no she good evening ladies and gentlemen welcome to Monroe Township 2024 zoning board meeting meeting of January 30th 2024 please stand to salute the flags Al to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic stand One Nation God indivisible with liy and justice for all please be seated in accordance with the open public record acts meeting act it is hereby announced and shall be entered into the minutes of this meeting that adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by the following posted on the bulletin board of the office of the Township Clerk posted on the bulletin boards within the municipal complex printed in the home News Tribune and cranberry press on December 29th 2023 posted on the Monroe Township website and sent to those individuals who have requested personal notice Madam Secretary roll call please Mr LF here miss C Mr Lup Mr Masters Mr busman caror Mr tany here Mr jaffy here Mr Cole here Mr jice okay tonight's full voting members would be Mr jaffy and Mr Cole okay uh board members or public before we get started we have some house housework to do okay board members uh we need a nomination for a chairman for the 2024 zoning board season do is there a nomination there a second okay are we going do a roll call yes there's any others are there any other nominations for chairman seeing there's none we're going to make a motion to close the nomination do I have any motion second roll callose pleas Harry yes Mr Lup yes Masters yes Mr tany yes Mr jaffy yes Mr Cole yes L all right yes okay we have a uh we need a motion to nominate a vice chair do I have a motion yes Mr chair it's my pleasure to nominate Kelly Carrie uh because of her extensive experience I think she'll be a great asset to the board do I have a second I'll thank you Lou are there any other nominations for vice chair seeing there's none I'm going to make a nom a motion to close the nominations don't move second thank you Madame secretary roll call please miss Carrie Mr Lup yes Mr Masters yes Mr tany yes Daffy yes Mr Cole yes chairman LF yes you're welcome okay board members I do I have any motion to nominate an attorney for the board for the 2024 year I will go ahead Kelly I will second that second uh are there any other motions for any other attorneys for the board seeing there's none I'll make a motion to close the nominations motion to close do I have a second second mam secretary roll call please Carrie Mr Lupo yes Mr Masters yes Mr tany yes Mr jaffy yes Cole yes chairman L yes thank you everybody okay board members we need a motion to nominate the board engineer do I have a motion make a motion Mark M second is there any other motions for a board engineer seeing there's none I will make a motion to close the nomination do I have a second second second Madam Secretary roll call please Carrie Mr Lup yes Mr Masters yes py yes jaffy yes Mr Cole yes chairman L yes thank you all okay board members we need a motion to nominate a planner do I have a motion motion is there a second for ma second are there any other motions for a board planner seeing there n I'm going to make a motion to close the nominations can I have it second second Madam Secretary roll call please Carrie Mr Lupo yes Mr Masters yes Mr tany yes caffy yes Mr Cole yes chairman L yes hey board members I need a motion to nominate a secretary do I have a motion motion to nominate the secretary second that would be l r checking making sure okay okay are there any other motions for secretary being there's none I'm going to make a motion to close Den nominations for secretary do I have a second second Madam Secretary roll call please Miss Carrie yes Mr lopo yes Mr Masters yes Mr tany yes Mr jaffy yes Mr Cole yes chairman L yes thank you thank you everyone um we're almost done here uh everyone received online if you if you do have it in your package the rules and regulations for the 2024 year for the zoning board do I have a motion to accept the rules Chang second second all in favor say I I I thank you any oppos to the to the rules posted no good um do we have to a motion for the dates okay board members uh we need a motion to accept all the dates for the calendar year of 2024 is there a motion motion I'll second that well any other any other anyone would like to any other dates no excellent I'll close a motion for dates Madam Secretary roll call please on the dates or we just want to do an I all in favor for the date scheduled for the 2024 year I I there you go any opposed I hope not stereo sound going over here okay uh board members we need to uh accept the minutes from November we had no December meeting the minutes from December uh November 28 20123 do I have a motion to accept motion to accept the uh minutes of the November do I have a second I'll second favor all in favor he all in favor to accept the minutes of November 2023 I I very good any oppos on the minutes L will obstain members thank you I think that just about cleans up the housew okay first application ba-52 09-21 Lucille dequal and Michael De Pasqual please come forward good evening Mr chairman my name is Michael Herbert I'm with the law firm of Parker McKay and I represent the applicant tonight Lucille de Pasqual this is a um matter uh oh I'm sorry all the board members Mr Jaffrey Mr tany make sure your mics are on we want to see the red light around Marino you also please underneath there's a switch on the side um am am I on we'll get to you in a second Jerry your flip your mic over no flip it over so the light stays on all the time no on this side push it towards the mute one no on this side oh maybe it's on the side the old ones are on the bottom there we go yeah I'm missing I'm missing red lights between meik and uh Mr Jerry I'm missing lights I don't see the red light put this on you're oh you're gonna press the talk and is Jerry no I'm sorry is does he know to press the talk as well we're all good good sorry mic on did you hit coun can you just talk to make sure we're we're good can you say testing testing one two three testing off switch that I could see Captain the Mike let's see if we [Music] want all right it's picking up if you can just talk I'll keep my loud old swim coach voice going how's that begin again go right ahead good evening everyone my name is Michael Herbert I'm with the law firm of Parker McKay I'm here representing uh applicant Lucille and Michael D Pasqual with regard to their subdivision tonight uh we are uh first of all uh Mr attorney uh I know we were here on uh November 28th and you did take jurisdiction Mr attorney we we did take jurisdiction AB so I just wanted to make sure that that continues uh first also I wanted to congratulate everyone on your election to chair and vice chair and conat rulate all the professionals so we have a subdivision application here tonight that is also seeking a use variance because part of it is in a different Zone and uh therefore uh we're trying to apply the R30 Zone to the NC neighborhood portion of the the site again it's a site in two areas uh the property is a is currently uh 2.04 Acres with Frontage on a match point match metopic metopic Avenue I apologize uh we are here again here to create uh three lots U we're also seeking major subdivision approval with bulk variances uh each of the Lots we're looking to build a home of approximately four bedrooms two and a half uh baths and a two-story dwelling I have um three Witnesses T actually Four Witnesses tonight uh Lucille D Pasquel Michael D Pasquel who are the applicants uh I have my engineer who's Jim bash of vancle engineering and also our planner that the board is fully familiar with Mark Rema uh I have a couple of exhibits uh a diagram of the uh area uh the character of the area subdivision plan and aals of the area uh so with that uh how would you like to proceed Mr attorney would you like me to enter the exhibits yet or we'll proceed ahead we we can introduce them as we need them that sounds good all right all right so for our first witness uh I'm going to ask to have sworn in the app app ANS um Lucille and Michael D Pasqual sure Mr pasal if you could raise your right hand do you swear the testimony going to provide us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do if you could state your name spell your last name and give us your address please SE d d i a s u a r want me to start again this one Lucille d pasquali uh the witness is Lucille pasquali good you want me to spell it d i p a s q u a l e thank you Council and your address me to Mr 1700 Sarah kinnis F The Villages laia 3 2163 going it's in your blood hmer yes I tried it's on it's just very low it's on but low is it it's on but very low very low gotcha for those of you in the back if you'd like to hear because we're having a little op operating difficulties feel free to move forward you know not no one up here is going to bite you so feel free to come on up Mr Herbert would you like me to swear in Mr D Pasqual as well now or that would be great Mr sure if you could raise your right hand you swear the testimony going to provide us the truth all truth and nothing but the truth I do if you could state your name spell your last name and give us your address for the record please Mike D pasquali di capital P A qu a l e 103 Erica Circle Robinsville New Jersey thank you thank you uh m t I know that you've prepared some exhibits here that you want to share with the board and tell the board what we're doing please go ahead thank you all right um yeah we'll call we'll call the big 1 A1 assuming that's where we're going to go first the highlighted one if you could just explain what exhibit A1 is what I've done is I try to demonstrate what this application is about which has to do with use bearings you know use as well as de Pasqual let me interrupt for one second council could you take that tripod or that easel and put it with the back leg is by that first chair and turn it so the people in the in the back can see or a little bit more I think the board can see it grab your mic and talk sure absolutely thank you is that better what you can't hear it what working but the volume check check maybe I can try to a little bit and that way my coaching second P you you prepare this exhibit is that correct that is correct and uh we are looking at first uh on the left hand side first of all when was this prepared was date last so November 28th your yes so it was the date uh Mr Council would be 1128 okay so on the left left side of the exhibit we have a pink shade of a yellow shade document can you tell us with that doc first I need to begin because the information which I distributed to the members has my them is this is my neighborhood therefore this is all about the neighborhood of what the neighborhood is about in terms of both zoning as well as size because that's where we look has to do with the different uh use variances which were granted by the board and you have two uh ovals for the NC Zone was granted by wom from the council that's to acres however to um Council uh I'm going to need to interject here you have to let your client know that each applicant that comes before this board is based on its own Merit she's using testimony that's not relevant to this particular hearing or what she's applying for so I'm going to refer to my Council I don't think we're going to be allowed to accept what she's putting forth Mr just explain what we're looking to do here and our planner is going to go ahead and references of the other just explain you're looking to do with this microphone mic what I'm trying to do is you okay what I have tried what I have tried to do is that in this NC Zone there's been a number of both use variances granted as well as but for this what are we looking at there okay what we're looking to do is to show that it fits into the neighborhood this is what the denc zone orig Ally look like and this is what it looks like right now okay so you've had all this other all these uh all this area which probably totals somewhere 30 Acres or 35 Acres whatever which has dissipated from NC use into either residential open space or the Academy of Learning that's what has affected this property well for our application if you could just show on here where our pre Lots would be as related to everything else the lots are right there and so it's surrounded by R30 up here right right this originally was um NC and it became R30 by uh the NC here right that that this now is the latest which just occurred in a in uh May of last year where it became open space the township purchased that property and so the Lots here are related to the surrounding r 130s that is correct right and what I'm also trying to show then is in terms of there are neighboring uh subdivisions one of which is Spruce Run and the other one is uh and simar size Lots figuration it's all similar and members of the board our planner who will be testifying will be going over the character the characterizations of the surrounding neighborhoods show why they should be granted right well just specifically with uh Spruce Run which I compared it to the Lots which are in red which is 82% of the lots and here which is 75% of uh Treetops the prop the three lots which we propose the average Frontage it is larger than any of these lots that are in red and the area also is larger the average area and I have the specific numbers if you need any details of by the number of feet I'll like Frontage 142 feet is the frontage the average Frontage of the three lots I propose the frontage on these Lots the average is 100 so therefore what I propose we're proposing is over 40 ft uh larger what well I have all the mathematics if you anyone wants to mathematics not I think the issue is as Mr Herbert indicated your planner will take over the planning T okay okay and then understand the introduction where we got okay well I do have again on uh page four of your plan you do have the zoning I mean you can check all these uh mathematics and measurements and you have the zoning and I have all that and the two uh subdivisions I referred to this would be a map this shows where I am where the property is and five and six six is Treetops and five these neighboring subdivisions so it is in the neighborhood and it can be I Mark that exhibit A2 that is an aerial photograph showing the location of two other developments relationship okay the these are the plans of the homes we're prop proposing I would like to pass them around if you'd like to they're going to have to be mocked in as evidence because everyone wasn't distributed to them in the packages Okay so once they're marked then you can pass them around A3 yep A3 through whatever we get to if you could just describe what each one is as you mark it A3 is a front elevation one house example is another elevation example and then A5 will be four PL okay okay I I would just like to conclude my presentation by examining the tax records which you do have copies of and what I've done here is I show you that what is in Orange are the existing RC Lots which we have 17 existing uh NC lots and out of the 17 Lots there are uh one is vacant that's the purple the orange are the lots and out of these Lots there are actually uh I believe three would be conforming NC Lots so even the NC Lots which are in existence they're non-conforming in terms of meeting the sizes that are needed but again there're only two vacant Lots but the most important thing is to realize the yellow they are all being taxed as residential there is no lot in the NC Zone which is being being taxed as commercial so you can understand that Council can you advise your client that this board does not deal with taxes nor a board of ed burden nor anything other than if you're going to be able to use the land to not use the land for what it's intended for period as as a fellow board attorney I would advise as well uh these are just for informational purposes only thank you very thank you Miss D Pasqual uh Michael is there anything else you wanted to add not M okay thank you all right at this time I'd like to call our engineer Mr bash raise your right hand for me do you SAR the testimony going to provide us the truth the whole truth and nothing but truth I do if you could state your name spell your last name and give us your address please my name is James bash be and boy ass uh my address for triaa Drive Hamilton New Jersey and Mr bash if you could just put your credentials on the record of by whom you're employed where you were educated and your experience before various boards including this one uh yes uh I'm licensed uh as a professional engineer in the state of New Jersey I work for vancle engineering where I'm an associate uh I graduated from uh Temple University with a degree in civil engineering about 19e civil site experience um and uh any boards in New Jersey that came before I've uh appeared before many boards all throughout the state of New Jersey we we'll we'll accept your cenal as a profession so Mr bash uh if you could just explain to the board what we're trying to do here with regard to the subdivision yes uh this is a minor uh site our subdivision uh where we are going to subdivide the lot into uh three lots to construct three single family homes with a uh foot print of about 2400 Square fet on each lot and you've had a chance to uh see Mr Romano what is August 23 Ritz I apologize I am really butchering things ton I I apologize Mark uh the board Engineers uh August 23 2023 letter yes uh and we uh resubmitted plans based on that letter and uh follow-up letter uh dated uh November 21st 2023 was uh distributed and also uh you also saw the C Associates October 3 2023 letter that correct that's correct so uh and uh you you have responded to both those letters is that correct uh that's correct and uh so we have a um uh Council just just for the record I think there's a separate uh planning report from revised letter November 15th November 15th yes yes and I have that as well in report thank you and you've reviewed the November 15th letter as well I have with that uh you uh if you could just explain to the board uh how this subdivision will be laid out yes um all three lots will have a front edge on Lower matop ponic Road um each lot will have a driveway uh to service a two-car garage with a maximum width of 20 feet and I think you're are you referring over to the aerial exhibit at all or uh I mean the aerial exhibit shows the general area um that exhibit will not show the lot layout um underneath that I do have I do have the subdivision plan that was submitted with the application subdivision yes is what is that the plan that was submitted that was submitted with the that's the plan submitted we don't need tomor okay you just explain what the board they doing with regard to the plan that's was yes so as I said we have three houses on three lots um each one has its driveway uh at the garage is 20 ft um out to the road it uh reduces down to 10 ft and we do have a tail for uh the cars to turn around so they're not backing out onto the lower matop ponics Road um each house does have dry Wells to uh treat the water quality storm as uh recommended throughout the review process by the uh Township engineer and if you could just point out for the board uh as far as the storm water goes how water would flow on on each of these properts yes so currently all the water flows from the road to the rear of the property where there are wetlands uh we do have a Wetlands delineation uh we're not doing any grading on the wetlands or within the transition area uh in the proposed condition we're going to maintain the same drainage patterns everything's still going to flow to the open space in the rear um there was an issue that was brought up during the review process where um due to the existing flat so slopes on the site um we couldn't meet the minimum 2% in all areas in those areas um we did grade swes that are underd drained um to help convey the water it'll also promote uh ground water recharge and uh the roof drains themselves will how will they be handled uh yeah the roof leaders uh will collect the typical flow from yeah it it is working it may be low but for the recording purpos my my apologies thank you sorry guys roof drains yeah so it's a typical gutter uh the down spout will connect right into an underground pipe which will convey the water to a stone infiltration trench and uh with regard to buffers on the property if you just point out to where uh we are trying we're satisfying the buffer requirements so it might be a little hard to see but um the Bold line that I'm tracing is is the uh limits of the Wetland that was uh confirmed by D and then we do have uh our transition area mapped on here as well um you can see this bold line up here that's our limited disturbance well away from the wetlands area and uh we uh do uh we are requesting some bulk variances which our planner will be reviewing but if you could just point out the bulk variances that we are requesting yes uh just sure gra my notes so I get it right uh the first uh variance would be for a minimum lot area 40,000 square ft is required uh lot 41.3 4 is proposed to have 28530 lot 4135 uh contains 27 uh 1,79 square feet and lot 4136 contains 29593 square feet and then on minimum lot width it's 200 and for for lot 4134 it's what um so on the plans uh we measured uh the lot width um basically as the frontage um it's actually 145.184126 and lot 4135 is 143 ft wide and lot 41.362314 on lot 4134 lot 41.3 has 143 ft and lot 41.362314 to the uh buffer is that correct where it's required 60 uh yes um there is a required landscape buffer um in this case um I think the the NC Zone pretty much required that basically to Shield commercial uses from residential um in this case uh it really doesn't make sense to have that 60ft buffer uh for a residential lot and uh we are also seeking some design waivers with regard to rear yard width and depth ratio yes uh we have uh uh 2.5:1 is required and we have a ratio of 2.9 to1 on lot 4135 and there are no plans for signs or fencing out here at all right no signs and no fencing are proposed at this time okay and as far as parking goes uh I know there's a requirement about a 25t lot you know if you just go over the parking really quick on the on the property um yeah so for a residential use um we do have the two car garage on each lot and then there's also um room for at least two cars in each uh driveway um I think a typical residential use like this requires 2.5 parking spaces so we're covered there and we are doing Street trees uh yes we do uh propos is very happy on that right uh and curban sidewalk we're willing to either build or contribute to whichever the board wants us to proce yeah we're uh requesting the waiver for that we'd like waiver from both or from the curb curban sidewalk curban sidewalk that's a waiver from providing it and you'll pay the fund pay the he'll pay the fund okay Mr Herbert since we are going through the variance please go ahead I want to just confirm the sidey yard setback variance are you guys of that for lot proposed lot 41.3 4 and propos laot 41362 foot is required we're proposing 21 and uh to go back the buffer is a variance and obviously no burm is provided that's another bul variant correct and uh the lawn grading you did mention that uh the requirement of the slope is 2% and are you meeting that now or almost the entire site needs it um there was three locations um basically between the Lots where we couldn't get it just because the existing grade was so flat so as I mentioned in those areas we have um an underd drained uh with a perforated pipe so if any water is sitting there is it'll absorb into the ground and be conveyed to the infiltration pets and we'll be complying with the other requirements in the professionals letters with regard to lot assignments street address numbers and so forth sure I have uh also on the uh the uh the right of way and the road in the front we will uh Mill and pave as as needed is that correct uh yeah uh it's not going to be the entire Frontage but we'll uh what we're proposing to do is um uh Mill and pave uh just the extents from our farthest utility to the farthest utility we kind of tried to keep everything towards the center of the site um just to limit disturbance on the newly paved Road and this is a previously a tree farm and we're going to make sure it's cleared of any stumps and things like that yes okay and that's that's noted on the plan and with regard to street lights uh any uh other's a question about street lights there are existing street lights um on the poll at the uh Northeast and Northwest corners of the lot um no other street lights are proposed at this time and we will also comply with all required outside approvals okay uh Mr bash anything else that you want to review with the board um no I unless anybody has any questions that about sums it up well we're going to start off with with me just couple of followup questions um you're not proposing any fencing on the property right no fencing is proposed fing and uh in terms of I know you've shown the Wetland is it is the property in a flood zone area uh it is not located in the flood zone sorry and uh in terms of uh tree removal you would be complying with seeking that certificate from the tree removal tree Forester at mon okay all right a copy of that would be submitted to M yeah we'll provide a copy we will provide I have nothing further thank you thanks Mr chairman uh they agreed to meet the comments in my November 21 2023 review letter uh just want to touch on a couple things as far as Street lighting I believe you're going to need one uh between the two light fixtures that you pointed out that are on uh beyond the limits on on both sides of your property yes as long as jcpnl allows us to do it we will do it um yep uh so uh also with regard to curb and sidewalk improvements you've agreed to pay the contribution the board Grant the waiver uh along lower match aonics we don't have any curb and sidewalk so I believe this this is uh an ideal candidate for the waiver and uh the applicant providing a contribution for both concrete curb and sidewalks um with regard to um the milling and pav in the entire width of lower matchaponix uh the road was paved uh in 22 and I agree the limits of your disturbance of matchaponix should be mil and paved curve to curve or edge of pavement to edge of pavement yeah we agree to do that thanks um and and I'm sorry back to the street light I would just ask for a note on the plan to be provided on the plan for that location okay um also I'd ask for a note on the plan uh if you're agreeable to confirm that there's positive drainage along the gutter of lower matchaponix across the entire front edge of the property after you construct your improvements I'll review that and uh add the note is necessary right because your testimony was that all the water from lower matop conics rolls across your property and and uh it drains to the rear of your property now you're building up a driveway in three locations and we want to ensure that there's positive drainage over yeah we'll make sure there's positive drainage thank you I just asked for a note on the plan and uh chairman have' agreed to meet all the right remaining comments my letter I have no um I it's a little bit out of order but when I was glancing through everything I saw that there was a piece of land that was in question in the back um it it went towards um spot Town Road if I'm not M okay yeah Mr J I think that's a tax map uh still shows that sliver we did bring it up at the TRC and it was confirmed that that's no longer it has been removed it's just the our S3 GIS map has to be updated and I also saw something about an easement if I read correctly there's no easement that I'm aware of no either yeah okay they've been mixing up applications I'll review wrote very quickly but okay so while I'm looking at that please I guess you want to get mark up here or your next Prof your call Mr chairman this is your this is your show that Mr chairman if there are no further questions from any board members any board members have any questions at this point Kelly just for clarification um when you said the area of the lot you're very close to the R3 to being 30,000 feet for the R30 Zone um the right away d dation is that calculated is is the area lot calculated before after the RightWay Dedication that that's after the RightWay dedication so if you didn't have to make that dedication would you be at the 30,000 or closer to it we'd be closer to it probably we would probably exceed it I I don't have that figure with me now but that's fine that's one that helps thank you I I was getting there but I didn't get there so I appreciate the question any other questions from any board members Council please proceed thank you Mr chairman uh Mr chairman I'd like to call Mark rimson our planner you SAR the testimony going to provide us the truth all truth and nothing but truth I do if you could state your name spell your last name and give us your address please my name is Mark a Rema R MSA address is 10 dubery Court Mount Laurel New Jersey good evening if you could just Place upon the record your credentials sure you whistle from so I I apologize in my attire I just came directly from Atlantic City to obtain additional educational credits for one of my professional licenses so in 2024 marks my 44th year in in the field of of of planning and um in the state of New Jersey I'm licensed as a professional planner and landscape architect I was just getting my additional credits for my my La license so um I've uh appeared before numerous planning boards and zoning boards throughout the state of New Jersey I've been qualified before Superior Court as a uh a planning expert Mr REM so you have previously uh appeared and qualified as an expert in the area of professional planning and as a landscape architect before this board is that correct that is correct is you appeared and so qualified have your credentials been detrimentally affected at all no they have been maintained Mr chairman I believe we can accept Mr Rema as an expert in are professional planning all right we'll we'll accept Mar thank you Mr REM I know you've had a chance to review all of the uh the application all the exhibits and um I would ask that you apply to the board as to why a both both the UT variances and the bolt variances can be granted in this matter I I will so I will take you through um my my planning testimony um we've discussed the property that identified it and um have talked about its location on Lower P matonic Road and uh if you've all driven down that road you know it's a it has the appearance of a rural road it's a it's a very nice quiet residential Road um the property uh is surrounded uh to the north by um a couple of uh of of residences uh detached uh single family dwellings same is to the East and to the South is part of the open space uh even though it's in in the NC Zone it's part of the open space that's actually part of a a a a subdivision uh that was developed under the R30 Zone and then to the West there are several more uh detached single family homes so you can see the um and I will go to uh A7 and A7 is an excellent aerial view of the NC Zone and you see the site and to the north are the single family homes the uh only property that um uh at the time of I was looking at this was um old Garby's uh which I understand now the municipal is purchased for municipal purposes but U there's a there's a single family home and and the commercial use which is no longer uh active and then all the rest of the homes and this is the open space that's part of um the single family home uh subdivision here and then you have single family home here and some of the lots are are much smaller um we're proposing lots that are very similar in size uh to to the east uh to the north but the rest of the homes were all developed uh when there were no sewer in the area area and that's why they're very large uh Lots uh to combinate the septic system and and the um uh uh uh individual Wells at the time so the the neighborhood is clearly residential um uh even though it had been uh zoned NC neighborhood commercial uh for many years now in terms of uh and you heard about the proposal uh it The Proposal is uh for the three uh uh lots for three detached single family homes and um we we are challenged because it it has the lot depth uh hardship it cannot be increased we can't go farther south uh to get the larger uh lot depth uh because it's a preserved open space and we can't really go to the uh sides uh uh the east or west side because they're developed with single family homes um we we talked about the the bulk variances um some of them are based on on uh the fact that there's the hardship a aspect that the lot can't be enlarged and it's actually further exacerbated because of the right of we dedication and in a couple of the Lots if we weren't dedicating that they were actually exceed the 30,000 square ft a lot too comes very close so Mark let me interrupt you that so if we divide into two Lots would it meet all the requirements uh yes uh there there's no question prop the property can be manipulated to meet all the requirements correct uh the property can okay um so so I don't want to but when we claim a hardship or we use that for this particular application well the hardship would still exist be because we can't get the lot depth right so even even if we had two lots we would still end up with lot lot it's not totally compant we still have that problem with the lock down yeah we still have have that issue yeah and so um uh all the bulk variances though that we're they're asking for are all associated with the NC zone right so they they require the larger lot they require the 40,000 square foot they require the uh lot width and and and lot Frontage of 200 ft um also um the lot depth we cannot get any uh deeper Lots um and and The sidey Yards uh even though it's 25 ft that's not really really related to a hardship uh aspect it's more the C2 type which is is it better better zoning and does it cause any kind of of a real detriment uh to the neighborhood if we have uh sidey yards uh that are slightly less than 25 ft and also the minimum buffer that that buffer is um uh uh required to be 60 feet as Mr bash said that's really associated with uh a non-residential use next to a residential use and that's why they have those larger buffers and and um as mik points out in her report we're actually providing 50 ft of a separation uh along the right of way and not quite the 60 ft um I also wanted to talk about and I'm referring to her November 16th of last year report and I do want to clarify uh there was a discussion about um uh a uh rear yard ratio um variance well this actually falls under not the the zoning section of the ordinance falls under your design section so it would be a design exception I think the the memo does point out it's a design oh I know that but I mean I heard the discussion was a variance and and it's not so but I also want to point out we don't even need the design exception because the way the ordinance is written it's a maximum width to depth ratio that means they don't want an extra wide lot and a shallow lot depth for the backyard and the backyard is is calculated behind the house so I did a little math and found that for lot one it's 16252 ft wide to 9838 Ft deep so if you calculate that that ratio is 1.65 so 1.65 is less than 2.5 remember 2.5 is the maximum not the minimum so we don't ex we don't exceed that maximum so we don't need an exception that means the lot's not too wide related to its lot depth l two that ratio comes out to 1.45 and that's calculated by 143t to 98.38% 38 ft in other words it's not too wide to its relative lot there so we really don't don't need that and it would be compliant with uh the guidance that you have in your standards for residential development for backyards so we're we're okay that that's in essence what I'm telling we're we're okay on that so moving forward I'm going to go can I just pause you one second second I just want to confirm because I did hear Mr bash say that the design B is required for that I heard him and I'm and I'm actually correcting him okay I just want to confir with I'm I I heard him say it I didn't want to interrupt the the testimony my turn now to to it was in was in the previous and it's now being corrected so is Mr bash in agreement with this that A bash you agree with this I agree yes okay so for this use variance and the related bulk variance which would be subsumed by this use variance we have to present positive and negative criteria so the positive criteria as you know the first step of test is the are the special reasons and that's njsa 40 calling 55 d-2 and what I'm going to do is go through the different um uh sub paragraphs with the the small letter and so the first one is C provide adequate light air in open space um and the U property uh the proposed Lots which are all very close to the 30,000 square foot um uh which by the way we're surrounded by the NC zone is all surrounded by the R30 Zone and so if if we um uh utilize that as a guide and you look at the um yard setbacks except for two lots where they're slightly less and we have sufficient backyards as defined by your your ordinance we have sufficient light air in open space around each uh home that would be proposed on each individual lot so the next one would be e to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons neighborhoods communities and regions and preservation of the environment so we have an NC Zone which is basically 100% developed with residential development and we're proposing um uh three lots for three homes that would be compatible with um what's in the neighborhood and what's would be compatible with the R30 Zone and had this been and I'm going to get a little ahead of myself because right now the master plan recommends this for R30 and if we were able to get a zoning change here and we were able to achieve something we wanted to do earlier which was a non-contiguous cluster the R30 Zone allows um 20,000 foot lot so we're we're well above uh that and very close to the 30,000 square ft so we're in line with um uh the population densities and concentrations and I don't see any detriment for these three um residential lots in this particular neighborhood the next one would be G to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of uses one of them is residential and this is sort of a repeat of what I just said this is uh a residential neighborhood it's not a commercial uh um uh area of the community as a matter of fact the only remaining resident uh non-residential use has been purchased by the town for municipal purposes so there are no no commercial uses at all remaining in in this this Zone and so the the residential proposed use would be compatible the next one would be H they encourage the location design of Transportation routes that will promote the free flow of traffic well in this case Metro Lower metropic Road as I described is somewhat of a of a rural road it's it it's it's a a narrow road really not conducive for any type of of commercial traffic and it's much more conducive for um low levels of traffic that would be generated by detached single family homes so we're we're we're uh uh are promoting that particular uh purpose of zoning uh the next one would be I to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good Civic uh design and Arrangement and so the Civic design here is we need to to put the homes in in in in an arrangement that would be uh compatible and complimentary to what you see uh in the surrounding neighborhood um all of the homes or practically practically all of the homes have a driveway coming off uh the the Lower matronics Road uh and and either serving directly into the home or or to the side of the home and and we're proposing a driveway coming directly off of um uh the um uh uh Lowa matonic Road and we're promoting uh I don't know if we showed the visuals of of what the homes would look like but they would be homes that would be compatible homes that you would see uh throughout the township of Monroe and that would be the homes uh that we distributed both floor plan and the uh architectural phrasings yes um also Jay and that is to uh prevent urban sprawl and the degradation of environment so this is really infill development if if you looked at the area the aerial which I'll go back to A7 here are the homes homes homes this is the only vacant lot left on Lower matronics Road so this is essentially infill development to a to a residential neighborhood and it's not uh I would not consider that sprawl plus this area is served by public sewer and water which would we would be tapping into um so it makes good use of of those utilities um so the next one would be M and M would be to encourage the coordination of public of various public and private procedures and activities shaping Land Development with a view toward lessening the cost of such development and to the more efficient use of land efficient use of of land you have a road system in place this is a minor subdivision we have existing uh utilities easily to be tapped into um I would consider this an efficient use of land and then I come always come back to a a is uh to uh given all of the other u u reasons for for PL uh for zoning that's being promoted by this so a would be to encourage the municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in this state in a manner which will promote the public health safety morals and general welfare and I believe this application does that next test site suitability is this site suitable for the three homes well first off it's right in a residential neighborhood it's in infill development it has um the SE water Direct irly available to it uh the proposal of the three homes which would be compatible with the the uh master plan scheme for the R30 Zone this would be uh compatible with that um uh and the the surrounding zone of the NC zone is R30 and so with that is a a a a cue that developing this property with the three homes um would fit into that uh uh as well okay so and then also when I looked at this I looked at it well is this really suitable for the commercial development well really not at all I mean it do it really doesn't meet uh any of the the the other than the lot width the bulk of requirements um yes it's a long shallow lot and you couldn't put any commercial development on here and meet the buffer requirements and the setbacks and everything and um so this property is not is unsuitable for any kind of commercial development um and would be uh more appropriate to develop it uh with the residential uses uh the negative criteria well the first test means we have to take a look what's the impact to the surrounding uh neighborhood what's the impact to the residences that are across the street well I struggle to find any sub substantial uh detriment at all what would be the substantial impact to the residents to the east providing um homes on lots that are similar and would be compatible I don't find any detriment uh caused by the development what would be the negative any impact to the open space and which eventually goes into a storm order management Basin what's the impact of putting three homes next to the open space I struggle I could not find any and then of course the same I came to the same conclusion with the residents to the West um putting in residential uses that would be compatible so the second test the second part is looking uh does this impair the so plan and zoning ordinance how does it reconcile with the master plan well just so happens in 2022 a new master plan was adopted and that Master Plan recommends this area be considered for R30 R30 zoning and so um I I see this propo proposal advancing that recommendation uh that's in uh your 2022 master plan so with that I conclude that um uh the bulk variances uh could be granted um they would be subsumed by the used variance and uh I also see that the use variance for the three lots also could be granted and and I heard Mr LF talk about well you could reduce the the Lots yes we could but then um we would be really um look following the recommendation of the master plan which recommends more along the lines of the R30 which we are um compatible with um we we do have the challenges of the lot depths we can't increase any of them uh if we if we um didn't dedicate the RightWay we actually have a couple of the Lots would actually um meet meet the R30 and the other one would come very close um so with that that I conclude uh that the um use variance uh and the subdivision uh should be granted thank you Mr chairman that is our planner testimony you have any other professionals I have no other professionals Mr chairman M do you have any remarks or comments based on Mark's testimony I do have but I do have one follow-up question uh either for Mr bash or Mr ramza uh one of the items uh and I'm referring to CME letter November 15th 2023 uh one of the items in the bulk table was maximum floor area ratio uh was that calculated and will that be complying just want to confirm that on record we will comply with the ordinance okay the or go ahead so the greatest flua ratio is uh 0.18 which complies okay for all of them is that that that would be the greatest one the other ones are less okay thank you um now going back to um Mr Ram are your testimony um and going back to Chairman's point I know there's a lot of comparison going on between because of the master plan recommendation of R30 Zone um if we look at just the bulk standards of R30 Zone and compare it with these uh lots that are being proposed um we understand uh based on earlier testimony by given by Mr bash that the lot area came close to meeting the 30,000 because it is um you know because of the right of way dedication is why it can't be met so that's answered uh lot with is mostly complying I believe because the requirement is only well they still don't comply the requirement in our 30 zone is 150 and what's being proposed is um less than that uh and then in similar fashion I believe the front yard rear yard and side yard now when we look at side yard setback in an R30 Zone it's required minimum to be 30 ft we are proposing Lots which have 21 ft as set back so if if the board was to consider you're comparing more you know to comply with the master plan recommendation of R30 why weren't these why can't we meet with these setbacks even buffer requirement in an R30 Zone it's 60 um similar to what NC Zone has could you just provide sure um with with the buffer in the front um they can comply um it actually results in in in better zoning and the reason being is um when you push it further back the driveway is farther back farther back driveway means more imp cover it means more runoff and so um uh and if you look that uh on page five of Mr bash's set of plans the uh lining up of the lot of of the buildings is is practically in line with the neighboring home and so it keeps it compatible with with and when I say neighboring home that's the one to the to the east and so so so yes can we comply with that the longer setback of course we could but is it better Planning and Zoning if we pushed it just a little bit closer kept it in line with the neighbor and kept something that's compatible with with the neighbor so I would I would say yes um uh we could meet it but to what end because we have actually a better design uh that's compatible with uh what's in in uh next door now in terms of the uh setbacks for the um sidey yard um yes um let's see uh two of the Lots could easily accommodate they could they could slide over but the way uh Mr bash has designed them is to keep them together I would suppose as one um um uh set of homes um that uh that when the buyer would come in um they would know what they're they're purchasing but can can we move the the the side yards we Absolut absolutely could um now I I may have to ask Mr bash that um he may have chosen some of the locations because of the challenges with with the grading right so so it's it's a relatively flat property and I see he has some um uh uh dry Wells and things like that so there may be some uh difficulties with the topography uh to keep keep the properties where they are but I I can see that some of them can be sliden and you could actually end up with uh compliant uh side yards so Jim uh are some of these located because of the the topographic challenges you had yes um Mark was uh exactly right um specifically on the outside lot um if I were to slide a lot uh farther to the east this path where the uh runoff has to go around the building gets longer and then it gets flatter um we're already not compliant with the 2% in that location so it would actually make it even worse thank you good W do you have any follow-up questions um I do on as far as that side yard setback I'm I'm still not seeing why you can't meet the 25 foot which would be in line with the R30 Oh you mean on lot um on the two end Lots the two end Lots at least to meet the NC to meet the you indicated you know all the testimony has been about an R30 Zone the side yard is 25 fet no and 30 it's 30 fo it's 30 yeah that's why it's more challenging but if you were to say can we meet the 25 that which is the NC Zone we probably could could do that right the 25 yeah the other the concern I have you know and and why I'm asking about meeting it and getting more than 21 fet that you have currently is because you're proposing some infiltration and uh basins and drywells along that side property line and the proximity to the home uh is quite close and I'm concerned about that so so that would be part of something I'd be reviewing with you uh you know should this get approved um you know they're too close to the home so they're going to have to be moved out a little bit and whether you can move them around to the backyard may may limit your usable yard rear yard so if you can get a little more room on the side Yards More in line with our ordinance then you know that helps with with the drainage uh and the dry Wells as well well well the dry Wells wouldn't affect the usable because they'll be underground but um if they're too close to the home if they're too close to the home and slid to the backyard that would probably solve the the concern that you had I'll let Jim refer to that but putting them sliding I'm just saying sliding them to the back I don't think would impact at all the the usability because they're you know they're under the the surface so but but it would be him to answer about the engineering to move them them back yeah um absolutely we could uh work on moving uh those dry Wells farther away from the house I think there's opportunities to even move them uh to the front yard in some instances um we'd be willing to uh meet whatever setback from the home you uh deem acceptable I believe it it's 25 ft for the NC NC is 25 R 30 is 30 that would eliminate Maran I mean it just Ates a variance is that correct M yeah for the NC again uh the reason I brought it up is because the comparison is being made with R30 then why not comply with everything in our it's moving a hous is four feet it eliminates two variances oh I I I agree with you to move it to be compliant with the NC I think if you move it even more I think you run into those other challenges if we can meet the 25 foot for thec on those two lots and you eliminate two variances agreed we can do that that works thank you wor that also if I can um the driveways uh I missed it in my review letter but the K turnarounds that you're providing are going to have to be a little deeper um looks like they're only about 5 foot deep you are providing U front entrance garages so we do need to provide a k turnaround this this is a uh even though Mark indicated it's a rural road and rur rural area it is a collector Road so we uh we don't want the cars backing out so if we provide 10 ft that'll be acceptable um yes 10 ft would be more acceptable depending on the alignment of your driveway because you have a curve in there so you might even need to go back a little further than 10 depending on uh which driveway you're looking at okay yeah okay so but I I'll work with you on that okay um with regard I know you agreed to meet uh the items in my review letter including the outside agencies um the wetlands letter of interpretation have you provided an updated one I believe the uh I believe I believe that was submitted if not we we do have it you'll provide the updated uh and and version also conservation easement markers um we the township utilizes a different conservation easement marker than you show on your plan um so I'm going to ask that you provide the township conservation ement markers absolutely and because they stick up about a foot okay um and also um I recommend a temporary construction fencing around the wetlands and the buffer areas during construction because the construction vehicles have a tendency to just wander all over the property so we want to restrict them from going into that area yeah that's no problem and lastly um you'll provide a conservation easement for those uh Wetlands uh wetlands and buffers yes we will thanks done Mr chairman thank you are you sure I believe so any board members have any questions being done you're done you're complete your testimony is indicated corre okay anyone in the public wishing to be heard on this application and this application only please come forth okay I'm GNA ask you folks just to yep least Mark and and the deepest qualities Council you could sit there that was yeah yeah Mar you can leave the wireless there it seems to work better well you can give it to that gentleman please you're GNA come forward here please sir you're gonna be I can s real quick if you could raise your right hand you the testimony going to provide us the truth I do if you could state your name SC your last name and give us your address for the record speaking the microphone please James Neato NE 49 lower matchaponix the house directly to to the east of this project thank you can sit down and relax it's okay I just have a couple of questions and concerns um lower Machop ponics is a high water table the water is very high you have any rain my Sun Pumps run constantly you're going to put three houses in between my house and the other house where's all that going it's just going to come up and it's going to flood me out that's that's my big issue three houses is a lot two I could see if it's further away I mean look the house closest to me is if I remember correctly 68 ft from the side of the house to my property line so if you're going to dig that deep that close that water doesn't run from to the street it sits I mean to the to the swamp in the back it sits in the front and when it rains that road goes west to east on a hill so all that water that you're going to dig up it's all going to come to my house I me a few years ago I can't remember how many years ago we had an issue where there was a twoot corrugated pipe on the side of my house that collapsed because of all the water that was running down from across the street and to my side it all comes down goes into a basin and shoots across it went actually through my driveway down into the creek into the back and then Ham around you're going to dig up this much more I'm going to be flooded the water as it is now when it rains the water's at the top of that Basin and it's constant it's constantly flowing the pipe that they put in the back is starting to collapse already because of all the extra water three houses that close to me you're going to bury me was that something that might have been looked at in the past or I'm not familiar with the pipe he's referring to oh I believe the pipe in your yard Mike yes that was that was replaced right I I mean frankly it was a storm sore pipe that ran through his property whether or not there was an easement in place I believe that's been resolved yeah that that's been resolved um but it was a storm pipe and you know the reasons why it collapsed I I don't know off an so to your knowledge there is no flooding or I mean frankly this is all Wetlands across the rear of this property so even without a rain it's going to be wet back there and in the rain event as that's a testimony was said the water drains from lower matchaponix to the rear of this property where all the wetlands are that's going to be wet um so does it flood I'm sure it fills up with water again it's Wetlands um as far as the storm pipe on the other side of you I believe it's on the other side of your property correct and it goes across the I me that that pipe comes from across the street it's a storm bite it empties out in the rear of the property I believe I don't know if it's on your property or beyond your property where it ends it's on there's an outfall pip back there and eventually there's a a brook where it ends up and Mr chair I know you have ordinances on the books that do not allow for water to flow off of our property on to one of our neighbors if that occurs we'd be in violation so of course we would make sure that that would not occur I'm not disputing that and I I'm assuming I I also Mr bash you can testify to this if you'd like um just a couple things I wanted to table mic down mic any mic you want just uh there's a couple things I wanted to point out um um if you look at our sheet five um you'll see our existing Contours are angled so the water is actually being directed uh from lot 4128 towards our lot and towards the rear Wetlands so our our runoff isn't going to go onto the neighboring lot it's going to come from the neighboring lot towards ours um and as I stated earlier we are grading a Swale to collect all of our runoff and direct it straight to the back uh just to improve the drainage that exist out there now so Mr B you're making the situation actually better yeah we're we're improving the situation and with regards to the high water table uh we did do soil test pits Out There Our basements are at least one foot above that and our infiltration pits the bottom of those are two feet above that excuse me could could you point out on there where this gentleman's house is I I believe he's talking about number 49 okay please give him the microphone back you have anything else you want to put on the record no that's it that was it you concern with the water um do you feel they've answered some of or portion of your question some but now if it comes to where with all these basements the water table Rises and I'm flooding out what do I do at that point are you referring to their basements and the potential building that would be their problem I don't see how their basement flooding would be your problem no their basement's flooding mine because of them putting digging in three basement you're raising the water table there it's high as it is my sub pumps like I said they run constant whether it's raining or not they run because we're in a high water table you're going to dig out three more basements you're going to raise the water table that much more that's my concern and Mr chairman would you like Mr bash to address that again please while we here we get it all in the open yeah I mean as I said um our basement we're not digging into the waterer table we're going to be our bottom is going to be at least one foot above that so it should have no impact on the water table how deep is the basement off the ground um the existing grade is at 88 and our basement floor is only at 86 so it is going to be um only 2 feet below the existing in grade so basically your your basement is going to be almost a walk out uh no because we we are filling around the back so it's n the existing grade at the corner of the building is 90 where I basement floor is 86 so there'll be a few feet of exposed Foundation but it won't be a walk out okay any any other questions or that's it that's it okay we appreciate whatever you have to say as a neighbor and everything will be taking under advisement um the board will be making a decision when we get to that point based on their professionals and testimony um and as you indicated or the attorney indicated that they are responsible if anything happens because they're disturbing everything but currently right now without the application being approved what they put forth does meet requirements of what's allowed to be done with is in reference to GR and stuff so I don't want you to leave here feeling uncomfortable we we listen to everything and we will make our best judgment when that time comes and Mr chairman we listen to the public as well we want to be good neighbors we want to make sure that there are no negative impacts upon our neighbor uh and if something was to occur out there of course it would be addressed immediately okay thank you anyone else in the public wishing to be heard on this application seeing there's none I'm going to make a motion to close the public portion do I have a motion don't move do I have a second second Jeff all in favor of closing a public portion I I I okay okay board members we have an application before us you heard all the testimony uh we're going to need to make a decision or vote to moving forward or not moving forward is there a motion on the floor okay seeing there's no motion I'm going to start off I'm going to make a motion to approve the application providing they meet all the professionals testimony and anything else that was indicated during tonight's testimony and they will abide and respect the neighbors moving forward if there is an issue with water do I have a second um I'll I'll second the motion to approve the application I do think that um I understand the the resident's concern I think the engineer did did address that they're not digging down very far it sounds like they're only the concern of digging into the the basement and I I can see when you think of a deep basement and you think they're going to go down 10 eight or 10 feet and that's going to impact my water it sounds like they're really only going down about two feet into the existing ground level um and I they did indicate that they did test pits um you know maybe indicate if there was during construction if there was any water issues that perhaps they can do additional test bit to make sure that that's not um that they're not building within the water table um and the uh the planner I think agree with the testimony that there are special reasons that this property is particularly suited um the fact that the master plan recommends changing this to the R30 Zone and that it's basically surrounded by all Residential Properties I I I also don't believe it would make sense to have a commercial property at this location um given the water issues and the parking you would need for a commercial property um and given the wetlands in the back residential uses are better you know environmentally for this um location um than a commercial property would be um and the fact that they agreed to meet the side yard setback for the NC Zone the 25 ft on the both edges of the of the two lots that border the neighbors I think makes a big difference and does take into account the impact on on the neighbors um so I would um I don't see I don't see negative imp ta as long as they deal with the stormw and do what they said do they're going to do um comply with all the board um engineers and planners comments so I'll I'll second the motion and given that this is a use variance Council it's five votes yes it is thank you okay so we have a motion and we have a second Madame secretary roll call please Carrie yes Mr Lupo yes Mr Masters yes Mr tany yes Mr jaffy yes yes Mr Cole yes chairman L yes thank you sh board members we really appreciate it and thank you Miss car for your your uh wellp put test statements uh while everyone's getting ready we're going to take a quick five minute intermission so keeps everyone aw next application ba-52 36-23 springpoint at Monroe Village oh you're up here uh good evening Mr chair board members board professionals my name is Jared Pape I'm an attorney with the law firm of purn Pape and our office has the privilege of representing the applicant this evening uh springpoint at Monroe Village before we begin I'd like to ask Mr bolo if our notices are adequate to give the board jurisdiction this evening and Mr chairman I have reviewed the applicants notices and the board does have jurisdiction to hear yet Mr P please cons please proceed thank you um this is an application essentially for what I would call a financial subdivision um the property is about 55 Acres or so and contains a senior living facility which consists of independent living assisted living and skilled nursing excuse me can can you use that mic sure sorry better much better okay uh the the property I'll I'll back up the property is about 55 Acres um it it contains an existing Senior Living facility which includes um independent living assisted living and skilled nursing um units the campus is completely built and operational um and you'll hear in testimony that the subdivision is really for financial purposes only and that there are no physical changes uh being made to the property um there's also a use variance and bulk variances being requested uh when this property was originally approved use variance was required and accordingly any further modification also requires use variance and you'll hear that in testimony as well we have two witnesses um Heather Hill fov is uh representative of the uh uh springpoint of of the applicant and sha Delany is the applicant's professional engineer and planner um unless there's any questions that this time I'll ask to have our first witness sworn please if you could take that microphone and raise your right hand do you SAR the testimony you're going to provide us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do if you could state your name spell your last name and give us your address please for the record Heather falcoff f is and Frank a l k f f 4814 Outlook Drive Wall Township New Jersey perfect thank you and could you identify your um relationship to the applicants so so uh springpoint at Monroe or Monroe Village uh is uh has a parent company which is springpoint and uh I am the director of development services for springpoint so I oversee uh new construction and renovation projects at our various communities throughout the state and could you provide for the board the U the reason for the subdivision so as uh Mr P stated the reason for the subdivision is purely a business reason related to refinancing the existing debt on the property I have nothing further um for Miss fov unless there's any questions from the board um M fov could you just confirm the number of units and uh number of uh units in each of these uh uh facilities are to remain the same the parking spaces are remaining the same same and is there going to be cross parking that's going to be utilized between the two facilities so um the number of Independent Living units Assisted Living units and skilled nursing units that exist on the campus today will remain the same there's no change there uh the parking that is shown on the plan Remains the Same there's no uh change there and um I believe that we have the adequate number of parking spaces for the Skilled Nursing Facility um but certainly there is adjacent parking that could be utilized uh by visitors of village point if needed and Mr B that would work out in a cross access easement should the board look at this subdivision favorably yes we're agreeable to uh thank you we're agreeable to cross access easen and I believe there were actually um descriptions for the easement that were already provided to the board but we we are agreeable to that okay thank you yes Mr chairman any board members nope thank you thank you next witness is sha Delaney the applicant's professional um engineer and planner you want a chair that doesn't move NOP it's actually perfect ask come to stand on if you need me to I will I sit a lot right now so I will not do that to you I'm not my chairman If You Could Read thank you you the testimony you're going to provide us the truth the whole truth of nothing but the truth I do state your name spell your last name and give us your address please for the record certainly sha Delaney d l a n y a licensed professional planner and engineer in state of New Jersey uh with Bowman Consulting Group LTD located at 303 West Main Street in Freehold Township we will accept your credentials as a professional thank you thank you very much yeah um ask going to ask Mr Delaney to provide um engineering testimony I think there's minimal testimony um necessary um and I'll have Mark the exhibits which I believe is this is the same plan that was submitted with no changes is that correct yes it's both the exhibit I'm going to refer to are the survey that was submitted as part of the application and the subdivision plan that was submitted so there are no separate exhibits put together I'll be talking to what was submitted perfect if you just identify what you're referring to but they won't need to be marked thank you got it I'll ask that Mr Mr Delany begin just by providing an overview of the location of the property and the existing conditions of the property so looking at the the survey uh that was provided which has uh I don't have a date on it uh it's the um Alta nsps Land Title survey of Monroe Village prepared by my office um the subject property is IR regular in shape totaling about 55 Acres uh identified as block 58 lot 1703 and contain is mostly developed on the eastern half of the property with the Western half undeveloped um access is off of my Jamesburg Halfacre Road um and as uh was mentioned that the the application is not proposing any new improvements to the site so there's no change in the driveway access off of Jamesburg Halfacre Road no change in any access points to any of the existing buildings no changes in sidewalks no changes in parking areas um no expansions buildings no changes in the number of units or anything on the property uh it's truly here we are just here to subdivide the property right now and um interesting point to point out on it is on the existing the survey the area in question is currently encumbered um by a lease area that has separated the parcel um for um obligations for ownership back and uh forth It's leased to another entity um related to the the overall managing entity of the site um and the purpose is to to of the subdivision is to turn convert that lease line that's there into a uh proposed lot line and create a new lot um so we're not we're not the lot the the demarcation of the lot has been done already through a lease area and we are just you converting that from a lease to a uh a separate lot on the property no no just uh pull it down put the one below it yep just leave it right in front yep hope you're paying him well he's learning so this is Crash Course um so as I mentioned the subdivision is occurring right in the same area the lease line around in the southwest corner of the property around the um the the twostory skilled Nerf Nursing Facility building and Associated parking in that location um the the property does not have Frontage on Jamesburg Halfacre Road um obviously the the agreement for the access agreement to provide access off of that through the main driveway um I can't read my ears are eyes are killing me um that's there the main driveway will provide the access to the entrance to the facility um through cross access agreements uh for that the um as was mentioned the property or the the use used to be a conditional use uh permitted on the site um through approve prior approval from 2014 um there was an ordinance that uh that was adopted shortly thereafter which removed the proposed use from the conditional use criteria and thus any improvements or any changes to the Lots on the site would then kick it into a true um use variance as opposed to a conditional use variance um and that's why we are here today um the use is not permitted in the R20 zone of the subject property um and so the the use that was kicked in before was deal the condition use was because it didn't meet a side yard setback that was on the uh lower corner of the property uh roughly this area it's about 21.7 ft um and it did meet that that condition so was granted the the use variants back in 2014 um so as we're doing we're subdividing the partial off into two Lots uh one lot the the existing remaining lot of lot 1703 will be 50.92 acres in area and the subdivided proposed new lot uh proposed at 170 as lot 1704 will contain 4.39 Acres of are of land surrounding uses uh single family residences to the north and to the east up on top here to the north and to the east across uh the roadway to the South is a utility substation and Industrial uses further south and then to the West past the the wooded areas that are undeveloped um are uh medical offices and Commercial uses um as I mentioned there's no propo those proposed improvements being done on the site so there's no impact um for any construction or any improvements to any of the surrounding uses on the property um we are asking for some uh variances and that's this direct result of the uh subdivision of the property um they relate to the uh minimum rear rear rear setbacks um an existing building height uh condition that's that's there for the building uh percent total lot coverage and minimum buffer from the RightWay or property line um those are this the setback is uh I think correctly said 21.7 it's actually 23.5 ft to the property line the height is 42 ft of the building uh where the R20 only requires or permits 35 ft but that's an existing condition there's no changes proposed to the building the total uh percent lot coverage is 50.4% where 40% is permitted and the minimum buffer width from a property line is 60 ft and the existing is 21 ft that is remaining unchanged at that location um so with regards to engineering I me that that's about it just uh about what's going on on the property um as a pause there going to ask Mr Delaney to also um provide planning testimony this evening and I think this might be a good juncture to pause and ask if there's any comments or questions with regard to um the engineering component of the application I think because you only have one professional here no offense um let him finish his testimony so we can if there's any questions we can do it all at once instead of pausing just he's on a roll you know we'll keep them going thank you very much um regard to the planning testimony as as I mentioned is a D1 use Varian is required uh for the property and some c c uh bulk variances which I'll identify as C2 uh variances um and the c2s are directly related to the proposed subdivision and I believe are subsumed by the the D1 use variants um so obviously I have to talk about the positive and and negative criteria um and the special reasons for the the variants uh being adopted so um special reasons for this variance relief and it was pointed out in the previous resolution back in 20 2014 and you know based on my review in my analysis I agree that the existing use is an inherently beneficial use which is a Skilled Nursing Facility um it's defined in the ml benef an inherently Ben beneficial use as a use which is universally considered a value to the community because it fundamentally serves the public good and promotes the general welfare um I agree wholeheartedly um the promotion of the general welfare is is the zoning purpose that most clearly amplifies the meaning of special reasons and this is purpose a under the missal land use law the state is also particularly suited uh for the proposed use the use is complimentary to the other uses on the overall properly property and was previously approved um back in 2014 and and and subsequent prior to that as well um for the use that exists today with no changes being proposed um I believe that the subdivision uh this subdivision would would promote the general welfare and that advances the purposes of planning pursuant to the township and moro's master plan goals and objectives as well as the municipal land use law the 2022 master plan uh in the land use element goals and objectives item four talks about developing and imp implementing policies that comprehensively address the needs of an aging population uh Item B ensure all residents and particular SE particularly seniors have access to Quality medical facilities recreational facilities and Commercial opportunities the existing use provides that quality medical facility in the form of a skilled nursing facility for those residents and has for several years um I believe the C variances are Justified under the C2 criteria and that the purposes of the mpal landuse law would be Advanced by a deviation from the zoning ordinance requirement and the variance can be granted without the detriment to the public good the benefits of the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment and the variance will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zone plan and the zoning ordinance which is obviously the negative criteria um I believe as I mentioned purpose a is Advanced promoting the public health uh safety morals and general welfare um I said the C2 variant is a direct function of this and the existing use promotes this um as a senior uh uh living facility um no new site improvements are proposed which would change the character or function of the existing use or the location of those site improvements there's no the benefits are there they're existing and there's no change being proposed purpose C to provide adequate air uh light and open space um we're not authoring any of the existing uh light air and open space on the property the subdivision is just a conversion of a lease line to a property line uh the surrounding uses remain a senior residential units assisted living facility on the balance of the lot and to the south in adjacent properties the substation and with substantial wooded areas adjacent to the subject lot so there's no impact to to the surrounding properties and the variances for the Lots the the the lot coverage the set and the setbacks and the buffer are really a direct result of us putting a proposed lot line on the site as opposed to any changes or construction that's being done um there's no change as as I mentioned there's no change to the location of anything so it's not there's no impact or additional impacts to Pro to the overall property line or other uses on the site or offsite um with the negative criteria uh I believe that no variance uh soorry no variance or other relief can be granted without showing uh that such variance or other relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zone plan and the zoning ordance otherwise known as the negative criteria um I believe these variances both the use and the the C2 Varian can be granted without substantial detriment for the following reasons and i' stated these as well previously the use is an existing use that was pre previously proved under D3 variants due to a reduced sidey yard setback that was provided that's being unchanged the existing use is a compatible use with the other uses on the overall property and the proposed subdivision will not negatively impact the existing Center or surrounding uses there's a need for this type of use to be maintained the existing use is an inherently beneficial use uh for the for the community the design will not impact on-site parking or circulation of the lot or other um issues on the property and the C2 variances as I mentioned are directly result of the subdivision lot line being proposed and the new lot being created so therefore is my opinion that the benefits of granting the variances will substantially outweigh any detriments of which I do not see any detriments it's also my opin U opinion that the variance can be granted without substantial impairment to the Zone plan and ordinance there are no discernable impacts from the skilled nursing use due to the subdivision and the resulting bulk variances it you know does not generate any odors fumes or substantial traffic as they all exist the use has little to no effect on Municipal Services once again the an existing use that's been operating for over a decade or more and the site and the existing building were previously designed and all the improvements have little to no aesthetic impact uh as a site is viewed from Halfacre Road um for this I believe that the the variances uh both the use variance and the C bulk T2 bulk variances can be granted thank you thank you Mr chair that is the applicant's direct presentation be you're up thank you Mr jalani um I just want to confirm a couple of things I'm referring to CME memo um January 30 23rd 2024 um to confirm uh the building height you did say it's 4 2 ft I want to make sure it's for both The Village Point um as well as the Monroe Village facility is that the that's my understanding yes um thank you for that uh the other um item I do want to bring up and maybe you want to just put the testimony on that uh the state statute requirement is that uh you know every lot should about a street in this case uh this is uh the David uh Brainard Drive is an Private Drive it's not a public uh lot so maybe you want to put something on record in terms of just justifying that as to why um you know that should be Grant certainly thank thank you for bringing that up um the that's the the whole sole purpose for the um the cross access easements to allow the use of the private road from the public Street to gain and and maintain and perpetuity access to this facility with the uh the subdivision um he is right you know state of law does not laws do not requ do not allow um a property to create a property that is landlocked without some form of access uh that has to be granted through relief um from the proving boards um use that's carried through easements or or some sort of uh um agreement to allow a Perpetual access to those properties and that's what we will that's what has been provided to provide a um a Perpetual easement in there to maintain that access and to that property um as a result of the subdivision thank you and just for board understanding that easement would allow you know usually the the concern is that e emergency vehicles can't reach these a uh places but I believe the with the easements that would be granted for emergency vehicles and that's why that would meet the state statute requirement um to confirm Mr Delani um as I'm moving along with my questions uh the the there are two used variances one is for Monro Village and one is for the Skilled Nursing Facility I believe the testimony would remain the same both of them have been accepted in court cases as inherently beneficial users but I just want to make on record that both of these would be a different two use variances that you're seeking with the board you're correct the existing use that's on the remain on the existing lot to remain um that we're not subdividing out yes that would be this proofs would be the same that I provided uh for that yes all right and uh my last question is um sorry two questions you'd be you're comfortable with the review letter and you'll be complying with uh most of the items you have testified yes and uh the the one question is in terms of impervious coverage that you did testify um you know you're seeking the 50.4% as as a professional engineer who has reviewed this site are there any storm water issues with the property that need to be dealt and with minimizing the lot area is that exasperated in any um yeah so this this is the interesting part is why we while we have a variance for uh the impervious coverage on this lot you know the overall lot is 22.4% on 55 Acres we're not changing any of the impervious coverage or the uh storm water systems that were installed to treat the original development or the subsequent U modifications have been made as as as as late as 2014 through the last appr Al um with no improvements going on it's really just a um the fact that we're creating that lot it it we have to calculate that that s that impervious area on that lot but the system and the whole site manages together from a storm water perspective and we're not changing any of the uh the existing conveyance systems or detention systems on site on how the storm water is handled so uh with no changes to impervious coverage on our end I would not expect um any anything with with the Imp coverage exceeding that for this uh for this lot it doesn't it the whole lot was uh analyzed on a global basis so it wouldn't have any impact thank you thank you Mr chairman nothing about that any questions thank you Mr chairman uh referring to my July 18 2023 review letter you did indicate there's a cross access easement on on the driveway for access to both Lots how is uh roadway maintenance going to be handled as far as that Main Road um there will be an agreement essentially um uh that will put in place between those two lots to identify which owner will be responsible or how the responsibilities will be allocated between the ownership of those two lots and if we'd be happy to um work with you to to kind of keep you apprised of how that um uh will be put in place if that's um requested yeah like uh that that should be provided as part of uh the subdivision so when you get that agreement in place uh you know send a copy over to uh to our offices we'd like to review that agreement before it's actually absolutely make that subject to review and approval by uh the boards professionals yes thanks here um with regard to filing a Deeds are you filing Deeds or you're going to file by map um it's our understanding that we'll be filing my map but we'll abide by the preference of the board I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry now we' be filing this by deed it's a as a minor subdivision uh we've been filing it by deed the map created was for um obviously uh uh exhibit purposes to show where it's being so we by filing by deed is a minor yes thank you and um you know one of the items is the Township Tax Assessor as far as uh an approval from them the lot numbers will change uh you know the numbers you indicated will not be correct we we will get approval from the tax assess are on the the lots that they approve for this and any of other items cleanup items in my review letter you agree to yes thank you anyone from the board have any questions um just for the record since I know the planner put on had you put on the testimony about the street the street access um is there a reason besides the fact that this is the lease line that you didn't include the portion of the property that actually goes out to the public Street can you repeat the question yeah as I'm looking at the map if you go to to the east you could actually connect this alongside the road the the internal roadway and touch the street so then it wouldn't be landlocked and it would help you with your some of your other variances your impervious well I I I yes thank you thank you uh so you know when we um sought approval for this in in 2014 it was part of the campus it Still Remains part of the campus it Still Remains part of uh the springpoint organization um and this I don't I think this is still a separate lot um even though we own that yeah that's still a separate lot I think um but you know we didn't consider it at that time the board didn't ask for it at that time um so uh and to do it now would just be a bit of a lift for us because again our purpose is really only just to be able to simplify refinancing of the property and it was also thought you know obviously the lease lines were already in place for the agreements for the that area for you know financing ownership that kind of stuff um so to make it larger changes potentially changes some of the agreements between the entities as well um for that so we felt the it play it's just easier to follow the existing lease line on the property um and maintain the the those agreements with the square footages that were in the lease and just converted into a um you know a single a single lot uh for that purpose um Miss I may um add to that and please correct me if I'm wrong I think if the applicant were to look at uh you know creating uh the um add access to the street Frontage which would be just south of that David brainer drive just a little sliver would uh give rise to a very irregular looking lot uh you know almost create it's not a flag lot but give you shape of a flag lot which would create an irregular you know lot lines so I think in this way given the uh type of facilities they trying to create a more rectangular shape which would probably be easier in terms of geometry and dividing the property in terms of easement and business and all that so I think that's the reason behind it thank you I was just curious to you know would no I wouldn't move the road I wouldn't put a second access but it would have you know technically gotten rid of that for you um and then just as far as the cross accesses made um where did the utilities come in and I assume those are shared also probably need the cross utilities and then the storm water as part of your you know your cross access and use utiliz yeah anything that Services the property that would be on the other lot there would be uh agreements that have to be put in place for that utility easements or or whatnot and they could be handled as by blanket easements you know for the right because they service the whole Community the whole development yeah I I understand I wasn't picked it up at my um my only other concern as I had said before you heard it but not everybody um was at the storm water because they testified that they're using the same combined storm water so just to include that in the cross access thank you any other questions so ju ju just to clarify what are the differences between the conditional use that was granted what changes are you making so the the condition use last time they the as I understand it from reading the resolution there was a setback that the minimum setback that was required on the as a conditional use for for this particular use on this property the building when it was put it was a place did not meet that setback therefore it triggered the um conditional use variants um for this um just after that approval in 2014 the town had a a pending ordinance that was removing this specific use from uh as a conditional use within the zone so we they got in just before that change that would have made it a straight use variance as opposed to just a conditional use variance for it by enacting that new by enacting that ordinance adopting that ordinance it removed the uses from the permitted use list and the conditional use list out there therefore you know anything we do on the property or anything the applicant does on the property in terms of improvements that requires a board appr approval would trigger a uh a D1 use variance because the uses are no longer permitted or permitted as permitted uses or conditional uses with separate standards okay thank you you're welcome any other board members seeing there's none I'm going to open this application up to the public anyone here wishing to be heard please come forward seeing there's no one from the public to be heard I need a motion to close the public portion motion to close second second all in favor I public motion is closed okay board members we have a application before us do we have a motion to approve or deny I'll make the motion to approve subject to the conditions agreed to the hearing and in the um planners and Engineers rep thank you Miss Kelly do I have a second second second Adam secretary Ro carry yes Mr Lupo yes Mr Masters yes Mr tany yes Mr jaffy yes Mr Cole yes chairman LF yes thank you [Music] all okay board members we need to memorialize application ba- 52072 one Collins landare LLC and for the record are the only people who are entitled to vote on the application are the uh two individuals uh remaining on the board who uh actually who voted uh against the motion which would be memorializing the decision to deny the application so it be Mr tany and chairman lfat would be those okay so I'm going to so can you just recap that please before I say something yeah sure uh so essentially the only people who can vote in favor of the resolution or the people who voted in favor of the action being taken so it was a denial three people voted against the motion which caused it to be denied uh Mr verie is no longer a member of the board so Mr tany and chairman mafat are the only ones left who voted against it or the people who can memorialize the resolution so the two of you are are the only show in town so I'm going to make a motion to memorialize the resolution and it's going to St as is that the applicant was denied Mr tany we will need a second if that's second that's what you agree with that's fine roll call Mr tany no yes chairman MAF yes all right cool thanks guys good going to open it to the public that was quick any close the public portion all in favor all good any discussion items any dis uh any car