##VIDEO ID:qB7YNjSKKtU## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e flag of the United States of America and to the for stands nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all pursuant to njsa Ted col 4 the open public meetings act notice of this duly and regularly scheduled meeting of the Jack Jackson Township Zoning Board of adjustment has been published and posted in all appropriate locations okay please rot please Mr Heyman is absent Dr hofstein here Mr Hudak Miss Parnes here miss Rosal here Mr Martins here Mr Stafford Smith here miss Bradley here okay do we have any resolutions this evening yes we do we have three resolution number 202442 resolution of the Zoning Board of the township of Jackson County of ocean state of New Jersey granting amended site plan approval with D2 and bulk variants relief to permit the construction of on-site parking and an outdoor patio dining area on the property located at one cville road block 11602 lot 28 eligible to vote are Mr Hudak Miss Parnes Mr Stafford Smith Miss Bradley move to [Music] approve roll call please Mr Hudak Miss Parnes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss Bradley yes resolution number 2024-25 resolution of the Zoning Board of the township of Jack County of ocean state of New Jersey accepting the withdrawal of the application for interpretation for Area Properties at Pinewood Estates LLC for property located at 463 Monmouth Road Block 102 lot one all are eligible to vote move to approve roll call please Dr hofstein yes Mr Mr Hudak Miss Parnes yes Miss Rosal Mr Martins yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss Bradley yes the last resolution is resolution number 202 24-44 resolution of the Zoning Board of the township of Jackson County of ocean state of New Jersey accepting the withdrawal of the application for use experience for 30 cville Road Carol nikoli for property located at 30 Castle Road Block 17302 Lot 19 all are eligible to vote move to approve roll call please Dr hofstein yes Mr Hudak Miss Parnes yes Miss Rosal yes Mr Martins yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss Bradley yes Elizabeth do we have any minutes this evening no we do not have any minutes Madam chair okay and I have no vouchers before me so we'll hold that up till next time as well yes um any announcements this evening Mr Murphy no Madam chair there's no announcements okay that's we're in our professionals then thank you for raising your right hand gentlemen do you solemly swear or affm that testimony information questions or comments that you're better to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes yes thank you it each please state your name and positions with the board Evan Hill Board engineer Ernie Peters board planner Jeffrey Pororo zoning officer thank you gentlemen no executive session this evening Mr Murphy no I had announced last time that we we would be having executive session this time unfortunately the velate plans right um that will be probably pushed till the next upcoming meeting which is um the 18th I believe yes 18th thank you and no matters for discussion no matters for discussion Madam chair all right so we're going to move on to our applications applicant number one Anthony and Patricia travisano variant 3513 block 2801 lot 81 just a reminder before he Mr Travis Sano gets started please remember to use your microphones and Mr Travis Sano remember you have to yell because you know the Acoustics in here stink thank you good evening Mr travisano if you would please raise your right hand do you solemnly swear affirm that the testimony information questions or comments are you're about to put put before the zoning board are the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do if you would please state your name Anthony travisano spell your last name TR r a VL and if you could uh just tell the board your affiliation with this application the property owner house homeowner thank you so Mr Travis S I know you were here before but why don't you tell us tell the board again what it is you're um looking to do uh put up a six foot fence across the front of the house and down the side um and just one thing we had an issue before with the lattice work that was up I'm willing to cut that to the six foot level that that makes things easier uh so yeah we're just going to go across the front behind the bushes that are already there just to refresh my recollection this is the application where the fence is actually proposed forward of dwelling correct that's correct this is not a corner lot this is a six foot high fence in the front yard uh the applicant at the prior meeting had put on the record his um uh reasons why and his hardships associated with those during the testimony a a board member brought up a question about the 8 foot high lattice which was used for growing vines I believe and uh and bushes it wasn't part of the fence but it it was taller than it was taller than 6 foot it was 8 foot and at that point uh one of one or several of the board members wanted to go visit the property and then we asked the applicant to come back after that site visit but the applicant has Vol has volunteered and agreed to cut that down to be 6 foot high which is consistent with the proposed fence and just to again to place on the record Mr travisano had previously placed on the record proofs related to his need for a c variant um and I believe that the uh appropriate C variants here if we were to to consider granting same would be the C one hardship variance uh that requires findings by the board um as to the positive criteria meaning you have to find that there's a hardship associated with the property um it has to be of an exceptional nature uh dealing with either the topographic uh situation or where the property lies things of that nature something that the uh applicant himself did not create um but something that needs to be remedied uh despite what the zoning ordanance uh provides for uh secondly is the negative criteria uh Mr Travis has to show the board um that there is no substantial detriment to the public good or the surrounding neighbors um as well as the fact that there's no substantial impairment to the intent of both the Zone plan meaning the master plan and the or the Zone ordinance meaning the ordinance that controls uh within uh the R3 zone so that's the criteria that you're evaluating the under and uh just to Briefly summarize and and Mr travisano if I'm incorrect uh so that we're not here all night uh my understanding is that due to increased traffic in the area increased noise things of that nature um that result from Adventure Crossing is that correct that's correct um you're requesting um uh the ability to place a six-foot fence in in forward of your dwelling to to alleviate those conditions you did not create yes okay so that was the that was uh the hardship that was testified to by um Mr Travis excuse me any questions for the applicant I excuse me um I believe we had an exhibit of the proposed fence and like where it would be either on a site I think it was a site plan would we be able to just pull it up I one thing I wanted to ask is um you know initially when when I saw this it's like we don't see solid six- foot fences like literally in the front yard when we see them it's you know on the agenda it's called the front yard but really it's sort of to the rear of the property but it's to find this front yard and this just looked like you know how what do we do with this but I understand you know I understand the hardship and and um I could appreciate wanting to to to mitigate some of that noise um is there a reason why it has to be so close like on the right hand side it comes it like dips forward is there is there I forget how far off the property line but like this side um and I don't know what's I don't know if we're looking at like a north south east west well if you the part that's facing down you know closest to the floor is the street right right I I see I'm just I'm just saying right left instead of like north south because I'm not sure in trees it's just the way that the property is laid out it's and this fence is behind the trees though correct oh yeah yeah it's right uh is there like would you be opposed to just having it cut across like I don't know how far off the property line it is on this leftand side but just having it go straight on that side is there a reason why that wouldn't achieve what you're looking for it just gives a little more space like from the property line to you know this wall of six foot solid it wouldn't I know it sounds crazy it looks like it looks bad like that but it would look worse if I did that from my side because this is closer to it's only 22 feet wide there because there's that whole section to the left in between the driveway and the 22t section that's all trees big trees and I really can't cut across that's why it came around like that meaning the trees it's sort of like following the tree line the way you laid it out and so it it almost like camouflages it more and keeps it like a aligned with the natural yes landscape okay and just to follow up with that to go back to the prior meeting Evan had put on the record that there were no line of sight issues and as Sher pointed out the reason it looks the way it does is because Mr chap was going around the trees right um any other questions for the applicant I just did want to place on the record we do have a new member here this evening um I'd like to welcome uh Carlos Martins who's our newest uh alternate one uh so welcome to the board um I did want to place on the record though um that the that Mr barns has watched the prior hearing and is certified to vote on this application okay so I just wanted to make that clear any other questions for the applicant Mr Travis sorry sure just just speak you have I'm sorry I'm say this 100 times you just have to speak into it because it's hard to hear all right um other home your neighbors right do any of them have a similar fence they have the same noise issue it's funny you ask somebody just put up put one up yesterday along the whole front of their house about I know 300 400 feet down the road they did that's a corner where the dirt road runs down uh maybe it was done the day that's not your problem that's not your problem the noise issue I would think doesn't just impact you it impacts your neighbors as well that hardship and um okay thank you so Mr Travis hand do you have any other comments you want to make before I open it to the public no thank you okay I'm going to open this um application to the public if you'd like to come forward and please make comment about the testimony you've heard tonight please feel free to do so at this time seeing no one come forward I'm going a Clos public session um board has up to us for discussion and the possible motion and forgive me I've been here more 15 minutes and I can't seeing that the applicant removed the 8 foot uh part of the defense or barrier uh he conforms uh more likely to what what we're looking for and uh none of his neighbors came down to uh complain about anything so I would make a motion for approving the application I I know there's a motion pending on the floor but can I please ask a question for resolution purposes okay Mr travisano have you have you cut the lattice at this point to six feet have I cut it yet no okay so just to clarify for the purpose of the motion that will be a condition of this approval that you cut the lattice to match the six foot height of the fence okay um so if we can amend the motion to include that as a a condition uh rather than indicating that it's been done that would be uh more appropriate so the motion on the on the floor is to approve it so we're just going to amend that motion to include the condition that the lattice has to be cut down as agreed upon that's correct so we have a motion in a second uh as by me as long as Dr H's okay uh amending that motion according to what I just placed on the record and he has indicated that's the case so we're going to uh Mr Hudak do you still second that motion as amended I do then we have a motion and a second on the floor roll call please Dr hofstein yes Mr Hudak yes Miss Parnes yes Miss Rosal yes Mr Martins yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss Bradley yes thank you very much everybody we're going to move on to applicant number two Jacqueline Kari I hope I didn't but you your name varant Varian 3515 392 l95 I'm a little short for the microphone hey you can pull it down and feel free to yell we all we all that's why I put my face as close to the mic so you can hear me thank you I appreciate it you would please raise your that's great thank you if you would please raise your right hand thank you very much do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments that you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth I do thank you very much if you please state your name spell your last and provide your affiliation to this application uh Jack willing cler c l l a r i just call me Jackie you're the homeowner I'm one of the homeowners yes okay very good thank you and then I'm here for um I have an undersized lot I'd like to build a single housekeeping unit for my mother who's very very sick so she can live with me that's why I'm here why don't you tell us a little bit of size ditions all that you know Dimensions materials all that kind of stuff okay uh do you need like what it's going to be built by I just need to grab my phone so um I believe you guys have plans um it would be one story cuz she's on oxygen so she can't really move around much um it'll be uh 30 by 33 then the height would be like I said just one story so I believe it's about 20 foot Max um it's just a bedroom living room bathroom and kitchenet no stove or anything like that she can't she's on oxygen she doesn't cook anyway so um my contractor actually sent me because I watched the meetings and um I was told I'll just read this to you is that okay um all framing will be wood fur and manufactured on inside treated lumber anywhere outside of the sheathing and um anything that's in contact with the masonry I.E seill plate uh foundation will be poured concrete footings with solid CMU Foundation walls siding double four clapboard vinyl siding um I'm getting all new vinyl s in so when this is done I will be seeing a lot of you um new sighting new roof we're going to end up applying for new septic as well uh before this is all done because I know that's part of the all the codes and permits um interior finishes like I said to be determined he said it's going to be very simple drywall and basic kitchen cabinets I don't really know exactly what else you need to know but there's also going to be extension it's on the plan um uh 5x5 extension of Our Deck she's going to have a door out the hopefully back of her um out the bedroom to the deck because she can't do stairs so I just want her to be able to be able to walk kind of like evenly from at least the backyard so she can go outside a little bit doesn't really go out much now but hopefully she will when she lives with me so is there going to be a separate entrance there will be two yeah so there's going to be the well the opening between my there's like going to be a just like a doorway in inside the the house from like my dining room then there's going to be like a washer and dryer then another just opening into her apartment and then on the side on the plans um there's going to be a front door but it won't be in the front of the house it'll be like on the side any questions for the applicant yes I have a few just to lay some Foundation um your property is currently located in the R3 zone is that correct yes right you purchased it when it was in the R3 Zone yes but your property is only 0.93 acres is that correct yes right you're aware that the R3 Zone requires a 3 Acre minimum yes so you know that you're here because you need a variance for lot area correct yes you have 0.93 Acres where three acres is required you understand that yes okay um in addition you're also uh requiring um you require some additional variances um you require a side yard setback variance um for 17 and 1 12 ft where 50t is required um and that's for the principal structure itself um you also require a uh for the shed that I I'm presume that's the one in the back there you require a uh variance for an 18t side yard setback where 40 ft is required all right those are the variances that have been identified with uh by our professionals is there any um objection to those variances being placed on the record no okay um so those are all C variances um again uh we've seen this particular issue come before this board quite often lately um and it's something that I brought to the attention of council um as well as the planning board um we have an undersized lot uh because the zoning which used to be R1 um meaning that this lot was probably conforming at the time that it was created is no longer conforming because the zoning was changed from R1 to R3 that in and of itself is creating a hardship um through no fault of the applicant that is preventing her from um do really doing anything with her property until she seeks variances for the deficiency in the lot area there are other uh C variances required here for side yard setbacks which are most likely associated with the fact that the lot is under sized again for the principal structure in the R3 Zone we're talking about a 50 foot setback on each side on a 0.93 acre lot with a front width of what is that I can't read it but I would I would venture to guess it's probably maybe 100 feet right um um you know we're talk we're talking about a building envelope that could be uh as literally as thin as an envelope so you know we're we're talking about quite a hardship here um the variances that are requested um you know are you know whether they conform to the R1 Zone standards I'm not here to say that what I can tell you is that they're di Minimus in nature um and and certainly the hardship itself is proven by the change in zoning um um that is affecting the applicant's ability to do anything with her property uh you need to decide whether the um negative criteria which we uh put on the record before but I'll place it on the record again whether the uh intend uh whether there's any substantial detriment to the public good by what's being proposed um and uh whether there's any and or whether there's any substantial impairment to uh or impact upon the Zone plan and Zone ordinance by what's being proposed and these are resident this is a residential structure with the proposed residential addition addition so um that's something for the board to consider looks like Evan might have some comments and just to be clear the applicant's not here for seeking variance relief for the addition she's she requires variance relief for the existing structure on the opposite side of the lot and for the shed and for the lot area it has nothing to do with the addition here at all if she if she was proposing to put a pool in the ground she'd have to be here not for the pool but because of the existing setbacks for the opposite side of the house uh and I mean can you just confirm that with the uh with the addition as proposed there's no um impairment to the either the building coverage and or impervious coverage um no she she's fine within building impervious coverage and I the applicant did indicate that uh she's going to have because she's adding a bedroom but classified as a bedroom to her home uh she's going to need to either expand her septic system or rep or just going to put a new one in it has to be properly sized for that additional bedroom U but that's obviously an approval Board of Health approval is going to be required by the building department through chair uh yes going back to the house um someplace I think it was in Ernie's report that single housekeeping units require a free flow floor plan with door removals is there any comment on that about a free flowing floor plan try to say that fast okay and it's okay that she doesn't have this but three entrances and exits are are fine I believe the most recent plan shows there's no door separating the from the existing home okay okay and uh the utilities to the new edition will that be on your your paying everything will be just single okay and then we go into the uh to make sure this is hasn't at some point become a two family house and I guess Mr Murphy could go through everything on theed changes uh that would be required I would I would like to jump in on that one if I could um when it would my assistant did the re the denial on this application and she had mentioned the single housekeeping unit based on the application but the addition does not meet the intent of a separate dwelling unit there's no kitchen it's not considered a separate unit even though it will be free flowing so to speak um the de restriction requirement I'll leave I'll leave the de restriction requirement up to the um to Mr Murphy but it's not considered a separate unit because there's no cooking area yeah I mean I I would concur here there was a kitchenette no no there's no stove there's no it's just like um like a Pantry cabinets and a fridge there's no stove there's no dishwasher none of that so under the under the definitions found in our ordinances this creates a habitable space but it's not creating a separate dwelling unit okay would you stipulate to a deed restriction um as a condition of the approval that this will not at any point become a SE a second dwelling unit on the property yeah that's fine okay Mr Murphy what we I I believe in the past what we've done is in that DED restriction it's restricted to immediate family members that's fine only okay um again that that would that that would be consistent with prior we used to call them mother daughter suits right or mother daughter um additions that would that be acceptable to you okay yes so what I'll do is in the resolution I'll indicate that a deed restriction has to be filed with the Ocean County Clerk's Office okay to that effect um I will use the language that Mr uh Hill just placed upon the record which is probably better than just a straight deed restriction okay that's okay okay just just one more question on that if if the home change his hands the new owner will know that it's a one family house yes the deed restriction that's the purpose of filing the deed restri yes that's correct that'll run with the land okay yes um to access a bathroom do you have to go into the house there a separate bathroom somewhere there um the bathroom is attach is within her like the bedroom it's within this uhhuh yeah she has a full bathroom the full bathroom uh in this area that would be approval yes okay thank you sure I mean I just wonder if like in the resolu mother daughter just to make it super clear you know that sort of is consistent withed restriction and yeah I mean if that's acceptable to you I think uh I I also had a similar thought correct will will'll use this the term that the zoning officer utilized enforc tool well there's no term it's something that um we something that I kind of picked up in these zoning officer certification classes is there's another terminology called the multi-generational family accommodation if you'd like to use that one but I think I think it's more the the more current term for the concept no it's it's something like I said our office had had kind of generated over the years based on um examples of what other towns referred to it as we can certainly as part of yearend right right I know I like that multi-generational family dwelling that was a that was a mouthful but it sounds nice and legal so so I just have a quick question for my own edification I'm sure it'll probably help some other people up here if I know it does not I I understand that it does not have a kitchen if it had a kitchen would it be seen differently than a single housekeeping unit or mother daughter or multi-generational is there a difference between those or that's just a exchange of terminology the cooking component of the kitchen so to speak the sleeping the cooking the sanitary that all defines a dwelling unit you know you can't have two out of three you should have you know all three or all four components um even when I I said it wasn't a kitchen um it's not consider you know it's not considered a full kitchen I was just crued because whenever you when you you hear the term mother daughter you think they have a separate kitchen and everything so that's why I was wondering if that was the change the reason in the the wording I I I don't know about that in the past we've seen applicants propose a full kitchen because I guess they're uh in their their loved one that they were moving in where maybe was a little bit more independent okay I was just curious any other any additional questions for the applicant I have one addition question um just my own understanding itself not doesn't need any VAR no the only variances are associated with the existing lot for lot area and the sidey setback on the opposite side of the house it's a pre-existing nonconformity the addition is 55 ft off of the property line and and the R3 zoning St requirement is 50 so they even meet the R3 in this case so again the addition is not creating you're they're not here because of the addition if they were that that's that's the point if this if this is a lot of record it's just a lot of record right if this is a lot of record they wouldn't be before the board [Music] yep got jump in on that one so yeah if it were a lot of I I going to put ifs and whatnot but if this lot were right now it's 0.93 if it were one acre she would not be here because it does meet the intent of a lot of record ordinance is now R3 was once R1 one of the protections of the lot of record is that you have to has to have has to be at least one acre and once again just shy of an acre and just just for fun we call those Builder Acres because they're 40,000 square feet rather than the 43 and change that's required for a full acre Mr marttin yeah just one clarification so at the end of the day um we would be aining on the fact that instead of one acre it's only 0.93 so that 07 acres is that everything else that we just spoke about really is okay thank youif Miss clar would you like to make any additional statements before I open it to the public I mean I just want my mom to live with me for whatever time she has left so I'm just hoping you guys understand that that's really all I'm asking for absolutely I'm going to go ahead and open this to the public anyone wishing to come forward to make any comments or ask any questions about this application please do so seeing no one come forward I'm going to go ahead and uh close public session board it's up to us for discussion and a possible motion just for the record any motion should include the um condition for the deed restriction as discussed on the record we have a motion and a second roll call please Dr hofstein yes Mr Hudak yes Miss Parnes yes M Rosal yes Mr Martins yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss Bradley yes your variance has been granted thank you thank you good luck with everything okay we are going to move forward to application number three applicant is Eli and forgive me shyi Rin variant 3516 block 2101 lot 1.17 and forgive me if I messed up your name I apolog good evening how are you hi if you would please raise your right hand you Solly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments they about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do thank you very much if you would please state your name name spell your last and provide your affiliation to this application Eli Rin r o t s i n I'm the homeowner thank you sir Mr Ro so it's about a shed in the right hand corner and uh we have a pool in the middle of the uh yard and uh we want to get uh approval for variance on to keep the shed on the right side a it shed is it's a small it's a small shed yes um I don't remember the exact Dimension I think it's either 8 by 12 or 10 x 12 10 by 12 okay check just quickly uh when you purchased the house was the shed already there or did you uh construct it the shed was not there when we purchased the house it was there it was not there it was not there it was not there you put it up location it's just in the corner of the property where it doesn't really affect any neighbors or it's not in the center of our property so we could have the kids still run around and even maybe even put a a place at uh in the center of the backyard so the kids could run around I don't have a place set no we want to put it in we're behind the pool we're um you know with this open area again through the chair the uh is there a slab on the floor conr SB is there wood what what kind of FL flooring do you have it's wood treated wood okay and um what do you use the shed for storage anything bikes um just uh some pool stuff basic storage stuff any electricity running water anything sorry no nothing for the board yep so part of the application package was a a pool as built survey that survey identified that the shed was installed um at the time that the survey was completed um this is a 1 acre lot U I would say almost half let's say about 30% of his rear yard is occupied and encumbered by a conservation easement uh there is an existing vinyl fence installed within or that that surrounds the rear yard but that conservation easement is on the outside of that uh you as far as uh are there more appropriate areas or could there could a shed be placed on this property and to meet the setback requirements the answer is yes there are there is sufficient room um and I just want to make sure the applicant puts on the record what his hardship is um for why the shed has to be or why you're proposing it in this part of the yard versus a part of the yard where you wouldn't have to be here right so you had two options you could move it when it was brought to your attention you could have moved it you would you wouldn't have to be here uh but there there's a reason why you don't want to move it I just want to make sure you put that on the record that's your hardship okay so to answer that question is I have six kids they need a lot of area to run around and if we put the shed in the middle of the uh property it will be a hazard for them as well as it's it's going to disrupt their uh playing area um okay let the board ask more questions if you choose no that's that's that's pavers that's all pavers to the right of that all the way by the fence in the right corner there is a little shed it's very very small absolutely yeah yes well I mean there's so a shed is required to be 15 ft away from a property like side and rear right and if if you just essentially walk along like SC scan along where the existing fence is and you can identify that there's ample room from a zoning perspective to place a shed so it's conforming right uh not suggesting that it's not every everybody's right to ask for a variance right but it comes down to the hardship um convenience the board will have to weigh if if if the board will have to away if if the testimony uh Rises to the level of a hardship or not if I may jump in Madam chair just provide some legal guidance here we talked about the uh C1 hardship already tonight a couple times um one of the things that I'd like to make clear about a C1 hardship variance is that the hardship itself needs to be associated with the property um meaning that it's narrow shallow regular shaped the size of the property there see might have to be an exceptional topographic um condition such as uh you know you know extreme slope or something of that nature that affects the the ability to place certain improvements on the property uh or another unique physical feature of the property that prevents um compliance with the ordinance so from my perspective the C1 variant is clear that the the the hardship needs to be associated with uh something to do with with the property itself um location of the property something that you know an outside force that's affecting the property things of that nature but it has to do with the property so just keep that in mind so I don't know if you want to put anything else on the record about your hardship here also the negative criteria would be remain the same Remains the Same pretty much for every variant um actually Remains the Same for every varant and that's the uh finding that there's no substantial detriment to the public good and or substantial impairment to the Zone planers Z orates if I could just ask question yeah okay yeah um let me see if I phrase this correctly so if I look at the shed right if I'm standing in front of the shed the left corner and the right corner the back or both of the those Corners not in compliance I look at here it looks like diagonal right like one corner is closer the other one is not um is that yes one corer I you're saying the or the fence the fence so L correct so the the um the Eastern Corner the Southeastern corner of the shed is closer to the property line than any other Corners right right right I look at it I say well how about we just turn it have it parallel to to the well it's not a matter of being parallel it's a matter of it needs to be a minimum of 50 15 ft off of the property line and and the applicant's asking for three for three right which yeah seems like a lot but um okay I understand and I'm I'm going to suggest that based on the photos of the shed to I'm not quite certain where that three foot necessarily comes like comes from I think it's more than three and the reason I say that is it appears to be 3 feet off the fence is that correct 3et from the fence the fence is about four 4 feet off of the property line so it's actually about 7 feet off of the property line minimum um whereas accurate whereas 15 feet would be required so I just I do want to point that out yeah just to be fair I think it makes a difference three versus seven yeah yeah three is could you correct and you know and I think too if you look at the photo if you look at the photo there's a six foot high fence well the back wall of the shed's about six and a half maybe s foot tops right the peak is probably close to 10 so the structure is not that much more obtrusive than a 6ot high fence and could you point out the you said there's a conservation easement the conservation easement is at the very re top it's off the page but Anthony could scroll behind the pool it's behind the up the opposite way yeah can see behind the chain like that's correct so the property does go a lot further however we have to install a fence um which created the hardship which didn't give us a lot of space to put it other than just into a corner so the kids could still run around Ju Just to comment on that to the chair the uh it's still three feet from the fence so you still have a maintenance issue in that area so hopeful hopefully three feet will give you enough room to have when a lawn is cut do whatever so somebody could get behind there there is room for a lawn mower got have a big lawn mower to not fit what I don't com I'd just like to say I have I have a and I have a sh and I just want to reiterate what I said um as far as the heart we do have a conservation area behind um we do have a pool in the center and uh we do need area for the kids to run around again if the uh shed is moved towards more of the center area could be a hazard and it prevents them from uh running around freely just so the board is aware there is a second option for a variance in this particular case um um you have the C2 flexible variant I like to call it you know for short the catchall um and that is where the applicant has satisfied you that the proposal um advances some purpose of zoning um as found in njsa 40 colon 55 d-2 um to support the grant of variance meaning a special reason quote unquote um so long as the negative criteria is also satisfied a finding that a purpose of zoning has been satisfied um is is sufficient positive criteria to Grant a C2 variants if you're not satisfied with the hardship could you expand on special reasons sure um there are several of them in the ACT um and I can go through them if you'd like um but uh 2A is to encourage Municipal action to guide appropriate use or development of all lands in the state in a manner which will promote the public health safety morals and general welfare B is to secure safety from fire flood Panic or other natural man-made disasters C to provide adequate light air and open space d is to ensure that the development of individual municipalities does not conflict with the development and general welfare of neighboring municipalities not so much alcal here um to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of all persons neighborhoods communities and regions or and the preservation of the environment to encourage and uh this is f to encourage uh the appropriate and efficient expenditure of public funds by coordination of public development with land use policies G is to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for variety of agricultural residential recreational commercial and Industrial uses in open space both public and private according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens each is to encourage the location and design of Transportation routes again not so much appable here are we see there are I was going to go through them but I think I've already set forth probably the only ones that would would be applicable to this type of application which I I believe that board could you know again I'm not telling you what to find but I believe that there could be sufficient um testimony in the record to perhaps support a finding under 2A or 2 c yeah I if you wanted to Madam chair um I hate when an applicant comes and they have something existing you know it's not legally a hardship it feels like a hardship but you know I I don't think it satisfies the C1 hardship it it didn't maybe you know you could stretch a little but um honestly especially when I I thought it was 3T from the property line I felt like it was really just a stretch um considering 2A though I mean I think the the fact that it's 7 feet from the property line there's literally no negative impact it seems like to the neighbors to the intents and purposes of zoning um I think the negative criteria are really satisfied here um in my opinion and under 2A um it does promote the use of the property in I I don't remember the language it said it better than I than I could remember and promotes the use of the property in a manner which promotes public health safety morals in general welfare yeah functional I mean essentially it's functionality right that that along with um C to provide adequate air light and open space um part of the argument that the applicant made was the open space that he has on his property he does not want to I think without you know using the legal terms he was trying to make the case of two Inc um and based on those things I would move to approve the application so the board has moved on a C2 variants in this particular case and that the motion is to approve I have a question shed de size require a permit to be constructed under so it's it's 10 by 12 um anything over 100 square foot generally requires uh foundations um so typically what would happen in this case is if the board were to Grant the variance that allows Jeff ultimately to um issue a zoning permit and then the next that zoning permit is walked over to the building department to make sure that any and all necessary building permits are obtained that was the point of my question is that we include not necessarily conditional uh approval but so we don't create another problem this isn't the last stop I mean if if if any construction permits are required for the shed that that haven't been obtained they're going to they're going to have to be obtained and correct if if permits are required but based on the square footage anything over 200 square anything over 200 sare fet requires a building permit thank you I know we have a motion I have a comment and a question and I just want to be clear I know that I said sevenet is very different for three but and then I'm going to P A little pressure here how if we look at the map where the shed is now and Mr Martin point about turning it if you don't turn it you can shift it towards it says porch if we Shi so you're only talking what 8T because a percentage approximately seven from the property line yeah yeah I think if you looked in the if you go back to the photos you'll see that there's a there's a gate right there as well uh the front gate yeah there's a front gate right there so um I think I know what you're suggesting though if you if you uh if you take the shortest distance between the shed and the the side fence and you make and you increase that to be consistent with the slightly larger distance of the other corner right make it parallel then maybe the maybe it's five feet from the fence instead of three and five make sense um therefore instead of three feet it might be let's say five feet or six feet plus plus the distance from the fence to the property line which is looks like it's another four so now you're probably closer to that nine to 10 foot range away from the property line minimum so that's up to you that's really up to you so I'm sh yeah look it can be done these are modular they're meant to be picked up moved around I mean if it's empty you could probably get four of your buddies out there with you on a Saturday and just drink a couple beers and move it right I mean that's that's always a fun time um it can be done I look it from a practicality standpoint you know I mean you got a six foot high fence behind a s foot high shed so I'm going to leave that up to you you guys make the big bucks that's your decision oh yeah is huge that's a joke for everybody who doesn't know that is the joke I was just looking for some ni I was just looking to find some medium ground here I do agree with what Shar said yes it's it's not a hardship it's obviously not a C1 but in trying to be accommodating to all I understand exactly what Mr hubak said he filed the rules he do what he was supposed to do and not to say Mr Rodin broke the rules but what can we do to find the middle ground is what I was looking for so the ordinance requires 15 if you're if you're 15 foot right it it's going to it's at least let's say six feet away from the property line right now if if you're not comfortable with six you can impose a minimum distance away from the property line not the fence the property line so if if you're thinking there he's currently at six that may not be enough 15 is required I think that's up to you to tell the applicant the minimum distance you'd like to see and let him it in this area and let him conform AC accordingly any other board members have any thoughts or comments just as chain link fence there also what's that chain Link's in the back just in the back okay correct corre the back yes just to refresh the board's recollection we do have a motion currently pending on the floor it has not yet been seconded a motion on the floor yes there's a motion to approve uh the application pursu to uh C2 variants it hasn't been second we were discussing just thr other things out the chair yes if that shed were to be indexed 90 degrees clockwise and slid over with the back of it backing up to the fence that runs across the property from the house out would there be enough space would it meet the criter of the setback are you which are you referring to the property line I mean the setback line indexing the shed 90° moving it from the side yard fence closer to the house backing up to the existing fence that runs from the house so there's a gate right there there's a gate in the fence there yeah which provides access to the back the rear yard okay is there anyone who wishes to second the motion currently Ping On the flo going once tce all right I guess uh that motion has failed um for purposes of the record since no one has seconded it um so we're back to square one guess I'll I'll just make a comment um it's a tough one because you got way two things for me right now what's what's weighing he heavier is the fact that there's no detriment to the neighbors there's no detriment to the community there's no detriment to New Jersey out all of New Jers right it's within your your property line um it doesn't affect the view of any of the neighbors so in my opinion that's just out you know outweighing the fact that really everybody we would like everybody to obey the rules right um just for just for legal purposes just recall even if the negative criteria has been satisfied which it may very well have been um the law is very clear uh in order to Grant a variance the applicant must prove both the positive and the negative criteria so let's just keep that in mind here I think the board has its discussions have decided he may have met the positive criteria but uh there's no negative criteria that will mat or mitigated or reason that that there was any negative criteria except something that was self-created I think you have that reversed I'm sorry yeah that reversed so the negative criteria has to do with the intent the impact on neighbors the intent of the zoning plan and Zone ordinance the positive criteria for C1 variance is the hardship and the positive criteria for the C2 variant is a special reason meaning that a purpose of zoning has been advanced by the um by the uh proposed variance and that the negative criteria has been satisfied so you you just had them reversed Dr hofstein sure put the or the sh already we we put it in I put it in I'm sorry I can't I put it in so you put in and did not what I was was brought to my attention after it was installed it was brought I I after it was done after the fact okay so you put the shed in then you subm request toari yes no want I have failed to see hard I mean there's plenty of areas plenty of space out the backyard and I don't think the applicants wish to allow his children more room to play when there's adequate room I don't see as being a har so I'd like to make a motion to deny this application because there has not been a St I will second the motion we have a motion and second on the floor right so we have a motion to second on the FL before um we vote I just like to make another comment I'm struggling here with a lot of what Mr Hudak said I completely agree there are other spots it can go um again in looking at the pictures and seeing the property from a distance one of my struggles here is I don't think it's three feet from the fence if you turn to page two or four that was submitted with the pro the packet I don't think that's 3et from the fence so my initial struggle was three feet and again I was thinking incorrectly that was 3 feet from the fence and not the property line and and I do agree even if it is feet it's 4T off the property line it's still 7 ft but there are other places if can go um I mentioned in my earlier comments if we pull back on the diagram and go to that far back right corner on this side of the house that you it would fit right in there and that's before the easement and if it's used for storage in the pool it's closer to the pool that you know it's just as close if not closer to the pool than it is now and I understand that it's heav wed and it's not affecting the neighbors but again there is no hardship here so it's not a C1 and although I understand um what Mr Murphy read just about the ketcho vs and things like that there is a way to make this right without even needing a v right and that's what I'm strugg I mean I listen please I I'm not trying to be difficult I get it I've raised children I have five as well I get it I'm just struggling here because there are places it could go and if you look at that far right corner see where it says vinyl fence and then just to the left of it it says 94.9 right in there and it would meet all the criteria you would even need a varant so I guess I'm having a hard time I mean I know it's a fence and it should be simple but I'm having a hard time with this one so I'm going to I'm going off the photo I have not measured the distance U but if you look at if you look at certain features of the shed I.E the vertical slats in the in the OS in the um in the siding um you know you know if you look at the scale of of of the fence and so on I do believe it's 3 feet off the fence minimum uh typically on on that type of siding for the for the shed each one of those vertical stripes is about 8 in on Center so one two three of those is 24 in and if you can kind of superimpose that into the Gap you're looking at about 24 in so 2 to three feet I think is is pretty pretty close um with respect to the rest of your comments I'm I don't have an opinion on and I I think that three feet is just that again the left corner right because that's the one that's closest to the fence because it's kind of diagonal that's where theet I think there a play correct all right so we have a motion on a second if um before we take roll call I just want to be clear so we all know EX what we're voting for if we um vote Yes the yes is to deny the variance a no vote is to pass the VAR so no that's not that's not correct uh a yes vote would be to approve the motion which is to deny the variance as requested um a no vote would simply mean uh that you're not voting to deny the variance is requested does that make sense yes that doesn't mean your vote yeah okay that's that's correct call please Dr hoffstein yes Mr Hudak yes Miss pz no M Rosal yes Mr Martins um yes only because it it is relatively easy to to make it in compl Mr Stafford Smith yes M br thank you yes before we go into our third application m e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e okay okay gotcha gotcha all right we're going to move on to applicant number four 225 Brewers Bridge Road subdivision Myer zti preliminary and final major subdivision number 671 with variance number 3507 block 1401 Lot 21 which will be future lot 2.01 um oh there's Miss Jennings and I'm going to apologize ahead of time for the calling just for purposes of the record there is a stenographer here uh for the applicant um and as we don't have a court stenographer obviously there's no objection to that um I just want to place on the record that the applicant has brought with them their own stenographer thank you for the record I'm Donna Jennings from the law firm of L scholman and Spitzer on behalf of the applicant as the board is aware the applicant is here this evening seeking preliminary and final major subdivision approval to subdivide property located at 225 Brewers Bridge Road and identified as block 14101 LW 2.01 on the Township's tax map LW 21 1.01 is a proposed tax slot which consists of all of the current Lot 21 and an approximately 11,800 foot subdivided portion of adjoining Lot 19 the subdivision of Lot 19 was previously approved by the planning board in a resolution adopted August 19th 2024 nearly the entirety proposed laot 2.01 is located in the R3 Zone with the exception of the subdivided portion of Lot 19 which is located in the R1 Zone the proposed subdivision will result in the creation of five new tax lots to be used for the construction of single family residences in connection with the subdivision the applicant is Seeking a D5 variance to permit development of The Residence at a density greater than that permitted in the R3 Zone in addition to D5 variance the applicant also seeking variances relating to minimum lot width minimum lot depth minimum front yard setback and minimum side yard setback for all or some of the proposed Lots this will be addressed in Greater detail with the testimony of the applicants professionals the testimony will show that the positive and negative criteria for each of the variances are satisfied in support of The Proposal the applicant will rely on the direct testimony of the following expert Witnesses Eli Halpert sitting to my left the applicant's professional engineer and Andre Janu the applicant's professional planner uh just a matter of recordkeeping I am in receipt of the board planner review letter dated August 26 2024 Mr Jennings just as a preliminary matter um the board's professionals had identified a potential issue related to the subdivision approval of April uh April August 19th 2024 um that being that the act the subdivision having just been approved has not yet been perfected um because that lot doesn't technically exist there may be a jurisdictional issue however um I believe that a a consensus was reached that um should the applicant wish to proceed um same would be done on the uh initial condition of approval that that subdivision as approved be perfected is that accurate yeah that would be correct okay that would have to happen stipulate to that we do stipulate and we do agree with that conclusion uh you had indicated you received the planners report you didn't re you didn't receive anything from us no we did not sorry one of them has some markups on it so let me just make sure I got the right one thought it was unusual but thank you all right we'll we'll look at it after we're as we go through our testimony just for the record the uh the engineers report EDH engineering by Evan Hill was just provided to the applicant this evening on the record U but applicant is now in possession of that report thank you so if we could we'll have um Mr Halbert sworn in first of course good evening Mr halber good to see you thank you for raising your right hand Solly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments that you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you very much if you please state your name spell your last provide your affiliation and credentials Eric Halpert H perer licensed New Jersey Professional engineer and planner I the plans were prepared under my supervision I have testified before this board before and I am providing testimony uh engineering testimony this evening thank you if you could um Eli just describe the existing site conditions for Lot 21 if you're going to rely on any exhibits please identify them for the record we will um refer to the um aerial exhibit that is up on the screen it could be marked exhibit A1 so marked the aerial shows uh the location of um the uh property it is on the easterly side of Brewers Bridge Road and just to provide a little um background and context um as the attorney mentioned a few moments ago Lots 19 and 21 were part of an application in front of the planning board um for a minor subdivision and a place of worship and there was an approval for a minor subdivision creating um Lots 19.01.2016 acre and as mentioned this property this application is contingent on the filing of the minor subdivision and the areas and um bulk tables are being provided as per the approved subdivision so the 5.46 acre of 2.01 is asked for the approved minor subdivision at the planning board the um property uh uh um the property the um aerial exhibit shows um several other features the minor the major subdivision the applicant is proposing is being provided Frontage along An approved subdivision that was approved at the planning board and the aerial shows construction is underway um um we'll refer to that as the hen Court subdivision that is um a roadway being installed currently under construction and that was an approval to subdivide the lot into six buildable single family homes and an additional storm water management lot those are lots in the R1 Zone and those lots are across the roadway from our property and that is what this leader is referring to over here this is the Holden Court subdivision our subdivision is relying on the infrastructure that will be installed and that was approved and that will be installed as part of the previously mentioned subdivision the roadway the Curbing and other infrastructure The Proposal of our applicant of this application in front of the board is to subdivide the property into five buildable Lots without any infrastructure Improvement within um within within the roadway within the Curbing and we'll discuss sidewalk and other um trees shade trees as we go along the um discussing the application the aerial exhibit also shows the demarcation between the R1 Zone and the R3 Zone the property of the Holden Court subdivision is Loc loated within the R1 Zone as the board sees the R3 Zone demarcation runs along the applicant property or most of the property and our properties within the R3 Zone and that is why we're before the zoning board because we're seeking a density variance where one unit per 3 acres is the requirement and we are proposing um greater than that we're we're proposing five units in the 5.4 six um acre property can you please pull up the um subdivision plan can you go to the uh last [Music] sheet on this PDF file you could go to sheet number three and could you zoom in to this area where we're showing the improvements the applicant is proposing to subdivide the um 5.46 acre lot into five 1 acre or greater Lots um proposing um the construction of single family dwell ings each dwelling um that is um each dwelling will contain a garage will contain a basement there is already curbing that is approved that is required to be installed um as per the Holden Court subdivision sidewalk is required to be installed as a condition of the minor subdivision involving Lots 19 and 21 that was previously referred to and approved by the planning board and therefore the sidewalk improvements shall be are required already under the previous minor subdivision approval to be installed by that applicant um just to go through some of the um some of the uh bulk the bulk requirements and the bulk VAR es the applicant um is um these properties with the um installation with the approval and the installation of Holden Court the property now has Frontage along uh a roadway that is abing an R1 Zone and the applicant is proposing to subdivide the lots to generally conform with the R1 requirements by providing 1 acre lots and complying with most of the bulk requirements for R1 with the following exceptions um three of the Lots do not provide the R1 required 150 ft width Lots 21 .02 21.03 and 2.04 do not provide 150t WID as which would be the requirement of the R1 lot 2.02 provides 12370 ft in width lot 21.03 provides 13282 ft in width and lot 2.04 provides 143.5 five and withth what about what 21.05 lot 21.05 is great provides 170 ft33 ft in width which is greater than an R1 requirement is a all the lots have bulk variances as indicated in the zoning table and in the planner's letter um from providing what is required for the R3 and I'm pointing out um that the properties generally are providing the bulk requir ments for the R1 with the exception of what was mentioned um 2102 2103 and 2004 are under the 150 FTS the applicant would be proposing to construct dwellings indicated as um a footprint of 4,875 square feet if the board would Grant approval these Footprints could change but will conform to zoning require to the zoning requirements and the um parking that is would be provided would be 20 foot wide driveways for two cars across and the driveways would be able to um accommodate four cars Additionally the applicant would be proposing to provide a garage a two-car garage so the applicant would be able to to easily accommodate six cars regarding the number of bedrooms again the applicant um is has not provided architect plans and does not have architect plans the applicant is seeking approval to subdivide um and is providing a footprint the bedrooms um that would be look the the applicant would be seeking to provide houses that would contain up to N9 or 10 bedrooms and there is sufficient parking important to note um this is in the R3 Zone even in the R1 Zone when um a land is being subdivided in the R1 Zone if there are no if there is no public water or sewer 3 acres would be needed um in this instance um Holden Court as part of the Holden Court subdivision um that owner that project owner is installing and as I understand has installed um Public Water and Sewer our applicant has made an application in front of the MU to the MUA and has received preliminary approval to connect to the um public water and public sewer it should be noted that the applicant this property lot the existing the tax lot um 21 is not within the sewer the state sewer service area and any approval would be contingent upon the applicant uh acquiring an amendment from the njd to include this property within the sour service area the MUA is aware of that and provided approval so long as the applicant receives the um Amendment from the njd that process could be one year to two years um several properties within Jackson have recently received um amendments to the njd and the um it would be assumed that a an amendment would be able to be acquired from the ngd and either way um this application is contingent upon receiving that just to discuss some of the um review comments in the planner in the letter from the board planner as mentioned previously the app ation in front of the planning board creating the proposed Lots 1901 and um 2101 was only recently memorialized it has not been filed yet and as a condition um of approval the applicant will be required to First file that minor subdivision um before the applicant is able to file this minor um subdivision um construction as um the board saw on the aerial construction of the Holden report improvements are already underway um storm water upon a site visit um the storm water facilities are constructed in large part and uh sewer is installed it is hard to give a timeline on those improvements but the um this application requires all the infrastructure from those from that application in order in order to as in order to um begin in order to in order to um acquire the co so regarding the number of dwellings the applicant I said not the applicant would be looking to have 10 bedroom dwellings I earlier said nine or 10 to have an exact number the applicant would be seeking to have 10 bedrooms and six parking spaces are easily able to be provided and the the driveway width would be two cars a breast double stacked so four cars would be in the driveway and two cars would be in the in a garage the applicant shall provide is willing to provide Foundation plantings also and that would be worked out in resolution compliance um to the bo to the satisfaction of the board professionals this um property is a 5.46 acre property that the applicant is seeking to develop into five lots and there is a comment regarding um open space the applicant is Seeking a waiver from providing um open uh 10% of the tract for open space it is a small tract of land and a small open space would not be um so utilized as a as opposed to a larger Park the applicant would be seeking a waiver as part of this application okay um I could go regarding comments from the board Engineers letter the access to the subdivision is via the culdesac adjacent to lot 18 as part of the Holden Court subdivision approved by the planning board and that is going to be a roadway which will be a public roadway to be accepted by the township the applicant is not seeking to propose any homeowners association at this time um at this time as no roadway is being proposed as part of this application and um the extent of the drainage facilities will be recharge trenches for each individual lot for roof coverage and there would be no need for a storm water management um perspective to provide a homeowners association and would not be seeking to um propose a homeowners association as part of the application so just a record each individual homeowner would be responsible for the recharge system and things of that nature that's corent okay thank you basements would be proposed and soil borings would need to be per formed in the vicinity of the basements to confirm that basement to confirm the seasonal high water table and the constructability of a basement regarding um regarding storm water management um what the applicant would be seeking to do at this point is creating the lots and demolishing the homes um each individual house would be constructed um on the already um filed Maps um and therefore I do not believe that um one acre of disturbance as part of this application is going to be um is is being is being proposed can I ask for clarification on that I I I'm not I really don't understand what you just said I'm sorry I really don't I I look Eric I look at it this way um you're proposing a five lot major subdivision right these Lots do not currently exist you're proposing them correct all right as such if you look at the the major subdivision not not a plot plan but a major subdivision for the entire for the application you you are proposing through grading and I'm assuming tree clearing more than one acre of disturbance but you're also proposing five dwelling units at just under 5,000 foot each it's obviously plus driveways plus driveways so it's obviously more than a quarter acre disturbance so I I really I don't think you can convince me nor the D if if I were to ask them that this doesn't cons it's not considered a major subdivision or it's not considered a um a major development so um you know I do have more stormwater comments pertaining to that too uh so I are we in agreement that it's considered a major subdivision okay yes all right and as such you're going to be required to Pro to provide more than just infiltration of the roofs correct right you're going to have to provide detention or you're going to quantity and quality for for the convert for the disturbance or the land clear the land conversion from trees to grass and impervious full a full storm water report correct so how you do that uh look I say Engineers we we can kind of engineer just about anything so if you're still going to propose individual on lot uh like um individual on lot rather than a regional Basin or or something along those lines I'm sure something can be done U but I'm going to also throw in another question too on the on the six lot subdivision that shares this common property line uh it's six residential lots and then a storm water management lot right A Basin and I think you I think you can infer to some degree that that Basin was required primarily because of the roadway that was constructed yes however that because of the grading That Base I I can also infer that the road road the roadway is is somewhat of a ridge a natural Ridge between your lots and theirs so we've seen enough of pdss plans over the years to assume that they would not have Incorporated any drainage from from these five Lots in the predevelopment correct into their Basin size I would agree with that right yes however I'm going to also infer here that you will be grading your these properties such that they do provide storm water runoff onto Holden is that correct yes all right so we por yes right so now since you're directing that additional flow that wasn't incorp corated or modeled as part of the subdivision to the South you are now contributing additional area and Flow To A Basin that hasn't been designed for that correct yes okay you see the issue there yes we would have to mitigate we would have to provide storm water to ensure that the runoff correct which all right yeah so so yeah the those are my concerns uh associated with that a I didn't see anything on here of what you were proposing to do but be um you know I knowing all of that do you think you're going to have to convert one of these lots to a storm waterer management lot which could possibly help you with your open space waiver and also decrease your density request something you may want to think about I I think um that that would make sense to take a lot I think so too take one of the Lots make a make a make a smaller um storm water lot yes especially I mean that first lot in there's your low end of the job right yeah right so you can make that as small as possible yeah we would make a small maybe you can make Mak the other two more conforming yes I I'm I'm seeing that you could actually have four conforming lots for lot with here if you were to do that you're not getting five buildable Lots but you're getting a much better engine product at the end of the day yes I only rece yes um the applicant um would be able to um get for conforming to the R1 and um provide a storm water lot yes through the chair yes would that also be an advantage to you to eliminate the extension of the sewer service area the properties are not within the sewer surface area so oh I thought there was one lot that was outstanding or outside of the sewer service area a a portion uh a portion of the previous minor a small portion of the lot that was previously part of Lot 19 was within the sewer service area but in G the larger part portion of our property is not within the SE service area okay what I was trying to do is work off of what Evan's suggestion was but going to for conforming Lots would that relieve you of that need we still would need to get the Sewer Service um area Amendment but just to make sure we all are on the same page we are willing to go to four buildable Lots instead of five yes we are willing to do that we would remove um lot 2103 and take um not all of it take a portion of it for the storm water management Madam chair yes I'm sorry 2102 I'm sorry 21102 I also just want to make sure our records clear so I'm going to start with the applicant's attorney Miss Jennings I understand you have a planner here this evening um Mr Halpert has made continual references to using the R1 Zone at one point he said as a guide I think it's important from your side to tell us that you're not asking this board to rezone the property correct correct you're asking us to give you a density variance where 3 acre lots are required and you're going to provide one acre lots you're going to hear some very good testimony from the applicant's planner at some point but because the engineer got to go first I want to remind the board that when they say they're going to provide conforming Lots they're in the R3 Zone they're not providing conforming Lots they're providing lots that are going to be similar I think the applicant's planner will say the R1 lots that are across the street or in the rest of the area this is there's a Zone boundary that runs through here you guys haven't heard that testimony but I want you to have it clear in your mind that the zone that this property is in is R3 Zone that's the reason there's 20 variances listed for bulk requirements and while often we'll say that the bulk variances may be subsumed within the density variance they've correctly listed that all the variances for the bulk requirements are still necessary so I want to remind the board so if they go from five to four Lots they'll probably still need a bunch of variances because they're in the R3 Zone and so while Mr Halper did correctly say once that they're using the R1 Zone as a guide I need to remind you that you're not rezoning this property thank you thank you and and we don't disagree with that we are before the zoning board for the density variance because this property is in the R3 although it's surrounded by R1 understood the chair the chair since this is an R3 and you have 5.6 whatever it is is uh you were permitted to build one home correct okay yes Mr HUD to sh 15,000 with 10 a minimum 10 so you know these are almost like apartment not homes Mr Halpert I have a question for you number one um will does this um change in the plan from four units to from five units four change your opinion as the homeowners association given the need to to maintain the Basin lot yes okay so the applicant would be amenable to providing home owners application yes homeowners association time it's late okay um thank you uh the second question I had was um at any of these lots are you going to uh are these are you really late um are you going to be in conformance with the impervious coverage and building coverage um portions of the ordinance with respect to the homes that you're building or are you going to require variances for that in terms of the maximum building coverage the applicant is complying with that impervious coverage as well I don't think three has previous coverage yes it will be complying the reason I asked that question and and thank you for responding um I just want to caution the board uh we don't have a floor area ratio ordinance in Jackson Township uh we don't have a limit on the number of bedrooms that can be in a residential home we don't have a limit on the size of a residential home what we used to determine the size and you've heard Evan say this before and I concur uh whether the size of a home is appropriate is based upon the setbacks the building coverage and the imperious coverage now obviously we're here because the applicant's proposing a density variance which means that they're probably not going to meet the setback requirements that's a given right we have we have one acre lots where three acres are required okay um so so they're probably going to require and we'll probably hear about setback variances right um but uh if they're you know if they're if they're not if they're not exceeding the permitted building coverage and impervious coverage for a 3 acre lot on one acre lots it's a pretty good indication that the home itself while maybe large to us is probably not oversized for the lot so let's just keep that in mind um I I don't I I don't want to focus on bedroom counts or square footage of the homes while it's a consideration ultimately our ordinance is Guided by by uh discussing impervious and building coverage so that's my two cents on that issue can I just ask a little clarification um so the size doesn't matter if it was even an R1 size of the home it's not R1 but let's say that that goes through size of the home wouldn't matter so I would I would have the same answer for you um again no floor area ratio ordinance right no limit in on square footage of a footprint or or the overall living space Y no limit on bedrooms ordin don't discuss that so the answer would be the same in the R1 Zone as long as you're conforming to the R1 Zone requirements for impervious coverage setback and building coverage it's a good indication under our ordinance is that the proposed project is not too large for the LW okay does that make sense that's clear yes thank you thank you I appreciate that um I just like to if I could ask the um the applicant so just sorry um just one question the 10 bedrooms that's fine how many bathrooms I always seem to be asking about bathrooms I don't know why but how many bathrooms in each out in each home it comes back to the septic and all that uh can I can I just interject there bathrooms have nothing to do with the size of a septic system unless they are in the basement so it's a septic system is designed purely on the number of bedrooms and whether or not there's an ejector pump in the basement period that's it you could put 20 bathrooms on the second floor you it has nothing to do with a septic system got I don't agree we're not doing septic we're hoping to tap into and these are on this is on sanitary sub hypothetically hypothetically I'm sorry I had to jump in I that's what I I almost you're you're lucky I almost asked Evan about atus we were going to get into that discussion but there you go um real real quick I just want to we we we went through my letter real quickly and I I'm okay with that two other points I just want to bring up um I don't see anything in the application documents with respect to the presence or absence of wetlands or wetlands buffers um typically we would we would at least want to see a present's absence letter or an Loi if they are present right would you agree to provide yeah as part of the um sewer Serv service um Amendment we would require to um obtain an Loi so yes and then there was I think the only other one that you haven't uh yeah there was a discrepant uh so on your plan on your improvement plan you show concrete sidewalk along your along your lot's Frontage and then terminating as it goes around the culdesac bulb on the opposite side however on the development plan that was approved by the planning board it does just the opposite the the sidewalk is along the frontage on the opposite side of the culdesac and terminates along your Frontage um I want clarification if your intention is to extend the extend the existing sidewalk depicted on the approved development plan for Holden a or Holden Road Court whatever it's called um extend the extend the sidewalk along your opposed lot Frontage is that your intention yes the the intention of this exhibit was just as a reference so the board members could see the adjacent subdivision and they had they are proposing sidewalk terminating where it terminates as part of that application right this applicant um the plan is showing sidewalk in front of our Frontage okay so you'll extend That Sidewalk along your lines and just to clarify as previously mentioned that was already required to be extended as part of the planning board application approval for the minor subdivision it could be a condition of this as well but as part of the minor subdivision approved by the planning board memorialized recently on August 19th that applicant which which dealt with this Frontage was required to provide sidewalk already all right I thank you for clarifying that but that that's going to be a problem for the attorneys to work out because a lot you need to do this application doesn't come to fruition unless you conform with the planning board application which required sidewalks so now I have another developers responsible putting sidewalks in along the front edge of the subdivision that you're proposing that's sound right so that the attorneys have to work that out because at the end of the day Jackson Township want sidewalks in front of these houses when they get built we need to know who the responsible party is we're smarter than we look we we'll figure it out yeah we got it just to add to that since you're adding sidewalks more sidewalks you're making the street narrower would there be room for fire equipment to get in and out now not they're not making the street any narrower I'm sorry I didn't hear what' you say what did you ask are they making the street narrower I wouldn't the sidewalks make the street narrower or they're just no the sidewalks are outside of the street the street already exists they're going to build sidewalks 4T away from the existing uh side from the existing curb so there'll be no problem with Fire Equipment no issues it has no impact to the way that roadway was designed and approved by the planning board okay thank you Mr Halpert I just had one more question I haven't heard the testimony and perhaps you were getting to to it so I apologize for jumping the gun um I haven't heard any testimon as to height uh you'll comply with the height ordinance correct the applicant will comp no varant no variance of sorts thank you sorry um any additional um information Mr Halper any questions for Mr Halpert from the board M Jennings you want to call your next witness yes at this time I like to call our professional planner Andrew Janu I would ask if we could bring up the area is it possible to bring the arei back up yeah I do let me tell you Freddy good evening good evening nice to see you Mr Janu thank if you would please raise your right hand do you Solly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments that you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you sir if you would please state your name provide your affiliation and your credentials my name is Andrew J Manu j n i w I'm a principal in The Firm of Beacon planning and consulting services our address is 315 Highway 34 Colts Neck New Jersey uh by way of background I have a bachelor's and master's degree in civil engineering from the New Jersey Institute of Technology I am a licensed professional planner and a member of the American Institute of certified planners currently serving as the planner for the burough of Carteret the township of Livingston and the burrow of Freehold a Redevelopment planner for South Amboy uh and Bon uh and have testified before boards here many times yes this board accepts your credentials sir thank you and if you could uh Andrew just for the record you've had an opportunity to visit the site in the area around the site that's correct I've been to the site I reviewed the ordinances the master plan uh I reviewed the plannner memorandum I have not had a chance to uh review Mr Hills uh engineering review uh however I am familiar with the application and the documentation but for that one except okay and if you could just go through you've heard Eli's testimony and the questions of the board's professionals and the board itself can you just go through the relief that the applicant is seeking and indicate whether in your professional opinion the applicant is satisfied both the positive and the negative criteria certainly so the property is located at 225 Brewers Bridge Road and it has that address because it currently is a flag lot with a narrow stem that goes out to Brewers bridge that was how the existing improvements on the Lat have been historically accessed uh the application this evening is essentially to access the property now from the uh Holden Court which is under construction uh and was approved as part of the subdivision of seven Lots uh on the other side of the property the R1 R3 zone line runs alongside the northern edge of Holden and you can see that uh coincidentally that's also the line for the sewers service area and I'll get back to the meaning of that uh shortly uh but the property is in the R3 Zone uh the Holden court side uh south side of Holden court is in the R1 Zone uh the Lots will have access to Water and Sewer within Holden court and you heard testimony uh previously that this application will be seeking a sanitary sewer uh service area amendment in order to be able to access uh that line for flow from this project uh the property is 5.46 Acres uh it is uh adjacent to that seven lot subdivision and when I say seven Lots it's six residential lots and the uh detention Basin that serves that side of the property um and as we just had the discussion this m uh application will be modified now uh for proposal for four lots and a small lot for uh storm water detention that will be related to those four lots and that will be now on the north side of Holden uh we are seeking a D5 density variants whereas uh residential lots here are proposed to be slightly over one acre where three acres is required uh we also have bulk variance relief that we're seeking uh each each obviously for uh lot area where 3 acres per lot are required these will be and again we don't have the exact numbers as we're changing this to to four residential lots but the Lots will be approximately uh 1 acre or greater uh they were proposed at 1 acre or greater uh minimum lot Frontage and again that will vary by the new application uh but what was proposed here was within the R3 District a 200t frontage is required and we were providing anywhere from 123 ft to 294 ft four of the Lots uh as submitted required relief uh minimum lot depth of 400 ft uh the lot depth will remain uh a variance that's going to be necessary for the R3 uh minimum front yard setback in the R3 is 80t 60 ft was proposed and minimum sidey setbacks of 50 ft is required within the r33 we were proposing anywhere from 20 to 28 ft and I'll I'll talk a little bit later about how that relates to the R1 zoning District like to go into a little bit of back ground with respect to your master plan and what that means in terms of the zoning districts um your master plan within the R3 district U states in the executive summary the land use plan establishes rural residential planning districts to Encompass residential areas outside of the sewer service area and these this property is currently outside the sewer service area uh goes on to say 3 acre lot size supports the appropriate nitron dilution standards that are sat that are required to be satisfied um so for that reason even in an R1 District if it was a well in septic project it would still have to have a 3 Acre minimum lot area because of the nitrogen dilution issue um the planning district uh established to replace the R1 goes on to say uh in connection with the R1 District the planning district established to Rel replace the R3 zoning District within the proposed s sewer servious sewer service area excuse me is R1 a 1 acre density was selected to reflect prior development patterns and to ensure efficient use of infrastructure clustering recommended for larger tracks without density incentives so within your master plan it recognized that within the R3 area there were areas that were now becoming uh viable sewer service areas and was recommending a rezoning to R1 for those areas because there's no longer the area required for the nitrogen delution model and it deemed it to be a more efficient use of land your master plan within its goals and objectives stated to achieve a pattern and mix of land use that achieves various Community planning objectives including the provision of quality residential neighborhoods the protection of Natural Resources the economic development of the community and the creation of livable and desirable Community attributes to direct growth into areas suited for Land Development and away from areas appropriate for resource protection to encourage the use of planning techniques that will effectively integrate desirable residential communities viable commercial service uses resource protection and open space to encourage infill development and Redevelopment where appropriate and thereby reduce the extent of Land Development and maximize the use of public facilities including water sewers storm water and Roads and to protect the Integrity of existing residential neighborhoods by ensuring that any new infill or adjacent development is compat compatible with the neighborhood pattern so we are absolutely on point with those objectives the the thing that's changed here that makes this a viable uh 1 acre lot subdivision is the creation of Holden Road the extension of water and sewer in front of this property and the neighborhood pattern that's been established on the other side of Holden your your master plan encourages infield development that's compatible with the immediate adjacent properties that is Holden and those are R1 Lots uh it also also encourages maximizing the use of public facilities where available now this property previously did not have access to Water and Sewer it now has access with the amendment and we are asking for that consideration because we will be applying to be within the sewer service area as is now improve creating Road Frontage that has that directory in front of these lots and finally within your master plan it reads the intent of the low density District R1 planning district is to recognize the extensive existing low density single family residential development in the township and to permit continued development of this intensity on lots that have access to public sewer the objective of the planning district is to make the existing residential development conform with the land use plan and to enable limited infill development of the same nature and intensity that connects to public infrastructure the R1 planning district is also intended to allow for limited single family detach residential development in areas where public infrastructure is or will be available I think we're on point with that objective we will have water and sewer available to these Lots your plan encourages seeking connection to those in order to eliminate septic systems and wealth systems it's always preferred to have public utilities uh this is an ideal situation where you had a a home here that was on well and septic and now an appropriate Redevelopment uh opportunity here to create five for new opportunities for single family homes consistent with the neighborhood that's been established by the prior subdivision across the street and with access to Water and Sewer so in terms of reconciliation with your master plan I believe this is exactly what the master plan was talking about and your master plan does recognize that the distinction between the R1 and R3 Zone was in fact the availability of access to Water and Sewer uh we also have to satisfy the purposes of the municipal land UL as you know the application cannot be for the sole benefit of the applicant there has to be a public benefit uh and I believe there are three that are Advanced by this uh application uh under the mlu under 40 55d uh these are the purposes of zoning which Define what public uh benefits should be derived from an application uh e is to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that'll attribute to the well-being of persons neighborhood hoods communities regions and the preservation of the environment in this instance we now have access to Water and Sewer albeit conditioned upon uh being in the sewer service area however with the water and sewer uh being available your master plan cites that the appropriate population density is established by the R1 zoning District uh G is to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural residential recreational commercial and Industrial uses and open space both public and private according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs for all New Jersey citizens why is this an appropriate location well we recently had a subdivision approved directly across the street and a road extended along the frontage of this property uh establishing a development pattern of the R1 District uh if you look at that aerial to the South and to the West is all R1 there's water and sewer available we are on were on the cusp of the availability of water and sewer it's now been extended to the property such that we would have availability so when we look at an appropriate location this has emerged as an appropriate location by virtue of that Holden Court uh culdesac and the development pattern established on the other side of the properties uh it seeks consistency both within the ML and within your master plan for a development pattern and finally m is to encourage the coordination of various public and private procedures and activities shaping Land Development with the view of lessening the cost of such development into the more efficient use of land again when we look at efficient use of land land is a commodity land is also becoming scarce developable land is becoming squar we have an opportunity here where we have a property that's on the borderline of the R3 and the R1 Zone it was established as such based on whether it was in a sewer service area or not it now has the opportunity to be in a sewer service area with that utility available directly along the property line uh that to me is absolutely what this is intended to do in terms of efficient use of land lessening the cost of Land Development we have an opportunity to develop efficient Land Development with new utility access that is an appropriate location and will develop a density that's consistent with the pattern of the neighborhood so the first relief that we're seeking is the D variance for the density uh and unlike a use variance a d variance is adjudicated under what's known as the coven R square uh criteria not Michi under Coventry Square we demonstrate that the deviation can be reasonably uh accommodated by the property and that there is no essential detriment to to any of the adjacent properties uh the Coventry standard shifts the focus to the negative criteria uh regarding the impact of the use as Oppo uh impact of the deviation as opposed to the impact of the use so in this instance uh the impact of going to smaller Lots to R1 Lots well the reason there was a distinction between the R3 and R1 is because R3 anticipated septic systems and required 3 Acre land area for the nitrogen dilution model that you have adopted uh with the availability of sewer it's now appropriate to consider one acre uh per home uh density here uh as was established immediately around this property so when we look at can the property accommodate and I'll go through this in the bulk relief but we can essentially come very close if not in total conformance with what the requirements are of the R1 directly across the street directly to the west of us and and mesh with that development pattern which would not be a detriment to Neighborhood it actually be consistent with the neighborhood uh there's a case uh known as Kaufman which talks about the issue of having oversized Lots integrated into smaller neighborhoods and that having a detrimental effect and you know sometimes you see within a neighborhood of where you have you know 75t or 100 frontages somebody builds the mega house and how it looks at a place so consistency in zoning is something that we typically strive for and this would create a consistent cu the saac of of a development pattern that's identical on both sides of the street so when we look at can the property accommodate the deviation I say it's particularly suited even though it doesn't need to be under the con the Coventry criteria for this use because because of the established pattern because of the established roadway uh and and because this can be developed within the criteria for the pattern that is all around it with respect to the bulk variance relief we would qualify these under the C2 criteria the C2 is known as the balance test uh under the balance test we have to show that the positives outweigh the benefits and this is basically a better zoning alternative uh with respect to the positive criteria we have to demonstrate that this relates to a specific piece of property and it does this is a unique piece of property with unique circumstances surrounding it uh that the purposes of the municipal land use law would be Advanced by a deviation from the zoning ordinance and I read into the record three purposes that I believe would be Advanced by this application and that the benefits of the deviation would outweigh any detriment and when we look to the benefits of this we have the ability to access Water and Sewer that is certainly better than uh building on a septic system and on a well system uh we also develop uh lots that are consistent with the neighborhood pattern creating housing opportunities here that are consistent with the neighborhood pattern I I believe those are beneficial when you look at your master plan those are all goals and objectives in your master plan particularly when you look at the distinction your master plan lays out for the R3 the R1 Zone and then converting R3 to R1 when sewer does become available uh with respect to the negative criteria we have to demonstrate that the varant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and the the variants will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of your Zone plan uh with respect to the public good we can't say that we're creating something that's a substantial detriment if we're following a development pattern that we're surrounding uh we will be following in terms of noise traffic trash uh the same type of development pattern that'll be directly across the street from us with respect to the intent and purpose of your Zone plan and master plan um your master master plan was very specific when it talked about the R3 and the R1 Zone the distinctions between those two and the integration of of how those zones would relate to one another uh if in fact sewer became available so I don't think we we are substantially impair the intent of that plan in fact I think the plan leads us to the creation of exactly what we're proposing this evening um and in looking at now the R1 standards which we we've talked about so the R1 District requires a lot area of one acre we can clearly provide four lots that are one acre uh in area so we would be compliant with the lot area with respect to lot Frontage the R1 District requires a minimum lot withd of 150 ft uh we would have to see the plan actually to see which Lots uh would still require a a width variance uh but we come very close to being able to satisfy I think uh two of the five Lots we were proposing satisfied the R1 I think we' become very close to satisfying the width uh requirements um your ordinance in the R1 also requires lot Frontage measured at the front setb line of 75 ft we would comply with all that uh we we do currently comply with what the R1 would anticipate for that the r the R1 District requires a minimum lot depth of 200 ft each of these Lots would be able to satisfy that lot depth uh minim minimum uh front yard setback in the R1 district is 40 ft we'd certainly be able to comply with that minimum sidey yard setbacks within the R1 District would be 20 ft each we would certainly be able to comply with that so when when we look at this we would be able to create lots that would be substantially if not totally compliant with what the R1 District would anticipate which would make it identical to the development pattern directly across the street so when we look at it that way I do believe it is a better zoning alternative is an efficient use of land uh creates opportunities for additional housing uh and it creates the opportunity to uh utilize public uh utilities water and sewer as opposed to well and septic which always carry different issues in maintenance issues and environmental issues with them so when I look at this this is uh actually a very good application in terms of being able to be congruous with the development pattern that's developed taking advantage of recent approvals here that create this opportunity and I think it is a good application yes question engineer absolutely I planner I'm sorry um you've made a very compelling case uh but I'm curious it sounds like from the case that but for the fact that Jackson doesn't have access to se and water throughout the entire region Jackson would be R1 is that uh I mean I'm curious to hear you speak through that well as it relates to this application I think you should ask the applicants planning that we can have a conversation we can we can look at the exhibit and and go forward but well okay if if you accept Mr Jan's arguments that he discussed then yes Mr Janu um if I might miss parns sure you've indicated that in the R3 Zone outside which is outside the sewer service area um in the executive summary of the current master plan it discusses limited infill projects so if I were along ruers Bridge Road north of this track anywhere where the R1 is on the west side of the road and the R3 is on the east side of the road and if I were anywhere north of Hope Chapel Road where R3 is on the north side of the road and R1 is on the south side of the road if I got a sewer extension permit your argument would be that I should be able to get a density variance for any of the parcels of land land because they have access to Water and Sewer would that be a fair analogy so again I'm not looking at this on a gross basis one of the things that uh I'm speaking to is a very specific piece of property that is uniquely situated at the border between the R1 and the R3 and directly across the street from an R1 District yes we do need to be included in that sewer service area and we would need to make an application to that uh other factors may come into play other environmental restrictions that may have been why the property was originally put into R3 but we don't believe that applies here these Lots don't have any hindrance from any environmental issues in fact are located uh directly adjacent to the R1 and in fact your master plan does speak to those situations where if you do have access to Water and Sewer or in fact it says or will have access to Water and Sewer such infill development at a low density of R1 would be appropriate again we look to the efficient use of land understanding that land is a limited commodity and when these opportunities arise and in this case we had a very unique feature happen of a road being extended and the R1 going directly across the street in a pattern of what we can accommodate um and having access to the same Water and Sewer um I do believe it is appropriate for this site I can't say it's appropriate for everything along Brewers Ridge without studying those properties and understanding what other conditions apply to that so in when we look at zoning in an application every application stands on its own but it's also specific to a piece of property that's why when we look at the balance test one of the first test is that it relates to a specific property so we're talking about the attributes of this property I can't talk about the attributes of any other properties they would have to be argued uh in a in a manner that compels you to agree with that applicant um hopefully I was able to convince you that it's appropriate I certainly believe it's inappropriate and as a PL both a public and private planner I think this is one of those instances where we have circumstances that have come to fruition that encourage again efficient use of land thank you a follow question Miss pars I do believe that we run ourselves into the concern that you've brought so if I were on Brewers Bridge Road opposite blue Haron Drive those lots have sewer they're in the R1 Zone if there's a manhole at the intersection of Blue Heron Drive and Brewers Bridge Road and I used Mr Jan's argument I should be able to build R1 across the street because there's a sewer line there same thing at Bridgewater court and Brewers Bridge Road um and while I don't know that all the properties on the south side of Hope Chapel Road are in Jackson Town Township but shaie court and hope Hill Lane to the right of the map um you could make the same argument so what I what I can say to you is that when Mr Janu read out of the executive summary of the current master plan the reason many of these undeveloped properties were zoned R3 was because there was not access to sewer and because of the nitrogen dilution concern at that point in time so if you extrapolate that thought process to well if there's sewer on the opposite side of the street and I go and ask for a sewer service area change perhaps to quell your fears and I don't know if the applicant has this available perhaps either the planner the engineer could give you an idea of the tasks that are necessary to get a sewer service area Amendment because it's sort of it's no small task and quite frankly it's it's not really in the jurisdiction of the township or the zoning board because Jackson has it own Municipal Utilities author um but the answer your question about could you take Mr Jan's premise and apply it to the rest of the R3 property no part of it says it has to be limited it has to be adjacent to those areas it was meant to be infill so you where there where you see all the the changes in property line that was probably the intent of infill but certainly you could say that across the street from a place where there's a manhole in the middle of Brewers Bridge Road or Hope Chapel Road if someone were to go through the process that this applicant claims are going to do and got a sewer service area extension and all of a sudden you could in theory go down to one Acres Z so part of the consideration is sewer service area and they're just making that opening that up to themselves it this application conditioned upon us being accepted in that and to further that it is a Herculean task I believe the engineer testified that it's typically one to two years to achieve that once we have the okay here um that is correct uh and we wouldn't be here this evening if we hadn't reached out to your mua and confirmed the availability of capacity in Holden for this project and we did get a confirmation uh you heard the engineer testify that the the capacity is available in front of these properties so all those supported our uh conclusion that this is an appropriate location theair I'm sorry the yellow dotted line indicates everything to the north of it is R3 everything to the south of it is R1 yes so it almost looks like it excludes it's like a carve out for this property in like keeping that in in the R3 um I had another question but I don't remember so I know there are others just for my own edification the sewer service area was designed with one intent and that was to protect a water portable water supply and where you've indicated that the MUA has said that there is capacity I'm assuming that's for collection for collection but the end user is the ocua yes and at some point in time there is diminished capacity on their end to receive that collection they have treatment capacity but the collection capacity at NPS 5 and six is becoming limited going to the north going to the South there is no more capacity so you have a huge lift on your hands and we understand that's part of the sewer service area application process the other question I have for you is the existing sewer M that's in that road there is that sized adequately enough to take on another four homes uh that I'd have to defer to the engineer I'm sorry um yes this um application was submitted to the MUA and I spoke with um the um principal engineer at the MUA and there is sufficient capacity this is going to the northern to the northern uh treatment plant where that's I'm sorry and that's strictly a gravity main there's no pump lift station that has to be improved as part of this application there is no Pump Station that has to be improved and as far as capacity with OCA you were going to say something I can tell you that the principal engineer at the MU UA indicated there is no capacity issue at the ocua for collection but I'm about at the end user for the end user we would have to go through the entire process which we did not do we only would first want to get approval here but it would be conditioned on that okay um to piggy to piggy back on Miss P's question mine's a little different but she asked part of what I wanted to ask but my other question is to our engineer and planner they stated start M Jenning stated starting off you're not looking to change the zoning but if I understand you correctly Mr janon please feel free to interrupt you're the professional not me you basically indicated that the reason that this area was originally zoned R3 was because it did not have access to City Water and Sewer I understand the zone line was drawn at where water and sewer were made available okay so now that it's available if we're if Jackson's in the process looking at its master plan is that something that they would area because it's now a water I'm I'm talking too much the city B is now available so no it's the process works the opposite way so the town isn't going to offer to extend Sewer Service are there's no plan the town isn't planning to extend Sewer Service to to developers it's upon the developer to do that so the town's not going to the town hasn't rezoned properties to prompt developers to petition D it works the other way so um you know the applicants working with what currently exists you know they're in the R3 Zone and they're and as a result that's also consistent with the fact that they're not in the sewer service area so it's upon them to petition d be incorporated into the sewer service area and that's their argument this this project is contingent upon them being successful in that I believe they've had enough preliminary discussions and they have a preliminary understanding of what the D desires that they probably have a pretty good idea that they'll be successful it's just going to take them a year and a half to two years to get it done that's how long the process is so um I think I hope I answered your question so I you I was BAS asking so you explained it to me that it goes the opposite way not how I originally asked the question just because they're now petitioning for Access and it sounds like they've done their due diligence and they're going to get access to city water doesn't mean that Jackson Township would automatically reone it no absolutely not thank there wouldn't be a reason for this applicant to petition the MUA for sewer service area change if there wasn't n quite frankly a benefit to them so at 5 and A2 acres in a 3 Acre Zone they're entitled by law to one lot anything else they get in order to cross that threshold from one to more than one buildable lot will require the sewer service area Amendment I've been I've been dying to just get this question out and I'm not trying to make the applicants case for them but I think it was an important point that Mr Jano made that I wanted to just touch on real quick part of your argument in relation to Coventry Square for the D5 variant is the fact that Holden court itself now exists which didn't previously correct that's correct and half of holding court is in the R1 Zone that's correct the other half is in the R3 Zone that's correct essentially it sounds to me Mr janin correct me if I'm wrong okay I see it I see it you're right excuse me I misspoke could you just explain that to the rest of us to make sure we all understand what you just what yeah what I'm telling you is that so so part of part of the covry skirk test as Mr Jan pointed out is is that the specific variance has to be specific to the pieces of property that we're talking about um I take no issue with Mr Jan's representation that the Coventry Square test which initially designed for D3 variances is also applicable to D5 and that's that's based upon um finding precedent uh of the courts um so it is a diminished uh standard from what is required for a D1 variant right the point that I'm trying to make here is that Mr Janu had also placed upon the record the fact that this this particular piece of property is particularly suited even though he doesn't have to prove particular suitability as part of this application for this D5 variance because of its location because of the existing subdivision as approved on hold in court and because it is across the street on the newly developed hold in court with with an established development pattern now so it' be fair to say that part of your argument in supporting the D5 variant is that it would be specific to this piece of property because of all all those circumstan the all of the the development applications that have come before yes essentially yes I I I mean I I think I had to highlight that point not because I'm trying to make the applicants case for them but because it's an important consideration that the board here when determining a D5 variants so I just wanted to to get that on the record and get some clarity on that thank you I have my other followup question yes so again the the argument that you made um is that really this was an R1 because of its lack of access to sewer I'm sorry an R3 because it didn't have access um now I don't think the master plan specifies about specific lots and why they are zoned the way they are it kind of speaks globally and that's in the executive summary I think you said um is one is well you said it's the reason why but I'm curious what are there other reasons listed about why a lot would be R3 just to kind of you know take it from the other angle so so the master plan keeping in mind the master plan is is a gross document that talks about zoning and and why and within the R3 District it talks about the fact that the R3 is an established rur Ral residential planning district which encompasses areas outside of the sewer service area that's how your master plan defines the R3 district and what what we're arguing here is while that was accurate until Holden Court was uh we now have changes in circumstances that make this appropriate to look at applying the R1 standards because we may have the opportunity to amend the sewer service area you know your master plan was specific that the R3 was established because of of the the land was outside of a sewer service area we have a wonderful opportunity now because we have a new sewer line extension we've confirmed that there's capacity available um and in fact it's appropriate to look wherever possible to bring in public water and sewer and to alleviate stress on the environment through well and septic systems so it does talk about it being a rural area without sewer service we believe this uh is is a game Cher essentially for this specific piece of property because of where it's located and what's been approved adjacent to it um and we do believe that's consistent with what the master plan guides in terms of appropriate density and locations that accommodate the density it is INF Phil where we now and the burdens on us to make sure that we can get sewer to this property but if we can uh it would be appropriate to consider this uh with the R1 District being all around us and creating a development pattern that's consistent on both sides of the street I'm going to Pigg you back on your comment again thank you for being so precise and I'm going to put this out to our professionals and two as well we had an application earlier that used to be R1 and was changed to R3 if you're stating that the reason this lot and in such close proximity to the ones that were already zoned R1 was zoned R3 because they didn't have access to city sewer and water why would why would the township change the zoning of something that was R1 to R3 again I don't know the circumstances for that whether there were other environmental factors I can't speak to that without studying that here I I mean I can speak to it because that that's exactly what happened to me I was an R1 lot now I'm R3 and I'm a two acre lot so there's no it's that higher level it's all I can suggest is it's that higher level planning exercise where they don't I suspect there's no there's no analysis on an individual small lot by lot basis it's hey look at this area and where does it make sense to draw some lines and there's always exceptions to the rule right I'm one of them a lot a lot of what we see exactly that there were R1 they were fully conforming they've been R3 now for the last 20 years and they're in here asking for variances of no result of their own right um but I don't really believe maybe Ernie will correct me I don't believe they they look at each individual a lot and say oh we're going to have a we're going to have a d we're going to have a hole in the donut where all of this is R three but this is R1 and this spot is R1 so I guess I'm just trying to be clear I think for Shir and I because we both keep go dancing around the same issue accessibility to the city and Sewer is only one factor it was the driving Factor it was the driving factor to create our three lots back in early 2000s right there I'm sure it was the driving Factor it wasn't the only Factor okay but and and I think my point to Mr janny's credit was that that was not the only factor that he put on the record um in consideration so I just again I was trying to highlight the fact that he was he was talking more in terms of this specific piece of property so I don't want to lose sight of that not to make the again not to make the applicant's case for them but I think the Board needs to to to consider that particular aspect of the testimony that Mr Janet put on the record I think that's why I kept asking my questions Mr Murphy because that's what I I have to be honest with you your testimony was fantastic from my perspective thank you it explained a lot but then I got to I got you do you do a phenomenal job but I agree but but I got a little stuck there when you were I I guess I got stuck on when you kept saying what was zoned R3 because of the border and I'm thinking back to other application wait a minute how can that you know what I mean I'm over I'm over not overthinking this but I'm trying to analyze the situation and I think you did a good job as Mr Murphy said explaining for this specific piece of property so I was just trying to understand and that's why I was asking all the question what other factors went into it so I get it now like you said you can't analyze that other you didn't study it but for this specific P of I understand what you're saying thank you yeah I just would like to add I mean the other big significant factor is holding Court you look at the original lot it just has that little stem that comes out that's 35 ft they got you out to the main road you couldn't do anything with that property so that's why it's been a single family home with one way out now we have all new Frontage and a new way to come in and out of that site so that's another significant difference and I think when you think about zoning the town couldn't possibly go and look at every single piece of property and say right you're going to be R1 but you don't meet all the factors so now next door you're R3 they just do a global thing and that's why we have a zoning Board of adjustment so people can come in and demonstrate that their particular piece of property is entitled to variance relief and that's why you guys are here to decide whether or not they meet that particular criteria um I just struggle with that the sewer was the driving Factor going from an R1 to an R3 I mean if I look at the goal of the master plan is to keep you want to keep a nice balance between density right and open space so so that wasn't the factor at all even if you don't call it a driving well they're they're they're related to each other and that that's the point right so there were higher density areas uh so let's say the norm back then were one acre lots and let's consider them the higher density areas um being built on C on on septic right the pine lands came out with a program in the late 90s where they started studying the efficiency or effectiveness of various types of of septic systems and they adopted a pilot program and the pilot program stated and and to this day it's still valid it's still part of their Rags that instead of looking at just land area to dictate the size of a septic system we have to look at how uh the nitrate delution they built a nitrate delution model which said based on the proposed loading you're going to need x amount of Acres right so they started setting these these lot size minimum lot sizes 3.2 Acres from a Pinelands perspective um was was sufficient for a standard size septic system anything below 3.2 Acres you had to do an alternative treatment unit added treatment right for nitrate delusion the Township's perspective back in the early 2000s when they were evaluating this was hey look we like that idea now we can't we the town can't impose septic system regulations beyond what the pylons in the state impose but we can do it through zoning right we can say well if sanitary sewer is not available in a certain area uh that's going to be considered more rural residential and we want to see 3 acre lots that's consistent with the other stuff we're hearing about septics but if sewer is available then yeah we agree one acre lots are more appropriate and that's really what those are the it's I'm sorry those who create zones they're not the most forward thinking they're mostly they're mostly catching up and reacting to what a lot of other people are doing whether it's development in town and the asks or what other regulatory agencies are doing and I don't mean as slight to our planners but planning planning is always more I my feeling is Master plans are are are more reactive to what's occurred the last five to 10 years than they are proactive for the next 20 right it's just human nature too so yeah I mean I look uh because I look at the line to me without the septic and all that and just say okay well we' made that section in R3 because we want we like open space and we want to want to keep something there but that that wasn't the reason okay right right yeah it wasn't that precise yeah okay yeah because density is an issue I think it's one of the things we got to address um one one last I don't know if I even asked that on the cold Court subdivisions how many bedrooms are those houses I know you're building ones with 10 bedrooms how many of those that are being built you know I'm not aware if that's been established yet or not so just just for the record when we when we talk about density from a zoning perspective right we're not talking about the number of people within a certain range what we're talking about is the number of units within a certain acreage right so we're not talk I mean it plays into that sort of calculation but again we have to stick to the Z the zoning definition which is the number of units per acre okay so just to just for clarity sake thank you yeah and that they would be permitted to put any house on there that they could meet parking basically okay I'm obviously new here so part good questions no it is it was a good question don't don't don't sell your show short that was a good question chair I yes just like to change the discussion a little bit because we've been focusing on water sewer and uh your package mentioned something called grubs sloow case law you recall that that's the ca uh Dr hin that's the case that establishes that the Coventry Square test is applicable to the D5 variant well basically from what I understood and your explain it is you had a relaxed standard on granting variant as opposed to a use variance that's 100 that's 100% correct which is what I just put on the record okay so the D1 variance requires um a higher standard of proof right so the reason that we're not requiring a higher standard appr proof or at least the Court's reasoning in these types of cases has been the fact that the use itself is actually permitted within the zone right the use itself is permitted what's being requested is a is sort of a deviation from one of the conditions right and that's why we have a D3 conditional use variance here the condition in the ordinance is the density which is the D5 variant so the court has held that the the test that found in centry square which was addressed by Mr Janu and we can go over again um W is appropriate not only for the D3 conditional use variant but also for the D5 variant and what the court said was that the higher standard appr proof in fact the court in medich which is the controlling case on the D1 variant specifically found that D1 Varian is require what we call an enhanced standard approve meaning that the applicant not only has to demonstrate that the property is particularly suitable for the the proposed use that is not permitted in the zone it also has to to to cite special reasons why the use should be permitted and and reconcile why the Zone ordinance as written does not contain that use right so those are pretty high standards of positive criteria the negative criteria Remains the Same in a D1 variance as for a c variance the substantial impact uh to the public good uh substantial imp to the public good substantial impact um to to the um I probably botch those but uh uh to to the Zone plan and Zone ordinance right um but the enhanced quality proof that's required under D1 variants is not required for any other D variant all right so it is a relaxed test under the case law grubs which is the case that you just cited to essentially told attorneys and zoning boards that the D3 uh test cited in Coventry square is appropriate for the evaluation of a D5 variant there something to consider aside from what because I think in that case that's I mean the court permitted the three homes where two were permitted well the interesting thing specifically is the negative criteria in in in a in a coventry Square case is that you're you're sort of focused more on the surrounding properties than you might otherwise be with any other type of variance right um I think it's important and and it's the reason that I pointed it out because really the D5 variants like the D3 variants is taking a look at a particular piece of property where the use itself is permitted but some other portion of the ordinance um is making that use uh as permitted and as proposed uh not feasible so the question becomes is is the use as that's that as permitted in the zone and as proposed on the property does that remain appropriate for the proper property on which the use is proposed right uh here I think that there's no question that the answer to that question would be yes right um and then we have to weigh um you know whether the deviation from the from the um the density requirement in the zone is going to you know affect uh have a substantial effect um on the neighboring Properties or the Zone ordinance can those uh detrimental effects that we identify can they be um mitigated by some sort of conditions um upon upon the grant of the variant um and then we we evaluate uh and I probably missed something but we evaluate the negative criteria from the purpose from the perspective of does this particular use on this particular property um cause a substantial detriment to the neighboring Properties or is it more consistent with what's in the neighboring Zone then then maybe uh you know use variants might require us to consider right so those are kind of the considerations we want to look at in a D5 variant any objection to that analysis I am complete I know that's our case um no I just think that um Mr Janu and Mr halber put on a great presentation I think that this is a very unique uh situation kind of when you look at the map there our piece of property is almost like a missing piece of the puzzle you take it out now and put it in the R1 Zone criteria not resoning it but following the criteria the R1 so that it is consistent with the holding Court um thing so it looks like a real Community when you end up finishing it off with the four lots that we're now proposing okay I'm GNA I'm going to open this to the public anyone wishing to come forward to make any comment about the testimony they've heard tonight seeing no one come forward I'm going to close the public session I'm GNA um open this to the board for discussion and a possible motion questions Dr okay well just just to start everybody off um what I would really like to see would be it reduce to three homes so they couldn't conform better to the standards of the r R1 Zone uh basically the whole application is being decided on the existence of future existence of water and sewer and if it's there it's hard to say no to the application itself but I would really prefer one fuer home on on the lot if possible just uh quick question um as of now with the four Lots don't they are there any I understand it's not rezoned to R1 but are there any like technically any not variances but deviations from the R1 standard I I I seem to think that they were T typically what happens with uh the answer to that is we don't know because we don't have a plan in front of us that shows us the modifications so and I I think the board has to focus in on some of that there the plans that you have in front of us in front of you are changing significantly right and they're asking for preliminary and final approval so uh in addition to all the Varian so we don't know what those plan to make a final approval on again and that to my to to just you know again Don I gotta say it the board has the authority to Grant preliminary only and requ request the final site plan subdivision I'm sorry subdivision oh my God yeah that's okay it's late I know I had a very early morning too sorry well it's been a day quick question to Mr Halpert um is it your opinion that it can meet the R1 standards with four lots and a water retention Basin yes it's my opinion that we could meet by removing the fifth lot and providing the storm water management lot we would remove lot 2.02 and we would be able to have four Lots respect respectfully the Basin lot's going to be non-conforming so our real concern is I don't know how you write a resolution that grants relief from the R3 standards without knowing what they are right I while while I'm sure the applicant wants to get something tonight they can do one of two things they can adjourn come back with revised plans that have it and then you can act on use preliminary and final if they want more than that this evening I I really need to leave it up to the attorneys is to I don't know how you write a resolution for for bulk variances that you don't know what they are because we're moving lot lines but in the end the Basin lot's going to be non-conforming and I also don't we're going to accept that we just don't know what the numbers are because we don't see the layout yet I also don't think it's appropriate to Simply say that the again for the pro we're not here to reone I don't think it's appropriate for the resolution to say that as long as you comply with the R1 standards in the R3 Zone you're good to go I I don't I don't think that works um I agree um I think that it would be appropriate here to either accept preliminary um come back for final um you know obviously we can Pine on the on the D5 variants tonight there's no problem with that um but I I am uncomfortable having a blanket for the bulk variances okay understood those are reasonable and I think that what we definitely would like to walk out of here with this evening would be the density variance because that's the most critical and then preliminary subdivision and we'd come back with the plan laid out properly to and request each of the bulk variances with each lot I I appreciate your your consideration and and also your um Amendment uh somewhat uh your willingness to compromise I appreciate that thank you um and I think that's appropriate I I think that we I think that the board has heard enough tonight to decide the D5 variants uh certainly um again Mr Halper and Mr Janu put put a lot of information on the record certainly with respect to Mr Jan's testimony with respect to the D5 variances a lot of great questions about it um I think you have enough um you're familiar enough with the standard to make a determination on that particular item I also think you have enough to Grant preliminary um subdivision approval based upon what you've seen tonight but as we've all pointed out there's really not much for us to go on in terms of the C variances that are going to be required um so what the applicant has indicated in the statement that was just made was that they are willing to um accept preliminary and well first a determination is the D5 variants uh as well as preliminary uh site plan approval and I'm I'm having subdivision approval and they'll come back with a final subdivision plan which will outline all of the details which is again this is something in from my perspective that is uh routinely done um uh by Boards um i' I myself as an applicant Council has have requested that this be done when I feel something might be going sideways uh to walk out with preliminary rather than nothing at all um you know so so again it's there's nothing that would prohibit us from doing that in fact it's a uh it's a pretty good compromise here on uh on both behalf of uh the applicant and the board uh so that we can see what the cliental is going to look like so for the chair and for the board U if you were going to discuss a preliminary approval tonight understand that it doesn't uh it doesn't give them any right to build anything right it just does not it gives them a comfort level that they can move forward with securing Outside Agency approval spending more money for re-engineering and so on U so a preliminary approval uh has a a dur a duration attached to it for uh length of approval time or they can come back and ask for extensions um but it does not give them the right to build anything and I I would suggest that if you were going to um consider a motion for preliminary that it be conditioned upon or that it be it be based on a subdivision to create five Lots four of which for residential dwelling purposes one purely for storm water management that it be that there's a the that that there's a homeowners association that's going to be created and responsible for common area and storm water management and there was one other one there was one other comment uh I remember the storm water management certainly I don't remember getting the amendment of for the sewer service area critical one the B the biggest one right thank you I thought I thought that also that obviously the condition as to the subdivision Perfection on the planning board's approval correct wasn't there a sidewalk issue also the sidewalk no the sidewalks are are being Oh Donna yes um obviously the issue here is that the sidewalk is actually the responsibility of another developer is that correct you that is correct will you agree to comply with the sidewalk ordinances should that developer not comply with them yeah they're they're going to comply but yes we would can I I'm sorry can I clarify that the sidewalk along the sidewalk as it was previously approved by the planning board that developer is is correct responsible for based on the exhibit that was provided that did not include sidewalk along this Frontage however the subdivision that this parcel was part of proposed sidewalk so I agree that if in the event that that sidewalk isn't constructed it should be made part of again that's a final subdivision approval comment I think you stick more high level with the three that we identified for now and we'll build on that based on how what we see the plans I'm amenable to that depends on what the board wants to do right we've heard all the oh we've heard all the comments um anybody have additional um yes I was speaking to Dr Hof's comments um I agree with the sentiment that you know like let's make it work a little bit better with what we're trying to make it if we're not rezoning but like I mean initially when I saw the application I'm like of course they want five Lots when one is permissible like who wouldn't but you know that doesn't like how do they meet the criteria and then when I saw the this area I'm like well they basically made a strong visual argument to show how it's basically the other half of an R1 culdesac but again like you know how does that meet positive criteria like I just I I didn't really know and you know I was very curious to hear what the case would be of course Mr Jon made uh a very interesting case and opened my eyes to a lot that I just didn't think about hadn't really you know the perspective um and uh I I guess one thing I still kind of want to just make sure we we and I know it was it was spoken to but I guess if if I could just open it up one more time the satisfying the positive criteria what um Mr Murphy like what what what are it's it's I understand it's using Coventry square right so the first the first question we want to ask is whether or not the use that is permitted zone is still appropriate for the and Parcels right I mean undoubtedly it's a residential zone right well I mean it still goes to the you know the the with the density variances the use is proposed still appropriate for the parcels right so is the residential use appropriate on the approximate one acre lot okay right um and then we have to look and see if there's any um detriments that can be there no really positive criteria it's basically no that's not true are is the use still appropriate and then are there detriments well and can those detriments be that's negative criteria typically no no it's not not not in the case of centry square do you want to J you want to give us your opinion on on Coventry Square so again Coventry shifts the focus on the negative criteria meaning can the site accommodate the deviation in this case the deviation is going from 3 acres to One Acres and we indicated that we can accommodate because once again we don't need to accommodate a septic system with the nitrogen dilution model we have water and sewer yet we could accommodate all the anticipated setbacks and lot area that would be anticipated in the adjacency of the property and in terms of uh positive criteria and public points there were remember I read the part of from the municipal land use law so that's the public benefits of this application and there were three points that I read into the application that are interpreted as the public benefits and and how this application meets the purposes of zoning and advances the purposes of zoning and those are appropriate location for the density appropriate location for the use and efficient use of land so that's the other um part of the posi of criteria is the special reasons uh and the special reasons are the satisfaction of some sort of purpose of zoning as cited by Mr Chan but the question becomes can the deviation as proposed right and any detriments that are identified there be managed or mitigated through any conditions right so that's something that we want to address and we have right but the focus is on negative and surrounding area absolutely it shifts so it shifts the it shifts the focus onto the negative criteria is different than what we typically evaluate correct okay thank you any additional questions questions or comments I just have one and that is I appreciate the applicant taking a look at the lots and going down to four and considering the storm water is there any opportunity for some type of a recreational pocket park or something you you're talking 10-bedroom houses just a lot of kids I mean I guess the best we could offer is when we come back for final if we can find room because remember we're going to move the lot lines around um so we'll try to see if there's something that we can accommodate perhaps on that one lot because it's got the long stem coming out that would be appreciated I'm not an engineer yeah Mr Stafford Smith I think I mean I if you look at at least the way I could see this in my head if I if I were in Eric shoes would be that storm water lot has some potential to have some additional space for a little community area whether it be a pavilion or a swing set or something that was that way that way that that lot's owned by the home owner Association in its entirety it's owned and maintained by them be maintained exactly so uh that's the way I would approach it but I'm going to leave it to the applicant thank you well thank you for considering that I think that's a great um question Mr Stafford Smith because you're talking about six homes on the other side correct and the four on your side that's 10 homes and if you're talking let's just say five kids each house you're talking about 50 kids in a very small area so I think 60 cars yeah that's a great ask so it's actually interion AC the street doesn't but I mean is it their this applicant's job to take care of the six homes across the street that were they're willing to under a separate application as Miss Jenny Smiles she's saying yes they will thank you I just me like is it reason to put Theus for all know potential kids that might be in the potential houses across the street on their good we have faith in them they to such a good job we have some faith in them how that um so um we've heard a lot of a discussion it's up to us for um if you have any additional questions or anything or it's up to us for a motion I do have a quick question s so with the homes going from 5 to 4 are the lots staying the same where it's 21.03 still the same size because there's right now with five properties there's 20 variances and now with becoming four is there a way that these variances can be reduced because now we're the lots are changing yeah exactly so that's what one of the reasons getting r one of the lots that was suggested so that we would be able to meet some more of the bulk standards so those lots are going to change that's where we're going to come back and get a final approval so you'll see what the final layout is because right now you don't see it got it so any additional questions or comments okay any discussion for a motion well if nobody else will I will go I will go forward and make a motion I'm going to try and spell out the different criteria if I miss one please feel free to remind me I did write stuff down um first of all I would like to say I think you did a great job when I first saw it I was like oh again like sheir said I was like of course they want five flock well so but seriously I mean again I'm no engineer I'm no planner but you we played around with the numbers a little bit I'm like if we could get them to go to fource so when you were accommodating with that I was like okay that works um I love the idea you know even if it's just a little swing set like you would find at a small school something to accommodate the you know the children we are talking about large homes we're talking about 10 homes now with potentially 10 bedrooms so we're talking about a large number of kids so I like that idea um so I would like to make a motion for help me out here Ryan minary subdivision preliminary um uh D5 approval okay right so you're you're going to make a motion to uh first and foremost approve the density variance that's been requested by the applicant as they've satisfied the criteria required under centry square y That's what I'm doing all right what what do you say in so far as they provided particular uh particular um reasons uh related to um a particular piece of property um and also have satisfied the special reasons requirement under the positive criteria they've also satisfied the negative criteria right um by showing uh that there's no real substantial detriment to the public good and that um the conditions that we've imposed uh and have been accepted including the reduction of one lot the introduction of a storm water management lot um and also uh any other condition that I'm own Association the homers Association right and and the resolution Perfection for the previously and the Perfection of the of the previously approved and amended service the amended water SE service yes all of those conditions right that were placed upon this uh this particular density variance which are important right can minimize any detrimental impact to the Zone plan or Zone ordinance right as well as public goods and the surrounding neighbors it actually is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood so again for all these reasons the D5 variants can be granted all right uh the second thing that we're doing is we're granting preliminary subdivision approval based upon the plans that we've seen tonight the applicant will return uh to this board and the board will change jurisdiction over uh the uh final subdivision application I didn't make the motion I'm not allowed to I'm making that moot I make that motion to uh approve the density variance and the preliminary subdivision approval based on everything that Mr Murphy so eloquently put on the record um and uh again I just wanted to say thank you I mean I it took something that at first when I looked at this I was like oh Lord and I think you made it um understandable for all of us and um I think you did a great great job so thank you all right we have a motion in the second roll call please Dr hofstein yes Mr Hudak Miss parz yes Miss Rosal Mr Martin yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss Bradley yes great thank you so much have a good night we will see you for your uh whenever you come back I need to give them to you I'm like it I oh my God talking I'm like I sound like a I don't know that's so cool by the way it's so not