the planner while they take on a lot maybe not willing to take on this very I mean perfectly acceptable yeah all right um I mean can you just as a preview I mean is it going to be a colonial look or a modern look or what is it going to look honestly I haven't spoken care yes sir what what do you envision what the prop what the buildings or the house is going to look like my Envision would be uh to St the single family house we bedroom to bathroom we''ve got our inside the house can't keep the driveway and um I think they're interested in the type of house be Colonial colonal will be Colonial all right well we still need to see uh some kind of renderings or a photo of another house that's going to be this will be copied from understandable problem at all all right um any any um comments before we get to any professional comments will there be any changes to the existing house uh appications that he testified to that was you want they can repeat I mean I understood the testimony be it was a garage with kind of an apartment above it and it's now it's been converted into a three bedroom two bed home we don't have a you don't have a photograph of that existing house do you cu the diagrams are identical from yeah uh I'm sorry we do not have that I doove buy it I did drive buy it today and it's a pretty much just a standard three story two bedroom the frontage looks he he has made the applicant is made approve I mean um has all his permits with my Construction office uh they added a um front roof porch they've made uh quite a few improvements and I say that strongly inside and and on the out so they um it it h it's completely improved compared to what it was okay um I do have a question Mr M may I absolutely so one of the questions I have is and that I walked out the room because I went to the tax office has this been confirmed with the tax assessor that these are two separate Lots will now be recorded sorry that these are three separate Lots because the land subscription that we have is 150 by 125 so has it been confirmed by the tax assessor that these are three separate Lots or all deeded as one as a matter of fact I think I got a letter I was asking for list give me a second okay Mr chairman if I may while Mr G because I think it's also appropriate there is something known as the merger doctrine that if there are undersized Lots um in a residential property that they are um considered merged from the purposes of of a land use application standpoint there as Mr kingsburry knows there are subtleties associated with that but I I think that that merger Doctrine May apply here so that internal lot line that Mr ARA gave testimony that they're eliminating a nonconformity may not actually in fact be the case I I I agree with that um I think that uh from town to town it's a technicality that it show still shows as separate Lots but from a from a from by operation of law it became emerged I I I'll defer to Mr Kingsbury but that's my understanding of the well that does not apply if the Lots were created by approved sub I don't know whether they were or not I don't I don't know either but what they're asking for I don't think that's a fact and from what I understand it's being taxed as one lot so that's what I'm you know obviously the it's a question I think should be addressed before anything um also I'd like to find out from Mr Paka is that do you have a new home builder license I know you have a 13 VH number which is a a home from a contractor registration but do you have a new home builder's license license I'm sorry I construction license no no no there there's two separate things there's a home improvement contractor registration which allows you to do rehab but on new construction homes you have to have a New Jersey home builder's license no I don't have okay so if you are going to be building this home you must by law have one yes sir so you would have to apply online to the state it's not difficult I okay so I just want to make sure of that thank you and I'm looking for the letter something's telling me I I might have be thinking about this on a different application that when I sent the request for the for the list it came back I only asked I think I only put two properties on there and it came back that it was three for advertising purposes I can't be sure of that and I can't find quickly are you talking about the 200 foot list it's listed as one property with additional Lots listed next to it I guess I guess that's what I'm remembering yeah it's a that's common even if lots have been Consolidated my own home was that way it was listed with one lot and then an additional lot which it was all one Whatever It Is we'll be sure to have the appropriate designations in the deed I'm going to be sharing that with Mr Kingsbury and we'll sort out whatever needs to be sorted out um so that it's it's properly designated by law I think it's more of a technical thing it's important I think it's more technical than anything else all right um Mr Kingsbury is there anything that you've heard that would prohibit us from moving or prevent us from moving forward tonight other than complies with the condition sure compli with the engineers letter the planner letter submission of architectural plans to appr that's totally acceptable all right any other comments that either of the professionals have I do um part of Mr aga's testimony was that as the board knows under the negative criteria to indicate that the proposal will not be inconsistent with the Zone plan or zoning ordinance and essentially the neighborhood character and there was some comment that there are other non-conforming Lots in the area that are ft wide um do you have any kind of an analysis of any lot areas are there other single family lots that are property I believe it's directly across the street from us lot somewhere uh 7701 block 7701 Lot 19 directly across the street the corner lot there a 50 wide by 125 and there is a single family home on there and there are several others throughout that small neighborhood off the top of my head I do not have those identified and the house appears to have been there for some time it is by no means in construction the existing so that could have pregated the it very well may have correct are there any newer homes that are constructed on lots that are um under 10,000 so we would just offer to the board that the board should really evaluate whether the construction of of two lots that are 9375 ft where 15,000 is required would be inist neighborhood pattern uh and the Zone plan and the int of the master plan so that really becomes the I think the Croc application for the board and I I think we have testimony that we know one undersized lot across the street and there may be others in the area so it's up to the board to determine whether or not those positive and negative criteria are addressed anything else come no Marty well they're going to be coming back with the with the carals by that time they will have updated the the plans right in in Conformity with your comments yes yeah that would that would that would be a a must that's that's what I would come but yes um any further board comments and it makes no difference that if it's three lots into two were one lot into two you know well as one as one lot it would be conforming they want to split it into two lots right now you saying the tax off correct that was kind of my question is is that his the testimony is that over several minutes is that this is three lots right I would like confirmation just to know whether or not on record that this is one lot or three lots so that the testimony is correct in what your decision will be based on I think Mr Greener agreed that under the merger Doctrine this would be considered one lot but as Mr Kingsbury said unless there was documentation that this was established by an act of a subdivision granted and we don't have that here so I think the board is probably um we would view this from a Planning and Zoning standpoint as as one lot as a starting point as subdivision of one lot of one conforming lot coring lot does do we know what the tax do tax map actually have three SE the tax MX is not relevant what happens is the tax assessor has to confirm when the deed of consolidation was done or whether it does not exist the tax maps are not always up to date all right I understand do we need some kind of time frame of when the applicant will be able to provide the needed information to our planner and engineer I mean how long do we wait that's a question for all of you of what you want to have it whether you want to have it before you vote or or subsequent to a vote we could assuming we got an an for the subdivision again subject to we could be back within 60 days okay thank you we we don't want to sit on this but we need enough time to be able to plan it out make sure we have proper uh but I don't want to wait a year either no no no no nothing like that and then the Summer's here so July September would make sense can't proceed with construction anyway unless the licensing issu is cleared up unless we hire a separate contract of course you could do that too yeah we we have to kick those things around but but uh but certainly I I I don't see any problem with SE any other questions from the board um it does appear that on your plan did you you talked to Molly mway in New Jersey American water in regards to sewer direct conne yes we are able to connect we've both okay perfect and the applicant would understand that he would uh a COA would apply to this new home one and a half% of that assessed value is a requirement because this is a new home okay just so that he understands that if this were to get approved meaning well unfortunately a lot of people come to my office and then they get their construction permits and I have to send the plan to the assessor because they have to fill out the COA form and they're like what do you mean 1 and a half% % that I have to pay of that so I want as far as the fees is concerned correct I just not sure if he's aware of that that he will have to pay that until now we weren't aware of that I could to do all the shocking in my office so I figured I'd do it tonight in public but that if it has to be paid it has to be paid all right um there being no other board comments or are there yes no um we'll uh we'll ask the public if they have any comments and hearing none uh we'll move on to those online no one online there's no one online all right we'll close the hearing then so Mr Kingsbury give us some guidance as to um our options for a motion here you can vote on this tonight with the conditions you can continue to August submission of evidence regarding how that those lots were created were they created by legal subdivision or some other meod which would address the issue of merg you have as far as the time frame is concerned you have 120 days to act from the time the application is deemed complete so you got you don't have a time you want to vote Yes or no tonight you can do that or you can continue until AUST for additional information um Mr gleer I my sense from the the professionals is and that um they would prefer to see this journ for 60 days so that your presentation is made more complete than it is both on the deed issue the merger deed SL merger issue and also on um the um architectural design color and I'm going to add a third one that the professionals didn't request but I think is important and that is a little more information about non-conforming houses in the immediate area to bolster uh your argument that it will not affect um do you have any uh your client have any opposition to that I certainly prefer adjournments to a negative vote uh we all do um we all do I understand I understand and um I I look at uh some of these uh meetings as a journey to understand what the concerns are of the township and I appre appreciate that um so if you give me one second to look at my calendar because and confer with my client on whether it's going to be August or September I would appreciate that uh let me have some further input for the clerk because our our calendar is also a factor here yeah it's very full um the next meeting is August 7th and then the one after that is September 4th that's the day of your labor day yeah uh two days two days after Labor Day it's Wednesday evening let me conf sure you said sep correct if we can adjourn this to September 4th um we would appreciate it I want to make sure our ducks are in order I think we'll need that just a little bit of additional all right uh do we need anything in writing to confirm that M Mr Mr Kingsbury are we we're fine on this representation here for the adjournment we do have yeah but in terms of his request for the adjournment oh you do have okay September 4 to to September 4 yeah okay Mr Kingsbury I assume I don't have to read advertise that's correct thank you all right so can I have a motion to adjourn this matter uh for further review until September 4 of this year so move second all right we have second second roll call Mayor Gilmore yes Mrs badgio yes Mrs Tori yes Mr Bradley yes Mrs Kelly yes Mr Murphy yes Mr novita yes and Mr McKay yes thank you folks enjoy the summer thank you a song now you don't want to hear me thank you sir all right next uh we have minutes from a couple of meetings to uh to review and approve uh first the minutes from February 7 2024 motion please so move second roll call Mrs Tori yes mayor Gilmore yes Mr Bradley yes Mrs Kelly yes Mrs bgio yes Mr Murphy yes Mr verita yes and Mr McCay yes uh now the minutes from um March 6th 2024 some second roll call Mayor Gilmore yes Mrs bgio yes Mrs tordy yes Mrs Kelly yes Mr Murphy yes and Mr M yes uh we have a resolution item but I don't believe we have any resolutions no resolutions all right and we have a list of correspondents the long list 98 to 9M make a motion that we file correspondence second all right we have a motion to receive and file correspondence roll call Mrs Kelly yes Mr Bradley yes Mrs Tori yes may Gilmore yes Mrs bgio yes Mr Mr Murphy yes Mr noita yes and Mr McKay [Applause] yes professional comments gentlemen anything Mr Kingsbury nothing no comments all right any board comments quiet tonight no comments I just want to congratulate Mr Bradley for becoming the new president of the HOA at the Glenn at Masons Creek oh congratulations I did not know that President considerations yeah spoken thank you sir yes sir it's a high honor and how long is this is this happened today and how what is the term of his 30 minutes 30 minutes he has the resignation letter already written well that's very good that's a that's a tough job as long as I no way all right um the agenda calls for public comment here but the record can reflect there is no one here and no one online and no one online Mr M I would just like to say to the board after the all these years I am truly grateful that you allow me as the zoning officer to help our homeowners um I know that they greatly appreciate the fact that um that somebody as myself can help them because many of them are so nervous up here they don't know what to say they don't know what to do so I am grateful to the board and to town uh to allow me to help these these applicants you know we ought to think of it as a service that the town provides to its residents right and it's not always that way in all towns I can believe it uh but that's why we're a little little better than a lot of towns in it was clear you worked with those people to help them get their pool that we appreciate and long before I send them as Paula knows um we really try and work to see how we can get their application and their project to get done without coming here so when they're coming here it really means that they just a lot of times cannot meet those requirements right not just because they want them so right and Kathy you should know you're your input to the board is um is greatly appreciated by this board member and I'm sure I speak for the other board members as well abut absolutely is it valuable y yes thank you all right somebody want to make a motion to adjourn so move second all in favor I any opposed by the way me is that part's problem that air conditioning doesn't work start put the air it only allows me to go so far ahead that was a time for board comment you service you can only return it's always coolor all right and we're keeping uh Miss Glover for next week next next month rather is you expect you off the Record Paul oops you expect Miss Glover to be on for August yes yes yeah I spoke to her already I told her she could go ahead and re advertise right