basically yeah yeah I call to order excellent the February 27th 2024 Township of long hill planning board meeting uh the time is 7:35 U Madam Secretary could you please read the announcements absolutely uh number one call to order and statement of compliance adequate notice of this meeting hearing has been provided by posting a copy of the public meeting and hearing dates on the on the municipal bulletin board and website by sending a copy to the echo Sentinel newspaper and by filing a copy with the municipal clerk number two standard board procedures any meeting or hearing conducted by by the board is a quasi judicial proceeding any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board May legally consider and reaching a decision and to Quorum appropriate to a Judicial meeting or hearing must be maintained at all times number three meeting cut off announcement is made as a matter of procedure it is the intention of the planning board not to continue any matter past 10:30 pm at any regular or special meeting or hearing of the board unless a motion is passed by the members then present to the extend the meeting or hearing to a later specified cof time number four electronic devices all in attendance are asked to mute cell phones or electronic any electronic devices as to not interrupt with the proceedings number five pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the repblic for it stands one nation godis liy and justice for all now do the roll call Deputy Mayor lavender present committee man ray is excuse this evening Miss D Mr Hans here Mr melanowski here Mr opala here Mr Sandow here Vice chairman Jones present chairman sand I mean sorry chairman Richardson yes here cian slip sorry uh Mr chairman Richardson is here and we have a quorum excellent thank you uh I wanted to take care of a some board business before we got into some of the other um business before us this evening uh but I understand that we do not have the January um 23rd meeting minutes correct so we will shove that till next time for review and approval so the first item before us is this evening is uh the resolution from Michael portera application number 23-11 P and I just wanted to open up for any discussion with regards to your review of that resolution hopefully you've all had a chance to review that resolution I I I certainly have one comment unless anybody else wants to go first please that the floor all oh just on the um page three paragraph 11 I my yeah yeah so under findings yes we talked about a limitation days on week days of the week I do not see I don't think I see that in the conditions um make sure to speak in your microphones wait so says patience over three nights and we very spent a lot of time on discussing days of week and when right three nights uh per week set if I recall correctly the applicant wanted um was it Monday Tuesday Wednesday whatever nights say were yeah I can't recall exactly what the nights were I think that's condition I don't see a condition for it I didn't notice it you tell me um if that's something the board feels strongly about we could certainly uh re include that number 11 mentions how many many youf I was just I was more concerned about the number of days and nights as a and we did talk about Thursday Friday maybe Saturday or something like that 11 not well 11 is just defining it's not that's my point it's in the find we spent a lot time I just don't see as a condition approval required I don't think es I could certainly go back in in the tape I may have when I I reviewed the tape for it um I I do recall that there was conversation about which specific days so if it's the board's desire it could go back and include that as a condition as to which days um the applicant indicated that he wanted to have this practice open on I I I yeah days will be good but it's more I just want to make sure it's limited to the number of nights we said that's a condition so is it do you want to limit it to three nights per week or you want to limit to those specific days or both I I don't mind whatever I remember it saying the latter part of the week so that for me would make more whatever the discussion was whatever you whatever he testified to have the the condition reflect that I can certainly do that um I think it limited um I think it limited three clients coming per evening based on a 45 minute one hour session with a 15 minute overlap to that to that point condition number five and I I do recall that he did kind of refreshing my recollection because it was about a month ago but he did say that he indicated that he wanted a cap of five he upped it we upped it in the end okay we did it was the discussion was free for a long time and then it went to right in the event I think he said that some of his his appointments would go about half an hour instead of an hour right like that um okay so I think my marching orders are to yeah we can make that adjustment right so a condition I just want to have make sure it's clear condition limiting applicant days operation testify to yeah basically yeah whatever okay finding 11 relates good okay so that being said we could handle it from this point one of two ways we could defer this to next month and then vote on it then once we see the final language or you guys could approve it or see let's see if there's any other comments or changes I'll back signic and there might there may be a reason I didn't include it and I just can't recall it right now so okay so no problem we'll come back to next month any other input comments from the review of this document I I didn't see one more comment on signs we didn't we had discussion on signs I don't see and I know the public spoke about signs that was a concern actually I picked up on a conflict because it seemed to indicate there was going to be a sign but then there was a stipulation by the applicant that there wasn't going to be a sign so I think I wouldn't call a I think it was more of a a representation than a stipulation I think my understanding if I recall correctly was that he had no IM immediate plans to install a sign but would like to have reserved the ability to do so at some point in the future if we could Chris can we just look at the language it's in number four four I think uh about middle of that paragraph and item four insance next it talks about no interior or exterior improvements the applicant would be placed May install May install an exterior identification sign right I think that was that was to be reflective of the fact that he wanted the door open to doing it at some point in the future but I could just eliminate that that clause and just kind of leave the silent as to it well I just wonder if we should because I I know the public spoke I was more spoke a lot about signs right and I don't see any testimony on the public about concerns around the sign so i' certainly like to see a little bit more language about that discussion because there's an important one the to the low can I um can I comment on that go ahead Please Mr petero seemed to be um amable to the idea that if he was going to have a sign that' be a very small sign as opposed to this 4 foot sign correct and I don't think it'd be unreasonable to put a restriction well um on that to that point I believe the ordinance limits you to what size of a sign you can have Liz do you remember maximum size top of your head four by four it's quite big it's quite big foot by is it really for home occupation so that's pretty posible well but that's that's for but he was you're right he was Keen to the idea of having a smaller sign and I'm thinking 6 Ines by 24 is kind of yeah 24 is probably whatever a doctor's sign usually is standard size y 21 by six or something like that so could we talk that shouldn't be a problem to stipulate that because the 4x4 is not consistent with a residential correct right set I if if he had stipulated to it specifically I I would have called it out in here and included it as a condition it may be that there wastim yeah there may have been some discussion about it but it wasn't like a a concrete clearcut I stipulate to this type situation just PL devil out but that's that being said the board can impose whatever conditions well I I I like I like this conversation bit more clarity than what was discussed before if it's okay to go with as you said some sort of more reasonable limitation foot and a half and that's that's if he chooses to if put up a sign he may not even wish to do that so presuming that there's no clear-cut dimensions in in the testimony what would the board feel would be a reasonable restriction on the side size of a sun I'm looking that up 6 by 24 18 by six 10 or something maximum whatever I'm just making it up a little bit might be a little too b a little 10 nothing 10 10 by 24 10 by 24 10 by 24 no 10 go ahead no too big I actually made one of these for my father oh you did okay eight by 24 right done so done so 2 okay okay and I think all those would be uh great as far as the law is concerned reasonable conditions to impose so thank you for that have adved draft for you guys any any other feedback on this resolution I think two of us are not eligible to vote on it I I personally would like to see yeah yeah yeah absolutely well as long as that's the board's desire unless there's a yeah no there's a consing otherwise but we'll defer to the next meeting to once all the languages included I think that's would you mind I just want to be clear and maybe give the applicant an opportunity to to review as well perhaps okay yeah we can try to arrange something in that regard that be an agreeable thing typically we don't circulate these applicants ahead of time list of represented by Council but I don't see any reason why however you want to have it it's just a suggestion okay I can uh I'll see what I can do so what I'd like to propose is that you'll make these adjustments and we'll look at them slate it for the next meeting absolutely Mr chairman great thank you perfect thank you all right moving right along um into applications uh the first is an extension request for blocks 12301 and 10100 Lots 1 and 7.01 Zone Li I m-0 at 50 Division Avenue uh are there any comments to that particular extension request I've got a yes about four questions and probably very basic questions um so my first one is um why are these extensions being requested uh this purpose this particular applicant was uh as a condition of their approval they needed to get a letter of interpretation ly from the uh from the DP and they've been in the process of trying to obtain that and they stole a Viet to hear back and the ml permits extensions when an applicant you know makes a diligent effort to get Outside Agency approvals and they can't get anywhere the LA kind of assume that assumes but it makes room for the fact that government agencies kind of take their sweet all time sometimes so so they're dependent on on a government agency to complete a process but they're up against a an end date where they need to extend past that correct so that's the that's the rationale for asking for the extension correct sir okay um are there any changes to the to the resolution no changes to the resolution that I'm to the original resolution with this extension no um if you actually I think on the final paragraph it should say yeah the last Clause with such with such extension to be subject to all the same conditions that are set forth in the res resolution of approval to the same to the extent same is not inconsistent with with this so yes everything I'm asking that for due diligence yeah no absolutely the um these next two kind of bucket together what happens if this resolution doesn't pass what are the implications should this this resolution not pass uh this doesn't pass well their uh their approvals would lapse and they wouldn't be able to obtain permits so then they would they wouldn't be able to move they be essentially be back at square one okay and then they would have to come back and the whole okay what I wanted to understand what's the ramification I mean unless well that's that's if they don't sue you and take you to court and then we can get them okay so that opens up litigation potentially no and if if I correct me if I'm wrong but part of the reason too is that they're asking for the extensions is because the moratorium on the sewer correct they're dependent on on New Jersey American water is that stated in the resolution though no that's I believe the other one that president no no no that's the one we're that's the one we're referring to oh I'm sorry order my apology oh my God I'm soorry questions thank yeah good thing um but everything I said still applied except for what that my very my my apologies I fine I don't know pris I'm not sure no prism need is the sewer which is a similar similar situation they an outside agency to kind of get off their butt and move so that they can continue with their project um G2 was the one with they need the LOI okay essentially it's the same sort of circumstance legally speaking different different entity right but okay right exactly by my recollection this is the second time they've had an extension correct that's correct coming yeah they techically need yes prism this is what be their second extension and they do they make notes of that I I did make note of that fine so this could continue I'm sorry this can continue you get three three extensions right so there is a limit I'm asking yes you get three you can apply for up to three extensions um okay these are but it's one year correct one year per three three right right so if they want the third one they'll come back you know February of 2025 and so what happens February of 25 SE still isn't in place do they start over or no they can ex they can request one more extension let's say February of 26th not done man right so what what happens at that point I think it needs to kind of be explained here that right uh well like we were saying before that presumably their approvals would expire and they wouldn't be able to continue with the project that have to basically start from square one that being said there might be some legal research and some case law that I'm not aware of at least right now I'd have to maybe dig into it because frankly I've never come across a situation where that's happened I'm sure it has happened there must at some point in the future but so I I could get you a little more research on that so so instead of doing this every year is it possible to make the resolution that until this they have the right until the sewer is available rather than doing onee extensions per I don't believe so I think by operation of how the the statute is worded you can only apply for three one-year extensions and that's how it that's how it's spelled out right um then that that being said I I guess theoretically they could request multiple extensions at once I I don't know it's because the question because the reason because if you let it lapse right you open yourself up to litigation correct is what right so potenti and is there a way for the board to protect itself from potential litigation by putting something inside this resolution some wording inside that makes it so that as long as that is the last step that they need to do it's still valid we already protected yeah I think I think we're we're already we should already be protected yes so if the third one expires right right Y and it's a fault of some not a fault but it's on behalf of somebody else American Water perhaps for the sewer corre the town I would think is I I think we're getting into some academic discussions here yeah but it's interesting definitely it's a good question it's definit if you want I could I could absolutely look into it a little bit deeper if you'd like do we know that the applicant has in fact completed all the changes required in the drawings by the resolution so that those drawings have in fact been signed off or not signed off by the board no or is that still pending they have not begun their resolution compliance documents yet so we're we're still sitting on the original drawings waiting for them to be corrected and here we are on the second extension thank you okay okay any other comments on this particular extension request is there a motion to approve so moved a second and to be clear this is for prison Millington this is for 50 Division Avenue right Vice chairman Jones yes Mr H yes Deputy Mayor lavender yes Miss D sorry can I vote you can on extension as you can Mr melanowski yes Mr alala yes Mr sand yes chairman Richardson and same question Teresa has since I recused myself from the application right so I have to abstain or okay well I think you've recused in the past so we y so needless to say the motion yeah Don before we move to the next one I'm sorry to go back to it olution can we just add to the to-do list I think for the ptera resolution yeah I think we all agre that be loed yes if I recall correctly uh condition [Music] number number six page eight the board shall retain jurisdiction and further site and approval shall be required if another home office use on the property got thank you right I got you no problem good okay thanks all right the next extension request is for Block 13509 lot 17 and 38 in zone R4 at 17 and 23 Gates Avenue this is under application number 21-26 P any discussion yes Mr Sando do we have the letter from the applicant's attorney requesting this extension yes I think do I have a copy of it with me I I haven't seen it I believe you submitted the letter I do yeah yes please speak attorney okay produce letter are you are you looking for it counselor or or do you know if you have it or don't have it I'm looking through my file right now my question my question is fairly straightforward and that is does a letter from the attorney spell the applicant's name correctly or is this resolution that we are about to uh consider introduce a spelling eror that the attorney did not introduce I no idea and did I spell mr's name is somebody spelled it wrong and and neither neither you nor our attorney nor our secretary chose to correct it before we put it on the agenda I hear by amend to the correct his his name is spelled v r l a z Za EA EA so it's spelled correctly on the agenda it's eight okay where is it spelled incorrectly on the resolution on the resolution on the resolution okay that is a my mistake my apology I think I may have used the original resolution hopefully that one doesn't have the correct spelling too but that that probably would have I hope that was his name doesn't get come up in spell checker catch it any other comments on this particular resolution one one comment that I uh quickly had is since demolition has taken place on that site I know there Joe was a lot of discussion with regards to a burm that was going to be put in place to deal with storm water runoff so because we're kind of in this interim period is there anything that can be done I just I I'm concerned as I walk by that property that that drainage has been affected and site plan improvements have not been made as part of this application so is there anything that can be done in the interim I'm just I'm more asking that as a question any jurisdiction V that wither because use the microphone please the resolution compliance has been submitted a couple weeks ago uh that's on my desk to review and with this extension as our attorney mentioned uh it's related to the LOI but it's still they're still awaiting um the demo permit was pulled separate than the improvements were the approval so I think it would just be merely a request of the applicant to address some stabilization in any of the areas around the demolition okay you would think as part of the demolition process that those concerns would be taken into account yeah and again I'm not suggesting there's a problem I'm just saying we're in this there has been disturbance and is not a permit to construct correct yes and I do know and recall very clearly that application had um stipulated a some drainage improvements yes Mr sand there do we know if the deeds and plats have been filed uh for the subdivision itself that work put this one down there anyway comfortable yourself comfortable you have to go you don't have to go too far anyway just got lots of mics now the subdivision deed uh has been signed by the board and by the app can has been recorded with the county okay I asked that because I understand the two lots are for sale individually and therefore if one of them sold but not both you'd need the subdivision deeds in place before the uh sale could be made and that you say that has been done you are correct and it has been done now does the filing of the Deeds this a question for our attorney do the filing of the deeds and the demolition count as starting work so that this extension is not required are you no I'm sorry to say that again your response was no to I was going to potentially I don't know the extent of demolition but it could theoretically demolition Fred I'm working off a memory but if I recall correctly the actual condition that we're worried about is is pulling permits okay okay yeah okay so we're not in a position to do that that this application right okay any other any other comments on this I just would like to make sure that any demolition hasn't negatively impacted the property in a way that run of water now potentially goes where it shouldn't or could be avoided so well I mean certainly if uh if it turns out there's a practical issue with with drainage or something as a result of it Cly certainly bring that to our attention I think you might know where to find Mr valz is so that's something we have to come to you as you as opposed to whoever to I haven't looked at the property for a while I mean I I agree with your engineer that if there's if we haven't been required officially to have done it yet there's not an Enforcement issue but it certainly makes sense as a practical matter we want to be good neighbors like anyone else and my only concern is because it's extended for another year so that could be a year that it just sits there the owner in a situation like this has every motivation to get it done as quickly as possible so yeah I I I I I think we would have also heard from the residents that would have been impacted I've not heard from the resid I don't think but I might get aone call T we would have done all I'm asking for in in good conscious yes just a double check to make sure it looks if everything's okay fantastic I hate if they sit there and we get a storm and something negatively happens where we could prevent it ahead of time understood that's all I'm asking good so I in I set into the resolution ution good any other comments on this resolution if not I'd like to hear a motion to accept this extension request so moved with the corrected spelling right just to be clear b r l e ZZ a correct okay I'll make sure I a corrected draft gets to uh to Deb before thank you is there a second I'll second it thank you with the correct spelling of course Vice chairman Jones yes Mr sand yes Deputy Mayor lavender I believe I have to recuse myself oh yes oh that's right you do yes Miss yes Mr hands yes Mr melanowski yes Mr alala yes chairman rson yes very good thank you all great thank you be right back okay next is a uh application for a minor subdivision lot line adjustment for Block 12806 slots 21 and 6.02 in zone r-2 at the address of 57 Dogwood Terrace and 66 Carlton Road application number 23-10 P Mr chairman while uh applicant council is getting ready would just point out for the record I did have an opportunity to review the applicant's notice I found both the content and timeliness of service of such notice to be sufficient uh members of the board may recall that this was originally scheduled for the board's February 13 2024 meeting but the applicant had to R notice because we had to cancel that meeting due the snow um anyway for the current notice for this tonight's application or tonight's hearing I'm sorry uh the notice was sent by to owners of property within 200 ft of the subject properties on February 15 2024 and also published in the The Star Ledger on February 16th 2024 both more than 10 days in advance of tonight's hearing and thus my legal opinion the board is jurisdiction over this case so that's my Spiel thank you very much great thank you please the floor is yours good evening again Frederick zeli post poic on behalf of the applicants haime cologne and Carol and bonabi uh first I want to apologize on behalf of Mr cologne he had every intention of being here this evening uh found himself in Boston on business and not able to get back in time uh I will candidly tell you though if you was sitting next to me I was intending to place him under oath and not ask him a single question unless you had him because I had one for him um Mr Hollows is going to explain this extremely straightforward uh minor subdivision application we are not creating any new Lots uh we are taking one of the more bizarrely shaped backyard lines I've ever seen in my life and making it make some sense uh for both Property Owners uh the rear Property Owners of course the Doyles have consented to this application uh and effectively we are not changing uh the overall areas of the Lots only to a very minor degree uh and again it uh it it squares off uh the colog Babi property so that their backyard is more of a traditional area gives them some space between the rear line and their pool uh and has has no practical effect whatsoever on the neighborhood or or any uh any adjacent property owner uh the only thing I want to represent I have spoken with Mr CL about the issue raised by your professionals which is a uh storage shed that Is straddling the line now um obviously the neighbor it's it's a neighbor shed it's not ours uh they obviously should have complied with the setback uh if the board has an issue with that uh our position would be that it's an Enforcement issue not really something that would be dealt with here uh and again it's not my client shed so I we have limited ability to do it anything about it anyway other than make a fuss with our neighbors which isn't something you particularly like to do so if the board does have an issue we respectfully request that it be handled through your zoning officer so that we're not making or not making friends with our neighbors other than that uh I have one witness this evening Mr Hollow who will explain the application uh there is one form of relief that we need aside from the minor subdivision itself uh which is reliefed from a condition from a 1994 res res solution which subdivided and created these Lots in the first place um that was a restriction against further subdivision this technically violates that and therefore we need relief from that Clause I don't think there's any question though that the purpose of that restriction was to keep an additional lot from being created uh which this is not doing we are simply adjusting the line between the two lots in question uh so aside from that and of course the subdivision itself uh we need no re believe there's no variances or anything in this application right thank you you have questions for me I'll call Mr Hollow any questions for Mr Z at this point or can we move on with the uh just Mr holl is testifying to okay great all right I'll get him sworn and qualified when he's ready I've got our board professionals too if you guys could call please raise your right hands do all of you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the true hold truth out think about the truth so help you God I do great thank you very much and uh Mr Z before Mr holl get started quick question everything that he's gonna be presenting tonight do we need to enter any exhibits or it's all plans there will be one exhibit okay one exhibit and you'll call that out when it comes up okay I I hate to derail you Mr holl I do that quite often since you've asked that question I will ra one thing um Miss C was able to find decent copies of the 1994 resolution we did not we had a horrible copy we submitted it as best we could uh I don't know if you want that formally marked as an exhibit we can do that I think that would be appropriate why don't we make that A1 and then Mr holl's resol exhibit will be A2 resolution okay and I'm sure I'll get a copy of that at some point to look at Mr Z but do you know the date of that off hand on that orig it is date of adoption yeah December 6 199 Bill Bill take the mic with you please take the microphone with you what I will do I will pass out pass it down the line it to the chair great okay so just one question for the attorney so this I'm just glancing at it for the first time sure I see a reference to Carlton Road is that because that's a landlock piece there that big Square spot M Mr Z could you hi Mrs Doyle hi please help to find the door to come in so so that that's a land that's a property Mr holl will go through and I I have to have her sworn in yeah just no all good okay please of yeah okay just for the record you've been qualified as an expert professional engineering by this board in the past is that correct that's correct and your license is still in good standing this even it it is CH you qualify Mr yes any any uh no objection anybody objects please proceed thank you we you start by showing us all of the Lots in question and yeah yeah Dogwood 57 Dogwood terrrace is the property owned by Mr cologne and he's the applicant for this hold on time out guys hold on Mr s danis please thank you 57 Dogwood Terrace is a property owned by Mr cologne it's known as Lot 21 block 12806 it is this the big subject of this property I mean of this application and lot 6.02 has an access from Carlton Road it is a flag lot that was uh subdivided in uh 1994 30 years ago and it's still it's vacant at that that time it was approved to for the subdivision there was a typical house shown um etc for that application and what we're proposing to do something rather simple I mean just you can just see how this this uh the cologne property is just cut off kind of oddly and this would be A2 what I've done here is just side by side this is on the left side is existing conditions drawing on the right side is proposed lot line change basically but we've kind of we have colored it so that you can see what the odity is of this property that the property line is really close to the swimming pool and then you got really something that's unusable in this triangle down to the South Mr holl I hate to interject could we just get a date for the exhibit please it's the same date as your drawings okay great so that would be July 31st 2023 okay great thank you very much and we'll call that like you said A2 uh colorized existing versus proposed conditions exhibit yes good sounds good great thank you and what we're proposing is to kind of make this squared off we' got Dogwood Terrace on the top and then we we've used this point which is our uh guess South easterly property corner and kind of that as a pivot point to come up with the new property line which is just about parallel to Dogwood terce um and then it was almost equal properties we have uh the doyle property will end up with 47 square feet more than the cologne property when we're done with this um other than that there are no bulk variances required other than we've got that shed that's over the line by the neighbor and it you can see pretty obviously that this makes the rear yard a lot better than uh than the way it is right now I can I can give you what the the uh the new lot areas will be 5 56,58 ft for the colone lot and the doyle lot will be one 2.55 on that the vacant lot which is a wooded vacant lot and so the doy lot is going to increase by 47 Square ft and the colom Babi lot is going to decrease by that amount that's correct and can you just show the board again how uh lot 6.02 is accessed to car tomor there is a staff that comes in from Carlton Road comes into 6.01 and then there's an eement across 6.01 to get to 6.02 that was part of this that subdivision that was done 30 years ago and just to make it clear and so I don't have to put Miss Doyle under oath 6.01 is the Doyle's residence where they're actually living there is a house is that correct that's correct there's there's a house garage there and just so the board understands they both of the properties so 6.02 is in question here vacant land and they own the adjacent property 6.01 also just a housekeeping matter the photographs since I don't have a client to authenticate them photographs submitted were taken by myself shortly before the application was filed they accurately represent What was seen at the time they were taken actually have sorry just ask the applicants Co Jamie col Heim col and and carollyn Babi yes so what's their relationship to these properties then if Mrs d own it they own uh 57 and live at 57 good does that complete your I have nothing further for Mr Hollows this is about as straightforward as it can be we open it up to uh board professionals Miss Ley would you like to take the floor and uh sure Mr chair I I um I'll just go through my letter which is dated uh February 9th 2024 the first comment I had is regarding getting a copy of the resolution which was provided um and I just wanted to understand if there were any conditions aside from the ones that the applicant mentioned relating to that that might shed light on anything having to do with this application and it doesn't appear that there is anything in that in that uh resolution I and that resolution created 6. 02 from six I think right so it was one large lot and that makes sense you can see that it's quite regularly shaped and they had to make it six and 6.02 because 6.01 already existed on that weird looking Street 6.01 but the the next question I had um and perhaps nobody knows but is and I was hoping that maybe the resolution explains why it was so Jagged to begin with well this the 57 Dogwood terrrace or the the lson Dogwood terrrace that go out to Carlton Road are on a Skyline Ridge section 4 subdivision and there's actually three of these types this being the much worse than any of the others but uh you know where the the lot line kind of gets into it to the seems like the lots are a little more square right to the South and then you've got the road that went in okay and it kind of Curves around as it as it goes over to Carl okay and then the the third question I had is regarding the shed which straddles the um lot line between um the applicant's property and apparently their their neighbor who's not subject to this application and it's the neighbor shed so I guess that's really up to the board as to whether however you want to handle that um and I had said that they should seek a c bulk variance I don't know if it's appropriate here because they don't own it so um but that was the extent of my comments in my letter okay thank you Jo did you have any comments just one on your testimony you had noted that the rear lot line adjustment is is near parallel to do yeah it's not I realized it's not parallel because we we pinned basically pinned the lot line on this corner and then swung it to get just about equal so using utilizing that corner and then if you were to make it parallel there would be a greater land swap than what's proposed so it's a a balancing yeah I mean the only way you could make it parallel is if you did something something different like this and that and that would take more from the subject property and would be po a larger balancing than than this the small square footage um so I have no issue with it I just wanted to point it out for the board that's that's the reason for it and I think it's appropriate the way it was proposed um and then thing I just picked up that I is not in my my letter um there there's reference to lot six represented as 6.01 and some typos on on the plan set okay so just as a a point of Revision in um when you revise this to file for compliance yeah and if this if the board were to approve this this would be perfected by filing Deeds great good good thank you all right before I yes well I'm open it up to the board so please ask questions of the applicant or the professionals I'd like to address Miss lean's comments uh the question about um the question about the jaggedness of all of this is based on the fact that when uh Joe and cata bought the properties the searad and the Thompson properties in order to build the skyline development he was constrained by the fact that lot six which is the predecessor of lot six plus 6.02 lot 6 existed and it jutted into the proper properties that he was able to acquire and then he began to lay out the development and he had already built Skyline Drive parallel to uh Carlton decide that the additional streets had to not be orthogonal and so Dogwood tends to curve around and then having late out the streets he began to get individual lots of the require ired size of 45,000 Square ft and the result was that this particular lot had to wrap around that corner and they weren't very smart about adjusting the street or adjusting the lot lines and they just left it that way because it mapped clean and all the Lots were the right size and that happened in 1974 2 1972 thank you uh and apparently there was no attempt by sinata to buy out that little corner piece of lot six and uh there was no need to and obviously the subdivision was approved as it stands and it's now taken 30 years 50 years to do something something that's rational great uh with regard to um with regard to whether or not we learn anything from the old resolution about lot 6.01 the answer is no the resolution reads that board member donat who also happened to be the town tax collector at the time she observed in the resolution that that strange little piece of uh vacant Street was strangely already marked as 6.01 and she did not understand why as of 1994 now I have found that same notation on the 1959 tax map and so that strange little dog leg uh vacant Street Lot 6 01 is lost somewhere in history before 1959 and is probably irrelevant because it doesn't touch upon these Lots anyway no thank you for that that's very helpful from the historical perspective do do we have any questions coming back to the application I just the only reason I I brought it up sorry was because when you read the resolution it talks about six and 6.01 and it's confusing because the condition of the resolution is you have to change 6.01 to 6. to so just if anybody reads the resolution that's why it's a good tidbit eing okay thank you any questions board for the applicant or the board professionals Mr chairman I have a couple um Mr Z probably questions for you um is the applicant stipulating to are the applicants stipulating to all the conditions in uh M hen's memo and Mr vo's memo yes okay great and well with the exception of the removal of the shed right I got you um yeah I think voes were all just basically plan revisions for the most part submitting a cad and PDF um okay so understand that um additionally as it relates to the request for a modification of that condition I just want to be clear where what's being requested are you requesting to excise that condition completely or just to modify it to the extent necessary to permit the subdivision that's being proposed that's perfectly fine we're not looking for anything that would lead to approval of creating another building lot which for sure is the intention of that in the first place okay great okay just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page great thank you Mr Z that's all I have Mr chair just to preserve the record and I might have missed it did we open it to the public uh in a minute I just wanted to get I wanted to get the board questions first then we'll open up the public yes I have uh two questions for our engineer uh you state that the uh application should be sent to the Morris County planning board that has since been it provided understanding that the Morris County Board only requires uh property or developments which are on a County Road or within 200 feet of a Waterway uh to go to the Morris County Board they don't care about anything else they leave that to the towns am am I incorrect in that or do you know something that I don't know about what the Morris County planning board requires I I can answer that because the Morris County planning board has told me specific specifically that by their rules any subdivision application regardless of whether it touches on any County facility or County Road must be submitted we have submitted it and they've issued a letter of exemption uh which I did supply to the board so we're covered on that thank you thank you that was my understanding so that's why I put it in the letter one condition of approval we can remove the we need to find out why the county is making rules that are stricter than the statute permits okay any other question questions yes yes yes bear with me I want to ask about um 3.4 in your where you talk about going back to the original Subdivision plat 3.4 3.4 3.4 is just a clerical cleanliness of the recreation act and notation on the plan so it's just a a recommended statement I provide for all minor and major subdivisions this is going to be filed by deed but on the plot itself it just cleans up the record between the Professionals for the purpose of recordation well you're quoting here that the boundary map for the original 19 72 subdivision has to be updated no this is this is the citation in NJ that in all instances including where Deeds are used to require record minor subdivisions in this case that the leny who prepared the boundary map on which the subdivision is based May provide the certification on Subdivision plat so essentially the this the certification that's provided on the top of Page Three is that Mr Hollows is the signator on the survey that he submitted as well as then on the proposed subdivision so it ties the two together is that all clear to you Bill yes yes thank you thank you Mr chairman thank you I just have a we don't we don't often have jeel applicants like this from what I recall both I just want to make sure everybody's you're all good the applicants are all good with what people well they can come up during public comment we haven't opened it up to the public if they they did the adjacent Property Owners did consent to the application yeah make sure good right and here's my real flippant comment bear with me a second so if you just did a semicircle around the shed for about 12 feet and move to the other I'm kidding okay that is going on it yeah okay 40 years from now they'll say why didn't why say yeah oh I assum you're say subdivide off the shed if no other questions or comments I'd like to open it up to uh the public if anybody from the public would like to speak uh to and ask questions of the specific testimony that's been presented questions and comments Mr chairman question and comments question and comments question please come on up please speak in them please did you yeah got to pick up hi name and address please hi relle welt 81 Dogwood Terrace a few houses down from that lot um my question is do they plan to build on that lot now that it's subdivided more equally and if so um I'm interested in understanding that better and of course that would affect my property because we are at the lowest level on that street I am not able to address that uh Miss Doyle is here but I think that would kind of unfairly put her on the spot okay not at all okay then I'm gonna have to ask you to come forward though and be sworn in we don't bite let them swear you in first let them swear you subdivision is Tech out let swear you I'm sorry you got to no do you no keep it up keep it up do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth whole truth nothing about the truth so I'll you God thank you and name and address for the record please I'm sorry to do this and Doyle 64 Carlton Road thank you um the subdivision is technically not in place because when we bought the property from the uh previous owner he was in the process of getting that and he kind actually kind of misled us he told us that he had already gotten the subdivision but we have never really completed the subdivision because there was uh they told us that we would have to pave the driveway and extend it into that other lot and we've never done that and we have no intention of ever doing that as long as we're there Mr Hollow is shaking his head vigorously so what in 1994 Murphy and hollow's Associates did the subdivision oh add up to my knowledge reviewing that file everything was done that was on that resolution in 1994 there was no Paving of the road us we had to extend that road and it and but they gave us a well we couldn't obviously we couldn't do any construction but I mean as far as the plans for that subdivision they it was complete and um of the survey that identifies the lot as existing yes right and this is the the this is from the tax map correct these these these drawings so they wouldn't draw that other lot if it there wasn't a lot created correct in fact there are Deeds for that for both for the individual Lots legally it was perfected I don't think there's any question okay um nevertheless and maybe this is I don't want to get ahead of you Fred but as you mentioned before I asked you if you wanted to modify that condition to permit any development on L 6.01 or any further subdiv that rest that restriction does not prohibit development of 602 oh that's true that that subdivision contemplated development of 602 what that deed restriction prohibited is dividing sub 602 or 601 or which I get them we all get them confused at this point six or 602 uh into yet another building lot that's what that's precluding okay okay all right just wanted to be clear okay my apologies and I think it's fair to say we do not have an application before us to do any building on that other lot the vacant lot no right but just to be clear because I I don't want us to mislead you as a resident either um the Doyles as the owner of that lot unless they were to want to construct something that would require uh setback variances or something of that nature uh would be able to do it as of right with the building permit um if your question is whether they have intentions to Miss Dole can answer that if she wishes to she doesn't have to but no well as a matter of when we bought the original property microphone we we did not buy that second lot and then they to uh the owner wanted to sell it separately and he came in and he marked all the trees that they were going to cut down to extend the driveway to that lot and we said no so we got the money and bought the other lot just to prevent so so at this point in time anyway it's not your intention to develop that lot absolutely not yes please grab the mic please y hi I have another question it's related to easements our property has an easement and um we currently it the easement is is like a river that leads up to my property I'm part of it and then it goes underground in an underground concrete tunnel and up until recently um the township has been able to maintain that easement however I was recently told that they would no longer do that I just wanted to know if that was true that's got to go to T yeah I I was going to say I think you want to maybe raise that with the township committee Beyond that's the correct scope group okay but um you know good question I think you should bring that okay thank you attention appreciate I think they meet tomorrow tomorrow right here sleeping a are there any other questions from the public then I'll close public comment and questions so um Chris if you wouldn't mind could you just review kind of where we are and then I'll open it up to the board for any last comments absolutely Mr chairman but before I do I'd just like to give an opportunity applicants council do any summation fored or you think I don't think this needs a summation I think everybody understands just wanted to make sure thank you very much for your time and patience course absolutely um all right so members of the board before you is a minor subdivision application AKA a lot line well a lot line adjustment AKA a minor subdivision application applicants don't seek any variance relief on top of that but however they do seek a modification of a prior condition of a prior approval that created what is now lot 6.02 uh to the extent they want to modify that condition they want it to modify it solely to permit this subdivision not to excise that condition meaning that they don't want to have that condition which I should explain prohibited further subdivision of lot 6.02 they don't want to get rid of that they're okay with allowing that to continue and to the but except they just want to modify so that they can do the subdivision that's in front of you right now so hopefully I'm explaining this the right way but if not let me know and I'll do my my best to to better do so so that that's really what's before you today to vote on the conditions that the applicant stipulated to were contained in uh Mr vo's memo dated February 13 2024 uh by my understanding there were no other conditions in Miss Len's memo other than the removal of that shed which we've kind of addressed and which doesn't need to be done because the applicants have indicated that it belongs to the adjacent property owner um and the only other additional condition would be uh just revising all the typos on the submitted plans if they weren't already spelled out in Mr vo's conditions so that's it for the most part unless I'm leaving anything out are other professionals I think I'm missing anything no good okay the only thing just to be clear it's also lot six that wouldn't be further subdivided oh that's the condition okay six okay okay great thanks for clar clarifying this yes Mr it might be well to note in the resolution that this does not change any grade any drainage this is strictly a surveyor tape subdivision and nothing will be done on the ground to indicate that this has happened good point I will make sure whatever resolution comes out of this Mr Sando reflects that is that factual would they not put some kind of marker in that corner there'll be monumentation okay with the exception of monumentation there will be no further improvements either thank you well that I have to object to because we're the board is not approving as part of this right right we're not prohibited unless there's an ordinance prohibiting something no no okay I think Mr zo what Mr sand I was trying to what he's requesting is that it states in the resolution that this application before us doesn't involve any improvements it involves cely corre the map okay great um so that's it great it would be Motion in a second I'd understand any motion to approve I would just like to one last question or comment for the resolution make a move ready to move the resolution fantastic please make a motion I move that the board adopt the resolution is stated by our attorney is there a second I second excellent roll call please y'all me off guard Mr sand uh yes Mr Hans yes Deputy Mayor lavender yes D yes Mr melanowski yes yes chairman Jones yes chairman S Richardson yes we're interchangeable yeah it's gonna be in there for a while I see the likeness I feel honored to be confused with Mr Sando so I disagree that's that's plagiarism we got there every all very much have a wonderful evening thank you be careful out there it's raining okay got Mr chair can I interrupt this has nothing to do with this application I was trying to find this because uh a letter from Prism from a year ago because this question came up and I wanted to just be clear that there are Provisions in the mlu well if there are sort of um really outside factors that prevent a development from proceeding then the tolling of time is suspended and prism has maintained that that's the case so I guess the question of you know oh in two years if they had to come back they won't have to come back to get approval for their application and that was the question of is the resolution necessary if there's a tolling of time well that that's provided their argument would hold muster in court that the time would be told so I think out an out of an abundance of caution that's why they requested EXA well exactly but I guess my point is I don't right want to either get people's hopes up or or fears that this they're going to come back before the planning board for Hal an application they may not need they most likely will not right it was more of a question of if somebody's reading this and isn't here and they look at the application and they say you know it TOS for two years oh at the end of two years I guess they can't develop anything right so it's more of the clarity that by issuing this resolution do you make it so the the public is more confused by what's going on rather than just being silent and letting the tolling happen from what's already there that was my point I if I recall correctly I think there's some language to the effect that they they maintain the position that it holds so that's kind C hold on a second which one is this again prism or this is prism right hold on a second no I mentioned this I I agree with you because I think people will come back and think that there might be another round or they get another opportunity to say no or they get to do this and and and that kind of opens up um Pandora's box right that that was more of the point of it's already it's in place every single time you reopen it you kind of I almost reinvite public opinion for something that they don't really have an opinion on because it's told by the fact that they can't build right yeah you know and I will add to Liz's Point too that and to what Christ said earlier as well um not the public is not generally knowledgeable of the procedures after the fact after an application is uh approved so we talk a lot about comp but to the public they may not know what that is so basically once the boards have approved just reiterating this for the public list and this is why I I think to Tony's Point too get very confusing with prison especially when you have a moratorium and they're coming back to ask for extensions the public doesn't understand that you know behind the scenes they got the approvals great but they haven't done anything since because they're not in her right now right there's no sewer until such time that that is available then I can guarantee you that it's going to be like in our door ready to go finalized but the resolution compliance is the the back end of the approval once you have the resolution remember that our board professionals work with the applicant then to make sure that all of the conditions of the approval were met before construction even looks at that application for for a construction before goes still there's still a lot to be done the backside but they're just not I mean they're a big developer they don't have to hurry right now because well they know they're up against a back stop with New Jersey American Water until that until New Jersey American Water submits the plans and application starts to process builds out ribbon Cuts makes it happen and makes it productionize that prism's not going to happen I I was under the impression Chris cor I'm wrong that because of the situation where there's a moratorium on development on any project in any Town technically I was I thought that they didn't have to come back for the extension Because by the NL standards that totally stops because of the moratorium now I in my opinion in discussions it's arguable that it does as just yeah arguably just to do the right thing and so that the public of lill all knows thaton is following a row it's definitely for them yep agree but I guess my point is I don't it's not like in two years if they don't do anything and the sewer is not extended that they're coming back here with an application right unless they unless they get the sewer extended and they sit on their hands and they don't do anything in which case they you know then ping period will no longer app right but I think that it was maybe misrepresent before so I just wanted to clear that yeah okay uh I'd like to move on to item number 10 the committee assignments as uh we all know we were very consumed with h completing the master plan uh last year uh this year now the real work begins uh with regards to uh really executing beginning to implement some of the actions necessary especially through ordinance uh I'm pleased to uh announce that uh Mr Jones is going to take on and be our team committee Captain uh for ordinance uh and supported from from uh support from David Hans and Teresa uh D with regards to rounding out that particular committee so thank you uh on the standard operating procedures uh this is something that had been initiated several years ago I think even prior to covid um and um I've approached Mr stando who's graciously uh committed to uh steering us through to completion on that document that is fairly complete but still needs some Polish uh to complete that U uh particular area so that should uh come in in Fairly reasonably short order uh the other areas are kind of the working groups associated with pre-application review site plan review and uh I've asked both Tony and Tom M to take that on Tom taking on really the uh chair uh team captain of those two groups uh we need to Define better exactly some of the scope associated with those uh I also ask our Township committee Representatives if they could be on hand to participate at hoc on depending on the application uh uh and and sit in on some of those meetings because I think it's important for Township representation to provide feedback in those areas um um and that pretty much rounds out uh our committee assignments the other area that I know Mr Hans in the past and we've done with various chairs is is you know work hard to uh have uh connections with our other Township committees is very important um but it's reciprocal we need to ensure that our time is well spent ese especially communicating some of the recommendations out of our master plan to some of the various committees and commissions in town uh so uh I we haven't made any particular assignments I think I've approached various folks who um make sense with regards to connecting with these groups because they're already connected uh but we'll work behind the scenes to ensure that happens especially in the U first part of the Year here while the master plan is still fresh are there any questions with regards to some of the committee assignments again I appreciate all of your attentiveness as I work behind the scenes to assemble these teams I look forward to working with you on these just probably just one quick question is there any time frames that we should be aware of legally or anything else that would focus our attention in one area versus another do you think not in terms of bulk standards of the zones but I perhaps maybe with storm water I don't so the most well it's actually I believe it's covered um I'll double check our ordinance but I believe we because I've I've said this before uh prior applications last year we have a citation based storm water Control Ordinance the SEO and what that does is it immediately takes effect with the adoption so when the rules the Inland flood protection rules were promulgated in July of last year they immediately became a fact for any major development so that took the current year precipitation factors and added adjustment factors as well as the future year year 2100 um municipalities that have a standalone ordinance that's fully written out have to make changes to it by mid July of this year um so that was kind of a a a gap in regulation that was afforded to us to determine when we wanted to implement that by Ord if we were in that condition but we've already been proactive to say we want when it when it relates to flooding and storm water we want the newest greatest rules immediately so in a sense the d d rules automatically applied yes here okay yeah the FHA standard the elevation of the height um is not really an issue at our level because it only affects it only affects State regulated permits as well as certain UCC requirements so it's more construction code right and then the storm but the storm water side of that Inland flood protection rule was what there was a potential oneyear grace period I see for ordinances to be adopted so many other communities are going through that we don't have to go through it you haven't said that still is that something we should focus on initially do you think anything to well I think just just to interject what I'd like to do for time tonight is let the groups assemble and develop a set of priorities and a game plan and I'd like the teams to come back and present that game plan uh with input from the board professionals too behind the scenes and hopefully keep this moving so even really by the next meeting if possible present kind of the list of priorities yes Mr sand uh I'd like to remind the ordinance people that back in late 2000 the ordinance committee began to tackle the problem of the development permit right now our ordinance says that the boards have to approve the development permit unless there is no board action required in which case the town engineer approves a development permit now some of us felt at the time that the boards did not have the expertise to intelligently approve a development permit all they could do was Echo the recommendations of the engineers and why bother and so the intent of that effort was to change the ordinance dramatically in order to give the township engineer the final authority to approve the development permit whether whether it goes to a board or not and keep keep the boards working on the land use issues not the water issues let the town engineer worry about that uh there is no record that I'm aware of as to why the boards were given the authority in the first place to approve a development permit certainly is beyond the scope of their knowledge and I would suggest that if you're going to do anything at all to conform to timelines this would be a good time to shift the development permit in our ordinance to the sole responsibility of the township engineer okay I think we noted yeah noted so uh any of those type of examples uh I'll be looking to place into uh a Tracker and we'll start developing plans on how to address those and a host of others as well as the recommendations that came out of the master plan uh and working with the with the team um and the professionals to uh construct a approach on how to systematically go through them we may be able to bucket some things we may be able to do one-offs but we will look at that and put a priority against those I think just the other exclamation point to put around a priority is the zoning map is working through and updating and starting with the map and the regulations for the zones yep I think is critical okay with regards to priorities so we look forward to the assistance from our able professionals I please remind you on a lot of these non-applicant assignments especially please hello Denis good back I just want to remind folks to please coordinate the um requests for professional assistance through me just so we can establish some Law and Order and some fiscal responsibility for the town es especially for non-applicant non- esro related projects so I would appreciate that thank you yeah one other thing maybe we think about it as a horizon item but the next round of fair share housing is in 2025 so not that we need to action something today but it's definitely something on the horizon Abol that we're going to have to work towards definitely thank you thank you good very good um any old or new business um Deb sent around an announcement for new member uh training course or well it's refh refresher the bar the somerset Bar Association course is not just for new members okay yes but for a new member right that's an opportunity but you're right anybody can t for from a refresher and how many spots do you have available or oh it's un okay perfect you just have to let me know by March 15 so I can pay for everybody and just let them know what was the date again it's a Saturday wasn't it ail April 20th April 20th all right do we get brownie points or any p on the back for go on your [Laughter] birthdayy college on non compliant all right I think we're at the uh the hour do you have uh a motion Mr Vice chair yeah motion to adjourn second second thank you thanks favor hi thank you all well done