to call the order of the February 22nd 2024 Oldbridge Township planning board meeting could we please rise for a pledge FL United States of America rep for stands one nation indivisible jice for roll call Danny Mr Lenin here Mr Aran pres Mr dama here Mr low here Mr Rena absent Mr Petty Here M Mella here Mr mcac here uh Mr brenon Mr Ferrara absent and chairwoman Ken is absent okay first order of business um minutes of December 14 2023 I have a motion I'll move it second Mr lenning yes Mr hopan yes Mr dma yes Mr low yes Mr Petty yes Miss Mella yes Mr mcisaac yes Mr Brennan yes second order of business February 13 2024 minutes can I get a motion move it second Mr lenning yes Mr agapan yes Mr depa yes Mr low yes Mr Petty yes M Mella yes Mr mcac yes Mr Brennon yes okay for tonight's application is 77- 223 P wood Heaven Village Estates to amended major preliminary and final site plan for good evening Mr shimanowitz good go ahead got it now try one more time good evening Mr chair members of the board Ron shimanowitz on behalf of the applicant Wood Haven Village Inc we're before you tonight seeking an amendment to a preliminary major subdivision approval for the section of Wood Haven known as EST States 2 uh this section was granted approval by this board granted preliminary major subdivision approval by this board by resolution adopted on January 5th 2016 uh that uh resolution um uh was pursuant to application number 57-14 P uh you'll hear tonight the rationale for some modifications to that prior approval they're they're fairly minor actually reducing the number of single family uh lots that are in the development we're we're uh going from 120 single family lots down to 117 uh building Lots uh the uh applicant is also seeking extended vesting you'll hear from our planner and the applicant on that uh just by way of preview of for the board uh I plan to call Mr E uh who's fairly well known to the board after all these years of as representative of the applicant uh Scott Turner is our engineer from menow engineering Rob lson is our professional planner from M Atlantic uh and we do have the uh joint review letter uh from your engineering and planning uh uh Personnel dated February 21st 2024 and we're prepared to address that unless there's any other housekeeping or issues I would call my first Witness Mr E have Mr E come forward and be sworn good evening excuse me would you please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony going to give this evening is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do can you please just State and spell your name for the record uh my name is William I spelled I a like Florida e uh and Bill if you just want to most members recognize you because you've been here so many times but just your connection to the applicant uh I'm a project manager with Wood Haven Village and have been um for over 20 years I'm a licensed engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey um and I'm responsible for the um permitting and approvals for Wood Haven Village if you could give the board a little bit of background of where we've been with regard to Estates too and the history of what what brought us to tonight application okay uh Estates 2 is in the far southwest corner part of Wood Haven Village it's on Englishtown Road and generally bounded by uh the maponics brook and Englishtown Road at the far southern tip of the township uh it consists of uh it was approved for 120 20,000 foot Lots uh single families uh it is now 117 single family 20,000 foot Lots the reason for the reduction uh there are a few reasons one is some of the Lots in Wood Haven Village were moved from Estates 2 into section two and Wood Haven Village has a GDP approval and there is a total number of units allowable in Wood Haven Village so the movement of lots from one to the other to increase it in section two means they have to be decreased in estat two so three lots have to come out of uh states too and we're doing that the layout is different uh is slightly different it's different in the northern part of the site uh D's um storm water regulations and flood Hazard area regulations prohibit development in what they call riparian zones which you may be familiar with this is any ditch or creek with a drainage area of 50 acres or more has a 50 foot um no build Zone a buffer zone around it and you're not allowed to build an that so so inadvertently uh years ago there were some Lots laid out in the riparian zones so they had to come out um since those lots have come out um we have gone to D and we've got a flood Hazard area permit from them so D is happy that we're in compliant with their reg with their flood Hazard regulations they're also happy with the Wetland impacts at Wood Haven Estates to we have a administrative consent order with de P Estates to predates the Wetland regulations goes back into the 1980s um and we have um many deals with d and a consent order with d that allows development on states to and we've developed in those areas and not in areas um where we're not supposed to be developing so the layout um is a little bit different it's three units smaller um and it complies with all of dp's regulations um that's sort of the general background of what we're doing here tonight uh Mr R we do have our engineer who's going to testify and show you exhibits obviously but Mr E is prepared to uh sort of give a summary response the review letter if we could allow him to do that that would be that would be good bill you prepared to do that just sort of Hit the highlights on the review letter yes I am okay if you could help with that we received a review letter from uh um the goldber planning board um from the planning uh the planning professionals at the township and the envir and the engineering consultant um of the township um the application that we submitted um was pretty much in the form of a compliance submission for the prior application the older application had an engineering review letter and that letter had a number of conditions in it so our submission of this application uh not only had the layout changed to satisfy the getting out of the riparian zones but it also add addressed attempted to address all of the conditions from the prior letter so most of most of the things um that the Township's professionals were concerned about I believe we addressed with that letter since the layout's different and now time has gone by there are a few other things that um we need to talk about um one is uh waivers uh since this is actually a new applic there is an item in the ordinance uh that talks about critical and sensitive areas uh and wetlands are one of the critical and sensitive areas the aaco with d addresses that Wetlands at the site so um D is according to D we're okay with the wetlands but we do need to check the box um for the ordinance about a waiver from from the ordinances section about Wetlands um we are there's also a section in the ordinance that asks about groundwater recharge we have had our geotechnical our geoy hydrological expert hydraulic expert um check for aqua recharge on the site and also check for uh groundwater uh the site is underlain by the Woodbury clay there is no arer for recharge on the site we've gone over this many times before um but the pre-existing recharge is zero and the post development is zero so we technically comply and don't require a waiver for AG for recharge as far as groundwater recharge is concerned at relates to aquafer recharge but we've got a high seasonal High groundwater level at the site so additional groundwater recharge is um is actually advised against um we do not have any Landscaping uh waivers um there's an item in review letter that talks about that but we're going to comply with the ordinances Landscaping requirements the next item that I'd like to address is homeowners association in the 2016 approval at the time the township wanted um us to endow in other words pay a certain amount of money to fund maintenance of the detention Basin um over time by the township since then we've been advised that the township by the township engineer that the township does not want to do that anymore the alternative to that is for us to have an association a homeowners association to take care of the uh detention base and maintenance and also the township was going to accept the Open Spaces um we've been advise that the township does not want to accept the open spaces so the association will own and maintain those in perpetuity so there's a change now where we will have an association a homeowners association um since we're going to have a hom Association uh there's another comment here that asked about if we're going to have a sign out front kind of a monument sign to identify Wood Haven Estates 2 as the Wood Haven Estates 2 development without an association there's nobody to maintain it so we did not plan to have a sign with an association we now have we now have a source of Maintenance so we will probably have a sign and we'll give a plot plan to the township um to approve um uh we were also asked about phasing uh and we intend to build the project as one as one unit to put all the improvements in and then build and then build the the project and not come in in other words come in for one final approval this is not an application for final come in for one final approval instead of two or three smaller phases of finals uh we will also comply with proag um which addresses handicapped access on public streets Public public rideway accessibility guidelines is what proag says that we comply with that um is also always the question about what's the impact of your project on adjoining properties um to the to the South and to the West uh we are bounded by the matop ponics Brook so there's no drainage impact or any kind of impact on any properties to the South and West and flanking the metropic brook are flood Plaines at Wetlands so we're buffered from any properties on the other side of the brook to the north uh there is a wetland complex and a ditch with a 50 foot wide riparian Zone um and a property to the north and I don't like to talk about other people's property but to the best of our knowledge it has um it has some Wetland issues on it um so we don't think we're going to have any competing development um that we would be bothering them or them bothering us um and the drainage um because there a ditch and a wetland um separating us um and our drainage system drains toward our detention Basin uh we don't have any any any we don't drain on any on anyone else to the east is Englishtown Road um and Raceway Park is thousand feet to the east of English town of English toown Road um as far as utilities go we are required to uh obtain approvals from the Oldbridge mua we have filed a tentative which is the second of a three-step process with the MUA Water and Sewer applications um capacity for this site um was was determined way back when when Wood Haven started um we have preliminary approval from the MUA um for would hav V would Haven Village as a whole um so and Estates to was covered by that uh storm War management again we comply with the D regulations and the O Bridge tantum regulations are fundamentally the same as those so I would submit that we comply with the orridge township storm water regulations um and beyond that um there are several other permits and approvals that we need to get M 6 County preliminary final subdivision uh fre H conservation service um ndep sewer and water extensions um and we will get we will get all of those before we come in for final and all our taxes are paid and we will pay our inspection fees and I believe that's really all that I have okay Mr I uh like to hear from uh Miss Swan do you have any questions or comments on this no I don't Mr Dary thank you Mr low um I think I did get a chance to speak to to Mr R earlier in the day to go over our review memo so I'm satisfied that the that the comments will be um addressed just one quick question for the record Bill one of the comments that we have had in our memo was to provide some sort of recreation within this section could you just address that I missed that one um the property that is that is not a s that are not laid out as single family lots are open space and the Open Spaces are predominantly regulated Wetlands that they are to we do not have any Recreation we don't not have any parks or anything on the side except for Passive Recreation through the wetlands you're allowed to walk through them you're allowed to fish you're allowed to do things like that you're not allowed to build anything um it being part of Wood Haven Village we have two large Recreation areas at Wood Haven Village swim clubs club houses that is open to the folks at uh Estates too they do not have to join if their family and friends belong somewhere else or they go to the shore they don't have to belong um but that is open to them as residents of Wood Haven Village they're part of the family um the second re reason why we don't have any particular Recreation on the site is because they're halfer lots and halfer lots typically have their own swimming pools and their own swing sets and their own Recreation facilities on on on the Lots um and in an area where you have apartments and Tow houses um you don't have that kind of space so you have to have tot lots and um and and Recreation offsite um we think that we think the folks here we have developments like this and and they function they function very well so we would so we don't have a Toler and I don't have a spot to put one Mr Dary you have any more no actually I'm I'm satisfied with Mr Mr R represented there as far as the size of lots these are fairly large Lots so most of the homeowners will probably have their own small amenities and and and the only thing you really could fit on within the Open Spaces here would be some sort of small Tot Lot which really would be at that point a redundant kind of amenity I imagine so I I I'm satisfied with that that testimony one of the things that missant was just asking about Bill and maybe I don't know if you want to talk about this or or Scott um we've had some concerns with with the impervious coverage and all that as far as after the homes are built when people want to come in for dechs and patios and all that um do we want to address that at this stage so uh Mr R I know that um some of these homeowners when they come to the zoning office for patio decks because um there was an variance granted on the lot coverage or it was the building coverage is the same as the lot coverage they were denied of permits and I had talked to bive Jr that maybe I need to create um uh probably the plan developments I need to create zones which allow um these single family homeowners to put decks and patios because now you are in front of the board if that same issue uh exists even on estate 2 maybe this is the time for you to address it because I'm looking at the uh square footage on the homes it's 4400 square fet right uh um I see it on your uh zoning data so so basically at at 15% um you'd be permitted about 3,000 square ft of impervious coverage is would is that going to be sufficient for for future homeowners to build decks and patios and all that I guess is the question I mean I I I would think so um because they are they're minimum Halfacre Lots um and some of them are a lot larger I that that is an issue on the smaller ones uh admitted um but on on these on these larger ones is that something maybe we might want to consider at final it's rather than dealing with it on the fight maybe maybe we'll discuss it between now and final and maybe try to address that at final it it would might be a good idea to okay to well to to certainly do it at final and um to let people know ahead of time correct um when they buy them that that's what the story is okay because Bill at 15 % of the lot coverage in 20,000 sare ft lot you might have an issue I think that's something we should address it before the final so that you don't have to I don't have to change anything later or the homeowners who buy the Lots don't have to go through the zoning board again at before final a resolution compliance for preliminary at final at final I think we'll address it at final I think but let's let's discuss that between us and and your office and we'll figure that at final do no it has to be a final it has to be at final it cannot be during resolution compliance but that's something we should look at okay do we have any questions from the rest of the board okay thank you next W oh we got to open to the public anybody from the public like to ask a question of Mr E see no hands thank you thank you thank you our next witness is Mr Scott Turner our site engineer Mr Turner would you please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give this evening is the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth I do can you please just state your name and spell it for the record Scott Turner teas and Tom Ur R N R thank you and Scott your qualifications and you can also mention whether you've been accepted by this board in the past uh yes good evening uh everybody it's good to see you all uh I have been in front of this board on many occasion uh my my name once again is Scott Turner I am a graduate of the New Jersey Institute of Technology I have a bachelor's of Science degree in civil engineering I am a principal with menow engineering associate I have over 30 years of experience in the field of civil engineering and Land Development I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey my licens is in good standing and I provided professional engineering testimony you're accepted thank you thank you thank you appreciate that Mr low Scott I'm going to turn it over to you if you can walk the board through the approved subdivision and then what the proposed changes are GNA Mark aboard we'll start with exhibit A1 if you A1 if you could tell us what that is by title date and prepare thank you so this is an exhibit that was prepared by my office it's Wood Haven Village EST States 2 uh it is a titled proposed site plan exhibit and it has a date of 9815 and the reason for the 9815 date is because I wanted to represent to you what the current approval is with regards to the application so uh Mr E stole a lot of my thunder so I'm not going to go back and and spend a lot of time on that so what this plan represents is 123 tax slots which include uh I'm sorry 127 tax Lots which include 120 single family homes six open space lots and one storm water management lot the storm water management lot is located down in the south west corner of the property and it's represented by the blue color it's a wet pond so this this plan has two uh points of access into the site uh off of Oldbridge Englishtown Road uh it they are uh labeled as Road a and Road a is sort of like a horseshoe uh configuration and Road a kind of Loops back out onto Old brid Englishtown Road uh off of Road a are a number of other public rights of way uh roads B C D E and F uh and so primarily what this plan represents and the changes you're going to see is you're not going to see in my opinion much of a change in terms of what the layout looks like here the storm water management is still down in the southwest corner there's been no change the points of access out on Oldbridge Englishtown Road has not changed uh Road a itself which is again the main Loop Road has not changed other than some very slight uh configuration changes but not much at all uh the primary changes uh occur up in the Northerly section of the property where you'll see uh Road D up at the North comes across and T's back into Road a it's another again Loop Road so the new plan what you'll see is that that road has been split so we have Road D will be ending a culdesac and then Road D has been reconfigured into another culdesac so if there's no questions in regards to what you see here we can move on to what the proposal [Music] is Ron will mark this A2 A2 please okay this is another exhibit prepared by my office Wood Haven Village Estates 2 uh proposed site plan exhibit with a date of uh 22224 uh so what this plan represents is the application in front of here of this evening for an amended uh preliminary uh major subdivision approval and again for point of comparison Road a is in the exact location in terms of its points of Ingress and egress out on the Oldbridge Englishtown Road and what you'll see when you come into the site from the Northerly uh Road a intersection you come into the site and then you you you run into Road d as in dog if you were to make the right at that intersection and on the prior application that road continued straight through and looped back down onto Road a so now what's happened is we've created a culde sack in order to avoid the reparan buffers and Wetland buffers uh in this immediate wooded area in the in the north what we also did is in order to capture the Lots back on the other side of that buffer area we created a new Road H uh which comes in and again terminates at a cesac all the way up to the north uh We've also shortened Road f as you come around the site and head down towards the South making a counterclockwise uh move around Road a and you hit Road F same location as it was Prior the only thing we did is we shortened up the cold toac by about 150 ft again to pull it out of the regulated area uh in terms of comparing this plan to the old plan this plan now is 123 tax slots 127 single family homes Five open space Lots as opposed to six and one storm water management lot again the open space lots and the storm water management lots are for all intents and purposes in the same location as they were uh as approved uh in terms of uh some numbers on the property uh the open space Lots when you compare the new to the old uh the uh the new open space area is 47.1 7 Acres as opposed to the current approval which is 44.4 2 Acres the RightWay which is the physical prop the roadways themselves the public roadways themselves uh totaled 11.9 Acres on this new plan versus 13.36% site Improvement standards as it was Prior and all the utilities lighting Landscaping storm water uh remain for the most part as previously provided other than the minor revisions and modifications necessary to accommodate the layout uh changes that I just spoke [Music] of thank you Scott I I know Mr R uh did a summary view of the review letter by the planner and engineer is there anything that you want to add or we know will comply response yeah we we my office did review the review letter and uh Mr E pointed out the the points that we needed to speak about uh I have no other comments and we can comply thank you hey Mr attorney you're finished uh now I am finished yes sir okay Vina you have any comments on this no I don't Mr Dary um same as with Mr R Mr L that we've had a conversation already about about our review Meo and the applicant agreed to comply uh so between now and when they come in for final we'll be able to meet again I imagine and and uh and make sure that the project is compliant with our review letter at the time of final so I have no questions for Mr Turner you uh I'd like to open up to the planning board any anyone have a question from Mr Turner or a comment only question I have so if we're looking at the prior plan the biggest change is uh we're going to go from left to right right so culdesac a culdesac b cuac c they just not connecting any longer because of the wetlands yes is that in essence what what's going on and we had to take out those three lots Bas okay yes correct there there was a reconfiguring of some of the Lots because of the capturing them on the on the what I'll call the west side of that uh open Wetland area and regulated area but we basically took uh Road D and ended it in a culdesac rather than crossing over the road regulated Fe D is the up Road D is the first road you get into from the Northerly Road a intersection when you're coming up you make the right you hit that first culdesac on the right hand side that's Road D so instead of connecting we you culde acted and then the top two you clde act as well right this this this road uh e uh which is furthest to the Northwest uh was always there as an ended de as a CAC we really didn't change that Road f is or I'm sorry Road H uh is the new road that took the place of the Road D as it looped back around on the road okay thank you and nothing changed with the um stor Mor Management on the south side right the same configuration nothing has changed same configuration everything yes and I and I should point out and I failed to mention that and I think Mr R did we do and had received our uh njd flood Hazard area individual permits for the project okay thank you any more questions comments I have a question a couple um all the wooded land that's going to remain wooded that's not being deeded to the township correct that's going to remain homeowners association HOA correct okay um and you brought up the HOA this came up in another development if and now V might be able to school me on this if there's an HOA the roads remain private in my understanding no actually the the roads are built to rsis standards and we are offering them for dedication so the proposes public roads but the open space areas the wooded areas you referred to the Basin uh that will be managed and owned by the H yeah Mr lending the um all the roadways in in the woodhen GDP uh are public roadways other than the multif Family Apartments and things like that those are private uh parking lots but all the roadways are actually uh dedicated roadways to the township okay I just wanted to make sure we were clear about it you know yeah no there are that's a really good question because there are HOAs where they're private roadways yeah um in this case the HOA we've asked we Nicole vinaa and I asked uh the applicant to uh form an HOA for the management of the storm management uh basins and the open space because the township doesn't want to uh take accept any more o open space or storm BAC I agree with that Mr D kicks me every time yeah AC's calculating um snow removal out his head I'm the works how many more trucks we going to need the road open space mowing uh Road you know maintenance repair snow plowing all that falls you know in my realm so uh we usually find out about it you know right when it's snowing yeah so I just you know want to make sure the record's clear public roads which is fine that gives us plenty of time to plan for uh maintenance and you know have the proper St what that put that on your schedule absolutely add it add it to the list you know but uh you know I think with the HOA I think that's really beneficial to the town and the residents you know they're going to expect a certain quality of uh work you know some neighborhoods that we have to maintain you know that sometimes becomes an issue so I think that's uh really good thank you for what it's worth Vina and I actually had a bet on how long it would take for you to chime up about that anyone else just let me know who won uh Mr turn I have a couple well maybe one question uh your previous layout uh you don't have to show it okay okay was that filed in the county no no okay so you don't have to file this will be filed right this will be filed once we so there's no need for an amended no okay the the approval from 2016 was preliminary correct so never proceeded to final so therefore we never filed the map so there's no map filed as the original approval this also will be preliminary if the board's inclined to grant us approval we will have to come back to you for final before we file the map but we absolutely will have to file a map to create these Lots thank you uh we can open it up to the public now any seeing no hands like to close the public thank you Mr Mr Turner thank you thank you Scott we have one more witness who is our planner which is Mr Rob lson Mr Larson would you please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give this evening is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you would you please state your name and spell it for the record sure Robert Larson L rsen thank you and Rob the benefit of your qualifications for the board sure I am a licensed professional planner as well as licensed architect here in the state of New Jersey I uh sat in front of this board and those both those capacities many times and it's nice to be back you're accepted thank you Mr chair Rob that you're here tonight with regard to the applicant's request for extended vesting under section 49d of the land use law so I'm going to ask you to speak to that the rationale for the applicant requesting more than what is the standard vesting to the L LA sure just just to uh to clarify what um Mr shimeno just referred to um in the case of a uh application for preliminary major subdivision we uh fit under one of the criteria of the mlul which is when a development has greater than 100 dwelling units um or a certain amount of commercial space um the applicant can request that the board would consider an extended vesting beyond the three years um and that is why what we are asking and and really the the law um gives the board three considerations one is that uh what is the number of permissible dwelling units under this preliminary approval the second is the uh current economic condition um as well as number three which is the comprehensiveness of the overall development and um I'm going to sort of start in reverse because the comprehensive of comprehensiveness of this development obviously in being part of Wood Haven uh we've heard I um speak extensively about the uh relationship to the previous orders and de um interactions that we have been through as well as this current um reduction in units uh so we have um a number of jurisdictional uh agencies that are applied to this site uh we still have County approval to obtain um which I understand has proven to be a difficult process um and timec consuming um we have an expectation that given the uh the various outside agencies that we need to pursue um there will be a significant amount of time before we would even begin improvements and then putting in the road improvements um we expect would take 18 months two years uh to to do that work so um the basic um period of time for this approval would be three years we would meet that very quickly um all things considered um second is the economic condition um these are in terms of product somewhat unique uh to the overall of Wood Haven um these are Halfacre Lots larger homes and we expect that they will be absorbed at a slower rate than uh some of the smaller homes that are being sold as well as uh the obviously the apartments um I believe our client expects about 20 units per year um and at 117 units um it's pretty easy math that's about six years to absorb uh these homes um and again the number of permissible units really speaks to the fact that we do have more than 100 units um and the the idea of being permissible is again within the the realm of uh all of the various outside agencies that have their um their jurisdiction over this site so um at this time we are uh trying to be conservative in our request and we're asking for an additional uh for a total of 12 Years um that may seem a lot longer than three years but given again all of the um the things that I just described and and really just the absorption of this project we uh we again are trying to make a conservative appeal um I guess also we would not have to appear in front of this board as many times um for extensions as well so um that is what I have for you today and again I hope the board would consider uh the extension of time thank you thank you Mr Larson um Vina would you like to comment I don't have any questions Mr Dary uh I don't have any specific questions for for Mr Larson I think the the testimony he provided sort of supports the um you know the argument for extended investing I mean I think the only thing I would advise the board is it's the the applicant can actually request extended vesting at really at any time right so they're asking for you for this extended investing at this time and again I'll I'll I'll defer to Mr sard to give you all the legal advice but this isn't something where you know if if the if the board were to decline to act on that joke could they can come back uh well they could come back based on other circumstances and other justification for but if if if they just don't act on it if they not not that they deny it but if they just say listen we don't we're going to table it we're not going to act on it they could actually come back at any time right yes the approval gives them the the the three years automatically uh what they're asking is for the additional time now so if the board's not comfortable granting them the 12 years you don't have to deny it necessarily you could just not act upon that request and then they can come back at another time based upon change of circumstances or the board can act upon it this evening based upon the testimony that's been provided and then grant them the 12 years what that means and I'll just get into it now it's going to get into it later uh is that when you grant preliminary approval that approval is basically good for three years that means you can't doesn't matter what changes at the township level if they change the ordinances uh change of circumstances they're uh 100% when they say vested it's protected uh from any of those changes and they have their rights uh to develop the property as was approved in the preliminary approval and by Under the M Municipal land use law that approval by law is for three a three-year period it does provide for uh the the mpal land law does provide for an applicant to request additional time so that it can go longer than three years uh what typically happens is you know they don't an applicant doesn't this is not a a typical type of request uh what you know what happens more often is the a preliminary approval is granted it you know uh they get the three years they come near to nearing the end of the three years or sometimes more often than not they exceed the three years and they come back to the board asking for an extension at that time and the board can grant an extension of that period based on that that application based it B Bas on the proofs that were granted to it uh what they're doing now and the the municipal land use law allows for it is asking that upfront because they know ahead of time they have these challenges ahead of them they know it's going to take them a while to get there they know have these other approvals as based on the testimony provided so they're asking for 12 years at this point meaning that within that 12 years if anything changes in in the the township uh any zoning changes that would affect this property it doesn't affect this approval this approval stays in effect for for a period of 12 Years if that's what the board grants right it it's it's basically three years with two oneyear extensions that are that are they're allowed and and really for a preliminary approval what that means is you have the five years to file your final right come back in for final approval and file your final final plat um which as far as you know building of homes and all that you'd have to file to before you start building homes anyway so so the 12 years really the the consideration of absorbing the 20 units a year and all that really isn't part of that argument because you would have to have filed for final already before you start building homes so so the extension for 12 years really what what they're asking is they would like 12 years to to actually file that final plat um which gives them the 12 years to get whatever approvals perhaps find a buyer if they're not going to build the homes that kind of stuff so so that that's really what what that is that's I just want the board to be aware that there's your your options are obviously Grant the 12 years deny which means they can't do it or table and they can come back at some other time there is one more option expect to and that is Grant extended vesting for less than 12 years so as Mr sillo correctly stated the automatic vesting under the land you saw is three years if that expires we can come back to you uh and ask for two one-year extensions if the board's inclined to Grant those you can vest a preliminary for five years so I I view you know the sort of the basic protection as a five-year period we're asking through 12 as Mr lson testified it's a conservative request from our point of view but you can also consider a number of years less than 12 we we would like to know the vesting up front we we've been through a lot with Wood Haven and coming back to you periodically and you know telling the tale of it's going to take some time to get this this rolling so offer that for your consideration okay 12 12 years so because this board some folks that are up here some folks that aren't we've dealt with planning developments that have been 20 plus years in the making that have all of a sudden turned around and changed 12 years is a long time and as a person and as a planning board member 12 years that's not that's not an acceptable time frame in 12 years from now my daughters will be at one of my daughters will be out of college she's 12 so I agree with Eric right so 12 years is I mean you're talking about 12 years this T I've been in this town since 2009 and this town has changed dramatically in that time right and that's only 15 years to Grant something to say all right in 12 we have 12 years to do something that's that's that's an unacceptable request you know 3 to 5 years I would say I think the board would be amendable to it and I think the residents would be amendable to it because building is building I mean it could I mean everyone who's had a bathroom done in in any shape form could take four months right building a house could take even longer but 12 years is not something that's amenable I think bringing it down I don't know what the board thinks if five years the right time or or that I don't know that's if I just clarify by Statute they essentially have five years so it's three years with two one-year extensions so by by Statute they already have five years so if you wanted to go above if you wanted to give them any relief would be above I would say just five years is a long long time five years is a long time a lot of things change in this town in five years so I think five years is is more than enough okay uh any comments or questions to my left yeah I'm just in agreeance with that because uh you know it just opens the door for a 12E site you know where trucks and whatever could be going on and not that you're going to drag your feet but 20 units and you said per year so that's five years you need really 120 so you need six years but then you have a you need a buffer for all the uh County stuff and the so I mean if the five is already existing maybe we could just come to seven something for them anyone else yeah I still think five is more than enough I wouldn't go past that things change I do agree with Eric I've been in this town for 30 years I've seen a lot going on I wouldn't Grant anybody more than five things change from there so is is it a cumbersome burden to come back in five years and ask for the extension if we table it now I mean you know I just I've lived in oldridge my whole life and you hear about developments that are starting you know before I was even born and now they're getting built and I mean this original plan was adopted in 2016 and now we're back with a change and 12 years I'm ready to retire at that point I I I think yeah got all these new roads to plow uh no so I I I think the five is sufficient you could always come back at a later date okay are we done with questions comments okay I think we'll open it up to the public seeing no hands close it to the public next that's it Mr chair that's our presentation tonight then we just need to open up to the public for any comments not necessarily limited to questions of the witnesses but any comments before we take care of this yes okay we would open up to the public again for any comments of any sort close the public okay Mr sedillo you're up okay um so uh based upon um well I think before I can summarize what the uh board would be voting on I think we need to come to a uh final decision on uh the vesting extension request uh so I can put that into the vote um and I guess maybe also going back to the applicant do you want us to make a vote at this time do you want to maybe withdraw it and then come back at another time as was discussed or do you want to to Grant it for the five years so you don't have to come back for the extensions um H how would would the applicant like to proceed can I take one moment to confirm that with my client that's reasonable right ahead y I things right actually yeah it's already been grandfather it's already excuse me our preference Mr Mr sadum Mr chairman it would be the board's inclined to Grant five years which seems pretty clear then we would uh appreciate that protection approval should we absolutely um well I I'll put it in I'll put it in the um the summary and then we can make a motion so um as typical I will Prov a summary of what was being requested tonight uh there is um amend the application is requesting and a vote for in favor of the application will be granting amended preliminary um subdivision approval uh or actually site plan and subdivision approval correct just just subdivision just subdivision okay uh amended preliminary subdivision approval excuse me uh for the property uh it would be granting uh the waivers that were presented by or requested by the applicant being um dealing with the uh critical and sensitive areas and the uh Landscaping um Landscaping we will oh no I apologize yes you were right uh that is complying I did write note on that it was the groundwater recharge correct thank you my not it's a little mixed up there um so let me correct that um the applicant will uh continue to will comply with the professionals reports oh and actually while we're discussing that there was a second report I don't think it was addressed uh was uh from the um fire district uh Matthew Bond dated February 7 2024 it just says that it's satisfactory at this time but I just want to make note of it for the record uh that it was part of the application packet um the uh and including will be compliance with the conditions of the prior approval as except as otherwise Modified by this application uh and they would also included in this would be a uh granting of an extension for the vesting of uh uh the preliminary approval for a period of five years um and I believe that's all that's there was any other specific conditions outlined in this discussion at this public hearing okay um do we have a motion with a lent of time a motion five years do we have a second second Mr brenon BR Mr yes Mr agapan yes Mr dama yes Mr low yes Mr Petty yes Miss Mella yes Mr mcac yes Mr Brennan yes thank you thank you thank you One Last Time how many houses okay I'm opening up to the public for any comments questions about anything tonight seeing No Hands close the public we need a [Music] motion need a motion to go into executive session please I'll make a motion a second second and for the record the the discussion item for executive session will be the alfair litigation uh Mr lenning yes Mr agoan yes Mr dama yes Mr low yes Mr Petty yes M Mella yes Mr mcisaac yes Mr Brenan yes okay I'd like to open it to up to the public one more time see no hands or nobody nobody close the public I need a motion to adjourn move it second all in favor yeah yes night everybody all