good evening everyone welcome to the Hillsboro Township planning board meeting of March 14th 2024 please join me in a salute to the [Music] flag pled to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for [Applause] [Music] all please be advised this meeting has been duly advertised according to section five of the open public meeting Act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 otherwise known as Sunshine Law notice of the 2024 annual meeting schedule has been provided to the officially designated newspapers the Township Clerk post on Township's website and available here at the Hillsboro Township municipal complex in addition application documents and plans have been made available on the township Civic clerk website at least 10 days in advance of this evening's meeting complete application files are available in the planning and zoning department for inspection coing with the excuse me with the public meeting notice first up we have a new member tonight so we are going to do an oath of office for seat number six and Mr Bernstein you got your should be in front of you I state your name I James Vander do solemnly swear do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of New Jersey and the constitution of the state of New Jersey that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to the governments established and to the governments established in the united states in the United States and in this state and in this state under the authority of the people under the authority of the people and that I will faithfully and that I will Faithfully impartially impartially and justly perform and justly perform all the duties of the office all the duties of the office of class form member of the planning board seat six class four member of the planning board seat six to the best of my ability to the best of my ability so help me God thank you right congratulations [Music] [Applause] welcome okay with that I have a roll call planning board members and also board and Township professionals please Mr Wagner here Mr van Mr I'm sorry you say your last name one time Vander Vander Mr Vander uh Mr rowitz here Mr scobo here Mr Smith here Mr Vitali here Mr Deon here Committee in the P present Deputy Mayor Chelli here Vice chair PE here chair sarach here Mr K pres Mr Bernstein here Mr May here and myself and the videographer are here okay welcome everybody we do not have any meeting minutes nor resolutions for consideration and we do not have planning board business and no considerations of ordinances so that means we can go right to business from the floor for matters that are not in this evening's agenda if anyone would like to come up please state your name and address for the record and as in the past uh please limit comments to five minutes and uh no discussion of indirectly or directly with regards to Warehouse applications uh good evening Maria Janus 720 East fck Avenue Manville New Jersey I'm also a Hillsboro Township property owner block 86 lot 3 2155 camplan Road um during the January 25th uh uh planning board meeting uh I had asked of planning board attorney Eric Bernstein um is appointed uh or Eric attorney Eric Bernstein's appointment is it an automatic renewal or whether he has to uh submit a bid attorney Bernstein stated his appointment uh is not automatic so I had asked if attorney Bernstein had a contract and he stated he was going to sign it tomorrow so the January 25th meeting uh attorney Bernstein attended without a signed contract and the two prior uh Township uh planning board meetings were also uh attended by attorney Bernstein without a contract um so I had submitted an Oprah request for that contract and what I received was a signed contract but it had no date uh yesterday I uh this past Tuesday I attended the Hillsboro Township uh committee meeting and I stated what I stated now that attorney Bernstein did not have a signed contract for the first three meetings and uh so is this is this the standard procedure for Hillsboro that appointed profession uh appointed professionals do not have to have to sign and date contracts prior to their commencing work for the township I'm not aware of any policy along those lines so what is the policy of the planning board in regard to the contract of attorney Eric Bernstein that's between the township and Mr Bernstein we make a we take a vote whether or not to or as to which professionals to appoint or to award the contracts too okay but the contract was signed by attorney Bernstein and by you uh there is no date on that contract does that require a date I'm sure there's a date I don't have it in front of me so David I'm sure it states terms usually date it after you sign it and as for the record uh the contract is not drafted by my office it's drafted by the township so therefore I don't get to see it nor sign it until I receive it from the municipality is not required that I have a signed contract on the day I am appointed I am not required to have a signed contract for any of my clients on the day I am appointed but to have one at some point once the appointment has done I received it I believe the night of the 25th from Mr CO's office it was signed shortly thereafter it's usually dated after Mr srai has dated it because he's the last one to sign it as for whether or not it was signed I don't know but uh I am the appointed planning board attorney with or without a signed contract that may or may not be dated so what so what I'm hearing is that a a um appointed Township professional does not need to have a signed and dated contract prior to their commencing work because that was the case here um one of the properties uh that is a subject of application an application before this board um property owned by John and Linda shley uh was the subject of a list pendens that uh that document was listed as one of the documents uh for that application so I obtained a copy from um all right we can't we can't talk about that that's an ongoing active application excuse me that's an ongoing AC of application so if if you have something that's specific to it you should bring it up at the next meeting this is the planning board and what no you can't can be what can be discussed if not applications not active applications you can come the night when that application is being heard if you've got some concerns except that when we come for on the night of when the application is being heard we are not permitted members of the public to bring up anything other than what is what is being presented uh from the attorney with his Witnesses and the only that we have been told members of the public is that after everything is done the last day we can bring bring up certain things which which really need to be addressed prior to the ending of the the the application there's an issue with the uh contract purchaser of that property uh at the last uh home Homestead uh meeting attorney Bernstein uh and the attorney for the applicant Craig gianetti um had a uh okay I'm G to stop you right there you're still talking not conversation about you're out of line right now Mr chairman yes sir Mr chanice if you have a document that you want the board to consider or to have distributed on a legal issue to the applicant and the objector submitted to miss to Deborah Miss padet and it will get distributed to the party for the purposes of being distributed but we're not going to discuss a list pendants or any other legal document in an application where the applicant nor the objectors are not here this evening okay so so you this this document should be should be given to the planning board it no give it to the give it to miss padrick she will give it to me and I will deal with it accordingly to the objector and to the applicants and that's who will get it okay very not the board okay very good thank you okay thank you any other members okay seeing none we're gonna move on to this evening's public hearings first up is going to be specialty assays in Inc file number 23- pb-16 D mspv with a time of decision of it's actually should be June 30th there's no 31 days in the month of June oh it's leap year we got an extra year extra day there say June 31st still say 31st yes it's all good no worries Mr chairman as as you may the board may be aware uh applicant for this matter has asked for a postponement of this matter uh Mr K I believe has uh worked with the applicant for a new date and we do have the extension of time and since June 31st will never come there may never be enough before somebody gets up and says we have no time of decision it's June 30th and the date is June 6th for it to be heard and they're requesting without further notice okay so it it would be a motion Mr chairman to continue application specialty assays Inc file 23 pb16 SPV to Thursday June 6 2024 at 700 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard it may be heard without further notice to the parties and the time of Extinction through June 30th 2024 okay I'll make that motion okay Mr SC made the motion is there a second okay we have a second any further discussion from the day hearing none roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr vender yes Mr edtz yes scobo yes Smith yes Committee in the pon yes Deputy Mayor Chelli yes Vice chair peas yes chair sarach yes so next I know this is not going to be popular with the two that are sitting in the front right now but I'm jumping to the CP East Brunswick Inc just because it's very quick and I know we don't have very comfortable seating here so the former chairman gets like a home after that what okay so we have CB Brunswick Inc seiser file number 20- pb-05 D mspv and there's going to be a extension request um I'm just trying to read this so the applicant seeking three oneyear extensions to allow additional time for Outside Agency approvals and with that I will turn over to counselor good evening my name is Rachel katian I'm from The Firm nead Davis and Goldstein alongside me to my left cherylyn Walters also from nead Davis and Goldstein our firm res CP East FR can you bring the mic a little bit closer they're not very long range I see is this better okay um wees we represent CP East Brunswick regarding this application for an extension of the preliminary and final major site plan approvals previously granted regarding the properties designated as block 178 Lots 2 and 301 um we're asking pursuant to njsa 40 55 d-52 three one-year extensions of the prior approval to account for the delay in being able to obtain ngd approval by way of background on March 4th 2021 we received preliminary and final major site plan approval to construct a combined retail office project on lot two to be known as Town Square uh the project as approved includes two twostory mixed use buildings a clock tower 45 parking spaces exess driveways and other site improvements this was memorialized in a planning board resolution adopted on May 17th 2021 since then the applicant has secured all Outside Agency approvals and has completed it's post approval compliance with the board however we have endured a long and arduous process with New Jersey Department of Transportation which I'm going to refer to Here and After is NJ do or njdot um specifically regarding access to the site uh to Route 206 on in September of 2021 Dot's Bureau of major access permits I'm going to refer to them as bmap denied access to the applicant uh to Route 206 we then filed an appeal of this decision uh which we have as exhibits which we will provide to you shortly um on June 9th 2022 an appeal hearing was conducted before a do hearing officer on August 16th 20122 the hearing officer issued a written decision overturning the denial of access and remanding back to bmat for completion of the plan review thereafter we submitted revised site plans to dot to address the technical comments which led to further back and forth Communications with DOT however on December 6th 2023 bmap again denied access uh to Route 206 citing the exact same reasons which were overturned on appeal because of this we have to go back and seek further an additional relief from bap's second attempt to deny access to that end we have submitted an appeal request to the dot on January 5th 2024 dot asked for some new traffic counts which were provided on March 1st 2024 uh currently we are awaiting a meeting with the do which will hopefully bring a resolution to the issues and ultimately result in an issuance of the major access permit needed to enable the applicant post bonds with the township and commence construction we note that the March 1st 2024 submission uh we believe applicant has also completely addressed all technical comments from the dot um it is the applicant's intention to move forward with the project immediately upon receipt of the major access permit from dot but since applicant has been unduly delayed as a result of issues beyond our control we have no choice but to seek an extension of the 2021 site plan approvals granted by the board so under njsa 40 552a the board has discretion to Grant up to three one-year extensions where as here the developer has followed the standard uh procedures prescribed for final approval here we think the extensions are warranted because the delay is associated with attempting to gain approval from dot uh for reasons beyond our control we have been clearly as we stated unable to get the major access permit um since the origin original period of did you want to go through the yeah you finish then I'll address it okay um since the original period of protection expired on May 17 2023 the applicant requests that the board Grant all three years of extension at once this would take the period of protection to May 17 2026 which would hopefully allow the applicant more than enough time to complete the process with do Post bonds pull construction permits and commence development of the properties consistent with the approvals uh please note that the applicant does not propose any amendments to the approved site plans as part of this application we are only seeking an extension thank you so this is Charn Walters it's nice to see everybody last time we were here a few years ago was all via Zoom so it's nice to see people in person um we did have exhibits to go along with that I had some te technical difficulties I made sure they were on the laptop but I didn't make sure the laptop had an HDMI port so Mr coise has brought them up because I did submit them to miss padet and they're on Civic Clerk and I have hard copies I'll hand out to your professionals briefly um I'll just run through them real quick the the first is a letter from do from September 27th 202 1 it was their at the end of that letter you'll see that it it indicates it's their second second time telling us that they're denying access um they had a prior letter we had done a submission this was the final letter from them denying access the first time the second document is an August 16th 2022 hearing officer decision from do overturning the denial of access U the third exhibit is the December 6 2020 to let you might want to let them go up first Cher yeah I'm sorry so that that document is pretty lengthy um but it it we had a two-day hearing with do on that where we were cross-examining Witnesses and entering evidence and written summation subsequently um so that was the the second exhibit which will Mark um as soon as I'm done talking about them I'll mark them any way you want me to mark them Mr Bernstein the third document that Mr coise has on the screen now is a December 6 2023 letter from do at the end of that bap again denies access um as Miss CTI had indicated and then and they go through all the same reasons that we previously tried through the hearing officer at do so on January 5th 2024 which is the next document that Mr K is going to bring up we submitted yet another appeal request um I can tell you I've been contacted by a dag at do who is asked who asked for those new traffic counts we've aded those the indication that I'm getting is that um there's a new director at Bap and things should go a little bit more smoothly they're reviewing the most recent submission we're supposed to have a virtual meeting and hopefully have this completely resolved so um for that reason for that reason that reason alone we're seeking the extension and I'm going to Mr uh Bernstein do you continue from the prior hearing exhibit numbers all right so then you want me to mark these A1 through A4 yes please and would you indicate which ones are which for the purposes of the record yes sir so A1 will be the September 27th 2021 letter issued by do A2 will be the August 16th 2022 hearing officer decision A3 will be Do's December 6 2023 letter again denying access and A4 is this firm's January 5th 2024 letter with enclosures the do seeking another round of uh appeal discussions so I will give those Originals along with the original affidavit and the balance of the green cards to Mr kise um and I have copies for your professionals if they want them thank youve chairman yes sir I have a question and and listen nobody um here that's been in this town um knows how hard it is to deal with our friends at DJ do more than than me and some of the other members on the boort um has there been any uh support or documentation from the county and the County planning board as because since they're making you go out to AML Ro which is a County Road have you asked for them to to write you a letter of support for to do yes we also had the assistance of Mr Co during the do appeal hearing the first time around uh he provided some testimony regarding the Township's uh master plan and the Town Center vision for that downtown area 20 thepass open keep in mind when we had the heing with it was prior to the bypass opening um so now that the bypass is open and your traffic counts have come way down in that area we're hoping that dot um is going to consider eliminating that merge in front of the property maybe making the right turn coming down and well making the right lane a right turn only have one lane come through Straight and eliminate the lane drop on this side of um of 20 of 206 I mean of Amwell Road to make make that a safer condition it was one of the primary concerns of the reviewer inside Bap but um and we did go to the county and the county I don't think the county wrote us a letter of support but they were very insistent right in WR out only okay um if I don't know I know David has been working on this as and and we've contacted uh a sem in fman I think at one point to try and help and uh to meet with you and and to to do to deal with the state so um you know as as this progresses if there's anything else that you need from our departments uh or from the T Town Committee in general please let us know we'll do what we have to I think the project will be a benefit as we did talked about when I was on the board in in co uh that they would bring a nice valuable asset to our town center so um with that I would I would make the motion to to Grant the extension second we have to go through do we yep so little ahead just to let you know committee man leani Mr seiser has actively been working on marketing the site so he's pulling in tenants already I mean we're ready to go we just have to get do on board get our final sign off on post approval compliance from Mr Co and he's ready to post bonds and start construction okay all right so first any more comments from the dayas good good professionals anything I have nothing to add Mr chairman okay so then I will entertain a motion to open the public please second all in favor I is there anyone from the public that would like to question the attorneys on this application and again reminder just to state your name and address for the record please Maria Janu 6720 East fck Avenue M New Jersey uh how many how many uh denials have you received from the New Jersey uh Department of Transportation two two and what was the reason for those denials they cited safety concerns I'm sorry they cited safety concerns regarding the lane merge that's going to be at the driveway access point for the property where is that driveway access point on Route 206 it goes on it goes off of 206 into that into that the property has on both Amwell Road which is a County Road and 206 the state highway so as proposed and as approved by the planning board the project has a right in right out access on mwell road and a right in right out access on 206 with a left turn in from 206 and so where was the issue with the safety both at the access point there is a lane merge coming down 206 so the be uh the do was concerned about traffic slowing to make a turn in to the uh facility at the same time that cars were merging and so has that change any of that changed well as I indicated it's my understanding that B that the division now at do is considering eliminating that lane drop by making the traffic light the traffic coming into um route down Route 206 into Amwell is now two lanes goes through the light and merges my understanding is we're considering or they're considering making those two lanes a right turn only on the AMW and one lane through which would eliminate the lane drop or the merge but it's all dot jurisdiction so whatever they say is what happens okay so that so what you what you just uh stated that hasn't been done yet is that a definite will that definitely be done no I can't say that we're still waiting a we submitted documentation to do that they request it we're waiting for a meeting thank you any other members of the public okay seeing none motion to close public so move second all in favor all right okay now Comm what I said before I would make a motion to approve three one-year extensions uh for the property um then I guess we would after each year they would have to come back or is it is it an automatic rolling if they need to Mr Bernstein they're looking for automatic Mr but I would recommend that the applicant come back every year just to let us know or at least we're already out a year so we need a minimum of two years got two more years left so I would be back sometime in May May 25 to give us an update so that would be two years at once because we're are we they're going to they're proposed to be granted they just want update year two year you want us like okay that's fine we can submit something in writing to Mr K and through Miss padet and then if the board would like to see hear from us we'd be happy to come back okay that's fine as Mr Bernstein said so could you clarify that Mr Bernstein the clarification is 3 oneyear approvals through May 17 2026 with the applicant giving the board through the board planning director an update honor before May 17 2025 and again honor before May 17 2026 with the option of the board to ask applicant to come before the board to give a further public update great thank you okay so we have a motion think you had a motion for Mr [Music] Le we got it excellent roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr vanderley yes Mr rtz yes sco yes Mr Smith yes um commun the P yes Deputy Mayor Chelli yes Vice chair peas yes yes CH Rog yes thank you very much thank you good luck thank you and next time I'll make sure I have a laptop that accepts an HDMI port my apologies no works are you recused on the next one are you recused on the next time thank you see you soon yeah I have all your I got it than what he get take a home early [Music] is okay next pet truck Slickers Inc file number 23- pb-1 19- mspv time of decision May 31st of this year and are there going to be a recusal uh chairman I recusing myself of this application as I as I did prior okay good evening take some chocolate go sit you there's there's plenty to take but you have plenty of people on the board now [Music] so um good evening members of the board my name is mik O grodnick at saos shock Law Firm on behalf of Petro Liquors Incorporated um as you all know petrox has been an institution in Hillsboro since 1961 tonight we're here seeking preliminary and final major site plan approval uh for the construction of a 480t addition onto the principal build building to be used as on-site storage for liquor and other um business products of the liquor store not the restaurant um which has been identified on the tax map as lot 34.010659 2 uh as we know it's in the Town Center zoning District uh this is located at 419 M Road um we were here previously on a waiver for conceptual plan which is a requirement in the TC Zone given the scope of this application um we're seeking U to construct a 20ft by 24t addition existing uses will remain unchanged this application is considered a major sight plan since the existing and proposed impervious um lot cover is 72.5% or more than 50% so although we're compliant since it's more than 50% this uh is considered a major site plan uh which also necessitates the conceptual plan review from this board as a prerequisite to the hearing um the 480t gross building area addition proposal will result in an increase in the required pork uh parking of 1.4 spaces all other relief uh including variances design waivers relate to existing conditions pre-existing non-conforming conditions which are not exacerbated by the proposed small addition to the existing building um as you know this is next to Art scars building whove I've known for years and spoken with it's always been a drainage issue uh going from uh this side of the building down to Art side uh so we agreed to improve the proposed drainage um essentially down that the left side of the building uh which will provide for a direct connection to the existing roof down spouts to a catch Basin and then reduce all the runoff and the icing um that was part of um disch that was discharging into the parking area in fact there was actually a slip and fall related to ice and there's a lawsuit pending uh so we really felt it was important uh to eliminate um those conditions the applicant uh is seeking variance relief for lot area in the TC Zone as you know two acres are required this lot is 1.6 acres um there's a maximum front yard set setback of 5 feet uh uh which is required but uh 59.9 ft is existing and proposed the building height is also non-compliant it's a minimum twostory building in the Town Center Zone uh where one story is existing and proposed and then the the minimum usable floor areaa to usable floor first floor area 85% is required and of course 0% is existing and proposed uh with me tonight I have U Michael Ford from Van Clea Engineering Associates to to review the site plan and to respond to any questions to the board you any testimony give tonight is going to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do the record can you state by your name yes Michael Ford FD uh licensed professional engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey uh with Van CLE engineering since 1990 appeared before this board numerous times and we're getting better there we go okay any objections seeing none thank you you're welcome okay all right uh yeah we feel this is a pretty straightforward uh application as Mr rodnik outlined all but for the existing coverage on the lot it would be classified as a minor site plan um the uh impervious coverage on the lot is not an issue though because the existing and proposed is less than the 85% Max allowed in the TC Zone in fact the application will result in no net increase uh in impervious coverage the addition uh and I have um by way of exhibits uh these are this is the site plan that was submitted as part of the application this was downloaded from Civic clerk it's last revised January 24th 2024 um it shows on the right side of the page Amwell Road uh North is at the top of the page South uh and what mrck referred to as uh the scar facility art scars building is to the South there's a Shar driveway between those two sites um and there's parking across the front of the site as well as at the back of the site we're going to mark this A1 Mr Ford if yes it's it was submitted and it's but we can call it A1 yep thank you it's uh plan sheet number three thank you um the subject of the application uh includes the 24x 20 uh addition at the rear of the uh liquor store portion of the facility the existing restaurant along the north side of the property is approximately 3,000 square ft and that's unchanged the existing liquor store is approximately 10,000 square feet and it'll have this 480 foot Edition basically squaring off the rear right corner of the building if you've if anyone has been there before uh this is uh as you enter from the back of the building and head toward the restaurant entrance on your right is a fenced in area uh at the back of the um liquor store uh the fence would be removed any outdoor storage or components that are uh you know in that area would be removed the addition is for storage uh and is immediately adjacent to other uh indoor storage port portions of that liquor store building there's um a door access to the rear of the liquor store now I'll highlight where it's at it's on the uh south or the I'll say the rear left corner of the building uh there's a sidewalk along the rear of the building so the in addition uh to the building expansion That Sidewalk would be carried across the rear of the building uh providing for pedestrian walkway adjacent to the existing parking area there's a a door from the existing liquor store into that fenced in Courtyard now that would obviously be eliminated and as part of the addition there's only one what I call a man door it's the size of a standard uh door being added at the rear of the building um so it's taking what right now is impervious coverage and pavement uh what's often referred to as dirty surfaces where runoff from those uh areas would potentially have um untreated storm water and turning it into roof area which is uh not considered a dirty surface so there's a slight I'll say water quality stormw runoff uh uh part of this uh as a result of this application the drainage Improvement that uh Mr grodnik referred to is along the South or left side of the existing building there's a row of parking the downspouts from basically the liquor store roof come down the side of the liquor store building and then discharge through the curb there's little 4in pipes that's they protrude through the curb and discharge run off Overland in into this parking area which then also continues to run off you know into the common access driveway and down toward County Route 514 amall Road where there's a storm drainage catch Basin what we're proposing is to eliminate that Overland storm would to run off um uh non uh desirable condition which is obviously uh already uh been described to cause uh concerns and issues especially during freezing uh conditions and putting it into a pipe burying the pipe underground and making a direct connection Into the Storm drainage system in County Route 514 we've had a discussion with the neighbor about this connection and one item they've asked us to explore is rather than connect to the catch Basin rate uh alongside of the driveway is connect to another catch Basin along the county ra route right in front of our uh site in our front parking area and we will explore that op option and as long as the county doesn't object we would make that change one other uh minor element as part of the application is right now at the rear right corner of the site there's an existing uh trash enclosure it's a standard concrete path with a fence around it and in front of that concrete pad is a no parking area which is uh paved and as part of the overall uh impervious coverage and paved area of the site now we've uh proposed to uh expand that trash area to make it 10t larger out in the front uh so it would be a total of 20 by 20 uh and the gates would be moved out to the new entrance in the front and the fence expanded so it would be a typical trash enclosure with a board on board fence to screen that area and provide for uh an area for additional trash right now there are some trash type receptacles in that outdoor uh storage area at the rear of the of the liquor store that would be uh this would provide for an opportunity to relocate those and get them away from the building where they could potentially be you know at Hazard um we described uh the the relief that's uh part of this application uh Mr grodnik listed it I won't go again through it in detail but for to enforce that all of those existing non-conforming conditions are uh related to the existing site the site is a one-story building today whereas the TC Zone actually has a requirement of a minimum of a two-story building um so all of those and that's just one of the non-conformities all those nonconformities exist they're not being exacerbated by the application um it's a hardship to to uh make any changes or to try to eliminate those relief conditions and I believe that the board could approve all of those existing non-conforming conditions that have existed um perhaps not since 1961 but I understand in 1992 the restaurant and the liquor store were there and the restaurant was actually the first all nonsmoking restaurant in the state of New Jersey that's what they uh stay on their website so the these conditions have existed for many years uh without uh incident that I'm aware of and the board should uh be able to Grant those without any substantial detriment to the public good or an impact to the Zone code and um Grant those reliefs as requested as far as reviews we've uh received an exemption letter from the Delaware and rant and Canal commission dated October 25th 2023 we've also received an exemption letter from the so Ros inment Control District that's the somerset Union Soil Conservation District dated October 30th 2023 and that acknowledges that this project is so small that it doesn't require their uh approval and that is a project that results in less than 5,000 square feet of disturbance total this project is approximately 3,000 square fet of total disturbance so we are exempt from their uh purview we uh made a visit to the environmental Commission on uh February 26th Mr grodnik and I made a presentation perhaps it'll be a longer presentation that we're making tonight I don't know how I'm making out on time but we did discuss the project at length but we received a report from the environmental commission dated March uh 13th dated uh 2024 and they uh conclude by saying they have no objection to the application and that's what they concluded when we visited them on February 26th we also received a review from the township uh Fire Marshall dated uh February 14 2024 with no comments uh and um with regards to the county we're on a County Route we did receive uh a review report dated March 1st from the county there are comments in the county report that we need to address um basically to confirm that we don't need to dedicate any RightWay to Amo Road our office has already reviewed that and the existing RightWay is in excess of the 33 foot half width that the county uh said is needed uh so there should be no RightWay dedication uh along our Frontage they've asked us to demonstrate that we have adequate lines of sight at our driveways as I've stated those driveways have existed for many years and we will comply with the County's request to uh verify that fact um and we will comply and uh ultimately uh gain uh full County approval of the application with regards to uh two last remaining reports we have a February 22nd 2024 review from your uh planner Mr KO I've spoken to the relief that's required as part of this application should also confirm for the board that the minor increase in the required parking due to the additional 480 Square ft for storage uh We've demonstrated on the site plan this is exhibit uh A1 that the existing parking is adequate uh for the existing condition and the proposed condition and there's no aspect of this application that adversely impacts the uh existing parking area no spaces will be eliminated impact in any way as part of the application um I've talked to the relief uh perhaps then I can go on and and I don't recall that there were any uh items in Mr Ko's review memorandum that that uh suggested we make any changes or make any revisions to the plan correct correct okay and lastly the board uh Engineers review memorandum um dated March 5th 2024 and that that's the the first page there are three other Pages Pages two through four just for the record are dated February 27th 2024 but that's the report I'm referring to uh typically we go to just the items in the report that we would um uh like to discuss or have uh objection to they are specifically items and first perhaps let me finish with some testimony there was a request for testimony and and clarification regarding the the trash enclosure um some additional clarification right now it's a a curb along the front of the trash enclosure that curb would be extended out around the front of the new expanded front portion of the clo enclosure and a concrete pad similar to uh a typical trash enclosure and consistent with the existing condition would be constructed and any additional details that uh um the board's engineer would like with regards to construction details or CL clarification on the plan we'd be glad to um provide that there is actually a plan sheet as part of the application a construction detail sheet and we do have on that sheet the typical uh detail for a trash enclosure including the specifics of the thickness of the concrete pad and so on and so forth but we'd be uh glad to to clarify that further if there is a need um with regards to uh circulation and uh deliveries there's a comment five at the bottom of page two uh regarding uh or a request that we testify regarding truck deliveries we the existing condition doesn't have a designated loading u space if you will but right now it's our understanding from discussions with our applicant that there's a a along the rear portion of the uh liquor store there's a curb with no parking along it where the deliveries would pull up and um unload uh and park temporarily and unload and and materials would be moved that is you know the the products for sale at the liquor store would be moved into the rear a leftand corner of the existing liquor store there's a larger door there that would be the existing condition and the proposed condition um so we don't feel that there's a need for a designated loading area this 480 foot addition doesn't prompt any substantial changes in the years of tested operation of the facility that has um occurred with um out incident to my knowledge and we don't feel that this uh existing can condition uh presents any substantial impediment to existing circulation of vehicles through the parking area or pedestrians right now there's as I said parking along the front which I think primarily is patrons of the liquor store because that's where the main front entrance to the liquor store is and then at the rear of the site there's a parking area and the main entrance to the for pedestrians to the restaurant is in the um I'll say the rear right corner of that restaurant or the north side of the restaurant and building so that same pedestrian access would be maintained and not uh adversely impacted by the minor addition on page two of the review memorandum uh it goes uh comments 6 through 14 under General comments uh the three comments ments and these are really the only three discussion items because and perhaps I can just jump ahead to miscellaneous first under miscellaneous again there's comments starting with item one through four we have no issues with those I've already identified that uh we uh have basically gained all the Outside Agency approvals or no comment from the outside agencies but for the county uh and we will uh complete that uh application process and gain their full approval um and then again back to the three comments for uh the board's consideration under General comments I'll start with item 10 and I'm going to talk about item 10 11 and 14 all of the other items under General comments 1 through 14 I believe we've addressed under testimony already or uh we would agree to address to the a board engineer satisfaction is any condition of approval this board May Grant so with the discussion under item 10 there's uh first back at number six and we've discussed it already there's an acknowledgement that there's no increase in impervious coverage as a result of this application so the existing storm drainage discharge from the site for all intens of purposes remains unchanged and and not related to the 480 addition but more connected to the um ongoing conditions of the roof leaders discharging through the curb along our southernly uh boundary we've proposed this direct tie in to storm drainage for those roof leaders so there's no trigger that warrants any storm witer mitigation from a quality quantity or recharge element in fact by just default zero net impervious coverage and certainly well under an acre of impervious coverage this is not triggering any technical requirements in your ordinance under a major stormw management uh project so under item 10 uh there's an acknowledgement that um there's no on-site storm water management system on site today and a suggestion that and I'll read it uh we suggest that the applicant in Implement an filtration best management practice to help minimize stormw runoff flow rates the application is not changing the impervious coverage so we don't feel there's any uh appreciable or any uh change in those flow rates and the direct tie in um will improve an existing condition uh with regards to Overland flow and discharge across the paved area item 11 so we we suggest to the board that item item 10 is not warranted technically by some regulation or by some condition that we uh impacting as part of the application item 11 there's a suggestion that storm motor runoff calculations depicting the storm motor runoff flows for both the existing and proposed conditions shall be submitted um we can do those condition those calculations but the result would be uh the same for both the existing and proposed I think the only change would be the title at the top would be existing condition and proposed condition the three elements of stormw uh runoff um that are impacted uh for for flows the impervious coverage is not changing so the actual coverage on the site is not changing and the time and concentration is not being changed by the application so we feel again because it's not classified as a major application and there is no change in the impervious coverage that the need for additional calculations regarding existing and proposed conditions is unwarranted and we would suggest to the board that item 11 is not necessary and then finally with item number 14 um there's a suggestion a lighting plan should be prepared to ensure PR proper illumination for the entrance of the proposed storage area so I described and I'll go back to A1 again one man door that's being proposed as part of the addition there's no other entrances to that uh addition and as part of uh building code requirements and this would be reviewed and approved as part of a construction depart Department uh building permit application that a light is required a building mounted light would be required adjacent to that door um we have architectural plans that we've submitted for this evening's meeting but they're not construction plans yet uh so those plans that would be submitted as part of construction plan uh permit application subsequent to a favorable action by the planning board would include those details including that one light adjacent to the door um so we would be glad to add a note to the site plan that says at the time of the building permit application that the building code requirements with regards to lighting adjacent to Door accesses to a building be complied with but we would suggest to the board that the application doesn't want a specific what you would normally see as a lighting plan as part of a site plan application because the lighting that's in that parking area at the rear of the site would not be changed or impacted by this application so I think I talk too much [Music] never thank you I'm just gonna turn it over Mr Co thank you Mr chairman I I don't have any any questions at this time thank you okay Mr May thank you Mr chairman I just have a couple um comments um and I I'll focus on the um the review letter page three the three items that Mr Ford brought to the board's attention uh item 14 our office is comfortable waving uh a lighting plan based on Mr Ford's testimony um item number 11 um I understand Mr Ford has testified in an our degrees there's no increase in The Improv cover but um there's a potential for a decrease in the time of concentration if you take roof runoff and directly connect it to pipes which directly connects to the street Inlet and hence our our desire for those calculations uh I will also point out that the D promotes disconnecting direct connections of roof drains they prefer and it's it's a BMP and it's a green infrastructured design to disconnect roof drains so we're going the opposite direction here and hence that's why we recommend under NM number 10 to Simply Implement a very simple BMP since a pipe's being put into a stone trench we recommend making a portion of that pipe perforated and giving it a chance to infiltrate some of that runoff especially since none of the site has any controlled stor man ment so in summary if the applicant agreed to the uh turning a portion of the pipe into a perforator pipe and using the stone trench for infiltration uh we would wave any calculations as we had recommended in number 11 and um and also to make it an easier situation we're not asking for a full BMP design per to D okay thank you thank you for comments on the comments before we go to the everyone else on the board um I would I think we'd like to hear the the board's discussion okay what I would share with the board though is that um uh uh recently our office has been involved with the Sunnyland um retail facility uh where Just Subs is if you will uh and um they have an existing underground dryw that uh has caused you know issues with backup and stormw runoff and um actually uh adverse impact to some tenants where flow comes into the building and um after receiving this report uh yesterday uh I reviewed the suggestions with regards to the infiltration and the first thing I'm looking at when there's a suggestion for infiltration of the type to soils certainly in the last 24 48 hours we haven't done any so testing at this site in fact it would be hard to do that um given the area in the front is basically covered by impervious but what I would say to the board back to the sunny landsite is one of the first things we did uh to try to assess the mode of failure for that dryw was to do on-site soil testing in accordance with the new BMP management best management practices chapter 12 and all the soil tests the specific site uh site specific soil tests uh failed in fact if you've been to um uh J Subs you may have seen dis disturbance in one of the landscape islands in the front parking lot as well as the back so we did uh as extensive a test as we could in those areas on that site all of the permeability tests failed there was a groundwood issue that was high uh and the reason I say that and share that with this board is then uh I looked at again within the last 2448 hours the mapped uh nrcs soil types for this site and that site and they're identical we have pen soils here they have pen soils at the uh Sunnyland site there's ravil soils here we have raville soils at this site um so I'm certainly not saying that results would be identical but uh it would be um my expectation that there would not be a a good opportunity for any infiltration at this site thank you Mr chairman um number one we understand the site is currently paved so we're not asking for any preconstruction test pits to be performed number two it doesn't really matter how we don't need the tested 1 inch per hour that's typical of the D criteria when you're going to build a BMP we're not asking that the site meets that one inch whether it's a/ inch quarter inch doesn't matter and more importantly unlike a dry well putting in it the pipe that's perforated it doesn't matter even if it doesn't infiltrate the water will just stay in the stone and pass through the pipe and go to the street as if it was a solid wall pipe so nothing negative is happening by opening the pipe up and then giving it a chance to infiltrate so you can't compare that system to a drywall which is trying in needs to infiltrate to function properly it's two different types of systems thank you okay board members comments [Music] questions I've got some I got a yeah hi Mr Ford uh I'm looking at the utility connections um I see that there's an electrical connection as well right yeah Improvement to the existing service all right well let's start with that one the the area of disturbance goes right next to an existing tree is that tree going to stay in place yeah we we don't have any uh uh plans to impact any of the Landscaping on site so so we going to go around it we can go around it yeah okay and then the on the other side of the tree is the um storm sewer connection and that appears to cross over the property line correct uh you mentioned that you had talked to the neighbor about this but but is there any do we need anything by way of easement or agreement or anything to I mean you're trenching through the parking lot that's on his side of the of the property so maybe it is a yeah so um there is an existing easement uh it's not a drainage easement um Mr scar was gracious enough to say that if we if we if we couldn't TI tie into that catch Basin he would Grant a drainage easement in addition to the to the shared uh access easement that the parties uh had previous negotiated and our on record um but um his Mr Scar's preference is that we uh locate that drain to the other catch Basin and we Mr Ford feels that the county would be agreeable to that so that we don't we don't have the impact but if if you didn't I I just you know if some for some reason it comes back that there's something existing with the neighbor that that it's okay and so that was my I know you had addressed it I just wanted to confirm that yes yes I spoke with Mr Scar and he and he said I said we would make our best efforts to avoid encroachment onto his lot okay thank you that's it thanks [Music] Mike any other comments so I just want to just get some clarifications with regards to our Engineers memo and you know what is going to what you do agree to here um because I'm not sure if I had heard heard it or not I think it was item nine with regards to a roof plan to display the runoff yes you're in agreement with that yes okay and then considering we had a little bit of a debate on 10 it doesn't sound like that was uh preferable so so you're in agreement with item 11 to provide runoff calculations no that was one of the three that we are objecting to the 10 11 and 14 okay okay but you did you did testify with 14 that you would provide something in advance yeah we we would add a note to the plan that you we only have one door that we're putting back there we'll put the the note on the plan that the delay will be provided and it'll be subject to the construction Department review we're just uh the the the note seems to suggest that a a sight a lighting plan be added to this plan set with okay and we're but we'll get some indication of Illumination in some document correct yeah that's fine okay okay so with with that do I have a motion open to public I'll make the motion second okay all in favor I there's anyone from the public that would like to question Mr Ford on his testimony please come up and again as a reminder state your name and address for the record please Maria Janu 6 720 East fck Avenue Manville New Jersey um you you're stating that there won't be any increase in impervious coverage yes so where the the addition is going to be situated is that already impervious yes okay um in regards to the uh drainage issue um um where is the the uh Overland water run runoff currently going into what this the out to AML Road out to Amell Road it just goes Overland out to Amad there's there's drainage features there's a catch Basin and other catch basins within our parking area uh overall everything all of this site drains out to AML Road there's um drainage improvements drainage catch basins that capture it and connect it to pipes in Amal road so when you you ask where the drainage goes to EML road to Emil road to pip the pipes that are that are under the ground under correct em okay and so what is what is now going to be proposed with this with this addition uh not triggered by the addition but part of the the project is a proposal to to connect the roof leaders that right now discharge through the curb into the parking area with a new pipe and a direct connection to the uh drainage uh that eventually goes out the EML road so the it'll still be going into the same into the same it goes into the same system it's just piped underground and not permitted to flow from the roof through a down spout out onto the parking area where the cars are and people are walking it would be uh taken from the roof down spouts into a pipe and then continued in an underground pipe under the pavement area out to Amo road so will new pipes have to be constructed yes okay and that's going to be also under what road it' be under the parking area on the applicant's property and part of the discussion you just heard is there's a shared driveway with a property line uh through it uh so right now the there's also drainage improvements that extend on on to our neighbor property if uh we don't secure approval from them to we're we're we're proposing to move it all onto our property subject to County approval if the county doesn't approve that we would uh then be uh required to solidify our existing agreement with the neighbor that already uh States what can and cannot happen within a shared access easement between the two properties to include drainage okay all right thank you you're welcome thank [Music] you anyone else from the public that would like to I know we just had a member of the public walked in so but just going to extend the courtesy okay motion to close so moved second all in favor I I I okay Mr Bernstein well I guess it's so correct me if I I'm wrong the issue still is item number 10 thank you Mr Mayu on the penon report of February 27th 2024 Mr Mayu is recommending to the board what for the purposes of finality Mark a portion of the proposed roof drain pipe be perforated to allow some infiltration to potentially occur in the stone trench but that and but you said you would wave the calculation yes for from item 11 correct and agree to Mr Ford's comments as to item number 14 correct our office is willing to wave that comment given the testimony that a light would be added to the doorway okay any last words Mr Ford uh just we would be concerned we're it's all pavement now the pipe is going under the pavement right now we have a a storm water runoff issue with runoff over the pavement now we're piping it under the pavement and by adding perforations one concern might be that that offers an opportunity for water within that trench to have an adverse impact to our pavement now below the surface instead of above the surface but it's a board discussion decision okay and and just and we don't feel there's any element of the project including regulations that trigger the requirement but well and I know you and recognize number 10 was a suggestion but the objection for number 11 for not you know wanting to perform calculations what's the concern there well that's the same as it's not a major project it's it's a minor stormw project and and quite frankly what would you do with the calculations if there's uh 10 CFS going out there today and there's a minor change of of because of some time a concentration of 10.1 CFS there wouldn't be a a trigger in the under the minor stormw calcul minor stormw uh project uh regulations that would trigger any requirement for action and I it honestly the if the only reason is that it would potentially change the time of concentration by adding a pipe that eliminates a substantial potential public health safety issue with slips and falls on pavement over the uh or runoff over the pavement um I feel that would outweigh uh any to the potential minor change from an analytical calculation standpoint and runoff but I'll I'll just add you know there's a $600,000 demand for a broken hip on on that slip andall so Mr Scar and Mr petrock had a discussion this is and this was the Improvement that uh we think will eliminate that safety risk because there's been ice build up over the years on that facade Mr Ford what is the the depth below grade of that trench I'm just kind of curious because is your concern Frost heave if the water sits there in in that trench and if if if you're high enough are you concerned about Frost heave on that [Applause] [Music] asphalt about two and a half feet and we're proposing a a 12inch pipe so it's minimal cover over the pipe we're not we're not going deep the the drainage in Amal road is not that deep I didn't think you could go that deep on that yeah and the and the upper portion of the pipe is a is a 10-in pipe and that that's already been sized in accordance with the plumbing code which is has ddiction over roof leaders and discharge header systems that connect roof leaders to to drainage collection systems we've already looked at the area of roof uh the basically the 10,000 square ft of the liquor store that would go to that 10-inch pipe that's why it's sized that way and that's why we have no objection to giveing Mr mayu's office the the the plumbing code section that that otherwise is going to be reviewed by your construction Department as part of their jurisdiction over that um portion of the pipe that that connects to the roof leaders thank you yeah if I could help clarify Mr for I think by the time you get to the first catch Basin the pipe's almost 4 feet deep I'm looking at our profile we have a profile on sheet four and the the the great elevation is 9 7.6 and the invert in is 94.9 so basically the difference between those two would be our deepest point there and I was just looking at also on that profile Mr Mayu there's the uh I don't have a scale on me but the the the the vertical lines are at elevation 195 and I was looking at the difference between the where the downstream invert is at catch Basin uh the existing catch Basin and the existing grade which is about halfway between 95 and 100 so that's why I keep you know stated the 2 and A2 ft yeah I guess I was looking at catch catch bacing one 99.2 and the inverts 9561 so that's like 3.6 ft and ju just for the record again I can understand the concern about freezing water to Pavement but this has a pipe with a slope to the inlet so water is not going to sit in the trench if the water's not infiltrating it'll just flow through the pipe as if it was a solid wall pipe and go to the [Music] street Mr chairman before the board takes an action we need to make sure the public has its last words on the overall application yep thank you so we'll do that need just a simple motion no we close Okay motion open to public for final comments I'll make that motion okay Mr Deb seconded all in favor I I okay this is public final comments on this application feel free to come up okay motion to close so move second all in favor I I board's call on the one issue that apparently is still at [Music] issue it all lies on me okay now I'm throwing at Mr Mayhew now say we wave number 10 because it's a suggestion but with the calculations runoff calculations is there a threshold or that would be of concern if it exceeded a certain amount and what would that you know then you know any options to mitigate that concern I'm just trying to understand what we have in front of us [Music] so I I I don't know the existing condition in the county storm system um it's probably stressed um I wouldn't want to be increasing more than 10% maybe Pak flow top of my head okay and just say Peak flow did ex exceed 10% what would be the options to the applicant at that point to mitigate that is that getting back to the perforated pipe that would be one way I our office would be comfortable with that [Music] okay I'm expecting someone to n it's okay I mean I'll throw a you you know motion to approve with you know what has been agreed to with the extra caveat that maybe will'll let the uh two Engineers to further discuss um following a calculation and see where that ends up and then come to a resolution Mr chairman I'll I'll make a comment I mean this is a really kind of a minor project I mean there's not a whole lot to it and well I appreciate Mr Mayo's concerned with perforated pipe I would be more inclined to approve this as uh submitted by the applicant I mean we're we're we're talking a small addition in a dumpster enclosure I mean what you know we're kind of getting a little into the weeds here aren't we well I think what it is is the runoff is now going is not going into the parking lot going to reduce the runoff either way right but it's going into a system I think that that's why Mr May was looking for a calculation because it's going to go into to the county system and I think he just wants to get a feel for how much is that going to increase the peak flow right oh I'd be inclined to make a motion to approve it as is I would probably support the Chairman's concern because from my perspective there should be some simple calculations just like a little equation or something right where numbers could be put in and if I'm wrong this is the assumption that I'm going with right please correct me if it's a simple calculation that shows what the impact is Right pre versus post if it is not Material then it doesn't really matter but we have some documentation out there in front of the county that's just my opinion now is that going to create a whole lot of pain is it going to need hours of work that's something if the you know kind of Engineers could advise us um you know if it is a small calculation that can be taken care of at the next step I would be inclined to putting that tag before approving [Music] mind's this side the board's turn to got a motion Mr chairman to approve the project as proposed with the items previously agreed to by the parties and agreement to all items in the reports of the professionals except for number 10 in Mr in Mr mayu's report and the way previously granted as to the others that was Mr P's motion translated right but also minus number 11 too minus calculations well I said minus but oh I okay well 10 was the perforated 11 was perforated and 11 and 14 I believe have been previously addressed 11 would have only been addressed if 10 was EX accepted by the applicant so it would be AO motion minus 10 and 11 okay if that's what I heard yep 1011 in the February 27th 2024 penon report [Music] under General comment [Music] need a second don't everybody rush so Mr Mayu While others are trying to decide the peak flow into the county system if it the is there a flooding concern at that point or F of their the county system or if it's already stressed um you know I don't know where that pipe goes I don't know if there is any Downstream flooding issues my guess is there probably is since there are so many issues [Music] locally if it's a count Mr B if it's a county system is County approval required so the county can make that determination if the county need to make a determination I'm assuming that the applicant will be submitting paperwork to the county where applicable Mr Ford can correct me if I'm wrong okay okay the the March 1st 2024 report from the county uh has no objections to the storm drainage uh in its states under storm R management requirements didn't request any improvements it does say as the site does not propose an increase in impervious coverage and the existing drainage patterns are maintained it is the it is requested that the township handle the review of stormw management from the site there we go so they have no objection and it all goes to them right they well it sound like they dropped 10 and punt it was so the way I interpret that well if anybody's impacted it would be the county right we still like a second Mr chairman I mean Comm someone can make another motion I mean we have one out there now if no one's seconding it is there anyone else that have ideas I have to say I would concur with Mr P second so do you want a second I'll second okay okay we have a motion and second any final comments from the day okay roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr Vander yes Mr rtz yes Mr scobo yes Mr Smith yes Mr Bali yes Deputy Mayor deputy mayor chiarelli yes Vice shair PE yes CH yes thank you very [Music] much all right let me get back to my agenda okay so we do have on the schedule a business meeting so we're going to can so can I have a motion to cancel the March 28th business meeting I'll make that motion I'll second it okay roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr Vander yes Mr edtz yes sco yes Smith yes uh commit the pon yes from the back yes uh Deputy Mayor chy yes Vice chair PE yes Raj yes and with that our next meeting is April 4th at 7 pm honor about I assume we do have a full agenda excellent so with that there we go so with that I'll entertain a motion of adjournment I'll make that motion second all in favor I I we are adjourned good night see everyone on April 4th