Welcome To Mars Township's June 3rd planning board hearing I'd like to welcome everyone I'd like to State for the record that legal notice required in accordance with the open public meetings act has been satisfied and a statement certifying the same will be executed ask everybody to rise for a pledge of allegiance yeah right United States of America and to the for it stands one nation under God indivisible at liberty and justice for all and if prayer would probably help us [Laughter] all can we get a roll call yes Mr Mr FL here M van order here Mr nun here Mr rabbit here here here here here here Mr Warner here pH here here okay our first order of business tonight is a resolution for from enforcer would you like to te it up certainly Mr let me if I may with your permission also just mention that the Lial us LLC uh res resolution uh will be available for uh consideration for adoption at our next meeting uh the Crum and Foster resolution uh was distributed to you prior to this evening uh that was an amended say plan approval for an existing uh and then replaced freestanding identification sign at 305 Madison Avenue the board will recall it was approved uh unanimously 9 zero uh and uh the primary condition of approval was that the sign's internal lighting system uh shall be either off between 10:30 p.m. and Dawn or uh a timer dimming the brightness of the uh lighting by 50% uh during that period of time there were other conditions of course as always but that was the primary one hopefully the resolution has drafted as an accurate memorialization of what you decided and why you decided it thank you Mr Warner board members anyone have any questions I'll entertain a motion so moved second second any discussion all in favor I I we need a roll call yes if you would please those qualify Mr yes Mr order yes Mr none yes Mr rabbit yes m b yes Mr Beno yes Mr flowers yes thank you Mr Warner you uh sorry Sonia will you introduce the next applicant yes next application is p121 Joseph Savage for minor subdivision variance and wer this is black 20301 L 834 staright Drive in the R15 Zone applic proposes a minor subdivision to create one additional lot good evening good evening for the record purpose my name is Steven shepis I'm the applicants attorney seated over there to my left your right Mr Mrs Savage then the applicants thank you Mr Warner maybe it's appropriate for all the witnesses and all of our professionals to be sworn in at the same time certainly I'll uh do that do we have your Witnesses available they are uh seated by behind me is Mr Walker Mr Walker is a licensed professional engineer uh to Mr Walker's left is Nicholas graviano as a licensed professional planer and no one else will be test don't anticipate any other WIS okay I'll swear them both in along with our board professionals our planner uh Mr Phillips and our engineer uh Mr Slate will all of you raise your right hand do all of you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do thank you all and before Council uh gives his opening uh Mr chairman with your permission I did have an opportunity to review the notice found the content to be sufficient found it to be timely served certified mail on May 16 uh published in our official newspaper on May 17 uh both of those dates being at least 10 days prior to this evening June 3 so the board does have jurisdiction to hear and decide the application tonight thank you Mr Warner you're welcomeair thank you applicant attorney would you like to open oh sure well look first I'd like to give you an aerial photograph of the subject property that was provided by the Mars County planning board based on aera photography for 2018 it's the most recent available I think the aerial photograph from the county will help put the entire application in good perspective so I'd like to have this marked as exhibit A1 and then hand up copies board board professionals I also have some extra copies for the uh for the audience so like so if I could uh hand this up and we can somehow make that on to the that's fine and I'm correct that uh there'll be a witness will'll be testifying as to it correct sure okay I approach yes of course that's the legal warning that absolves us of all liability right A1 yes A1 here thanks okay now Mr Walker you've been sworn so I'm going to ask that you briefly State your credentials for the record sure um I hold a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from North Eastern University master's degree in environmental engineering from NJIT been licensed to practice Engineering in the state of New Jersey for over 32 years you know I look younger than that but um and I I don't know if I've ever testified in front of this board I may have along the way or someone else from my firm I'm a principal at dyra Walker Design Group we're located in Lake of pakong 21 Bowling Green Parkway um and we do a lot of work in Morris County um so I am licensed and my license is current I offer Mr Walker as a licensed professional engineer I just want to round out the record if I may Mr chairman though I take it even though you may not have been accepted by this board you've been accepted by other land use boards in the state of New Jersey as an expert in the field of civil engineering yes I am okay and also being sought as a surveyor or just civil engineer civil engineer only only okay thank you you remain accepted very good now Mr I know you bring you brought your own exhibit with you this evening I did aerial based on aerial photography I did so perhaps what you can do is we can uh introduce that you can tell us what it is how it was prepared how many sheets it is and then from there we'll hand them out okay so it's three sheets the first sheet is entitled existing conditions exhibit it's basically the survey superimposed on an aerial photograph the second is a proposed subdivision exhibit which is the plan that you have before you tonight and it's just a colorized exhibit again superimposed on an aerial photograph and the third is entitled uh alternate subdivision exhibit just a slight modification of the property line all the improvements are the same and again it's a rendered plan over a aerial photograph right now Mr Walker these exhibits were prepared by your office or under your supervision is that fair to say that's correct and they're all they all have today's date Jun based on the survey that's subject of tonight's application that is correct yes okay now uh collectively should we this is a matter of uh board procedure we could do it as one uh three-page compendium we got the three pages already identified so uh just give it a name as a compendium um ex exhibits subdivision exhibits subdivision exhibits that's fine very all right Mr Walker do you have enough for the uh for the board members I do I should have 19 here so might have some for the audience as well and again for the record exhibit A2 is a three-page compendium uh entitled subdivision exhibits okay now the same caution apply if I go it's a standing [Applause] caution thank you sure [Applause] enough we have enough there one need one more no no we got got our planner was able to get the those up dig digitally as well so we have the Min right Mr Walk I wanted to walk this through what we've marked is A2 tell us how it assists the board in their fact finding determination sure so um as you can see the the property boundaries marked in white 5.47 Acres with 152 feet of uh lot width fronting on Starlight Drive um there's an existing dwelling uh along circular driveway a detached garage a shed a tennis court that you can see that's striped um we also have a stream that runs through the property and there's uh a combination of several drainage pipes coming from Starlight Drive that discharge into uh that area creating the stream it's about 117 Acres draining through the Stream area um stream has we have got a verification from the D they've designated the stream uh with a 50 foot repairing buffer and because we have more than 50 acres draining to it it also has an Associated flood Hazard area that's defined and we've received uh the verification from the D indicating the uh the flood Hazard uh elevation and we've defined that on the map as well um we have also Al because we have a stream we also have some wetlands and those are the uh the white marks patterned throughout the uh throughout the plan and uh the the wetlands themselves have been designated as an intermediate resource value Wetland which holds a 50 foot transition area so we have a 50 foot transition area on the wetlands and a 50 foot repairium buffer on the stream the stream is located well inside of the wetlands and the repairing buffer really doesn't come into play uh for our particular subdivision uh East the easterly property line the far end opposite of Starlight Drive actually has an off-site sanitary sewer uh easement and a su sanitary sewer Main and the existing house that's on the property connects to that sanitary sewer Reas the property is located in the ra15 zone which only requires 15,000 square ft this particular lot as you could see is very large and it's over 15 times the required size for this particular zone so we've got an incredibly large piece of property uh in this in this smaller lot size Zone the lot width required is 100 feet the property is gently sloping and primarily towards the stream 85 5.6% of the property contains slopes that are less than 15% so that that indicates that the property is basically um uh not uh not meeting needing to meet the requirements of the steep slope 86.5% of the property but there are a couple of pockets of slopes uh within the property but predominantly the property is less than 15% uh overall um and other than the developed area for the existing home and all the accessory structures the properties predominantly wooded um the wetlands as I mentioned have been uh have been defined by our Wetland consultant and uh there's actually been permitting plans submitted for a Statewide General permit number 10A which is a a minor road crossing permit and we'll get into that a little bit as we go a little bit further into the project in the D we we were on some calls with them about uh about the permit um and they did indicate that they were going to be issuing the permit uh for the project um we just we just don't have it yet and deing in this business you know how long it takes to uh get the D to issue permits so but verbally we have been they have indicated that they will be uh issuing a permit for us so if you want to flip to the second sheet in our exhibit we're looking at the uh the proposed plan as you can see in the blue is the the stream running through the uh the property um the light green is the area of the wetlands there's a blue line on there that is the approved flood Hazard area limit and then there's a red line that you got to look a little bit for that is the actual Wetland buffer all right so you could see that the proposed driveway goes through the Wetland buffer in a couple of locations and then there are proposed densely planted area uh shown on there as proposed plantings and that's the area where the tennis court uh is located so part of our negotiations with the D we wanted to keep the tennis court as a sports court and the D was like look you get rid of the you get rid of the tennis court we'll give you we'll give you approval for this so um we made an agreement we came up with a planting plan that they were uh agreeable to so the tennis Court's gone um we do have a turnaround shown in the area where the tennis Court's located uh and that was really designated by the fire department they really wanted to have you know an emergency vehicle turnaround uh at the end of the process project so if you look at this uh if you look at this uh property I don't know Nick can you is there any way you could zoom in on the entryway looking at the the screen we have a little bit of a jog uh in the proposed property line and you know at the time when we were doing this it was really our intent to make sure that each lot had its own driveway on its own line and uh what happen is as you get closer to the entrance way that flood Hazard area pushes in and it requires us to shrink the driveway down so we have a 75 foot section from the edge of Starlight Drive into where our driveway splits off into two in independent driveways where we have a small area of common driveway and that helped us stay away from the flood Hazard area and avoid additional permitting uh and Preserve the vegetation in that area so so at any rate what we did was we had we had a we had the first about 75 ft of the property line is uh a common driveway and we have two lots proposed lot 8.02 which is the largest lot and the smaller lot is 8.01 so 8.02 in this scenario requires about a 70 maybe a little bit less 75s from the edge of the pavement so maybe 65 feet of common driveway that it has to travel over it needs uh would require a uh common access and utility easement over the smaller lot lot 8.0 8.01 um uh and then as you as you come in let come in off from Starlight Drive we we come in the driveway gets wider uh and then uh the the property line jogs in and the driveway for lot 8.02 is now on its own lot and the proposed lot line runs in between the two driveways and runs back and then we have a nice angle point and the property L proposed property lines perpendicular with the souly existing souly sideline right it's creates nice Lots back there they're they're side by side it creates a nice nice uh way to designate these properties and creates very usable front rear yards uh for these properties um so the the driveway uh as we went through some discussions with the fire department through Mr Slate's office uh they really wanted to have 11 foot wide driveway with uh two three foot Stone shoulders so uh so that's six so 17 foot wide effective area for a fire Tru to navigate and uh you know after getting the the specifications we came up with a design submitted that into the fire department and they were acceptable not only to the turnaround but the the proposed driveway that we have shown and then the way that it's designed is they could actually have the firetr could actually have one set of tires on one driveway and one set of tires on the other driveway if they wanted to there's there's no fence proposed in between there's only a three foot Stone area and the three the stone area actually provides two functions one is support for the fire vehicles and also helps to infiltrate storm water into the ground so it's actually providing two two benefits uh in that area so just taking a look at the Lots themselves as I mentioned you know we do have a very large piece of property we don't have any issue with lot area here the smaller lot is two times the required size it's 30, 73 square feet and the larger Lots 2, 2849 square feet way bigger than than what's required um but in looking at this slot we do have a an issue with the existing lot width the existing lot width was about a 152 feet and the Zone requires 100 foot per lot so uh we're coming up a little bit short with our lot width so there's you know a couple of ways to uh remedy that probably actually one way to remedy that one way would be is to just create more W of way which creates more Frontage and creates more lot width and originally in the in the early part of the application uh concept from a from another engineer that was working on this before we got involved uh got involved and created that uh that type of a concept with a culdesac and and I don't know if it was three or four Lots but it was multiple lots more than two lots and U so we've actually found in in especially since the storm water regulations have changed made things a lot more complicated that basically if you're doing a small Public Road for one thing it's a burden on the municipality and two it's basically a break even Because by the time you go through all of the procedures and approval process map filing law meeting all the storm water rules and regulations you end up basically building this beautiful road that takes away the value of one of the lots and you basically from a financial standpoint you end up with basically two lots financially anyway so um the way that we've always looked at these kind of things is it's actually just as easy to have either a private road that doesn't meet the doesn't have to meet the state requirements or driveways and in this particular instance we're considered a minor project for storm water management so minor project for storm water management is a project that uh has does not increased impervious cover by more than a quarter of an acre and does not create more than one acre of disturbance so we meet both both those criteria for staying as a minor uh storm water project and we actually have a slight reduction in impervious coverage we have because there's the tennis court this huge looping driveway a house a garage sheds all this stuff on the property our plan which is fairly uh tight and concise actually generates less impervious coverage that what's on the site today so we're at a minus 760 uh impervious coverage and we're showing that the driveways are all pitching towards those Stone areas that the fire department wanted us to have which is going to help uh with increasing infiltration and help managing uh storm water management on our property um so uh with respect to our lot width um we are under this scenario where We Shrunk the one lot down quite a bit with lot width and we made the other lot comply with lot width um let me just run through the numbers uh for the board so the the lot width uh for 802 which is the smaller lot um or 801 which is the smaller L is lot is 32.9 feet and the larger lot is 119.105 possibility we also have another uh alternative which is the next exhibit which we'll get into and we can compare the two and uh see if there's a see if there's a a concept there that the board would prefer um I don't believe that it matters to the applicant uh either way so we comply with uh other than that one lot width we comply with all the bulk requirements uh for the ra5 zone for these two uh these two lots um so we will have um to serve these properties uh with water sewer gas electric and internet and as I mentioned the rear lot already connects into uh the sanitary sewer line that's in the back we're simply going to connect that uh proposed dwelling into the existing Sewer Lateral that's there and it'll flow gravity into that sewer Main in the rear uh the water sewer and gas though will be in the proposed driveway except for the last 75 ft and there'll be a utility easement where it can cross over proposed lot point 8.01 now for uh the dwelling on 8.01 all of the utilities will be uh within the driveway area and uh connecting to Starlight Drive where the all those utilities are available to connect in um so we do have uh as a result of the subdivision we do have some some tree removal proposed there are 59 trees that are to be removed and as you know in your ordinance if you have a larger tree a replacement tree for a larger tree is more than just a one for one type of scenario so we went through we analyzed uh all the trees that are to be removed so the 59 trees that are to be removed actually equates into 145 replacement trees so the applicant has the option of planning smaller replacement trees or a little bit larger ones or even a little bit larger ones or actually paying for replacement trees so um it's hard to say you know at this point uh exactly what it's going to be because these homes that we have shown on our concept plan are just conceptual homes and I think that decision will ultim ultimately have to be made by the homeowner that's going to build a house on that lot or however that actual house lays out what makes sense uh as far as either plac planting those trees or or making a payment or a combination thereof um so as I mentioned the property is primarily unregulated less than 15% SLS for over 86% there are a couple of small pockets of slops uh that do exceed 15% and some relief is needed from that section of the slope ordinates so slopes between 20 and 24.99 there's an allowance of 33% disturbance within those slope categories so you could take that area and disturb 33% of those slopes um this application is proposed to disturb 30 uh 38.6% of those slopes so we're 5.6% over what's allowed um which equates to 487 square feet of disturbance that uh would need uh approval and then the uh the last slope category is the the greater than 25% slopes 0% allowed and we are proposing to disturb about a thir third of the slopes within that category uh but there's only 833 square feet that's being disturbed so it is relatively the Minimus and as I did mention you have a reduction in impervious coverage so uh the concern with steep slopes is typically making sure that you have a nice uh drainage plan uh a soil erosion and siment control plan that gets implemented and enforced which would go through Morris County Soil Conservation District so with those things in mind I don't see any impact from an engineering standpoint on disturbing uh these two small pockets of SLS Mark could you go to your plan set just so everybody can get an understanding as to where these slopes are the size of them in comparison that one Nick it's um sheap five and while we're proceeding with that I just want to bring to the board's attention the memo uh from the fire department uh dated May 30th uh 2024 I assume everybody received a copy of that yes no maybe so yes okay all right very good uh so I I do have a question were there any other reports uh issued we have the environmental we have the environmental report there well there's a the last TCC report April 4 202 for from our plan fire department report you reference and then there's the environmental commission report uh and then well not a report but uh Somerset I'm sorry Southeast Mars County excuse me we have mua uh letter May 23 2024 not those are the ones I have I took the liberty of just marking the fire department memo 84 what's the DAT oh May 30 may we had one our package from March Mr Walker just so everybody understands the what went into getting this Memo from the Fire official of May 30th and I know I believe he's present here this evening on the uh Placer that says Fire official so that being said could you tell us what modifications were made to the plan in order to address the fire officials concerns I think I went over but I'll do it again so we we we widen the driveways and we added the stone shoulders and we created a turnaround at the back of the uh back of the site for an emergency vehicle turnaround and just so everybody understands uh this application doesn't necessitate the disturbance of any any wet lands per se correct correct and likewise it doesn't propose any disturbance of any flood Hazard area either that's correct and is it also fair to say that all of the improvements that are proposed are primarily in areas that are already Disturbed based upon the prior house prior garage prior tennis court Etc that's correct and I think you know the board could just simply look at the first sheet and exhibit A2 and look at the second sheet and you can see the development is in the same area all right so now let's talk about what's going on at the D you had mentioned that the property has this stream uh that necessitates a flood Hazard area and a riparian buffer correct correct and that uh jurisdictional limit has been defined by the DP and the appropriate document recorded with the county clier corre that that's correct and likewise the D defined the wetlands on the property as well and the related buffer they uh they they have reviewed it uh they're working with John Peele on the approval of the Wetland permit okay so now let's talk about the permit that's necessary what's the nature of the permit what does it pertain to maybe you could just tell us the the nature of the Improvement that necessitates the sure I as I mentioned um on exhibit uh A2 the second sheet there's a red line in on the plan and you could see the driveway crosses it in three locations so that's the red line which is the Wetland transition area from the Wetland itself and so where we cross that uh that transition area uh it's required to get a permit from the state of New Jersey D there's also an existing driveway that's in there and for the most part we're following that existing driveway uh and that's all part and parcel of uh getting our approval from the D they've reviewed all those different asset facets uh relative to that now Mr Walker for the benefit of the public who may not understand the term transition area could you briefly explain what a wetland transition area is as it relates to a wetland sure so in the state of New Jersey there's basically three transition areas an ordinary intermediate and exceptional ordinary has no buffer so like for instance the Morris Canal they dug the Morris Canal out they created a wetland in that area that's a man-made Wetland or somebody dug a hole and it filled up with water and the Wetland got created that's a man-made Wetland and typically those have no transition areas no buffers in in layman terms transition areas of buffer uh and then intermediate u means that it's Mo the most common type of buffer that you would have in the state and then uh exceptional resource would be uh something where the wetlands drained to Trout maintenance or trout production Waters or there's uh endangered species uh within a habitat range uh of the wetlands um so those are basically the three buffers and the exceptional resource uh Wetland has 15 foot buffer so uh anytime you encroach within the buffer the rules are very uh there's a whole set of rules associated with what you can do and what you can't do uh just because you have a buffer doesn't mean you can't do anything uh but it comes under the the full review of the Department of Environmental Protection state in new New Jersey now Mr Walker is it fair to say in layman's term a buffer AKA a transition area is an area adjacent to a wetland that is not a wetland itself but rather is a I'll call it a an area beyond the Wetland that is not to be disturbed without a permit that's correct okay now when we look at the exhibit that you have that's up on the screen uh can you tell us what portion of the property would remain in its natural state or perhaps the converse is easier to explain so the board and the public can understand as to the nature and extent of the development as it relates to the total part right well I think if you look at the exhibit um in in the area of the tennis court that we're removing and we're creating all those plantings that's all within the buffer the transition area so the D wanted want us to create transition area plantings plantings that simulate what's normally in a a wetland transition area that you'd find you know in the nature out in the nature so uh so that area is in there so if you look at the driveway area to the north basically that entire area is not proposed to be disturbed it's all heavily regulated um uh so you could see that our area of development for this site just visually looking at it is less than less than a fifth of the overall property so probably about four fifths of the property will not be touched now Mr Walker drawing your attention to uh this uh subdivision exhibit that's up on the screen you noted this red line which represents the wetlands buffer and the need for the permit to cross it now that red line does continue on uh to the easterly sideline of the property as well correct uh yes it does so is it fair to say that everything within that red line I.E to the north of that red line uh would remain as it is today undisturbed yes to the North and the East yep so is it also fair to say that you're not touching uh the stream in any way or modifying the uh water course or the wetlands themselves just simply what you propose here on this plan that's correct we cannot get anywhere near the stream all right so uh why don't you proceed where where I interrupted you well um the last show us the slopes slopes oh the slopes did we get the have any luck with that oh here you go okay so the way our slope map is shown which is actually I believe sheet five uh in the plan set the areas that have no shading are areas that are less than 15% the areas with the next uh degree of shading is are the next slope category uh which are 15 to 20% and then a little darker 20 to 25% and then greater than 25% are the darkest slopes that are shown so as you could see right at the back end of the project there is a little bit of disturbance that's taking place uh within that area and that's the area where the uh slope disturbance is occur I Mr Walker if fa say that that area is adjacent to where the home uh used to be located the steeper area uh yes yes it is has it also characterized that much of the area that's being proposed for disturbance is already Disturbed presently well there is uh there is it's primarily Disturbed there is a little bit of an expansion uh in that particular area where there is some tree removal okay now in conjunction with this application we've asked for design exceptions from section 51 as authorized by section 51 of the ml authorizing disturbance of uh these slope categories can you tell us from a practical standpoint uh have you endeavored to minimize the amount of disturbance in order to trade the limit or eliminate this request um we have you know actually there's a couple of things that are you know kind of uh making sure that we don't expand our limited disturbance and one is in order to meet and to maintain our project as a minor storm water project we need to stay under that one acre of disturbance so we're pretty close to that one acre of disturbance number as it is to fit these two properties in and provide a nice front yard and rear yard and make these properties really desirable uh so uh that is the any disturbance Beyond this limit it's a cumulative thing with the storm water they if they go beyond that area uh and the enforcement catches up with them they could be forced to provide a major storm water plan for their own individual lot so uh any plan that we have shown we will not be showing any more disturbance than what's shown on this concept plan okay all right so Mr Walker can you show us the other alternative that you came up with uh sure so uh in preparing for the meeting we had some team meetings and we had some discussions about you know the proposed property line and I think you know originally as I mentioned the objective was to make sure that you know the properties were as most as possible the driveways would stay on each individual line so in the plan that we presented that was our objective um but we were kind of out of balance relative to lot width one lot complies and the other lot's you know coming up really short so uh in an effort to uh balance the lot withth requirements we did the third uh image that have in your in your packet for exhibit number two and you could see that the proposed property line basically splits the frontage and the lot width and we end up with two lots that are 76 feet in lot width and basically the property line that's between the two proposed dwellings remained the same we simply extended that out further until it intercepted with the property line uh bisecting Starlight star Starlight Drive and creating equal watt widths so we just uh made a simple line it is a much cleaner looking property line Mr worker while you have this exhibit up I note that the proposed homes uh have backyard to Backyard to the homes on Fieldstone Drive is that fair to say that's correct so so in other words it would be like a conventional subdivision with backyards backing up to one another that's correct all right now let's talk about storm water management I note that you testified there was a reduction in overall impervious coverage uh based on that can you tell the members of the board and the public as to whether or not storm order management has been adequately addressed in your engineering professional opinion or whether you could uh provide some other type of storm water management infrastructure to do so well we have by putting in those stone three foot wide Stone areas that's going to infiltrate the entire driveways that are proposed in there so we have relatively long driveway so that's going to really help uh reduce the runoff coming off the property uh and then also you know this conceptual plan um shows a reduction if if somebody else comes in with another plan all this storm water gets reviewed Again by the engineering department at the time of a building permit so there could be a requirement to add some additional storm water at that time but right now the way that we have it shown we're we're under the impervious cover as it exists today and we're providing some additional storm water infiltration and Mr Walker I know you testified to this but just so that in case somebody missed it in the audience uh is it fair to say that the two homes proposed would be serviced with Municipal Water uh Municipal Water I'm sorry Municipal Water Municipal sewer natural gas and of course electric that's correct okay so there's no se septic systems or Wells proposed that is correct okay um and Mr Walker last question I have for you the basic topography lay of the land which way did the property drain towards so it drains away from Starlight Drive right and then it's a little bit of a canyon effect where the grade slopes down to the brook all right I don't have anything further Mr Walker Mr Slate you'd like to start with you you have any questions um yeah would the be willing to camer the existing assuming there's some sort of approval on this camera the existing San sewer line to make sure it's in decent shape for a connection yeah that's not a problem yeah and the also be willing I I I note it's called out as a three foot Stone shoulder but I didn't see a specific detail as to the depth of the stone or what's going to be done with that so we would need a detail what would you anticipate that stone shoulder being constructed on uh larger Stones like two two and a half inch stones on the top and then smaller stones underneath so probably going with like uh a twoot depth and then possibly a wick to make sure that we get down to some well- drained soil and replace that with uh some select fill or some gravel to make sure that it does drain and then the last question I had was related to uh the area of disturbance within the Wetland buffer area is that uh require buff for averaging or does the gp10 cover that based upon the amount of disturbance that's allowed under that General yeah only a gp1a is what was required to be filed the D was satisfied with that I have another questions thank you Mr Phillips yeah I want to ask a question about the calculation a lot with and I think I know what the answer is going to be and then I think we need input also from Jim and and Steve so as I understand it for the lot width it appears that you took the three points that are cited in the definition of lot withd and average that correct that okay so so just for the board it's the it's at the frontage at the building setback line and 40 feet beyond the building setback line okay um and I guess the the issue for consideration is in that definition it mentions those three points but it doesn't go on to say that you should take the average of those points uh which may mean that you have to calculate it at three points and if you don't meet it at those three points you may need a technical variance for three lot widths but I'm I think that's the way it reads but that's how I would interpret it but Jim you've been here longer than me and you've you know interpreted this ordinance long but and that if if that's correct that you don't average it it may actually change this a bit and it may prompt a lot with variance for 802 as well as 801 but I want I think we should get Jim's input and I may have given Mr Walker misinformation on that but as I read the ordinance because I may have told you to average it U but uh after discussing the issue with Paul it is clear that the definition does not say uh you know to average those numbers I do note that on lot depth it does specifically say to average uh you know the distances between front lot line and back lot line if they're not parallel so uh I I think it is a you know there's uh you know it's noted that a barrance is required for lot width but I think it just becomes technical that lot WID three different locations and on that you know other lot as well from a legal perspect itive clear's day it's three different points and uh and and that is how we have uh considered it at least since I've been here uh We've required uh variances uh where needed uh at both the uh lot width at the frontage lot width at the front yard setback building setback and and and lot width measured at for each lot at the 40 foot Beyond uh the front yard setback so we do need to calculate that numbers I will say uh the good news for the applicant is that uh in my legal opinion the uh notice is sufficient in that it talks about the lot withth has a magnitude and also has the appropriate catchall language uh so the board has jurisdiction uh to hear the application and decide the application based on what I'm anticipating to be momentarily an amendment to that application because it'll be seeking lot with at at least three maybe more than three points and the only other thing I'll add and I don't want to presuppose and I don't want to speak for the applicat planning witness but I don't believe that these technical Varian are going to change the substance of their arguments for the variances I don't want to make your planers case but I don't believe substantively it is going to be an issue but we can we can wait to to hear from the witness thank you Mr Phillips Mr Warren can I go through the board and then you be the back stop for us sure Murphy um I have a question um is the the difference between Vue A and vew B if I could U put it in my own words is that you were trying to meet the tcc's advice that you should have a separate um driveway for both Lots so you put the on view a you had the lot Line running down the middle of the driveway um to try to meet that criteria in view B it is a more expansive prop line that has a a bigger percentage of the driveway as shared um and and I guess my follow on question once you nod and say yes I'm right is uh what is the what is the um approach to ensuring that we don't have issues in the future between these two property owners who are debating maintenance issues relative to the driveway which would include things like snow removal repaving you know yada yada yada because that's the reason that the TCC and we as a board generally don't like shared driveways y it always deteriorates at some point so uh can you just speak to that please sure so you know with that in mind we really wanted to have two independent driveways the whole way but uh but because of the environmental restrictions near the near the entryway we had to combine the two driveway so we did the best that we could but there's 75 ft of driveway to Starlite Drive that is common and contractually uh there would there would need to be an agreement between the two Property Owners on how that driveway that gets maintained and when it gets maintained and would that be part of H it would follow the property as a deed that's correct restriction okay you know if I may chime in um and perhaps this is a good opportunity for me to um provide you uh a similar documentation um the first point I would make to you is as Mr walker uh notes 75 uh 75 feet is common the balance is separate so we would separate this uh that the driveway uh being uh separate if uh the board was to approve this uh we're only dealing with 75 feet of common area to be commonly maintained each property owner would have the right uh to maintain it in its entirety and likewise the obligation would be shared as far as the expense we don't are you talking about plan a or Plan B um well if plan a if we went with what's shown the lots are substantially on their own I'm sorry the driveways are substantially on their own Lots but if you went with Plan B we would make the driveway for the larger lot uh an exclusive driveway easement so that the larger lot would have the sole obligation to maintain that sub you know the longer part of the driveway because it only Services their home the commonality of Maintenance would only be uh as relates to the 75 foot portion up in the front otherwise it would be separate obligations and maintenance so so the just so I can make clear my own mind I'm sorry the if we're looking at B which is the more the more extensive property line not down the middle of the road uh you're saying you would have an agreement that follows the property that would stipulate who's responsible for what relative to driveway maintenance correct and the way we would divide it is that the first 75 ft would be common and then where the driveway branches off uh for either lot individually that would be exclusive maintenance obligation on that lot all right thank you very much now I would like to hand something up I did submit it to your board Professionals in advance now uh I was before this board back in 20 uh 2002 on basically the very same application so I have a certification which I prepared which just attaches documents including a resolution of this board uh and likewise aerial photograph of the property uh located at 198 mendum Road here in Morris Township and in essence uh the board at that time and I realize everything changes every application is judged on its own Merit so please I'm not submitting this for the sake of saying Hey listen 21 years ago when I had no gray hair and I sat before this board and Brian Burns was here and Adrien Humbert was here that uh God Rest his soul the uh the board approved this but I think what's what's helpful is the fact that in conjunction with this application uh back in 2002 uh there was a u driveway easement maintenance common driveway underground utilities very similar it's actually the last attachment on this so if I can take the liberty of just marking this as A5 and giveing you for informational purposes not uh Starry decises so I'm just going to hand this up on Markus A5 and then you can just take a look at it it's so telling as far asess what we have here and I don't want to steal your attorne thunder but it's not binding on you it's just ustra so I'm going to hand those there did I steal your thunder uh you your ventriloquy was just fine and uh well we do get extra start decises for the Latin so always you guys are killing a lot of trees tonight you're losing tree points on [Laughter] this almost weighs a pound wow where there's Mass there must be Merit so A5 just simply uh probably the best thing to take a look at is the aerial photograph that's attached uh to exhibit uh A5 and it is again an aero photograph provided by the Morris County planning board it's attaches exhibit uh D on A5 and uh as you can see that there was a pond up in the front of the property that kind of necessitated uh manipulation of the lot line and both houses on the on the two properties are accessed by a common driveway and there is a recorded easement as I noted in the certification it was a kind of a unusual set of facts it started out uh with a house in a barn somewhere along the line of prior owner illegally converted the barn into a house uh there was an application to the zoning board to allow two houses on the property that was denied and then an application to this board was submitted in order to uh transform what was a barn slh house into a standard house with a a common driveway easement the like so in essence um you can see how something like this has been effectuated the last uh document attached to that is the underground easement and the like and I remember Brian Burns marked it up extensively so I consider it one of my better works because he had a heavy hand on its preparation so much so that I've used it as a form to date so it seems to have worked for the last 20 years we haven't had any issues and um so should the board approve this application we would utilize the very same language that places the obligation common maintenance only for the first 75 ft after that everybody maintains the own thank you are you good Miss Murphy yes and actually I wasn't on the board then but almost I was any question yes Qui question on the disturbance the smoke disturbance did you talk about the nature of the disturbance is it just leveling it off of the yards or there's a wall yeah so we have um see so we have um we have a driveway the way this particular layout shown because of the slope coming off from the top of the hill we utilize the slope to have a garage under and get the driveway relating to the grade as much as possible on that side but there's still a little bit of fill uh that's required in the fill so we're not cutting into that slope we're filling onto that particular slope and then at the base of the slope we have a proposed retaining wall which stop stops the uh stops the grading uh you know in a in a formal in a formal manner so um the slopes are actually being filled and supported with a retaining wall so the potential for and and the slopes are all graded uh at a 3 to1 slope which is the requirement of the municipality um and the retaining wall prevents any disturbance uh below that I see because the entrance to drive to the garage is from the East your time is up [Laughter] Mr okay so you're you're leveling things off so you can and you have a wall to hold up what's going on and just a follow to miss Murphy's comment so you're still going to keep the two driveways even if it's on one lot you're still going to have them separated by the stones or whatever you're going to do correct that that we feel that that keeps the peace yes right um okay great that's that's all I have Mr Barett uh no question no questions just a point of clarification on Mr beno's concern or or issues just about the slope disturbance uh our ordinance does allow for disturbance of uh steep slopes there's a certain exemption for utilities and driveways the majority of this disturbance is in the uh uh area related to the driveway you know and utilities so just something for the board to beware thank you for the clarification M mayor the only question a little followup um on the so the only thing dividing the driveways in the middle after the first 75 ft are just the stones and gravel yeah three foot wide as stone three foot wide so they can at any time decide they want to put something else in there too correct correct they have to leave the stones all the way up so and then the first house could only go in and out on their driveway I mean technically uh well it it's that first 75 ft common so yeah right but the only thing dividing them is the stones correct okay just thanks okay well just in this year but thank you anyway U just a quick clarification so on on the third sheet and this is goes back to what M Murphy was saying um where the where the property is a little bit more balanced the uh the driveway where after the 75 feet where it splits off to the um it's on it's on clearly all on one the 8.01 property but there would be a uh an easement or some kind of deed restriction that says that that part of the this this block and lot does not is is maintained by the other property owner so once the driveways split off each property owner is responsible for their own driveway even though it's on the property of correct the other resident correct and that's that would be clear to both homeowners yes it would what we could do is we could make the uh driveway for the larger lot uh once it splits and Still Remains on the front lot uh we make that an exclusive easement that the the larger lot would have only the exclusive right to use that so there'd be no question as to whose obligation it was to maintain it likewise whose right it was to use it I I think that that would be a good a good approach to this yeah and and the beauty of this is that uh it creates a lot less disturbance uh and likewise it respects the environmental uh limitations of the area to the north so these areas are have been found by the D beyond the driveways uh to wetlands and transition areas so those are going to be remaining undisturbed so it's not as though uh somebody's going to have an opportunity to go put a basketball court or do any that area primarily is going to remain just the way it is because it is environmentally uh restricted by the D okay um other question and this I guess is a two-part question um plowing would be the responsibility of the homeowners and garbage pickup would still be on Starlight Drive so the homeowners would have to wheel their garbage down looks like a few hundred feet correct okay um the only other question the only other comment that I had is it's sure would be nice if this was all electric instead of natural gas Mr Chief no question order just as a point of clarification because a lot of the drawings I'm looking at say that the um the tennis court will remain but you've stated the ten cour will not remain and that was part of your negotiations with or requirement um from my understanding correct so where I see the places on the plans that say tennis court will remain just ignore that yeah yeah thank you that's a yeah that's a typo we we'll remove that flowers Mr chairman uh Mr Walker on the first sheet there's uh where was this there's a shed that's shown on the property line between the applicants property and lot seven who does that belong to that that believe that shed goes with the subject property okay is that really still there because some of this other stuff that's you know said that it's existing dwelling there's really not much I mean I guess there's like there was a fire chimney or yeah so is that shed still there is that I'm going to get you the answer from somebody that knows got while I didn't anticipate calling Mr Savage Mr Savage is here he's intimately familiar with the property he's got the ticks to prove it so uh I'm gonna ask if Mr Savage be uh sworn and then he can address any questions that you have about existing condition sure please raise your right hand sir do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes okay and again name and address for the record although we could probably glean both Savage Ro Township all right good Mr Savage there was a question posed by one of the board members Mr flowers as to the shed that's shown as being over the property line that is the neighbors that's not ours oh okay so what's gonna I mean I guess it doesn't really matter for us but it looks like it's mostly on your property it is I've spoken to the neighbor about it it didn't bother us so we told he could leave it there if it was an issue with the town I could bring it up to him but we okay all right excuse me I would just note that if it's left there a long time it becomes an adverse possession situation I would be cautious about that okay good point I don't know how long it's been there that I can't say you discuss that with your attorney afterwards yep if it doesn't bother you don't bother the nameb perfect okay that's all very good I have a couple of questions are we going to get a list of the variances okay one second question I have is actually for our professional Mr Warner so they've prevent presented us with two options is it common that we make the decision which option they go with or are they going to present an option they want and we're going to vote on it the answer is yes and yes because technically the applicant should uh put forth what they want in front of you and that's what they're asking for that's their application however it's not uncommon to for applicants to say you know if the board would prefer y overx you know we're happy to do it and so then it sort of puts it the it in your in your court frankly I think we might have some other professionals that may want to give their opinion with respect to which may which option the board may find preferable so so uh by way of uh uh preview um also with respect to the the the um getting the variances aside from the fact that which option is going to impact the magnitude and number of lot width variances we are still await uh we should have that answer and and then uh we should figure out what those lot withth deviations are I think they're on the plan already with respect to the option that is the proposed subdivision exhibit page two of three and exhibit uh L track here A2 um and and maybe it's a good what here's your preview segue to Mr provide you with what I believe based on the interpretation of the ordinance definition of lot with that we discussed the lot with variances that would be needed for lot 801 each of the three instances is deficient it's on actually on the plans and under footnote 4 and for lot 802 there would be one deficiency which would be at the front lot line that would be 80 feet where 100 feet is required they meet it at the other two points so those would be the variances and would the slopes be considered variances the slopes are design waiver slightly different standards1 ml if I can ask po a question out of order but uh it's it's 32 can you give us those three numbers for uh proposed lot 801 under the proposed subdivision as opposed to the alternative yes at for lot 801 at the front lot line it's 32 feet and 100 feet is required in all instances at the minimum building setback line which is 50 feet in this Zone it's 39 .6 feet and 40 feet beyond the 50 Foot minimum setback line it's 27.2 feet so in all three technical instances there's a deficiency on a lot 802 the only deficiency is at the front lot line it's 80 feet in Le of 100 feet and again that's for the plan not the alternative plan I don't know if we have CS for that but this is for the plan okay well before we get into those counts uh uh and those are we've treated those historically as three excuse me now four variances uh quote unquote technically if you ask me to Define what is a technical variance uh as opposed to a variance the answer is there's no difference but at least in my opinion um you define story decisive it's it's not no sisis would be precent not here though my no PR um we they are uh I don't know if I one of our board professionals not both might have a preference as to which alternative and why that might be helpful for the or is it premature you want to go first sure I mean my preference would be the uh the first option that's in the plan set I think it's cleaner from a uh you know like a maintenance lot line perspective that's the property line right down sort of the middle of the driveway correct which that's two separate referencing a Mr War just to refresh the board when what we've called A and B A is the lot line down the driveway that creates a lot size variance not lot size no not size what's the issue lot wi wi at three different points for proposed lot 801 and at there's also a deficiency at the front one point for proposed L 802 in that scenario uh that's the proposed subdivision that's page two of exhibit A2 and those are the the the deviations the magnitude of the variances are those points that uh Paul just read earlier 32 feet versus 100 feet 39.6 ft at the front yard setback and 27.2 feet at the 40 foot beyond the setback for proposed L 801 and 80 ft at the frontage for proposed lot 802 versus 100 ft minimum required Mr I'll just waigh I I would concur with Jim on my preference and what I'll say is while the alternative B is sort of better from physical perspective uh it it basically is a more regularly shaped lot my concern I think that I share with Jim is that because the access to the second lot is completely dependent on the first lot if there's ever some kind of Maintenance issue or something that second lot's not going to be able to potentially have access and the only other thing and I think the applicants engineer is doing the Cs but it's not going to totally eliminate the lot withd variances correct no it's actually for the for option b all three dimensions for both lots are non-compliant yeah so You' have six variances I'm sorry that's so the alternative a actually has less relief being sought thank you so Mr Warner procedurally how do we move forward with AB do we throw it back to the applicant to tell us what they want or do we take a straw poll of the board members is it appropriate to do it the applicant can I've never had an A and B before there's no required uh procedure uh is the applicant uh putting forth one the other or both what what's the applicant you know the beauty I I see in the planning process is that we get input from the board and you know unlike a zoning Board of adjustment where you're pursuing like a use variance everything is stoic until there's a vote uh with the planning board there's more give and take so we would like to get your input on the topic to see which you know is preferable and we could certainly uh attempt to accommodate concerns as as as they V voiced so Mr Warner we'd be willing to do that question is is it done now you obviously this is not going to determine whether we're going to approve the application it's just giving advice to the applicant as to which lot line layout they should propose you you know what you can do it now but maybe at this point it makes more sense since you've gotten the flavor of each you've gotten input from your own board professionals as to each maybe we should continue with the case there's more to hear and and it only it only comes into play if there's going to be an approval uh as to which uh is the preferable so I have one other question what is the height of the retaining wall well it's just conceptual right so depending on I'm just wondering whether there's Structural Engineering involved no there's no structural engineer under four feet I don't know what triggers structural engineer I think above the wall is uh the max height is 14 the way we have it thank you and if it's if it's more than four feet in front of the structure of trigger zone of bar I'm G to turn questioning over to our attorney um Mr Warren the uh's what we got we got the magnitudes bear with me we would agree that it would be no more than 4 feet have be a stipulation if approval is granted we yes got it removal got you'll stipulate to compliance with the free removal and replacement ordinance correct correct uh soil erosion settlement control curve Mars County Soil Conservation District stipulated yes correct the uh you already s stick the caming the existing sanitary sewer line and also the three-foot stone shoulder depth of help me out again that's two foot depth plus plus a a wick that's what I thought you said yeah so a wick is for the benefit of the board that maybe even the board attorney right so well a lot of times especially in these parts of New Jersey you get the upper layer of the soil could be a little sticky and doesn't percolate that well so we could dig like a one foot Wick that goes through that sticky layer into the better drained soils down the low gotcha some extra depth okay um you uh you STI to the deed restrictions with respect to the 75 ft portion of the common driveway so that uh and the agreements uh to be recorded as per uh the 2002 sample that is not star decisis uh uh tennis court will not remain that's clear and all plan revisions will be made uh to clarify same uh and the retaining wall will not be greater than four feet so those are the steps to date uh and we planning memo of April 4 the TCC memo no trees removed along the driveway connection from Starlight correct or not would you repeat that please any trees being removed along the driveway connection from Starlight Drive that was a point of clarification and she's uh two of six addressed that issue sh trees yes okay so so some are okay got it uh fire department is good and environmental commission had a lot of recommendations in their well I have an April 5 2021 memo that resurfaced April 22 2024 um did you address those you know there was a comment contained in the memo with regard to the uh stream embankment it had something to do with roots uh protruding out of the embankment uh as you may imagine that's a regulated feature uh there was some discussions during the TC CC meeting about granting an additional easement to the municipality for stream maintenance it serves as a uh conduit of storm water from some 170 Acres as uh for those of you I'm sure you've been to the property there's some very large uh pipes coming out from underneath Starlight Drive that discharge into this area and it carries a lot of water and certainly if the municipality requires some easement or other type of authority to supplement modify enhance uh the stream certainly will grant that uh as as it relates to actually doing work down there I mean I think the last thing you would want to do is have somebody other than the municipality go in there and start uh modifying a storm water uh feature that carries such amount of volume for the benefit of Township so we would agree that we would provide the necessary easement or other authorization uh I.E like a permit authorization to the DP if necessary uh as the town would see fit Township sees fit but as far as actually going in there and uh you know cutting Roots out of the bank I don't think we're going to do that so that was the one item that came up uh there was also the request to utilize green infrastructure with regard to the house to the uh greatest degree possible within Financial feasibility uh if it's under our ability we'll do that now there's uh certain things we can do certain things we can't do because it just drives prices to the point where it's not feasible but certainly if there's things we can could do with regard to storm water management to address concerns uh and otherwise in the infrastructure uh we can certainly accommodate that everything will be built under the current uh building code and I know there are requirements uh that have been incorporated into the current code relative to uh Energy Efficiency and and construction uh requirements so whatever the code requires we'll we'll comply with may I make a comment of course excuse me so uh that same environmental letter that you're referring to the item below the comment on the stream there was also a comment on an existing sanitary sewer pipe which is exposed and needs to be stabilized that doesn't that seems that that might be an issue for the township yeah I believe that's a Township I'm glad you picked up on that because I I did catch that as well there is a municipal sewer easement that traverses the property and I believe that is a municipal perhaps a trunk line that would be my guess to and uh you know the thing is once again that falls outside of our purview it's the Township's uh line so certainly if the township requires some type of authorization or some other type of uh easement uh we're happy to Grant whatever it is that the township would require as it relates to their pipe if it's our pipe we'll take care of it but yeah it looks like it's a Township pipe so I would say the township probably should take care of it and and there's two two existing demolition debris pile should be removed and debris disposed of an appropriate manner agree and N uh species native Native species correct we'll do that okay and uh then obviously you'll have to comply with the southeast Mars County Municipal Utilities authorities water meter and other requirements in their May 23 2024 yes we reviewed it and we know the conditions and we'll comply and uh got the lot with nothing further right now thank you one more question for you Mr Warner what happens if a d permit is not issued well it's going to be a condition of approval so if it's not issued they're going to have to comply they're have to find an alternative or come back to the board I would assum yeah I I would say the chances of that happening are even in today's climate next to nil in line to the fact that it's a general permit it's basically a permit as of right and the D has extracted um conditions that they otherwise really don't have a regul regulatory right to extract but that being said we have capitulated with all of their demands uh and the chief of the L use section has given us personal assurance I've known the man for over 20 years and anytime that he gives me a personal assurance and Mr Walker as well he's never reneged so um I don't see there being any possibility that that would happen right but Mr Warner told us what yeah yeah there would be no sub we'd have to modify something or rabits you had another question yeah just a point of clarification thank you um regarding the 50 some odd trees that you're taking down and replacing with 140 some odd trees I believe um that is going to be the responsibility of the developer and not passed along to the homeowner is that correct there would be an accommodation uh first we' have to make it known secondly as far as actually installing the trees you don't want to install the trees prior to construction or even they're in the midst of construction you would want to have the grades finished I me even when you take a look where Mr Walker is providing that retaining wall on the large lot uh there is trees that are being removed because the grade is being modified so once the grade has been modified then we can install the trees now as relates to the actual cost the the ultimate cost bearing this is going to be on the developer because that's what it's built into the price or built into the into the overall product But ultimately who plants those trees most likely it's going to be the homeowner because they're going to be able to select where they want to put them uh the variety I mean there are a number of native species that they could choose from but we'll work it in so that they would have a say as to what type of trees where they want to plant them Etc now there's only going to be so many trees you could plant for those of you I'm sure you're familiar with the property it's that the canopy is very high I mean it's like maybe 80 foot canopy and there's only some so many trees you can plant under a canopy that are going to thrive so I would imagine there's going to be a substantial likelihood that there'll be a payment in L for many of these trees because it's just it's with as as it's as dark under there as as it is at you at midnight because you know they have such such a high C I think that's kind of where I was going with this is who's going to bear that burden the homeowner or the developer yeah well and and is it known by well will it be known by each party what their responsibilities are what we can do is we can include a deed notice in the subdivision deed that places in the chain entitled the obligation to comply with the tree uh replacement ordinance so that it comes as no surprise and then as a result it'll be spelled out and we could certainly make that subject to the review and approval of the board attorney so that there'd be language in there that places you know the public or whoever is in the chain the title on notice as to this obligation thank you I think that'll work got the Mr SL uh I have no interest in maintaining the screen but uh I would uh like an easement if the uh applicants willing to Grant it assuming again there's approval uh there where the storm sewer discharges there's a number of pipes and uh that's something that's on our list toh consolidate that into one uh discharge point so uh I would say an easement in order to Encompass you know all those storm s pipes you know you know relatively small I want to say 25 by you know 25 something along those lines yeah should the board approve the application Mr slake if he would be so kind as provide us a hand drafted sketch as to what he's looking for Mr Walker's office can prepare meets and balance description with a plat and we can incorporate that into a general storm order easement or sewer easement or utility easement as may be found acceptable to the municipality does that work for you Mr Warner very good we're going to open up the uh questioning of Mr Walker to the public so if anyone out there is looking to ask a question of the civil engineer only please come to the uh lecturn state your name and address clearly and go ahead and ask your [Applause] question uh good evening good evening my name is Paul Hallis my address is seven Fieldstone Drive in Morris Township and my property one of the ones that have but the uh the project um first I'd like to just quick quickly comment that I have no conceptual issue or objection to this essentially two lot subdivision but I do have some questions for the applicants professional with respect to some of the details in the plan um looking at page two of the I'm not sure what exibit number it is it was the uh series of subdivision maps and plats and drawings that were provided it's the one called tree removal um my first question concerns uh the location of the new plantings if you look at this map it appears that uh most of the new plantings if not you know more than 90% of them are concentrated in the area of the former tennis court my question is whether or not any consideration was given to uh replacing some of the removed trees to the property line uh that backs the New Lots in order to provide some privacy between uh the new construction in the existing homes yeah that's a really good question so these are just conceptual dwellings we didn't do a conceptual tree planting plan the trees where the tennis court are was was dictated To Us by the D it's within that Wetland buffer area so we haven't we have not tried to address tree removal in this plan as the lot is a lot development plan comes forward know exactly what it is who the property owners are uh a treat planning plan will be developed at that okay so in the future there will be some opportunity for neighboring Property Owners to provide input or at least our comment on uh placement let let me offer this to address the gentleman's comment um we would offer as a condition of approval that should the board approve the application that we would work with the board planner to uh include plantings along the property line which gentleman is speaking of uh in order to address concern about screening now whether you're I'm not sure whether your ordinance permits uh Evergreens or it all has to be deciduous but uh we would certainly work with your board professional in order to address that concern so that prior to signing of any plans there would be something shown along that property line in order to address the neighbor's concern I would appreciate that if I may before you proceed because I was gonna uh thank you for offering that stipulation I was about to ask for it can we get a just a brief description of the property line we're talking about so that the resolution reflects it adequately it's actually the uh souly property line of the existing lot so it bucks up to the South Line and the Southwest so uh really the Lots in question from the neighborhood would be probably Lots two three four six and seven that uh but up to the subject property that would that would have any impact at all from this this development if you look on the 7 and 701 701 7 and 701 those are lot if you look on the key map of sheet one of our plant set oh that's consistent with the tax map oh so yeah lots two three four six and seven that's those lots are buting up to where the proposed homes I proceed thank you yes a couple of additional questions um uh with respect to the the nature of the lot itself uh it was severely impacted by Sandy and there are a number of dead and leaning trees does the tree removal plan that's part of this application take into account any um intention to remove dead or leaning trees all right so here's the here's the answer if in the wetlands or the Wetland buffer the D does not want you to remove dead trees from the wetlands or the transition areas these would be along the back property line that you just described but if it'sin obvious locks nicer uh and you know usable those all those dead trees be remove unless they're in the transition we could agree to remove any dead or leaning trees which I would assume if they're leaning they're probably Dead uh that are outside a regulatory area thank you um question concerning the plant for electrical utilities from Starlight I assume that's where the electric is going to come on to the property is it going to be underground or overhead it's going to be underground there's a utility pole that actually encroaches into the property so from that pole will run electric Down and Under okay uh just one or two more additional questions and I'm referring to uh the drawing number three in the package uh and specifically my question concern the plants for sewage uh removal it appears that the new dwelling to the I'm going to call it to the left here if you're looking at this map is going to have a a forced man and a pump that brings sewage back out to Starlight is that correct yeah the way our concept plan worked out and to sewer the basement we need we were going to put in a low pressure which is called environmental one is the preferred manufacturer for something like that um so there's a a line that's constructed so it's really a unique setup where there's a low pressure set up in the in the pump and there's always F in the line and every time there's water that runs through the system the pump kicks on and it pumps the column and that out so it's not a like a dynamic pumping situation it's kind of like a snail pumping type of situation uh so it's a nice system for a single family home and uh we prefer to use that kind of system because it's really easy to service the pump systems outside if you ever have a problem with your pump they open the chamber they pull the pump cylinder out and they just put a new one in take the old one back to the shop and fix it so that's the kind of system that we were thinking of putting in you know uh for that area and the the it's a from a Layman's perspective it seems like a pretty long run for this uh pump to reach back out to Starlight for for sewage I assume that it's all specked out to cover that length and abely okay um my bigger concern is with respect to the plants for sewage for the the dwelling unit that's on the right hand side of the map it appears it's going to connect into an existing sewage line that previously serviced the existing dwelling on the property many many years ago is that right that's correct has anything been done to ensure that that sewage line and I know there was a request that it be camed I'm not sure that made it to a stipulation in the proposed um uh memorandum resolution but um I would like that to be a stipulation that you're going to um hammer that and make sure that it's capable I don't know over years there's been Roots growing in there or that um there's any other um way that get impeded now we'll we'll make sure that's fully functional okay so it's clear we'll accept the Mr Slate's recommendation as a condition yeah and that that'll all be subject to his and the engineering Department's review and approvals which should help I'm sorry which will help when was the last time that that sewage line had was used for any uh for its intended purpose do you know I do not know um and you can't see from the map here where that leads can you do you know where that heads out to uh well it heads out to the uh the easement that's in Back to the north to the to the to the east okay do you know how how uh deep that sewage line is is buried we have not done many studies on so that's going to be part of our when we go for a building permit that would be one of the requirements that make sure that that line works properly or it'll have to be replaced in time okay I mean my concern is as a downhill property owner that if there is a failure there if it's close to the surface we may be encountering materials that we'd rather not see good point thank you I have no further questions thank you anyone else from the public have any questions yes sir good evening my name is Sharie FY um I'm at 33 Starlite Drive which is directly across the driveway that we've been talking about tonight um so my questions um are all about storm drainage because I've lived at this property for 27 years and I've been encountering one Lake after another right in front of my property the existing drains can't handle the water coming down from the street coming from my backyard through the easement pipe into across the street into the stream I'm gonna ask you to bear with me one second if you would thank you um uh councelor do you have any objection to me swearing this gentleman in so that the testimony he's providing can uh I have no objection be considered by the board thank you and this this is the time for questioning I recognize every question requires a little predicate comment so uh if you don't mind raising your right hand I'll swear you in do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you've already given in any further testimony that you may give is the truth the whole truth of nothing but the truth I do thank you please continue asking your question okay so um I mentioned about the challenges that are currently exist right with storm drainage my concern is I've heard about tree removal right off of Starlite Drive right right next to the driveway that can't help that situation uh I'm concerned about the slope of the existing driveway the slope of the proposed driveway right and the total impact of the construction on the Storm drainage I understand that there's been um an environmental review and a pending approval um but I've never heard anybody coming ask me about what my situation is and what I've seen so I assume some people know what they're doing but um it doesn't negate my concern about widening the driveway having heavy Vehicles go in and out and the removal of not just the trees in front of my house which definitely do some storm mitigation but there's water that are you know that is just piling up all in the front so I would I would hope that this is an opportunity to help mitigate some of that water that is happening in that area because it's going to touch the proposed driveway right so the the applicants I'm not sure if you're going to be living there or not but you're gonna have to drive through a little bit of a lake to get out to St Starlite so that's basically my question I'm sorry if it was elongated so I just just so the board understands so you're we're looking at the exhibit which is the exhibit two which is sheet one um so the gentleman's property is on the inside corner uh of Starlite drive across from the subject property right so our property slopes away from Starlite Drive so you know I understand that you're having some existing condition problems right um for our application soon as we leave Starlight Drive our driveway is heading downhill away from your property and the slope of the driveway is 3.22% so we''ve got a relatively flat driveway going away from Starlight Drive there is a lot of drainage that from Starlight Drive and there's a couple of uh couple of 15in pipes that look like they run through your property yes towards that storm drain so so there's a combination of probably three inputs coming into that one storm drain and I would imagine under an intense rainstorm storm drain can't handle it the water backs up that is correct that's what's happening that is correct so my concern is I mean I I don't understand why any trees would be need to re be removed from there because that we are actually not removing on our plan which is sheet two of six the first trees that were showing to be removed are about 100 ft away from Starlight Drive so we're already you know four feet lower so not Frontage of Starlight Drive in the back like as you go down the common driveway you're taking those trees not the trees in the front in the driveway not in the front we're following the existing driveway so our driveway is really narrow in the front and then it wides out uh to about 22t wide you get 75 ft away from the road so we're already way downhill and far away from from your property so all the drainage from our site is not going to impact you it's going to drain away from your property but I understand your concerns maybe should be voiced with the DPW and uh fixing an existing issue that's out there yes you're right it is an existing issue and my concern is like there's been a lot of slope discussion um today and I'm just concerned about any changes in the Topography of that area whether it be the 75 feet or Beyond right that will cause any kind of additional um you know matter to come my way understood yeah and we're draining away from so we will not be adding any more water to okay all right thank you thank you I don't have any else hi Andre SPO 11 Fieldstone Drive Ben Veno B vnut couple quick questions um when we think about the uh the retaining wall the north side of the property have you ever considered doing a more of a natural burm instead of a hard you know structure such as a retaining wall well there is a slope it's just conception yeah it could completely go away depending on who decides to build what type of house on that particular so it's just nearly concept okay but the limit of disturbance is most likely going to okay that's that's the area where we're yeah yeah that seems yeah it's a lot of disturbance in that in that area and uh I'm just concerned about just Downstream potential accelerating flooding towards Fiel Stone and Beyond that's where soil erosion comes in yeah very important you have to get a soil erosion permit we have to pay to have them come out do inspections on the property they have the ability to shut the project down okay conru has to be and they have to certified to our plan that it's stable before a CO is issued they actually have a lot of power okay good thank you and then uh just thinking about the emergency turnaround for the fire engines Etc have you considered making that more of like a gravel more of a natural state than impervious you know asphalt um we gave the fire department what they wanted okay can I ask questions the fire department now or no you're on maybe that's for another discussion but what was the what's the exact question no so the turnaround uh I assume that's going to be an asphalt material correct yes is there any way to keep that more of a a gravel more natural than impervious make it as you know Aesthetics as possible with the driveway and stuff but I mean the any type of stabiliz ground be sufficient but you know that was what was proposed it looked you know sufficient for for me and for what we were concerned about so okay um I would say though too like if it's gravel the plow plows that gravel away and then You' get all the finer particulates that run off from that driveway and find their way down to the brook actually and it counts the same it's impervious cover whether it's gravel or whe pav right so in this particular instance and to make sure that we have a nice suitable stable turnaround for emergency vehicles pavement probably makes more sense okay and uh just one more question has the applicant consider just developing one home instead of doing a subdivision of two so a larger home which kind of fits in that beautiful uh setting there uh instead of going through all this uh you know development consider a larger home you know on that property instead of uh two well we're proposing to build houses that commensurate what's what's in the neighborhood rather than having some type of Palace that didn't commensurate the lot is large enough and there's enough coverage on the property now like with the tennis court and things like that that we felt that it would be better to come in with a a plan that showed the lots more in conformance with what the ordinance envisions in this r-15 Zone and likewise homes that are commen rather than I mean when you get a giant house in a neighborhood of say 3,000 square for Colonials it really doesn't U fit in so coun do you have a planner that you mention yes we do yeah we'll touch on that but to answer your question briefly it was considered and this was seen to be a better alternative okay all right thank you okay we're going to move on to the next witness please thank you okay very good Mr Walker will be here for the balance of the presentation so questions arise so our next witness is Nicholas gravano Mr gravano is a licensed professional planner I'm going to ask that he come on up he's already been sworn so if he briefly State his credentials on the record and then he can address the uh planning aspects of tonight's presentation Mr gravano you have been sworn if you would please state to your name and business address and then if you can put your educational background and your experience on the rec yes my first name is Nicholas with an H last name graviano gr a v is and Victor i a n o i a planner and partner with graviano Ang Gillis Architects and planners with a business address of 101 Crawford's Corner Road in Hell New Jersey I hold a bachelor's degree from Ruckers University a master's degree in city and Regional planning from Ruckers University a law degree from the Temple University School of Law where I received a distinguished class performance in state and local government law I've testified an over a 100 municipalities in 18 different counties in the state of New Jersey uh my New Jersey Professional planers license is valid and I also hold an aicp certification you're an acceptable thank you for having me I appreciate it okay you you heard extensive uh details on this application through the engineering testimony which was very comprehensive uh so I'm going to keep this uh basic the applicant is before you this evening requesting minor subdivision approval with Associated C variances and design waivers for a specific piece of property known as block 2301 Lot 8 with a street address of 34 Starlight Drive uh that is in the R15 District uh the property's lot area as you heard previously is 5.46 Acres that's 238,000 square feet is required for a lot in this zoning District uh lot 8.01 uh will Encompass 3073 square feet whereas lot 8.02 will be 2849 square feet uh lot 8.01 therefore is two times the required minimum area of the ra15 district whereas lot 8.02 is [Music] 13.86% lot line WID variance whereas 32 feet is required I mean 32 feet is proposed 100 feet is required uh the lot width at the minimum setback whereas 39.6 feet is proposed and 100 feet is required and a variance is also required at the 40 foot Mark beyond the front yard setback uh moving on to lot 8.02 a lot with variance is required at the front lot line measurement whereas 80 feet is proposed and 100 ft is required um with the relief being requested by the variants it certainly could be granted under the C2 criteria whereas it relates to a specific piece of property here you have a 5466 acre parcel in the ra15 zone Additionally the applicant must demonstrate that the purposes of zoning would be Advanced uh by the granting of the deviation and then lastly the the benefits of the deviation would outweigh any detriment uh to the Zone plan zoning ordinance or the community as a whole now looking at the purposes of zoning a municipal land use law this proposal certainly advances purpose a to encourage Municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of lands in a manner which will promote the public health safety morals and general welfare and you heard numerous reasons how this will be accomplished through the testimony before uh the applicant has committed to the removal of dead and leaning trees in the vicinity of the neighboring Property Owners Additionally the applicant has committed to provide easement areas for the Township's drainage utilities um providing easement areas for the benefit of the community as a whole not just for the applicant and then lastly the applicant is reducing impervious coverage on the site with this application moving on this proposal also advances purpose e to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons neighborhoods communities and regions uh this applicant is providing over single family dwellings on oversized Lots in the ra15 district which is certainly in keeping uh with the appropriate population density of the area Additionally the applicant advances purpose G to provide sufficient space and appropriate location for a variety of residential uses with their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens uh this somewhat ties into the purpose uh e as well uh the ra15 zone is appropriate location for two single family dwellings two times and 13.86% [Music] uh has uh received positive reviews on the driveway configuration from the Fire official and is working towards satisfying the requirements of the njde uh the applicant's only variants being requested this evening relates to the lot with the applicants proposed structures the building Footprints will meet all of the required setbacks of the ra15 zoning district and is certainly not uh creating any substantial imp impairment to the any any of the surrounding neighbors uh looking at the 2017 master plan reexamination uh this proposal certainly helps preserve the predominantly single family residential neighborhoods of the community additionally it ensures that infill development in these neighborhoods are are considerate of the context of surrounding homes these are certainly homes that are befitting of the neighborhood and complement the existing Community well and then lastly uh through the applicants uh committal to helping the drainage easements and and storm water management maintenance of the community uh it helps Advance the purpose in the 2017 master plan reexamination to continue to Monitor and improve the storm Warner management uh particularly of Redevelopment and uh development and Redevelopment sites so in conclusion the variants can be granted under the C2 criteria advances advancing purposes of zoning a e and G without substantial impairment to the Zone planers zoning ordinance or substantial impairments to the public good Mr gravano you mentioned that the areas where at the homes are proposed to be built are sufficiently large in order to substantiate homes in conformance pattern of development in the neighborhood now you have an opportunity to review all of the documents that were submitted and uh is it fair to say you're familiar with the environs in which this lot is located yes I am okay so now let's talk about what the root uh because ordinance is generally have purposes you know and uh can you tell us in your planning U expertise what the root of a lot wi uh criteria would be as it relates to the purpose why have a lot withth criteria what's the purpose of it lot lot withth criterias are done to one provide access to the dwellings as well as to you know provide a you know continuity on on the streetcape okay so is it fair to say that one of the purposes of an ordinance that requires lot width is is to provide for sufficient width on a lot in order to construct a house that is correct and it's also fair to say that based on this ordinance uh which township has that there were various degrees of measuring how wide the lot is from various points that it's presumed that somewhere between 0.1 and3 of the lot that's the required width that the house is going somewhere in there yes uh the environmental constraints on this property certainly uh Miss necessitate a a different lot withd than what's prescribed by ordinance but when you look at the building envelope or the proposed dwellings it certainly provides adequate setbacks light air and open space between the the two proposed dwellings as well as to the neighboring dwellings my concern and my question to you is that if somebody is proposing lots that are unusually narrow to the point where say the ordinance inance is a for l and we're proposing lots that to say 40 feet wide would it be fair to say I wouldn't be able to construct a house that's commensurate with the homes in this neighborhood that's correct is it also fair to say that the purpose of the ordinance to provide sufficient WID where you could build a house and and meet side yard setback meet front yard setback meet rear yard setback so you got a wide enough area to put a house that that is met by placing the houses in this configuration that's proposed this evening yes the applicant is certainly proposing a building envelope which is consistent with the ordinance's intent so is it fair to say that despite the fact that we don't meet the letter of the ordinance as relates to the having the width prescribed in the ordinance that we're meeting the intent of the ordinance by providing sufficient enough Wide building areas where homes could be built of size commensurate with the neighborhood with sufficient area also for backyard sidey yards sufficient screening sufficient place for uh recreational activity you would have on a house maybe a swimming or uh even a a gazebo or a deck or something like that that is correct okay so based upon that knowing that you have to meet both the positive and negative criteria is a planning testimony that we satisfy that negative criteria as it relates to not having a substantial negative impact on the Zone plan and the Zone I certainly see no detrimental effects to the applicants proposal before the board this evening all right I don't have anything F just yeah well I'm concluding with Mr Gra we're gonna go our board professionals first Mr Slate no questions Mr Phillips I don't have any questions on the variance testimony any comment on the steep slope disturbance design W are you leaving that to the engineer I believe the engineer testified that the disturbance is only approximately 480 square feet in change over what's required by ordinance I think there's adequate uh engineering review to uh ensure that there'll be no detrimental effect from that slope disturbance waiver being granted last again what's that saying who did they say for last no the the the the um the uh if I could just follow up a little bit more on the design waiver for the steep slopes under 51b of the municipal land use law uh is it your testimony that the engineer testimony demonstrated that it's uh impracticable uh to require the uh uh applicant uh to strictly comply with the steep slope disturbance maximums permitted in order to develop this slot for sing two single family dwellings I I believe we heard an engineering testimony that were they were mainly related to access for the driveway and and to the to the dwelling itself which uh the Township's ordinance uh gives allowances for I I guess what I'm saying is to the extent that deviations are required uh they're a necessity as a result of this the way uh the way these lots are configured yes I think we heard an engineering testimony that they were uh minimized to the greatest extent possible and is it your with respect to the first prong of the negative criteria for the lot width variances uh is it your opinion that these dwellings and these Lots while somewhat unique the Lots in their configuration are nevertheless not substantially out of character with the neighborhood no I think they're certainly in keeping with the establish character of the neighborhood and can you just provide a little bit of the why as to that they they provide all the proper setbacks to the uh neighboring properties uh not as as well as the applicants to proposed dwellings uh the building envelopes are consistent with existing homes in the area I had the uh pleasure of being in this neighborhood twice uh once a week ago second time before the hearing this evening and these proposed dwellings are certainly in keeping with the established character of the neighborhood I have nothing further Mr chair thank you okay start the other side flowers I have no questions order I have no questions Chief n no questions sir the rabbits no questions for the planner mayor no questions yes Mr chair I have one question and and this question isn't to suggest that the answer is dispositive of this issue about the width uh of the the the lot size but my question is uh do you know whether any of the properties in the surrounding areas received a variance a width variance in terms of uh lot sizes I do not know that I I looked at this property on its on its merits alone in terms of the unique conditions of this specific piece of property um in Municipal land use law if if a large majority of homes in the neighborhood have the same condition the the prescriptive element is a zone change not variances being being granted by by the board this property itself exhibits unique conditions that warrant the granting of the variances okay fair enough thank you Mr Ben wat no questions M Murphy I have no questions to this wetness Mr Warner you have anything else you want to add nope we're done with your witness just oh sorry I mistake any questions from the public for this witness yes sir could you just restate your name address again sure good evening my name is Paul Hallis uh seven Field Stone Drive in Morris Township um sir is it within your purview to take into account parking and Ingress and ESS as a professional planner yes um isn't it appropriate or should I say isn't it um characteristic of this neighborhood uh for there to be ample on street parking for parties and festivities when people have um you know events like that at their homes the applicants meeting the required rsis off street parking requirements relief is not being requested uh but what I'm saying is that there may be plenty of parking for the residents of the house but in the event they had an event where there was overflow parking needed could they Park along the sides of this driveway did you take that into account did you look at that the applicant is not requesting any relief in terms of off street parking the applicant is meeting the required off street parking as dictated by the state of New Jersey do you have any opinion on whether or not um parking would be practical along that driveway the applicant has adequate off street parking proposed on both loans you know we'll have Mr walker uh get into some of the engineering aspect of that that's why he State okay I'd appreciate that because the witness is not answering my question he keeps referring to what's the applicant is seeking rather than giving me the benefit of his opinion as a professional planner you know we'll have Mr Walker thank Walker um so the driveway is a the pave part is 11 feet wide and then we have two two sections of three foot Stone adjacent to it which which can be parked on so we have a total width of 17 ft so conceivably when we're grading this plant out we'll create an area where maybe one tire would be on the wwn area just beyond to provide enough room to pass through so uh obviously that that is definitely a concern um where where you have a section of long driveway to get to the house you need a place to park and to turn around so we do have that uh that common uh turnaround area that's that's shown for the larger lot in the back and a very large driveway pad for the first lot on the smaller lot but yeah I think that's a it's a very good point and uh we'll work that into our plan but even with the the 17 feet with the two three foot sections uh and the 11 foot pavement there's there's just about enough room there to park a car and and be able to pass by just to clarify your not suggesting that uh parking would be accomplished or used on that turnaround are you uh for for a party it could be parked in there sure it's just for an emergency vehicle situation so if there's an emergency cars would have to be moved so the vehicle could turn around okay thank you thank you any other questions for this witness seeing none Mr sheis would you like to give us a sum well uh first thing just as a matter of housekeeping uh the first exhibit that we introduced was um exhibit A1 so just the background on that I placed an inquiry to Joseph burill the uh uh County planner uh and I make the request for an aerial photograph give him the lot and block and this is what the county of Morris produces in response to that request it's a very helpful request many counties don't provide it County of Morris maintains this and they go back many years I always asked for the most current so this document A1 is a government record produced by the Mars County planning board it's free of charge to the public I made the request they were gracious enough uh to provide it so that's where this came from thank you yeah as far as closing comments I don't know if anybody in the public has any case they want to present thanks yeah Mr chairman I would uh recommend that the members of the public make comment to the extent they already haven't and then close with the applicant finishes with I have one so I have one question we were presented with a plan A and A Plan B uh I I heard our professionals indicate a preference for plan a which has the property line running down the driveway um what I'd like to hear from our applicant is do they have a preference in terms of the plan a or Plan B and if so why well I would say this from a practical standpoint the plan that's submitted this evening plan a Alor makes the most sense and the reason it makes the most sense is because the commonality of driveway is only 75 fet okay and therefore as Mr slay did dead and as part of his uh response on the topic uh that from an engineering standpoint that makes the most sense now from a uh tax map standpoint uh Plan B makes more sense because it looks more regular but the reality is nobody driving by this property is ever going to know where the property line is so it makes no practical difference and I think that if you weigh the benefits associated with what appears on the tax map as compared to where the property line is actually located and what the benefits are in maintaining ownership in fee of that driveway that the benefits associated with the fee ownership over the driveway outweigh the benefits of how it looks on a piece of paper and in light of the fact from a a visual standpoint you're never going to see difference uh we would say that what we submitted plan a is the best option but we gave it to the board because I realized you know people like choices and if we can give you a choice that perhaps satisfies a concern uh that we didn't see you know you have that option and and if I'm I'm not able to read this very well because of the small print and my old eyes but it looks like it's about a half acre difference in terms of the the first one is about 08 about 08 Acres if I can read that properly and the other one's about 1 three well it's not the age of your eyes that makes it so that it's difficult to read microfilm of it's just very small print all right so just to summarize right yeah the smaller lot in the plan set that you have is about two times the size of the zone so Zone requirements 15,000 that's 30,73954 the other plan Plan B Plan B it goes to 52964 22,000 either way you're okay from a z have more than enough prop okay thank you okay do we have any question uh excuse me comments from the public on this application okay seeing none we're going to close the public commentary now you me okay well first I want to thank everybody for your time and your consideration and uh we appreciate it we know everybody's time is valuable yours is valuable we appreciate you sharing it with us you know uh Mr graviano said something that I think is really telling about this application and that the lot is very unusual and that's why I wanted to get you an aerial photograph from the county when you look at the aerial photograph which has the tax map overlaid on it and you see the anomaly of this lot being five acres in a zone that permits lots of a third of an acre it really is uh enormous compared to the minimum lot area uh in the zone and when you look at a zoning ordinance generally I think there's two items of an ordinance that are really the most important when you talk about uh zoning one is use and two is lot area in many ways lot area ties into use because it ties into density you know two two houses on one property increases the density by 100% And clearly that's not good zoning and in this particular instance we you have a lot that's so grossly oversized for the minimum lot area of the Zone in its very nature it's out of character and what the applicant is proposing is to bring the property into greater character with the single family neighborhood bringing one lot of 30,000 sare feet and the other one still grossly oversized uh but it also provides an opportunity That You Don't See much anymore especially here in Mars County and that's the opportunity to create a single family building lot you know I was in the courtroom when The Honorable marann negard uh was having words with the burough attorney for Madison and she made a statement was Mr Quigley says Mr Quigley until they anoint me Empress of New Jersey I will follow the direction of the New Jersey Supreme Court and your town needs X number of units of affordable housing Etc now I have nothing against ID density residential I have nothing against affordable housing every town in the county is is required to meet its constitutional obligation but what's missing is the drive for affordable housing and high density residential has made Single family residential development nearly non-existent what was the last time somebody came before you with a multi-lot uh um major subdivision you just don't see it anymore because the pressure is on the municipalities to create high density residential and any land that is available I mean even now what's coming out of Trenton recently is placing even a greater burden on the municipalities to create that but there's no burden on the municipality to create additional single family building lots and these are are going to be like hen teeth or unicorns nobody's going to be coming before you on this in the year in the years to come because the pressure is going to be on uh accessory housing in backyards we' seen that coming out and then likewise high density residential because this is what the drive is and as Maryann neard appropriately pointed out until they anointed her Empress of New Jersey she followed the New Jersey Supreme Court and mandated so many units here and there and everywhere and I'm sure this municipality has had to meet its obligation as well and like I say I have nothing against it I'm sure the board has nothing against it but what it does is it artificially dries up opportunity for single family residential and you have a high demand I mean you have many people in that want to stay in this Township that there is no opportunity to buy a house and if you find a house and it's for sale people are bidding on it to the point where it becomes astronomical and and the uh inability for people to even stay in a town in a single family dwelling so I would submit to you that com uh that as contrast to what happened in 2002 when this board I realized none of you were here or at least if you were maybe one of that something has changed in New Jersey and something has change here in this in this town as in every town of Mars County there's hardly any more single family dwellings and there's hardly any opportunity for people that want to live in a single family dwelling to buy a new house so I would submit to you that while this does not comport with the lot with uh requirements of your ordinance that the purpose of that ordinance to provide sufficient width to have a house that you're not you know you have proficient side sufficient side yard setbacks and buffers and the like meeting the intent of the ordinance sufficient light air and open space is met now is it a little unusual with the the driveway but it's nothing that is so unusual that this board has not approved it in the past story decises aside but it does exist and the point is it's only 75 feet and I think it's very manageable from a a deed uh perspective and I would submit to you that the purposes of the municipal land use law are furthered by this application because we are providing an opportunity for residential use which is under great pressure and it's eliminating and there's very rare opportunities to Pro provide this and this is one of those opportunities that you have as a board to Grant a SE variance if you will or see variances in order to effectuate a housing stock that is drying up rapidly and it is becoming priced Out Of Reach for most people so by Pro providing this opportunity you're providing an opportunity for two families to be able to own single family dwellings within this beautiful single family neighborhood so I would submit to you that while variance is a necessity the lot itself cries out for Relief because it is so large and the other thing that I would point out is because of the requirements of the Department of Environmental Protection we already have a deed restriction in place relative to the wetlands and the transition areas the flood Hazard area the riparium buffer these are all recorded restrictions on this property that prohibit tree removal and disturbance I mean if Mr Walker testified that you couldn't even remove a dead tree because they're seen some environmental benefit I'm sure there is you have Raptors and other birds that sit up in these dead trees and pick off what's ever crawling on the ground and as a result 75 to 80% of this property is going to stay just the way it is so I would submit to you that you could approve this in good conscience knowing that you're creating an opportunity for something that is in high demand and low Supply in this Township and that's a new single family dwelling so for those reasons we ask that you approve the project thank you okay we're going to uh we're going to move this along the uh next order of business I would guess is Mr War can you give us an update on where we are with stipulations certainly etc etc well I'll uh as best I can and I'll be corrected where I'm wrong I'll I'll uh lay out the relief sort and the conditions stipulated to by the applicant uh for the board to deliberate and make a motion uh and and vote uh monor subdivision one lot to two along with four uh excuse me four bulk variances they're all minimum lot width proposed lot 8.01 approximately 32 feet versus 100 feet uh let start that again 32 feet at the lot Frontage versus uh the minimum lot width of 100 feet required 39. six feet at the front yard setback which is 50 feet back from the property line uh versus the 100 foot wide required uh and 27.2 feet at 40 feet beyond the front yard setback versus the 100 feet minimum lot width required that's all for lot 8.01 in the fourth variant for lot 8.02 lot width is 80 feet at the uh lot Frontage as opposed to the 100 foot minimum uh required lot width in addition to those four variances there's two design waivers steep slopes uh in the uh range or category of 20 to 25% 38.6% uh Disturbed versus 33.3% maximum permitted to be disturbed and uh in the range of greater than 25 % slopes uh 32% uh Disturbed whereas no disturbance is permitted those are the two design waivers now that we got through the relief uh the conditions stipulated to as I understand them are a 15 foot wide driveway and utility easement as between lots 8.01 and lot 8.02 all easements and instruments subject to review and approval of the board attorney and the uh uh board uh excuse me Township engineer uh and to be recorded uh so I won't repeat that for all of them tree removal and replacement ordinance compliance soil erosion and settlement control uh approval from Mars County Soil uh Conservation District uh camera uh uh of the existing sanitary sewer line uh and subject to review and approval of the township engineering Department uh three two foot uh depth of the stone shoulder uh along with one foot for the wick um the uh contractual agreement as between the two Property Owners uh to be deed restricted uh for purposes of uh maintaining the 75 foot common driveway area each with the right to maintain it in its entirety uh all to be recorded set as previous ly stated uh the tennis court will not remain and any plan revisions will be made uh as conditioned subsequent uh to clarify same uh easement to the township if so desired by the township for access to the stream for maintenance purposes uh deed restriction Steve um sometimes it gets even too difficult for me to read doesn't it the uh great job oh that was a deed restriction for the tree replacement obligation that's right um so that'll be a deed restriction that that obligation as well uh easement uh for storm water pipe discharge approximately 25 ft by 25 ft recorded subject to review and approval of her engineer and uh retaining walls will not exceed 4T in height and within the legal area of development not outside okay that was the uh remove dead and leaning trees ah thank you moving dead I have it there non-regulated area right okay all tree okay de okay right dead or Landing trees will be uh removed from all non-regulated areas thank you Electric utilities will be underground I just change up to all utilities all utilities underground Mak sense and uh in addition those conditions that were stipulated to by the applicant that were set forth in the TCC reports and the uh to the extent certain ones were uh stipulated to with respect to the environmental commission's recommendations in their April 5 2021 memo uh and compliance with the southeast Mars County Municipal Utilities Authority uh water meter and related requirements and I'm missing I would have a condition related to The Evergreen you know some took of Evergreen buffer long L to left that out that's right how do I leave that out plan on that and that would also be a substitution from a decis tree to for replacement trees thank you Jim oh okay I went right by other thing that I had was the uh I think that key map is incorrect where it shows that lot as eight that should be lot seven and lot seven should be 7.01 so just a correction on that got it just a Wonder would be appropriate to ask one one or two question oh that also presumes that it's Al alternative a not b which seem to be the preference of both the board and the applicant okay so coming back to that is my first question to you is there a necessity for us to take a scw poll at this point or are we being proposed I think option A and we're just going to go with option A I I think if someone wants to make a motion uh they can let us know which option they're going with and okay perfect second question is is there was some test a question asked by one of the W uh one of the members of the public about the firefighter turnaround will there be adequate signage in there letting people know that if there is an emergency they have to move their cars when they're having the party I mean I don't know what the fire department pulls in what do they do honk on the horn for an hour until somebody moves their cars how do we get them out right over so either is fire public proper so then we'll have no parking in the firefighter turn around no there'll be parking people are going to park there anyway you can't stop it the second question I had for you was the stone um on either side of the driveways is that stone above the elevation of the driveway which we're concerned about plowing ring those driveway and we'll get a detail on that other questions anyone else assuming he said it but I didn't hear the oh yeah out listening for I might well yeah all all required agency approvals are always in there but then including but not limited to the D General permit 10 okay we'll entertain a motion and then we'll have discussion if it's seconded I'll make a motion to approve the applic application a a yes proposed as proposed with the stipulations outlined by do we have a second I'll second okay is there any discuss among the board members seeing none Sonia will you call a roll call vote Mr flow yes Miss Ben yes Mr nun yes Mr rabbit nice to see a single family home being built yes yes yes bar yes yes Al yes okay we'll move into uh other matters you're welcome thank you congratulations and thank you thank do we have a legislative committee report no okay I see a resolution for Joseph spoopy and storm Water Management Consultant the vote yeah we have a motion second and a roll vote to adopt the resolution and that's for Professional Services for storm water management Jim if I may is that for particular application or we usually have him I thought on an annual basis excuse me folks we're still in in session here appreciate it no problem General but did come back up with so we need a motion to accept this resolution by Mr scopan I'll make the motion second second is there any discussion in favor yes yes yes yes yes yes yes last item of business is there any public comments seeing that they has ran out the door there is son do we have a hearing on the 17th when will we know for sure whether your agenda is closed that's a 10day notice three days four days so we'll know by Thursday you just need the notice you just need the notice period ising that that's going to notice in the next three days I'll ENT a motion to adjourn I'll make that second second