good evening and welcome to the bridgew township planning board regular meeting for Tuesday April 16th 2024 adequate notice of this meeting has been given in accordance with the open public meetings Act njsa 10 4-6 on February 7th 20124 proper notice was sent to The Courier News and the Star Ledger and filed with the clerk at the township of Bridgewater and posted on the Bolton board in the minicipal building Please be aware of the planning board policy for public hearings no new applications will be heard after 9 :30 p.m. and no new testimony will be taken after 10: p.m. hearing assistance is available and upon request accommodation will be made for individuals with a disability pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act or Ada provided the individual with the disability provides 48 Hours of advance notice to the planning department secretary before the public meeting however if the individual should require special equipment or services such as a Cart transcriber 7 Days advanced notice excluding weekends and holidays may be necessary would everyone please rise to salute the flag I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation God indivisible with liy and Justice Miss probes could have a roll call please here here here here here thank you m propes at this time I'd like to open the meeting up to the public if any members of the public wishing to address the board on any land use matter other than the application that will be heard this evening on tonight's agenda please come forward at this time okay seeing none moving on we do have a set of minutes up for approval this evening and that's the minutes of April 2nd 20124 there any comments or changes to the record in no changes Mr chairman I'll move the minutes of April 2nd councilman I'm sorry yeah April that's the date April 2D that's councilman kers could I have a second please second that's Mr Atkins could I have a roll call please yes yes yes I was absent I was absent yes moving along we do have some resolutions for adoption this evening the first one being the Bridgewater Ron School District was the renovations for the high school Fieldhouse and site improvements are there any comments of changes to the record hearing none could have a motion to adopt the resolution moralize on April 16th 2024 I'll make a motion that's Miss sakur I'll second that's Mr banga could I have a roll call please yes yes yes yes I'm sorry could you repeat that okay thank you I was Sonia and I were both here yes yes yes okay moving along we do have another resolution for a R Bridgewater 2 LLC was the extension of the preliminary and final major site plan with bulk variances commonly known as block 43 lot 17 any comments or changes to the record hearing none could I have a motion to adopt the resolution decided on March 19th and memorialized on April 16th that's Mr chry could I have a second please I'll second that's Miss sakur I have a roll call please yes yes yes yes yes yes yes thank you m popes moving along to the next item in our agenda here we have a Land Development application this evening the application this evening will be for Julia H or commonly known as 147 Chestnut Street and who will be representing the applicant this evening my name is Michael silbert I'm an attorney from the law firm def Fresco baitman located in Warren Township New Jersey and I'll be representing Miss hulah hos the applicant this evening good evening Mr Silber and welcome back thank you Mr perst this application concerns property located at block 150 Lots 12 and 13 as shown on the Township's tax maps more commonly known as 147 Chestnut Street the property is located in the Township's r10 Zone uh before I proceed with just an introduction of the application Mr peek if I could just confirm on the record that uh notice is sufficient and proper yeah you've met all all the requirements and this board does have jurisdiction to proceed thank you okay so why are we here this evening so we're here uh seeking um Baran relief in order to construct a single family dwelling on Lot 12 normally this type of application would go to the township Zoning Board of adjustment because this is dealing with a single family dwelling for which site plan approval is not required so why are we here well we're here because we're we're seeking uh minor subdivision approval in addition to the variance ear Le if I had mentioned or also in connection with the subdivision approval we're seeking variance relief so we're seeking subdivision approval and you'll notice I referenced two lots um because Lots 12 and 13 are undersized Lots they are adjacent to one another and they're under common ownership so while they've always been considered in the eyes of the township and on the Township's tax maps as two lots lots 12 and 13 um as a matter of law under something known as the doctrine of merger and as articulated in Mr dor barrier's memo dated April 8 2024 as well as the joint memo issued by Katherine surad and Bill Burr dated April 11th 2024 the lots have merged into one lot again this is known as the as the doctrine of merger so this type of issue only comes before the board if a property owner is looking to sell the property in the future um it's not really a matter that would come to the board unless if not for that trigger so the properties could remain on the tax maps as two separate Lots uh if this was not uh if if a sale of one of the Lots was not being sought in the future um so what does this mean what does the doctrine and lot merger mean it means without former formal subdivision approval and despite the Township's continued treatment of the properties two lots missos may not be able to sell Lot 12 and 13 individually you'd have to sell it as one lot or she'd be able to obtain subdivision approval from the planning board um to protect against the doctrine of merger so to sum this up the applicant wants to essentially re subdivis the Lots so that they can return to their original undersized conditions and so the Lots can be protected from the doctrine of merger the applicant then wishes to construct a single family dwelling on Lot 12 for which C variants relas is also required the dwelling on lot 13 is proposed to remain um this application does not seek to exacerbate any of the existing non-conformities with respect to the existing Lots 12 and 13 um in fact some of the relief being sought with respect to lot 13 constitutes improvements to existing conditions so just to summarize the relief being sought in connection with this application again all see variances uh minimum lot area where 10,000 ft is required and wor 6500 And1 ft is proposed on Lot 12 and 65001 ft 10 10 squar 6510 Square F feet is proposed on lot 13 again both existing conditions but necessary for the resubdivision minimum lot width where 100 ft is required and 50 feet is proposed on both Lot 12 and lot 13 existing condition but again necessary for this resub Vision um minimum sidey yard setback where 15 ft is required and 11 ft is proposed on Lot 12 um this is for one sidey yard setback and the total combined sidey yard setback where 40 feet is required and 11 ft is proposed on Lot 12 um these are new variances they're necessary for the new dwelling and the last one's an improvement to an existing condition where the max where the max improved lock coverage permitted is 35% where 5728 per exists on lot 13 and where 54. 17% is proposed on lot 13 so again uh an improvement to an existing condition the presentation of the application will be made by three Witnesses Mr Craig Styers our professional engineer will discuss the subdivision Plan before the board miss wahas the applicant will speak about her relationship with the property she can speak about the improvements that she's made and and a little bit about the property's history and further provide the board with information as to what she intends to do with the property and lastly Mr Alexander dowy a professional planner who will address the proposed variance relief associated with this application so Mr chairman if I can I'd like to uh introduce if if you whatever your preference I'm going to uh swear all of my Witnesses that's fine in the interest of time why don't we bring them up and swear them in all together okay great what we'll do we'll have you all recite together and then starting with Craig we'll go down and we'll state your name State and spell your name for the record all right so right hand up do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give in connection with this hearing will be the truth and nothing but the truth yes I do okay great so so then if you could just State and spell your names okay thank you thank you and for my uh first witness if it's okay Mr chairman I'd like to call Mr Craig Styers bring them on up for would am I Mr sers can you place your educational background and credentials on the record before the board I'm a professional engineer state of New Jersey I've testified probably 30 years now um application similar to this um larger smaller industrial site plans residential subdivisions you there any objections to Mr sars's qualifications hearing none please proceed so um why don't why don't you share with the board what the applicant is proposing to do by this application sure and we'll mark that is A1 today's date is that a colorized subdivision plan uh yes it's uh it's actually the greeting and soil erosion plan but it does show the subdivision line correct okay the um as Mike said the existing lot is known as uh as on the tax maps as Lots 12 and 13 block 150 which is in the Bradley garden section of Bridgewater property is located on the easterly side of Chestnut Street just north to Perry Drive and the easly property line is actually the municipal boundary between Bridgewater and Ron the property currently has a dwelling and a garage located on the southerly side of the property um actually completely within lot thir what would be designated as lot 13 and the Northerly property has um I guess you can say the remains of a pool it's got a u you can see the former outline of the pool and the uh the patio area Still Remains uh and what looks to be like a small fire pit in in the back corner and then lastly there is a shed in the backside uh behind the existing garage which is actually over the property line um a little bit of history of the of Bradley Gardens I kind of used this in another application on ardre and uh I thought it was useful um Bradley Gardens was originally piled by William Bradley and was part of the uh an expansive horse farm later on he laid out lots that were 100 by 400 and they were to be used as chicken farms in 1921 New Jersey Somerville realy Corp subdivided the former um Farm into lots that were 50 by 100 and they were sold off as uh vacation Cottages um just going forward and obviously that transpired over many years since the early 20s and then more recently as you all know Bradley Gardens has had a a bit of a Renaissance uh people have bought these small Cottages uh either restored them and or um uh constructed new houses similar to what we're uh proposing tonight and it's obviously um you know Bradley Gardens is a very nice area now not that it wasn't before but you know the the the people have invested in the area and and you know made a nice area the dwellings have gone along with that over the time going back to the property it's located in the r10 zone if you were to look at the Lots together um the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet we at 13,000 um the minimum lot width would be 100 minimum front yard is 30 and the existing house is 22.6 eight the minimum side yard is 15 the existing house is 6.84 from the souly side the combined is 7263 whereas 40 is permitted and the improved loot coverage is 35% whereas the existing is 35.4 um again as Mike said what we're looking to do tonight is to basically reestablish the line that is uh designated on the tax maps and SE formally separate Lots 12 and 13 and then uh once the subdivision is completed uh construct a new dwelling on Lot 12 which is on the Northerly lot um all of the remnants from the pool the patio and whatever's left over from that pool whole area would be removed and uh the new house constructed with a new driveway coming off of um Chestnut the other thing would be that the existing garage at the existing shed behind the garage would be removed so we would get uh get rid of that encroachment that was encroaching in into Ren burrow right yes to the east correct and the intent would be to construct a three-bedroom to two and a half bth um dwelling and the one with the testimony of the planner uh he will show what what they intend to construct as far as a conceptual plan for the house but again just to reiterate you know the existing conditions of the Lots would T then once it's subdivided Lot 12 would be 651 Square ft the lot width would be 50 the front yard would be 30 one to the new house the Northerly sideline would be 11 ft the total would actually be 20t 22 feet 11 on either side um the improved coverage would be 29% whereas 35 is permitted and then if you were to go to lot 13 where the existing house is it would be the lot size would be 6510 square feet the lot width would be 50 again the front yard would be maintained to the existing in House at 2268 the sideline to the South would be maintained at 6.84 the total of the two sides would be and correct if I'm wrong um when you if you've ever handled a lot merger case a lot of times you're you're working with dwellings or buildings that are located in between the lines but as you stated um the dwelling on lot 13 is entirely on lot 13 correct and and that pertains to the to the garage as well yes so from your standpoint the dwelling that exists on lot 13 if the if the planning board were to Grant subdivision approval there's no reason in in in your mind that that dwelling can't remain correct in would you say it should remain there yes I mean I mean even if you look back at historic Aerials of of that area you can see that the house was intended to be constructed on one lot and that the the lot to the north remained vacant for some you know unreason who knows but uh and the Lots were continuously conveyed together but uh as I said the original filed map of that of the entire area were f 50 by 100 Lots so you know at some point it could have been conveyed separately if they wanted to so to your knowledge there was never a dwelling located on Lot 12 correct okay great um just turning to the uh joint review memo do you have um the height of the existing garage can you give any information about that uh we did not formally measure it but I would estimate it to be approximately 15t okay thank you and then um in terms of architect actual design I think we spoke about this um what kind of materials was that garage built with uh block block and it's got you know it's got a single garage door in the front but it's a double that make understand that so it's a double wide door and then there's a man door on the sly side and so obviously the the garage is uh closer to the what will be hopefully the new property line do you have any concerns with the setback there from an engineering standpoint no I don't think and again that that garage been has been there for a number of years correct okay um let's talk about the um storm water easement which is shown on the tax maps I said it's shown on the tax maps were you able to ever find any instrument uh as it relates to that easement no it is uh as you said it's documented on the tax maps but we researched I think you did some as well um the clerk's office to try and find whether that was ever filed we actually uh circled back to uh the township to see if there's any documents at the township and nothing confirming that it existed but at the same time we would file it as necessary are you are you aware of a pipe being there or anything actually any infrastructure being in that easement yes there is a pipe that comes from a chestnut that flows to the East and then once you get into the lot in RIT and Barrow there is an easement um so the the line comes there's two storm inlets right here uh on the uh norly side of the property there's an existing pipe that comes uh west to east and then it looks appears that it would drain to the South and ultimately to the next Road in Ron burrow the pipe itself is actually two and a half feet roughly to the north of our property so it's completely on the the lot to the north so that's goes right to my next question obviously the the new dwelling proposed on LW 12 is to be constructed about a foot away from the easement area that wouldn't you have no concerns as that as construction relates to the existing infrastructure in the easan area right no okay great um there's a top soil top soil stock Pile in the easement area that's to be relocated right yeah we can move that back that's just a temporary feature so um can you talk about the uh existing electrical service to the property the the existing electric uh to the existing house there's an existing Pole located in this location and it comes across to the existing house um I guess that could be relocated or put underground if NE if it's approved and then to the new house we would run it underground from that existing pole okay um see can you talk about the um sanitary sour service location on each lot sanitary is shown on the for the existing house comes up the sly side of the house and into the back and then the new Sanitary Service would come in in this location for the new house on the subtly side of the lot and then into the side of the house turning to um page seven in the joint review memo comment 12 any issues with with uh with this comment I'll read it out loud one Street tree shall be installed in front of lot 13 and an additional replacement tree is required to compensate for the tree removal proposed on Lot 12 uh not a problem at all plan should show that street trees are to be installed at least three feet inside the property line that's fine okay um common 14 um speaks to sidewalks the in your opinion is the uh do you think that sidewalks would be appropriate here I checked the entire length of uh Chestnut Street all the way to Old York and there's no sidewalk on either side of the road great thank you and um do you see from a from again from an engineering standpoint any issues with with uh a condition that parking be only in the driveway that there be no parking on the grass that was a recommendation in the report yeah that's fine I mean we we have uh provided the the number of parking spaces for a uh three-bedroom house two spots Great and then um can you just talk about where Storm uh where storm water runoff will be directed to uh I think for the benefit of the board we want a confirmation that it will not adversely impact any uh adjacent neighbors or uh nearby neighbors uh this is actually the low point of chestnut streak so from the North Chestnut drains to these inlets in this location from the south the same way and then again as as I mentioned before drains to the East and then uh to the eastly road in Ron burrow um there is a bit of a swell over top of that pipe and that's where the intent is to you know the the uh property drains from south and north and then along that pipe which would drain out to the east so uh do you think that that drywalls are necessary I don't think so no okay so we'll obviously defer to the boards board's engineer but um then I think I have one final question um did you take a look at Mr Genova's memo just want to pull it up and get get the date it is see uh from from the director of store utility I'm referring to uh the memo dated April 2nd 2024 um just wanted to make sure you were okay with the two two review comments there and and while Mr stars is looking at that there were no comments from from health or fire so nothing for us to address yeah these are uh these comments are okay okay so we're good with with Mr Genova's comments and I will turn it back to the board uh for any questions questions the board may have okay this time I'd like to open up to the board for any questions regarding Mr stars's testimony Mr chairman I may um I want to refer to the Joint report from the planner our planner and and engineer and um guess I want to ask Mr Burr first page seven was referenced uh item see 15 storm water management are you aware of any drainage issues in this area of Bradley Gardens I aware of drainage issues in the neighborhood the Bradley Gardens neighborhood as a whole I'm not aware of any on this specific property um but certainly it's it's a concern that's why I raised it in the memo um you know for the board's discussion it's you know anytime you're dealing with lot coverage or impervious coverage variances one way to mitigate the increased coverage or the coverage that's over what's Allowed by ordinance is to introduce drainage facilities um so certainly that is something that I think the board should consider in this case but to answer your question um I don't know a specific property of any any issues thank you uh Mr Styers uh referring to the same report page four uh there are a number of um areas within the Township's zoning requirements that are listed and my read of this is minimum front yard setback um minimum rear yard setback are the only two and uh and maximum principal building height are the only three that are conforming to the ordinance is that correct yes n the um yes okay um are you aware in this I assume you're familiar with that part of town and do you know are there any other vacant Lots in Bradley Gardens any vacant Lots building U residential lots in Bradley Gardens I'm not that much our planner might be able to to answer that because he he's has a lot of uh lot of nifty handouts for the board could speak to that okay I guess I can save these questions for the planner um I guess I would just make a comment that if there is uh support from the board to approve this I would request that there would be a condition of approval that would um require the property owners respective Property Owners to be responsible for any storm water that is generated from these their respective Lots to be to be approved by the township engineer we're fine with that we can definitely work with with Mr bur in the township to ensure uh that that condition's met okay thank you go ahead okay um Mr cor I have a couple of questions so what variance relief was required for the initial dwelling to be built I that may not have had any because looking at the historic aals that house has been there long time it might I don't quote me out this but it may have predated the ordinance likely did yeah so did was the doctrine of merger required to build the dwelling there yeah if I could speak to that so the Lots lawfully existed it the doctor of mergin came about by through a number of cases um that uh essentially say that any lots that are undersized with contiguous common ownership after 1953 shall merge as a matter of law um and there's a lot of caveats that that go with it such as did did the lots have separate identities were there were there separate homes on the Lots under common ownership there are a lot of factors that one would look at to consider whether or not lot merger has happened when the home was constructed the Lots were two separate Lots the homes were the home was constructed prior to 1953 based upon the Aerials that I looked at um we're we're not trying to contend to you or the board that lot merger didn't occur we're here because we believe it has occurred and we're trying to restore the lots to their original conditions but what you see on the property is a result of two separate lots and the again vacant lot 12 I use the word vacant it had above the ground pool but it never had another dwelling uh on it owned by the same people so no it's going to build a right just show up at the empty lot absolutely correct I I from my research the Lots were always owned by the same people they were always conveyed together and that predates lot merger got it um what if the Lots were split right we've talked about what the variances required so there are new variances required for lot 13 uh but there there is a new variance for lot 13 but it's an improvement to the existing conditions so on lot 13 lot coverage uh I'm sorry Max improved lot coverage is that's permitted is 35% 5728 is what exists and we're actually going to be eliminating some of the improved lot coverage so that the lot coverage on lot 13 improves so even though it's an improved movement you still we still need to get variance relief again because there's still a departure and that's a removal of the shed yes that does mean so I guess my question is the variance required so at with Lot 12 and 13 for the current dwelling that's there even though it's on lot 13 it doesn't require a minimum lot variance or minimum lot width because both together that's correct okay okay and then um you talked about number of parking spaces for a three-bedroom house is two spots so that mean there are no other spots for say a guest or visitor hly we could probably fit four cars there okay you can see the width of the the driveway here you could have one stacked on top of each other so there's more an adequate room for I'm I just said before we meet got it got it and then um last question for me the the sanitation system so that would be hooked up through the town right there's no um okay yeah that would be connected to the uh Main in Chestnut okay thank you Mr chairman a few questions if I may please Mr coun um so F first focusing on that shed um is there anything keeping you from just taking it down right now independent of this hearing suppos not okay I I think the the the difference we it should be moved because it's encroaching on another property oh so you're not proposing to remove it you're proposing we were going to remove the shed we are removing the shed I'm just I I maybe I misinterpreted your question I was thinking more about the encroachment that exists um with respect to this no but if if this homeowner chose to remove the shed tomorrow that could occur yes and would have be okay all right preventing it it's not like you you would need a permit to put one up you don't need right right correct okay and by taking that action independent of anything that's here that that lot would come into a greater degree of Conformity yes okay um looking for a moment still at lot 13 um it would appear as if the home and the garage are in line with each other yet they are neither is completely in line with the property line uh is that potentially an error that was made many many years ago and there was an intention to because it seems like it seems unlikely that someone wanted that to be the case uh is it possible again I know this is speculation that uh you know they didn't quite get the lines right when they built the house and the and the garage that's a I think that's probably the best assumption you can make at the time with the equipment available yes all right um looking at the at the two lots together if prior to 1953 these Lots had had different owners lot 13 was owned by person a lot 12 was owned by person B even if Lot 12 had never been uh uh improved hopefully maintained but not improved uh would you be going to the zoning board then seeking relief on Lot 12 based on the C variances that you need that's correct okay I mean there's obviously other things um that if there were for example if there was another house built on Lot 12 and it had had at least from this there's Casa that speaks to it if it had like a separate identity maybe it was under common ownership but it but it was very clearly a separate it was being used separately then perhaps that'd be a reason a hardship reason as to why lot merger wouldn't uh exist or on the other hand if there was a very a very small house on Lot 12 and that owner said you know what I I need a bigger more modern house then that application could be going to the zoning board um yeah I'm not I don't know if I understand uh that that point yeah what I well you know let's just you know because again these were these were originally built as Cottages Cottages by their nature probably pretty small um again the the setbacks didn't exist at the time that these houses any of these houses were built any of this neighborhood was built you know let's just say for the sake of argument that there was a you know a you know um you know 15t wide house you know real small little thing and then you know that's not really economically viable in today's market the owner of that if if if he or she wanted to knock down that house and essentially build what you're proposing they'd have to go to they'd likely have to go to the zoning board because of the setbacks and you know all that other stuff it was if it was under common ownership no no if it was separate ownership oh oh yes I'm so sorry I I'm sorry I'm I'm all assuming it's the separate ownership situation I'm sorry I thought you were saying no no okay understand okay so the answer is likely yes absolutely okay and now I guess the challenge that you have with Lot 12 um is that you could build a house there but it would need to be 10 feet wide by 85 ft long correct it conforming you mean to be to be fully compliant now in order to be compliant with the S with each sidey yard but not the total side yard you could build a house that was 20 ft wide and 85 ft deep correct which is also not really economically viable that's how we kind of set the it's a good question that's how we set the uh as far as Lot 12 is concerned the a proper sized house yet yet not too big so we tried to respect the setbacks as best we can and kind of be consistent with the neighborhood and hence while know technically we're looking for 10 foot set backs but and we're staying one foot in so I guess with the variance we're saying it's 11 so we're balancing the house the middle ofer try to get respective setbacks so it's a good question and that's how we did develop it okay and so so there's there's it isn't coincidental that you could build and could you wouldn't do it but you could build an 85 by 10 foot house two stories which would which you know would be ridiculous looking structure the other thing that that's driving this is the F so you the f is also controlling the size of the house so you you know we're trying to get that middle ground and then respect the F and you can see we're at 29% so that also complies okay so for example and that's the two the two stories is included in the in the F and then the improved loot coverage that's going to include the the things like the driveway and all that other kind of stuff y okay um all right I'm also going to be very interested in further testimony about um uh drainage um you know when when I saw this application um you know sometimes we all personalize it to things we know and it is a matter of public record so I'm not exposing anything uh I I live in the miltown Vander neighborhood on a property that's 6,500 ft uh so imagine my surprise when I saw that you're talking about 6,500 feet um and I'm going to tell you right now um the house at when you build a modern house on 6,500 ft it's tight uh and there isn't a lot of place for the water to go um and when it rains my Su pump is pretty darn active um so I'm going to be real interested to understand how we are going to protect these properties and neighboring ones so that we don't have a substantial um uh drainage problem right there I mean I think the alternative I mean I can ask build this one is see the we have the pipe that went uh to the north of us which we thought because there was no verified easement it was on the adjacent property now the the easement supposedly exists do we have rights to get to that pipe and if so what we could do is to make sure that it drains properly is to put another Inlet on the pipe to make that there's make sure there's proper drainage and drain your water into Aon well it's going that way anyway it you all the piping goes from Bradley Gardens to Ron that's the way it drains so whether it's Overland or through a pipe uh it's getting there one way or the other okay thank you I have a question for Mr Burr uh I I read in report earlier that um the construction that would take place is essentially would be only within 1 foot allowance given the drainage EAS the storm water EAS that exists could you expand on that well the the way Craig's plan is drawn now is it looks like this easement the drainage easement is a 20 foot wide I think it's a 20 foot wide storm sewer EAS and it straddles that common property line between Lot 12 and lot existing lot 11 to the such that you have 10 foot of easement on each of those properties Craig's testimony was that there is and his plan shows what looks like a 15inch storm pipe that travels from Chestnut to East into riton burrow and then it turns at some point and makes its way Downstream I think what I've heard and Craig jump in here if I'm wrong but you know what you've identified on your survey is that that storm pipe is two or three feet onto the adjacent property so effectively if this was approved and the home on Lot 12 was built as is even though the foundation would only be a foot from the easement you'd you'd probably be somewhere on the order of 14 feet to the actual pipe um ordinarily we'd take a look at the easement document to make sure there weren't any restrictions far as grading impacts or anything else into the easement a little grading was necessary you know to accommodate the construction of a new dwelling wouldn't be too concerned about that my main concern would be are we impacting the exis infastructure a house of this size I don't think there would be any that exis we would just want some assurance that we're not changing lay of land the absence of an actual doesn't sound is one is that answer partly yes um it partially does is there a basement proposed for a proposed structure on Lot 12 yes okay so there would be no issues with uh severely high water tables or anything like that I I drove Chestnut and I did see that it's a relatively flat land but it does kind of all pitch to that one point there there's a u a storm water inlet there at that point um would that propose any issues for a you know a future structure at that point you know to regarding Mr bur testimony I don't think so no I mean you can see all the houses that are around it seem to be okay at this point to the Norths not new but new 10 15 years as much as we worry about the surrounding neighborhood I'm also concerned about the lot what will be impacted once there is a structure on the lot as well and one more thing if you don't mind um the proposed structure approximately how large did you mention was going to would be square footage wise or footprint wise footprint would be 28 by 38 okay and uh the coverage on the lot I might have heard this wrong but I know on lot 13 you said it's 57.28mm 29% 29% okay the existing lot would go from 57 to 54 okay so would Le thing keep in mind that there are improvements on Lot 12 now there's the remnants of the pool so there's a stone where the pool used to be there's also the patio that that's also coming out the upper in the northeast corner you have the fire pit area so that's all coming out and being returned to grass so there is a bit of a give and take on that lot as well so 29 would be with the improvements being removed from the back the net difference between the two lots is 800 sare fet okay okay have some other questions regarding the structure itself but I think I believe that for the architect um or the planner I'm sorry I have no further questions at the moment I do have an additional question Mr cor please um the homes next to Lot 12 currently are those lots they seem to be bigger homes are they are they part of a doctrine of merger to where they were two lots and became one yeah I I I don't think so I it's it's hard for me to to say like I said the only time that lot merger or doctrinal merger arises the only time the public the board would ever see it is if somebody is is saying I want to sell two undersized Lots I want to sell one of the Lots that's so I wouldn't be able so we wouldn't be able to say unless they went before the board and the board said sorry you can't subdivide it um if I don't know if that answers your question but there's no way to really know that unless the board denied an application okay yeah and there's also many different answers to that question because like I said I have the original Subdivision map and they're all 5 foot Lots so you say you wanted a bigger lot you buy two of them or you buy three of them or you buy four of them whereas some people other people you know a lot of the people just bought one lot and they they built Cottages so and the house to to the north for example is is a wider lot but they may I don't know the history of it but they may have two two lots merge them and build a bigger house so there's a lot of different scenarios that potentially answer your question okay thank you Mr papus so Mr Stars uh just following up on that so we have here Lot 12 and 13 are 50 ft wide right yes and the property north of that you know what the dimensions are on the property that's developed uh I would say not specifically but I would estimate that it's 100 foot wide okay and then on the South Side the south side to Perry Street they're all 50s and AC one note the the lots to the north of the 100 foot lot are 50 and across the street you have what appears to be 100 maybe 7500 so it's a mi it's a mix and the plan he has a whole well I'm I'm asking you because you were testifying to lot sizes so I'm just delving into it a little bit more um the one the one comment that you made was that these were this area was was subdivided 100 years ago give or take and uh they were 50ft lots I think you said um before any zoning existed so we have instances all over New Jersey where there are lots that were created before most municipalities had any zoning ordinances and so that in and of itself is not unique to this property correct okay thank you papus uh shortly our planner will show an exhibit that depicts what looks like close to 100 undersized Lots in the surrounding area so that might give the board some context as to how many of the Lots in the surrounding area are also undersized no I I understand that but Mr Stars was testifying about lot sizes and trying to create context and so I wanted to create some additional context thank you Mr chairman I have another limited line of questioning particularly for our planner um because I I've been on this this planning board you know two different terms I was on Zoning for a long time and this was a conversation I often had with Scarlet um not that it's proposed here but does a p patio count as uh lot coverage yes it it does um as well as like a an a sidewalk that would go up to a house and any anything that water can't penetrate through okay if someone were to and this is the sticky question so I'm just warning you a little bit if someone were to were to build a deck a deck typically has circular footings concrete circular footings theoretically should the area of each of those circles be counted as part of impervious coverage but the rest of the area underneath a deck should not theoretically yes I don't know historically how it has been treated um because like you said that's tricky um if there's no impervious under the deck other than that then it's usually the deck's usually not count okay but if we're being really proper with the definition the circular footings or whatever shape uh though that is impervious so if there's you know six of them eight of them 10 of them however many they are and they're each you know a couple of square feet those should count right the reason I mentioned this is what's being proposed is like right up to the um uh the lot right the the uh coverage on Lot 12 is a 6% under all right so so there's a little bit of flex but not a ton they've got like 300 sare feet 400 square feet okay but where they're where they're really like right up to the border is if if this house even was another foot another two feet that could have triggered a floor area ratio well it's just to clarify it's improved l cover and deck does count the footings underneath the deck the whole deck right this has gone this is a lot of we've had this conversation on a lot of properties over the years so I mean there's times where the deck didn't count if it well that was more the setbacks if it was connected to the house or not this is improved coverage not not impervious so everything counts towards it but like your planner said 6% under so we still have about 300 they want put a do we have do we have a regulation on impervious or not we have improved changed over time M Mr chairman there there's no difference between from my perspective improved lot coverage versus in impervious coverage 35% is what's allowed in this Zone decks by definition of lot coverage are not to be counted towards coverage as long as they don't have a roof covering them and as long as what's underneath is earn material or other perious material but but but for this what about the concrete part yes technically of course the footings are peers if they're made of concrete that's impervious the the definition though doesn't it doesn't extract the footings it just just calls out the decks um so you could probably argue that but you're absolutely right the footings are impervious just by nature of the concrete but the ordinance doesn't specify to that level of detail the reason I'm going here is that there's a little bit of flex there isn't a ton of flex so you know in order to not trigger an improved lot coverage uh uh variance pretty much everything else needs to be grass well again we have there's 6% is that's a reasona size house to further his point there could be other accessory structures down the road that an inhabitant might want to put in like a shed or a portico or or a Pergola one of those types of structures the the future homeowner would be severely limited to what they could do with that property if there's a walkway we have a driveway the home um if the deck is attached but there would be no ability to put uh a walkway um anything any other impervious um a stone um type of um embedded area landscaped area so it would be it would be it would be tough for a future inhabitant to essentially make further improvements on that property I think that's definitely true I think that's absolutely true the only way they could to more than what's permitted is if they came back before the board and you know the the board would probably look at the being that this is an application 20124 they could look at the minutes obviously what I'm hearing is the board is concerned about law coverage and impervious coverage and um the board if they were to come back the the board would would probably say look we gave the applicant in 2024 um not necessarily a hard time but we pointed out that you only have 300 ft to work with so and the reason I even raised this is is you know I you know it's not just what does it look like when it's built what do what does it look like 10 years from now 20 years from now and and you know there's an awful lot of landscapers that'll do an awful lot of stuff for you without checking our regulations without checking lot coverage you know some future owner comes back and says you know I want to build a nice little stone stone uh uh uh pad so that I can put my recycling uh uh uh um carts on it um and you know you know someone else is oh I want to put a shed because this house doesn't have a garage correct so you know most people are going to have something they need to store uh you know even if it's just a lawn mower or something else so someone at some point might want to put something here um and you know again a lot you know a lot of people just sort of do stuff um and and then you know that can exacerbate concerns that we have already uh already voiced about um uh water drainage but again you said tried to respect the the setbacks especially with the coverage it's not that we're at 34% or 34 I mean 6% is and 300 square feet is a pretty good number for this size lot you're talking what 15 by 20 when You' run into a real problem is if somebody wants to put a deck up if somebody wants to put a shed up and and it's starting to combine and there it's going one on top of the other I think there's obviously limitations you have 300 Square ft to work with before you're approaching that 35% uh threshold but so yeah that's that's and the reason the reason I'm I'm concerned about this again you know I'm used to living on 6,500 ft it's tight um and lot you know existing lot 13 Even after the shed is removed has an awful lot of building on it that the existing house the existing uh you know uh walkway the garage there's a lot of of coverage on that um and we're sitting just right next to it that's the reason for my concern thank you Mr ch yeah I think um Miss hos the applicant is going to speak to that uh specific question and it's a great question Mr chair just Atkins question uh the doctrine of merger uh let's say in 10 or 20 years if both the lots are still owned by the same uh person let's say the applicant decides to rent out one of the properties instead of uh selling it would they not then uh be remerged you the applicant would have formal subdivision approval and then they would just put the property into a related entity so and so I'm sorry against Lot merger and would that last forever or if both the properties were owned by a new uh individual would that still apply to prevent against Lot merger a a sophisticated purchaser would be advised to put the Lots into separate entities so for example Miss hos if this were to be approved she would never own the Lots again as as one entity she would have two you know separate llc's to hold the property if I don't know if I'm answering your your question I I understand they if they were owned by two different entities then even if there were related entities that's okay okay but I'm asking the relief wouldn't uh kind of disregard the doctrine of merger forever would it would it would the relief that we're seeking disregard the doctrine of merger that's the question for good I'm saying int or 20 years if they're still owned by the same individual would they uh be remerged as one lot I would say that if if an individual 20 years from now took over the property owned both Lots knocked down the two dwellings then yeah you they could be right back here again if that's if that were the case okay but if they're two houses then uh and there would then then then you're getting into some of the finer details of what the case law says that if there's if they have two separate identities or if they if they were they suffered some kind of hardship or they relied upon the fact that there were two homes on the lots and and they were essentially not sophisticated and thought and treated it as two homes then perhaps the the doctrine of lot merger would not apply in that situation but if you were to basically take this 20 years down the road and it was you know both properties were vacant and under common ownership then they technically that person could be back before the board again seeking the same thing I mean under different circumstances but okay thank you just seeing some clarification I mean I'll defer to Mr P if you have a if you have a different interpretation no I mean if you have two undersized two adjacent undersized lots and one or both are vacant then they're going to merge if they're under common ownership there's two separate you know if there's a home on each on each lot then I don't think that's that's concerned but you're getting into more esoteric points of land use law thank you there any other questions from our board members I have do you have any idea as to when this development took place the houses surrounding maybe the ages of the houses well the original not this particular house but just the neighborhood this this subdivision Ry Gardens subdivision was 1921 the one that far back that that far back yes subdivision for example behind us in R was Rec it was like I would say the 80s or 90s maybe more recent than that so so you have this overall subdivision was 1921 the one behind us in rtin Bur more recent said it last 15 20 years okay thank you thank you mror any other questions how about from our professionals thank you chairman um so I have a few questions and feel free to defer them to your planner if they're more appropriate um but again uh I appreciate the the background history I always like to have some of that digging on on um how it came to be because when you do look at a map you do kind of see that history you see the 50 by 100 Lots uh and that's you know typical in some planned communities and and uh the merger Doctrine does come up in other places where that you know where there are lots that were once all conform all the same all consistent and then over time change um but with that I just wanted to ask a few questions uh and again defer them if you you need to so did so the the existing Zoning for the r10 Zone requires a 10,000 foot lot which would be 100 by 100 you you'd mention that the 50 by 100 was kind of the basis for when the subdivision was made and the overall plan development was done which would be a 5,000 foot lot so the two of them together essentially uh make you know the minimum of the 10,000 do did you look at when the zoning had changed um and if it ever permitted a 5,000 foot minimum lot I didn't okay thank you um did you um did you take a look at the the history of the prior improvements on Lot 12 besides the the swimming pool and the patio in the back was there was there ever a structure a dwelling structure on the property at any time uh we did look at there's a website the historic Aerials so you can go back it's not a year after year but periodic times and I think Mike did the same thing probably back to the 50s and it did not look like there was ever house on Lot 12 or the Northerly lot there was the you could see the house going up and then the garage but nothing on that Northerly lot okay so it's safe to say that this is probably uh existed as one lot for one single family dwelling for the pretty much the history of when that dwelling is the other dwelling on lot 13 has existed if you look at the Deeds it's always lot 12 and 13 lot 44 and 45 but they're always described together but they were consistently in the same deed if you do look at those historical Aerials you'll see that it pretty much functioned as a backyard portion it was fenced off Midway through Lot 12 uh there was a pool in the back there was a boat parked in the front it looked like from some of the aerial so it pretty much functioned as and then it was grass in the front so it functioned as a L-shaped backyard to the whole property improvements for lot 13 um did you um do a title search on the property no okay do you have any sales history on uh you know the the sales on the property of the home I don't want to speak for Craig I just went back as as far as I could possibly go back on the County website track the deeds and as Craig stated they were always listed as two two lots okay and and part of that I mean we didn't do a formal title search but we did obviously look back and and this was really predicated on finding that easement the storm sore easement so he went back the the the the found the reference to the original filed map and you know some people it's on the filed map but that filed map is just purely the Lots so there was no documentation of that deed so but that's the reason for the look back okay and in the deed search at any point did was the properties referred to as separate addresses because I you know notice on the most recent deed of sale that it's 147 Chestnut includes both Lots were there was it ever 147 149 that I don't recall also don't recall okay because that when you do look at the properties uh it's 147 and then to the next property which is 100 foot wide lot it's 153 which would you know go back to that trail of history of being 147 149 151 153 theoretically which is you know why I ask if it ever showed up on a deed or on a doc uh sales document as a separate address um there were no architectural drawings provided with the application um and so I was hoping you could provide maybe some more details on how the F calculation was derived for the proposed home on Lot 12 because um we're you're you're right up to the F 0 249 is about as close as you can get to the 0. 25 you're seven square ft away probably from going over uh which could be you know a field change and you could be right over so I know you've mentioned you'd be before another board if you had to but uh I I'd really like to understand the architecturals on that house and what the massing is going to look like to get to that 0249 the planner has a package which has the speculative house okay it has a you know a front for you and also has the floor plans associated with it okay thank you um was any consideration given to removing the existing Garage on lot 13 uh I only say that because the proposed law 12 does not offer any kind of garage as far as I can tell it looks like there's just a paved driveway in the front of the home uh no detached garage and so was I know there was the shed was removed to help lower the impervious coverage but was there any consideration giving to demolishing or downsizing that that ex detached garage we actually looked into possibly sharing it because it is an oversized garage so we would run the driveway between the two two houses and then it it just got a little too complicated you know the the lot 13 would come in the front and then Lot 12 would come in the side but then you'd have to build a divider within the garage but um I mean that's really the extent that we considered it and it also created a larger impervious coverage so that's when we just scrapped it and went back to what we had with no consideration was given to to just getting rid of it there so we actually had an uh informal conceptual meeting with with Miss Doyle and this was a major topic of concern because M Doyle was like well if you could remove the garage it might ease some concerns related to lot coverage on you know even though we're improving lck coverage it it would ease some of the concerns on lot 13 or reduce the size of it but once uh Miss Doyle saw the the construction uh materials it just seemed that it was not practical uh in light of the magnitude of this proposal to remove uh the garage but we but in my opinion we did we did explore that in our conceptual meeting um do you you recall that yes okay uh I did speak with Scarlet not about this application so I apologize we didn't pass the Baton on that um I don't fully understand the reasoning you just gave about the construction materials but um you know I'm whatever conversation you had with her is what you had um I think that's all I have for for this witness thank you you Mr chairman um Craig the the driveway materials on both Lots on the existing lot is is that asphalt yes or are they gravel no the they're one is paved and one will be paved one is paved one will be paved and when you took a look at the existing lot 13 with your subdivision plan it looks like you show a few areas of existing coverage to be removed in your opinion have have you done the best job you can in terms of minimizing the coverage that's to remain on lot 13 is there any other extraneous coverage that can be taken up um I mean we did consider obviously I think this is probably as thin as you can get and be able to get you know the parts passing and in in and out we did consider some of the areas of the driveway and the patio here but again with the garage door doors um if you took anything out here I think you'd be backing into the grass is it a it's a two two-car garage yeah and it's it's like I said it's two it's one door two cars and is it necessary to have a patio that is close in size to the footprint of the existing dwelling does that patio get full usage yeah I'm just I'm just trying to figure out if there's opportunity here because I share the board's concerns with with drainage um you know certainly I understand with proposed lot 13 there's being you're recognizing a reduction in the coverage by 200 square feet or so but it's a little misleading because when you add the thousand plus square feet that's being proposed on Lot 12 in the aggregate we're bumping up the total coverage by I think you said a little over 800 square ft um when you take a look at at what's permitted I think 35% is what's permitted on these 6,500 foot Lots that's like 22 2250 per lot you you know you're allowed about 4500 square F feet total you're at close to 5500 so you're about 1,000 square feet over what's permitted coverage wise I know that doesn't seem like a lot but on such small properties uh in a neighborhood like this I do think that could could matter or could have an impact so um to the earlier point and I think I heard that you guys offered up a potential condition to work through some drainage is that something that that you're willing your client is willing to do is to take a look at these drainage conditions and come up with a proposal for some individual storm waterer management features that could um manage or mitigate some of that additional additional coverage yeah I mean we've worked together in the past I think that uh that that is reasonable yes I mean it all depend I mean if it's if it resorts to dry Wells obviously the soil conditions are going to govern that of course you know if it's going to be wet or whatever it's mute point but yes okay um you know one one question I have in addition to that drainage wise is when you take a look at at Lot 12 the northern property line where that drainage easement is it is a low area your Lot 12 looks like it it you know it grades down to that easement lot 11 to the north looks like it grades down but there doesn't look like there's pitch from front to back or back to front and I'm just curious how that area would drain out in the proposed condition I think that needs to be looked at to make sure that we don't have water ponding there that's what I mentioned earlier if we had the ability to put an inlet there I think that would be a vast Improvement cuz you're absolutely right you know it it wants to go towards the street and it also wants to go to the east but it it may just sit there so an additional Inlet may be a a good solution through that area right there yeah I just for the board's benefit I really don't have a concern with putting a yard Inlet in if we're just draining lawn areas if we start talking about adding you know roof areas driveway areas we're putting more runoff more impervious into that pipe transferring it Downstream I get a little leery with that but the only thing I would say is because the formal pipe is on the adjacent lot I think you need to have permission to connect to the pipe just because it is on the adjacent property even though it's in the drainage eement um I think there needs to be permission there from the adjacent property owner but that that could very well be a solution to the ponding issue um talked a little bit about sidewalks understanding that there's no real formal sidewalk system in this neighborhood the ordinance the land use ordinance does however require sidewalks um I don't disagree that putting sidewalks in for these two properties where there's no sidewalks anywhere else around it I don't think that makes sense would your client be willing to offer a contribution to our sidewalk Fund in l of installing the sidewalks yes okay to think so last question or issue that I want to raise and I will admit I I did not pick up on this when I put um or when when miss sarmad and I put our letter out Chestnut Street was just paved last year that was going to be my question brand new road uh it is under moratorium which means it cannot be disturbed for a period of seven years there are Provisions in our ordinance that do allow for disturbance if the pavement is restored properly and what the ordinance lays out really is a full pavement restoration from Curb to curb over the limits of disturbance so one one point or condition that I would recommend the board requires if you're inclined to approve this application is whatever the limits are if if that pavement has to be disturbed for uh utility connections or driveway openings for Lot 12 that entire width of pavement needs to be milled and paved we can't just have patches in the pavement and a lot of time went into the the road excavation ordinance in recent years to to make sure the township is putting a huge investment in Road improvements it's pretty well documented and we want to make sure that these New Roads stay uh as pristine as they are so um it wasn't really a question but I wanted to make you know put that on the record and make it make it clear um and Mr chairman just as a followup because it was on my list so thank you for bringing it up now because we do spend a lot of time money and effort on on road reconstruction so our policy is curb to curb what is the Poli see like in the other direction when there's disturbance so I I can pull it up and read it to you but it's typically the the length of openings so if you know if if you have like on this plan you have a connection for gas you have a connection for sewer you have a connection for water coming perpendicular into the roadway there's also some disturbance for a new depressed curb for a driveway opening so from from the first point that that pavement gets Disturbed you back up 10 feet you have to give 10 feet either in addition so 10 feet for the first cut into the road 10 feet past the last cut of the road so in this case it may be you know 50 feet 60 feet of the length of Road full width and in your mind particularly from an engineering standpoint is that sufficient I mean you'll you know you'll see the seams there's nothing you can do about that but from an Engineering St standpoint is that sufficient so that we've been restored to previous condition and aren't going to be subject to you know rap more rapid deterioration of that road because of of because this change has has occurred yeah I I prefer to avoid it altoe um but as an alternative if if you can picture cutting in half of the road say the say the sewer man is halfway into the pavement you're going to cut it in so you'll have a joint on one side of the trench a a parallel joint and a joint on the other side of the trench you're GNA have three joints for one utility connection if you have three you're GNA you're going to be multiplying the number of joint so in this case so there'll be two this scenario we minimize it to two joints beginning to end if they're properly sealed and with no corner with no Corner because it's going you're not going to have a you're not going to have a a zigzag or a patchwork you know repair you're going to have one seam at the beginning one seam at the end you'll seal coat that that's the best you're going to get who would actually do that work who would do the restoration work yeah well in in a case like this um if that if approved that lock get sold off you actually have somebody that is looking to develop a home on that property then that Builder or developer is going to have to engage a road contractor of some sort um who's qualified to come into our roadway with a milling machine just like you see the equipment on our road Improvement projects they're going to have a milling machine they're going to have a Paving machine it's going to have to be professionally done it's an expense but it's it's necessary by way of our ordinance and I guess as you know assuming that we proceed with approval and we start talking about conditions I I would want to make sure that there's sufficient condition that your that your office on behalf of the township is satisfied uh wi with both whatever contractor is being leveraged to do this and then that your office also has sign off that the work has been done in an appropriate manner you know you know I don't I don't want to I don't want to have a situ where some you know contractor that maybe Cuts Corners pun slightly intended um uh you know and then and then we're left with an insufficient Road well I think I think as a condition of of having to do that work there's also going to need to be some required inspections to make sure that it's done properly I agree just to follow up on that we did something similar on arir uh similar application subdivision uh they paved the road we had to come back cut it just like Bill said curb to curb we had to infrared the joints and uh I think it came out okay from what I understand but exact same scenario that was done that that he's looking to do well as part of the ordinance no and the pole is in the grass so we wouldn't be digging up the road either it's it's in the grass already so we would just from the grass to the to the house correct yeah it would be more the uh the service the the Water Service the sanitary sewer and like Bill said the the curb line where to put the driveway in so obviously we're g to try and cond Mr chairman if I may uh just a piggyback off of uh Mr Burr's comments uh Mr Stars I think you had mentioned that you you have not known of any water issues in the area can you testify that you've asked any of the Neighbors about any water issues I have not okay uh you mentioned that the the improved coverage across both Lots is about 800 square feet is that increased coverage increased coverage uh I'm just curious this garage what is the size of that uh 8177 square feet 817 square feet okay and how big is the shed 49 sare feet 149 Square fet okay so I'm curious uh you know you had mentioned something about construction materials or something along those lines in the garage uh you know in this process give and take if you're improving the overall by 800 I'm curious uh you know you said you mentioned you you had this conversation with Miss Doyle um why not remove the garage and offset the coverage in the second lot I think it's something that that we'll discuss um as a team um again my understanding with from speaking with M Mrs do Miss Doyle is that with the block masonry construction she just felt that it was um quite a bit of of Demolition and work that needed to be done considering all the improvements that missos had just made so I don't think she was taking the approach necessarily and she's not here from like a technical standpoint she was just looking at the the facts and the reality on the on the ground if that that answer makes sense what is the garage constructed of it's primarily block block with frame frame roof okay but it it's a block structure okay thank you the and and the applicant will testify to this but she had just restored the garage and so in in light of those facts I think that soil was trying to see if there was um a way just practically speaking that the applicant could keep the garage but again it's something that that we did speak about and we'll continue to speak about and and just to confirm uh based on the comments from Mr Council uh Mr councilman uh the shed is going to go regardless correct yes okay so the 149 square feet will be removed regardless of how we proceed with the application is that correct yeah it's I mean it's encroaching in the in okay neighbor's property but yes thank you that's all Mr chairman I I have another bite at theend Apple here um talking about the garage that's on lot uh 13 so there's a double double garage door and then there's also what looks like a like a a regular door is there is there anything other than storage going on out there I'll let the applicant be because she's going to testify after me um she'll obviously have a better answer than okay I because I all right councilman are there any other questions from the board regarding any any other engineering questions from Mr Styers oh sorry Mr uh councilman um Mr chairman if I may uh Mr styes with regards to any of the um the properties uh within proximity what is the approximate uh maxed Improvement lot coverage to your knowledge uh I can't answer that the planner might be able to but I didn't look into okay I'll save that for the planner then thank you thank you okay at this time I'd like to open it up to any members of the public that wish to comment on this testimony question any questions please do my name is William roed I actually live north on 153 chasn now Street I moved here like five six years ago and actually the house is brand new we just built it they built it for us when we moved here and guess what we had two massive floods and because between us and Le Mr P do you want to swear a minut if he's gonna yeah start to give testimony I mean you should be just questioning Mr Styers on his testimony right now you'll have a chance at the end uh once the applicants put on all their Witnesses then you'll have a chance to make more General comments I can speak at the end then or can I speak now well do you have a question for Mr Styers on his testimony no okay then just save it for the end thanks any other members of our public please sure you you have to come up and state your name for the record please state your name and address please Katie russos 150 Chestnut I'm right across the street um you had said that there was no documentation or zoning from the previous owner the original owner now we we looked at prior Deeds going back what we were trying to find actually is the where that storm swer goes through we were trying to find the formal document for appeasement okay I've lived there my whole life I currently live in the house grew up in the original owner worked for the township he actually was a road worker and he brought the property as one and years going back in the 60s he tried to subdivide it but because of that pipe the township denied him we're we're gonna have you're giving testimony so I'm sorry I just just raise your right hand please do you swear affirm that the testimony you're giving in connection uh with this application and hearing uh will be the truth nothing but the truth yes okay thank you okay so being that I lived there the whole life and I knew the original owners I knew the second owners I bought my home parents home so the original owner tried to he owned three lots which was the two and then the house to the right of him he tried to subdivide the lot that you're trying to subdivide and the township originally told them no he wanted to build a house for his mother on the property the township had said because of drainage and there's always been drainage in Bradley Gardens we have water I'm right across the street it comes like this the township at that time tried to subdivide it the second owner tried to subdivide it he tried to sell it they told him no that was about I believe the late '90s early 2000s and the and the township said no we couldn't wouldn't approve that our question is how would it happen now and not like they had said water drainage and water how are you so sure it won't affect because when line when property shifted moved dwellings are built water has nowhere to go except in our basements which happens at least once a year like I we are adding 800 square ft um overall and way I look at it it does drain the question was does it affect other properties and I'm just looking at it it drains basically to that Northern property line and then Into the Storm sewer which then goes to Ren yeah and what's happened now because we've had a lot of development throughout the years my house was built in 76 so we're like one of the newer homes what's happened through time because the property wasn't used to that houses that flooded never now flood never flooded now flood because you have these Mt big houses and developments going in that they're forgetting that the land only has a certain amount of space and if there's not enough land with this size of a house it's going to it's going to all come to that property pool around the house pool in the neighbor's house pool in our house we saw it do Ida I mean that was an exception but we just had rain what last week and all our yards looked like swimming pools questions please C can can I ask a can I can I ask a clarifying yes so you're at one is is 148 the brick house that's directly across and you're at 150 it looks like maybe a tannish colored uh siding house is that you at 15 yeah that's our house okay but the one directly across is a well it's not really it's like her the house that stands on the lot is lot 13 I guess that's where the house stands so they're like here and then the lot that you want to build on is right across from I I got I got it all right and and and you're a 50ft lot and your neighbor to the South is a 100 foot lot that's the one with the brick house on it we're kind of in the like it comes down because we're between two two of the hills so I'm at the two houses are at the lowest point so we get most of the water and even recently across the street where the lot is they had water there drainage and Mr chairman if you can indulge me do do you have a basement do I yes okay to your knowledge does 148 have a basement uh yes it does okay and do you have a sump pump sump pump and French drains and is your sump pump very active oh it's active it shoots out all day every day okay had many floods many things happen all right thank you you're welcome thank you m misso where does uh where does that water shoot out just into the yard it goes in I'm sorry where does the water from the Sun pump shoot out too into the like the drainage goes into the street not through our Belgium Block though right and then that goes ultimately to the storm storm sewer easement okay yeah except it pulls in our backyard too because it's like every we get from lynen Street it kind of rolls it's a dominal effect so whatever rolls and being in the lowest point of that hill we get from above and then Lyon right so it's happened more and more as time's gone on again I've lived there 40 eight years and ra raising my children there but as the develop as the area develops more water there's more coverage yeah and Mr styes I'm just curious I know Mr Papa had mentioned about the storm water would the applicant be willing to provide provide a storm water report based on some of the testimony that and the questions that come up from the board today I mean we can do a storm water report but to be perfectly honest with you when you're dealing ultimately whatever we come up with say we're at what we propos an 800 square foot increase and Bill you can maybe stand up for this one or not I mean you're not going to see that difference when you do the computations because you're when you do the computations the way they have them you know it's based on acres and you're not even 2% of a of an acre so I mean I can do a report and state that you know what the existing conditions and what the proposed conditions are but I think it the the comment that we would agree the work would Bill to come up with storm water measures is more of a better condition than actually doing the storm water report I'll default to our engineer on that one Mr Bur I'll give you my two cents if if we're talking a storm water report in the traditional sense when we're talking about big developments I don't think that's going to move the needle on something like this but I certainly think based on the condition that the applicant would manage the storm water on this property there should be calculations provided with that plan to show that what they're proposing is sized properly for this intended use but I don't think there' be benefit to looking at bigger bigger picture neighborhood storm water issues but certainly calculations of what they've agreed to should be provided yeah that's what I was thinking similar to I think the in the bogart Community we had we had asked them to do similar type of soil soil type work you know we want to see if if uh what Miss ruso is mentioning here is that they're living in swimming pools uh obviously we want to see what the soil uh you know what the conductivity of the of the soil is and how we can mitigate some of those issues yes I would agree to that the way Bill phrased that I would 100% agree with that okay so maybe you can come back to the board with something of that sort and Mr chairman just to confirm among any of the experts on these properties there's a a gentle downward slope from Oak to lyen to Chestnut and into ritton fairly gentle fairly gentle okay cuz I I didn't even I didn't notice it you know it's not like it seems flat but not it's not like if you look at it visually it seems like it's flat but it kind of gradually all pitches and of course like every time a home's built they build it higher or homes are improved they add soil so the ground shifts and changes and causes the sloping but um my thing is would it be able to handle like what they're proposing would it be able to handle all that that's the worry I think of our neighbors too too is mainly the water you've actually raised something to thank youc um I guess I'm also would have questions about from an engineering standpoint the height of of the house and the any changes in the slope on Lot 12 because then you know CU water only runs downhill if it can't run downhill in that spot it's going to run somewhere else it is and if it had been denied originally or two times before because of basically because of a pipe so I'm assuming was the draining pipe that runs under that property what would make it any different now you know what I mean I don't know if it's documented I think it was about late 90s early I can't go to the 60s but like the late 90s when the previous owner owned it he tried to sub you know subdivide it and what would the reasoning was drainage pipe Mr chairman if I can just chime in for one second I appreciate the comments just for timing purposes since the public will have the opportunity to provide comments at the end of the hearing just so the applicant can get through its Witnesses um I would just ask that at this time we just try to stick to questions it's just because of a matter of timing so that we can get through our application that's that's the only purpose not Mr silbert yes and I think m Russo brought up a couple points that have spurred the interest of many of us up here as well I do have a question as a result of the testimony as well but uh to your point I do think that we appreciate your questions Mr Russo and if there are any other members of the public wish to pose a question from Mr stars's Testimony Anthony GAA I live in ridan I'm directly behind the open lot um we're all talking about water um which is these exact concern that I'm here as well um I don't know how to uh I want to say first testimony that we just heard is I I agree with everything that was stated there it's including the part of having the the the previous owner prior there was two knowing that he did work in Bridgewater um and from my understanding that that there was a ravine there in that area there was again let's but my question goes to something that hasn't been brought up at all that since it's in my yard I actually have the sewer grate in there so I actually see the water coming into the you know um the sewer iron that I'm standing on so I could see the black pipe coming in and then there's no elbow there but then it goes down between my house and my neighbor to my left I'll say to the South there's also a drain that comes from the once pool that was where they used to get into the pool there is a drain that is there and so there's an a separate 5 foot or or I don't know 8 in 10 in maybe a foot wide pipe going into this same easement that exists so I didn't hear anything about this drainage situation where is right in the middle of that property that exists right now um I'm assuming you you noticed where that there's a there's a drain there and then if you're standing in my yard right behind my shed it's like a turquoise or or a teal looking pipe that's coming directly in from right where the uh underground there's an additional water supply from the middle of the property coming right into the easement that is existing that we are talking about that goes between 11 and 12 and then goes probably along my fence line to right behind my shed and goes towards the street and in over on Obert drive and there is a you know and if you're ever on Obert it does go you first drive into the street go down and then right where my house is and then goes up so all that water is coming down towards my property as well Mr St would you be able to identify the uh the structure that he's referencing uh I would no because I don't believe that our surveyor because there's a fence between and I don't believe our surveyor got onto your property to to physically locate that I mean if there is a pipe coming from the pool area I mean we can say that a condition that will remove that pipe if it's directed my concern is that there's already a pipe there now the gentlemen that lived there too before you know did work for the town so as you say you know we're talking about the shed that's over the property line and we're talking about the where the garage exists you know why was that drain put in was it done correctly and why did he put it there uh is my concern as well in addition to the prior testimony that was just stated before me and all of her concern were exactly what I don't want to continue it what is your street number excuse me your street number seven okay my pretty much my entire lot is exactly where the vacant lot you're on the culdesac I'm the culdesac street but R so so you mostly back on this vacant lot but it seems if if if the map is correct that you have some border with with this gentleman here like I'll say 10 F feet okay it's probably where that easement is is a reason why that 10 foot difference thank you thanks Mr any other questions from the public good evening good evening I'm Eugene jorski 145 Chestnut Street one more time with your name I'm sorry Eugene jorski and we're at 145 chestnet so we'd be to the South Side 13 um the only thing I was just curious was I do know that like you said the the owners the two owner previous two owner when he worked for the township and he was telling me he owned the three lots he had some pipes you know they were when I guess the houses were built that were connected the question right yeah the water would drain from ours through his and would basically I guess to this main pipe that would go into the uh drainage down into berbert or something but anyway you know like when our water Would Rain the water from the sunm pump you could see it come up but it would go down to this drainage once it would really get heavy itot back up then the sump would work normally now I don't know the last time when the house was redone there was some digging if it Disturbed anything but I know the some kicks on a little bit more but I was concerned that if there is any more building or construction would it harm any connections that we have any pipes that are running through help draining the water because the previous owner asked me about that if he did anything would he be disturbing I said I don't know I just know there's pipes from going there where the war drain we would just wonder if that would bother uh the only answer I could say is are the pipes permitted or were they just put in I don't know when the houses were built if they were if it was you know he owned all the Lots like you know said they were 100 Lots he owned all the houses I don't if they were all connected yeah I know you worked for the township they had I I don't know what's yeah I I can't answer that because I know like you said you know we've noticed that with the storms and that with the water drainage it has built up more some of the back thank you I'm s just for clarity you have yours is a it's like a one it's basically a one-story house maybe with an attic tannish colored with a tan okay um I could just put something on the record and I can I only have one copy of the O request itself but I did submit an Oprah request to the township seeking any resolutions adopted by the Township's land use board um relating to the subject properties so that would include for example resolutions of denial now I was trying to find if there was a subdivision approval after 1953 um but I just wanted the record to reflect that that an open request was submitted and that no resolutions were provided so we've operated under the assumption that there were no subdivision applications uh submitted for this property thank you m Mr chairman in light of the some of the questions and the the potential of a drainage system of sorts uh on this property um I guess I would ask Mr Burr now that having heard this what would you think would be appropriate information how how would we understand what what occurs if what Mr star says is correct and they remove the pipe that runs from that spot where the pool existed that runs I guess in an easterly Direction um what would occur you know to the site would become more and is there is that pipe does it run under the property from the west and is it carrying any water we obviously don't know but how would you um explore that how should we ask Mr stars to explore it I guess I think I think honestly the only way we explore it is to get get on foot and do some site reconnaissance um you know whether it's Mr sers um and then reporting back to the board whether it's myself and Mr Styers but I think you know there's been some valid questions raised I think if there is in fact a pipe there it needs to be reviewed um need to figure out what it is or was draining and whether or not it's still active um certainly I think a look needs to be had in person in field to figure out what's going on because um while I did um you know drive by the property do a site visit from the street I didn't go on the subject property and investigate it in advance of this meeting so um certainly I think that should be that should be done there any other members of the public okay that will close the public portion for this witness any other questions from our board Mr silbert next Witness thank you Mr chairman if we could um if we could have a uh short break I just want to talk to my client so that we can discuss some of the comments that were raised by members of the public and the board sure no problem thank you absolutely motion for a brief adjournment thank you second that motion Mr Sora have a roll call please think you might be able to go A and N all in favor I e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e and all in favor I I'm Sil um before I call my next witness Miss hos I just wanted to pass out a supplemental exhibit we can mark it as A2 it's title planning exhibits for hulah hos 147 Chestnut Street Township of Bridgewater New Jersey consists of 15 pages for purposes of Miss hass's uh testimony I'm going to be concentrating on pages three four five predominantly um the board's obviously welcome to to look at everything but that's that's our plan for for Mrs H's testimony so again uh A2 I'm sorry Mike what what do you call them A2 yeah this is A2 they're uh their planning exhibits it's entitled planning exhibits for hulah house 147 Chestnut Street Township of Bridgewater New Jersey consists of 15 pages and for purpose of Miss hass's testimony I'm going to be concentrating on pages three four five thank you Mr silbert and in the interest of time I'm happy to hear Miss Mrs H's testimony this evening uh would there be any consideration given to potentially uh postponing hearing the planner until a different evening absolutely okay I'm so come up and join me so miss H was already sworn in okay take of mine they it of mine yeah if you don't mind just taking a seat here so can you explain to the board and if you can grab the mic there I think it's is it on there Mike oh right here I think it could be dead maybe so you can just use this okay so talk about your uh your relationship with the property when when did you buy it uh I purchased the property 2019 uh actually when right actually 20 we could we did the close in March 20 uh right when Co started um it was difficult to purchase because there was uh some I guess it was a divorce matter they needed to get rid of it um they had projects started uh not finished the home was um it was sad the way the house looked it was I I was sad the way people lived in it because the bathrooms were un finished um they had tarp in the house um it they were first thing I did when I purchased the home was treated for fleas um so it was beautiful um I purchased it initially to live in the home um I just went through a divorce at that time and um the house I say found me um as when I first walked into the home my actually my son said no Mom you can't get this home because this is not home this is just garbage um anyway I fell in love with the house because I saw something different I saw what I could how I can improve it um after I purchased the home um uh I believe if I'm not wrong we took out about 16 or 17 dumpsters of garbage um and um once it was completed it took a while it took about a year during covid I think um still considering the time it wasn't too bad but um I did put about I want to say $172,000 in improvements um there was another shed in the back which I took down that was literally on top of the home so I did clear out more room um the shed I don't know why I didn't remove it it was just in the back of the garage I guess I just left it um but so after it was finished the circumstances changed I discovered I had a talent so um this is what I would like to do um really this isn't your only project right this neighborhood it's not um so I started with not much but um now it's in Broadley Gardens I just purchased another uh multi family home which is probably not if not worse same condition and we're in the process of improving that as well um and um so would you say you you kind of have a track record here of of of trying to improve this neighborhood yes and um actually uh most of the complaints that I heard from the neighbors were how horrible um previous owners kept this property even with the dog attacking other PE uh uh um neighbors dogs and things like that so I think I improved it uh tremendously let's look at the pictures a little bit first I'm just going to ask you to auth authenticate them as accurate representations of the home so turning to page three of exhibit A2 um this photo is taken April 6 2024 um this accurately represents the home today yes okay and then I'm just going to turn to the next page talk about this one on page four uh again exhibit A2 what are we what is the board looking out here okay so the first uh the white that was the uh the house I bought in uh 2020 closing I want to say and um beneath the house the white uh the old uh on the left side of the page on the bottom of the page right that was actually that's how the house was when I purchased it uh that's not part of demolition that's how these people lived in this home um I don't know there are personal circumstances so I I don't like to judge people I would not do that but um when I say Sad the home it was in that condition so um and then to the right of that is when I started improvements and you know we might as well just talk about the next pictures which are beautiful here if I I may say so um talk about these pictures here on the next page page five again these are authentic pictures of your of your home from approximately 2021 2022 correct um I think I imp improved everything even to the nail uh in this home and so with the adjacent lot lot 12 if this subdivision were approv and you were able to construct a home there um Can the board and the and the public the neighborhood for that matter feel rest assured that whatever you put on Lot 12 will be as beautiful if not better than what you put on lot 13 yes because it was I I feel it's more difficult to work with uh existing than building new and um which absolutely um I do love to bring things back to life I mean it just I think um from what it was to what it is now is just amazing if I can just ask um because uh member of the board Mr chatter chatterie had asked um you know what were what were your thoughts for when you were purchasing the property um you had two Lots you had an existing dwelling what what did you want to do when when you purchased the property what was your goal um my goal was again to live there and maybe down the road uh I do have three children um maybe down the road um build another home next door to it but was it for example was it financially feasible for you to to consolidate the Lots so would tear down and build a new dwelling which would could be oversized for the neighborhood based upon the the size correct um I did purchase the home for $310,000 for me to tear it down and build a bigger home would um and spend another 400 it would not not make sense with numbers so um I figured down the road again um maybe I can build a smaller home next next to it so that was a purpose actually my son is probably going to get married next year so we're thinking of uh I was thinking maybe he can purchase the home if I put that on there I'd like to talk a little bit about the surrounding neighborhood so you've heard testimony from from uh different from some of your neighbors for example can you talk about their properties at all so that was um that was interesting because my property is probably has less structure on it than rest the all the other homes surrounding um their properties have literally almost totally covered with shed and um garages and pools so I don't know how this property would affect in a worse way than how they have it you but you would agree that overall there's a lot there's a lot of development that's occurred in this neighborhood yes and obviously this is you it's a biased position but would you say the development that you've done on this property is is uh one of the better pieces of property or or in its current state it's it's could be you know it's it's a model for the rest of the neighborhood perhaps yes okay uh another thing I wanted to discuss with you is just just briefly because Miss Doyle isn't here um can you talk to the board a little bit about our informal conceptual meeting with Miss Doyle because I think a lot of the board's concerns we we spoke about with her how did you how do you recall that meeting any anything that stands out from that meeting that you think the board would benefit from knowing well she first of all she loved the improvements I made and she agrees that um you know it is uh much better condition than it was um and um she did suggest she not suggest but she did say you know it's probably best to leave the garage as is because it's cinder block but if need be I will take it down if that's uh that would help the situation again my goal my goal is to improve not make it worse and I I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt you please go ahead and not just here but any property I can get fine to improve I will so with just quickly with respect to the garage and obviously this is all here say Miss doy is not here to um to attest to whatever the questions I'm asking in the information you're giving but so you did talk about the the the garage and she had initially had suggested to take it down is that correct yes until learning about the the construction and how about how about did you do any work to the garage I did clean it up and removed the garbage from inside and made sure um um we don't have any photos of what the garage looked like previously before you got your hands on it right it was um I just made sure all beams are secure uh the garage door it uh works properly you paint I painted it and made sure the roof is in in good condition okay so so you did put work you put money into it and it at least would you agree that it from your perspective it aesthetically looks well and it's fully functioning yes okay so again not things that necessarily go to lot coverage but I just wanted I'm asking these questions because I wanted the board to be aware of the efforts that's been taken on the proper th far um Mr Mr chairman just sorry to interrupt but while we're talking about the garage I had a question earlier there appears to be a a a double double car door and then next to it there's a you know a regular door um is is there anything going on in there other than storage and that's just essentially a a convenience door so if you want to walk in there you don't have to you don't have to lift the garage doors so I believe um people who own the property before I did they did use it for commercial purposes uh which makes sense why that garage is so big and they did have they there was another building not a building but like a shed oversized shed I think they use as the office which I took down because again it was so close to the home um I was worried about the same problems that you know uh a water going where two sheds right there were two sheds on the two sheds Yes actually one of the P I don't know if you have the pictures but but right but right now the the garage is a garage it's a garage and and that that extra yeah there's person door is just a convenience so if you want to go in or out you don't have to lift the lift the double door correct okay I I personally have no more questions I think the pictures really speak for itself but um throw it back to you Mr chairman thank you Mr silbert thank you Miss house does the board have any questions M um house if you have something you want to add I'm very sorry to interrupt um please sorry um I believe one of the tenants um pointed out that there were other uh property owners that wanted to subdivide but I believe there was never never an application put in even if that were the case um maybe they weren't willing to spend the money and the time effort to to make sure that the drainage problem was solved so I'm willing to do that whatever is necessary again it's to improve the property and not make it worse and I would not put my home under uh in a danger of flooding either so just like they own their homes I own that property as well and I wouldn't I wouldn't want that for my house either we just um Mr Styers just reminded me I I meant to ask you about this but talk about conditions on the property right now have you ever had flooding in your basement no not at all even during H hurricane Ida no not at all there is uh sub pump and there's uh French drain put in when I that was one of the improvements so you put that in correct yes just a question on that point um there's at Le it looks from the picture at least three four steps to get up into the house right from the front yeah yes so um that was existing what's say that was existing right no no I guess my the the I'm supposing and you know maybe maybe turn to the engineer to to confirm this um your house might be drier because it's built a little higher you know I I you know I I looking across the street I was there earlier I didn't necessarily notice how many steps were up into each but now I'm kind of interested you know actually no it's not higher it's just the front is there's more I believe there's more soil and they lifted it up the front is but it's leveled out the same right no no but what I'm saying is my my my ongoing hypothesis is that wherever your first floor is whether it's because there's land there's there's there's Earth leading up to it or there's steps leading up to it if you know if your first first floor is higher and maybe it is and then as a result your basement floor is higher and it might be that may be why your dryer actually basement is a walk out basement there is steps behind the house you walk down to the basement it's not a I I guess what I'm trying to say here is and you know again because I have I I I have a lot of a lot of not I for I don't have water in my basement I have some pump and backup sum pumps and all kinds of stuff I I believe in and I'm not an engineer but where your basement floor is sitting is probably a determining factor of you know are you dry or are you wet um and again you know I'm I'm just simply saying that when these different houses were built you didn't do anything it was already done you know you may have gotten fortunate that whoever built this house built your foundation and your basement floor high enough so that you're not having to run some pumps versus your neighbor to the left your neighbor to the right your neighbor across the street when that house got built it might have gotten built closer to the water table and that's why there some pumps are going on as was stated before very frequently I'm sorry if if if I'm not understanding in that case is that that's a good thing for you right and their homes are not built properly no I didn't say they're not built properly I'm saying that I'm sure they were built following all reasonable uh requirements at the time I'm simply saying that a house built and again I think I saw a nod a house built closer to the water table is going to have a higher risk of having water come into it your house if you're saying your basement is dry and you're not running some pumps all the time but your neighbors across the street and next to you are that may be because your your your basement floor is a couple feet higher possible and and and I'm you know I'm looking at the fact that you have a few steps into your house and saying yeah that all that all adds up that all makes sense you also windows in the basement that you can see sunlight for so it seems like it is a little bit above ground I mean I'm not an engineer and I don't play when on TV but am I kind of on to something here okay Mr chairman I have some questions for Miss hos please there miss hos the uh photographs on page five are of the home do you live in the home okay is it rented yes it is okay um the the photographs that you have here um are of two on top or as Renovations were taking place and I guess the top right hand corner photograph is the basement the exterior entrance to your basement right um are these pictures um elongated they they appear to be um horizontally elongated is that correct like the bottom right hand corner photograph it has a kitchen and the the the refrigerator looks extremely wide the chair seems wide is that um you understand what I mean yeah wide angle lens wide angle lens or something like that you're not to like scale or anything like that okay so I'm not I'm not seeing things okay it looks stretched out yeah yeah okay um it's just a matter of putting it on a legal size handout size uh our planner can that just he had prepared these exhibits um when when you purchase the property what was your original plan to live there that's why it was furnished as you can see uh that's when I had it furnished and then um again my personal circumstances changed so great and how long has it been rented um two years okay so how approximately how long did you live there I furnished it I actually did not live there oh okay um it was I'm sorry matters okay um and the um the garage I don't know if you want me to answer ask that question or you want to save it for you the garage there's one of the photographs here I'm looking at page nine um and there is a it's an aerial photograph of the property and the garage appears to have some structures protruding through the roof and the one in the back upper right hand corner almost looks like a chimney okay so the previous owner had it was like a I I didn't even know what it was it was homemade wood burning type of uh some sort of a stove stove they from what I heard from this is from the neighbors he would burn the garbage there so I removed all that okay so there's no stove in the in the garage not at all okay and it's just used for storage correct and I removed whatever was there okay it was it was weird we can come back also with a photo of the interior of the garage since we're we're coming back so and what what page is that what page is that I'm saying when we come when we come back oh okay back with an interior photo of the garage if the if the board wants to see the interior got it okay um that's that's fine totally fine there's even um nonfunctioning bathroom in there which we um kind of disconnected so the bathroom's not there anymore no I mean the it's closed off but it's capped it's capped so the the the toilet fixture has been removed is the toilet in in the garage there is it's totally capped off so there's no toilet well we'll get back to on that it's not if there is one it's not functioning it's it's not functional yeah so there is a toilet it's simple question there is a non-functioning bathroom there yes toilet but there's no water there's nothing there okay so there is a toilet but there's no running water into the running R okay and no electric in that side yeah okay okay it's all for now thank you so that was again the previous owner used that um I guess as commercial um I believe they had a Paving Company or some sort I'm not sure thank you Mr are there any other questions from the board from Miss hus chairman Mr bung uh I'm just curious we talked a little bit about at the basement and um do you have a sun pump in there yes and have you French drains in French drains and have you seen water over the last or have your tenants noticed any water gotten any kind of complaint about water no okay okay that's it for now thank you any questions Miss house I had a few questions and perhaps at this point we might be able to sa them for next time but I was curious to know exactly what type of structure would be found on Lot 12 would it look similar to what we're seeing here in these images actually no but it's not well it would be something very similar to like Miss Miss hust is pointing at page 15 of the exhibit A2 so yeah that's is that the uh you know concept plan of what that home would look like on Lot 12 yes a full two story structure correct yes yours today's considered a one and a half story correct pardon it's a one and a half story on lot 13 uh yes sorry yes and sorry I should have asked this question earlier what would be the proposed height of this structure unless somebody had down this way asked it before it's all uh under we we'll keep it we'll ensure that it's under 35 so whatever's I think 35 is permitted 35 ft right yeah and in the future plan for this lot with a perspective structure there would there be any consideration give it to um a burm uh for some privacy trees potentially that would impact uh the adjacent house on lot 11 I think that's one of the things we spoke with um yeah we had just we we had spoke well Scarlet yeah we we did speak at the meeting I was willing to even for privacy and noise I was willing to put trees because I with uh you can fix a lot with nature so the only problem is even the water problem if we would have we'd have to locate whatever instrument exists to see whether or not vegetation permitted in the easan area so between I think the idea is that there's going to certainly be vegetation planted but I don't know about uh between lot 11 and Lot 12 till we locate some instrument that establishes rights um we can't commit to that but if it permits it absolutely yeah I have several questions regarding the the density of that space between the structure of the home that's on lot 11 and the proposed structure on Lot 12 what that would look like especially with the the drainage easement that we've been talking about uh all uh I know in the plans you said there was going to be a soil Heap I think was going to be stored somewhere along that side there be removed would be removed right I had some other questions but I think are more appropriate to say for the next time so that'll be it for now M Mr chairman I have a few a few questions I'm not sure if they are better answered now or maybe just asked and then answered later um and and some of this was discussed before the fact that you're impervious coverage you have a little bit of wiggle room but not a ton um I I guess um where I'm where I have a concern is actually let me focus on your property first I I actually would I don't I don't want to see that garage touched um because I think that homes need whether they be garages or sheds or some appropriate outdoor space they need them um the concern I have for this for this property which I I guess is the lot lot 12 uh is um somebody at some point is going to want to put down and it might be beautifully done pavers for where they're going put the garbage can or cans where they're going to put the um the uh recycling uh carts um I you know this is a you know a fairly small property so probably a a lawn mower would do it but a lawn mower is going to need to be stored somewhere uh couple of snow shovels um you know the you know not not a commercial operation by any stretch but just the things that you typically need to service a single family home so I'm going to predict that at some point somebody's GNA say well I'm not storing a lawn mower in my kitchen so I need a shed um and then as result well I need a pathway to get to my shed because I don't want to stomp through the mud to get to it I I I guess what where what I'm I'm interested in in in what the vision is not just when it's built but when a person would actually need to live there and account for things such as that um because again you know this this plan has been presented in such a way that you have minimized the amount of relief you're seeking and that's appreciated but I I'm I'm just concerned that the real life condition somebody is going to start putting in a whole bunch of other stuff um you know again not because they're looking to be excessive but because they just want to live comfortably in their home would it be helpful if when we came back we put together a concept plan that would show what could be uh improved on the property within that 300 ft so that you can see what kind of wiggle room 300 ft would provide to a homeowner like I'm not I'm not sure how to answer or address your concern that that would be helpful again I can't speak for everyone else but that would be very helpful to me again I you know I don't know you know the shed that you're that you're bringing down is 150 ft I I don't know of 150 I mean it sounds like a reasonable size for a shed you could fit a lawn mower and you know you know a couple shovels and you know a little bit extra storage you know I you know want to see it I i' I'd like to see it and then again I assume there's going to be a walkway that's going to be needed to get there because you're not going to trample through the mud to go get to it um uh you know and then how that calculates potentially and how that plan ultimately still keeps you hopefully within the impervious coverage I think that's something we can we can definitely do absolutely I think if I may if I can just add to that you know we had spoken with Mr sty if you can include some of the um the remediation or not really remediation but as it relates to some of the storm water mitigation would also be valuable for us to take a look at if you're think if you're talking about conceptual plans I think that would be really helpful us yeah I mean we're you we're trying to evaluate again the the storm water management currently right we want to impa we want to determine the impact on this property currently um so Mr Styers can and I can can coordinate to provide something to the board so that they can determine what the existing conditions are and how this will impact conditions on the property also I can coordinate with uh with Mr Burr too Mr chairman uh I have I think one other question or two for Miss hos um when you purchase the property were you aware of the zoning were you aware of the zoning when you purchase the property in other words were you whereare that 100 ft was required for the lot width is that basically what you're asking yes no um and uh why are you here seeking a subdivision use this if the mic's not working well before you answer that question you understand the the lot The Zone requirements now yes I do okay so now the question is why are you asking for this uh subdivision I would like to build uh a structure on there um could you give us tell us why well I do have three children so um like I said U my son is probably getting married next year and that was discussed that um if he's able to buy it um from me um that was uh the plan but if not um it could be rented out I'm not sure at this point but your family is not interested in living in the existing structure existing yes I was it was my plan to live there that's why I furnished it I know but now you're saying your your son might be interested in purchasing a house new house but not be but there's not a family member that's interested in living in the existing house for myself for or for your family you talk about your son right so he's not interested in the existing house not in the existing house no okay thank you thank you Mr if I may if uh I remember correctly if the shed is less than 100 square ft 10 by 10 it can be approved by zoning and does not have to come before the planning board greater than 100 square ft it would have to come to before the planning board for approval I think you mean 100 ft can be approved by the Construction office provide it doesn't trigger any other departures zoning I believe if it's under 100 square feet zoning if it's over 100 square feet zoning and construction I don't think I have to take a look I don't think a shed needs to come to the okay wouldn't the zoning officer calculate lot coverage uh that would be look yeah right right so someone within the government would take a look at this either way right but right if yeah I just just so that everybody heard the comment if they seek a permit and that and that's some of the challenge that we have in Bridgewater because you know we want to be collaborative with our neighbors you know we don't want to be big brother but at the same time we do have an Integrity of our of our zoning code here so you know we are not sending drones in the air to look at people's property and you know we're not sending sending inspectors unnecessarily you know that's really the underlying concern that we have is to make sure that the that the final state of this property is in conformance uh it does conform uh uh does protect everybody's uh you know you know you know properties and everything else that's the reason why we're being so thorough um you know but but I mean you know the reality is you know if you picked any 10 properties at random in Bridgewater and you did a thorough analysis of where every brick is you very well may find departures uh from from from ordinance and from construction records nonconforming yeah but but you know just so that we're you know because we're all neighbors here just so that we're all clear we are not looking to start buying drones and putting them up in the air and we're we're not looking to do that but the reality is there's a lot of things that people just build and do um but to the extent that we can prevent those situations we definitely want to do that thank you councilman to make sure that everything is done um to the code and correct so so that we don't have those issues where uh that would cause flooding and um other unfortunate situations I think a lot of us have concerns as well because you know this neighborhood's already grown up out of itself you know over many generations now so adding an address to this spot it it it creates you know a quality of life issue for everyone around this this um proposed structure so we're we're taking a close eye looking at everything dissecting it down to you know what would do with storm water what it would do with with uh you know the roof leaders at you know where are they going to drain where's the sun pump going to drain so you know how high is the slab so I think a lot of us share the same concerns on storm water on the plans on the architecture so that's exactly why I think a lot of us are here this evening just making sure I think I have a question that we don't have to have answered now but for Mr Styer so is councilman kers was talking about the the water table and the elevation of the basement of the existing structure uh you could speak to the I'm assuming the new house would have a basement basement's proposed okay so where the hold on the level of the basement floor of the new structure as compared to the existing structure it would be interesting to know that because that would to Mr kersh's point would potentially impact uh water in that basement thank you and I'm sorry just to that point I mean I think we'd want to we'd want to come to a to to a place where that floor is located so that this house stays dry cuz we certainly don't want to create a problem but at the same time does not make other houses more wet so so if there's if there's a if there's a a place where that floor needs to be that's going to keep keep this home dry and not make others more wet that would be very important for us again from an engineering standpoint you know I don't maybe it's a field it's a field calculation you know exactly how deep a house is is maybe not the most precise thing um you know you know that that may be something from an engineering standpoint we want to we you know we we want to um uh consider as well Mr chair just a brief question pins please uh the house on lot 13 its basement is it finished no are you planning to finish it or okay so that could be used to store any materials or is it currently being used to store materials um actually there's just a washer and dryer for the for the people who are living there and it's just open space okay thank you are there any other questions from the board I'd like to turn over to the members of the public I'm sorry to our professionals got gotta ask you I have a few questions um first of all [Music] um the question that was just posed about the basement on the existing lot 13 um you you mentioned that the basement is not finished correct can you provide pictures of the basement at the next hearing sure thank you um you'll see where I'm going in a second uh and you mentioned that the proposed basement on Lot 12 is not is also not proposed to be finished correct correct and you'll agree that it won't be finished yes there's implications um to the floor area ratio if the basements are finished it depends on ceiling height as well well but there is an implication that especially on lot 13 which is under on F that if it's finished and the cealing height is over 7 feet that it could be over on F which is not a matter before the planning board that's jurisdictionally a zoning board matter um so we do need to confirm that we need to have your engineer confirm that and we do probably need pictures of the basement we've seen pictures of the other portions of the house so the basement would be helpful to show that it's not a finished space um um I think we'll also probably need um from the engineer a confirmation on the proposed Building height for Lot 12 uh looking at the specs from the the last sheet I think it's sheet 15 um as you can see there's a website I just checked it out um just to see this the family home plans and see some of the specs on the house they don't entirely match up with the engineers plans the porches in the in a different location and there's also stairs leading up so we just need to know about how building Heights calculated in our ordinance uh the grades on the site and um and then match that to what's proposed for the house because currently the specs on the House show that it's about uh a 20 29 foot house approximately so our ordinance require or allows up to 35 ft and with some stairs and with some grade we could be getting close again and I don't think it's sufficient just to say under 35 ft because potentially could be another variance condition so I would like to see that information also from the engineer unfortunately there's no architectural plans they're not required but they would be very helpful in this case simply because those Cals probably would have been provided along with the f um I don't think I have anything else thank you believe it or not I have no questions at at this time thank you Mr Mr chairman thank you Mr B at this time I'd like to open up to any members of the public that wish to question Miss H's testimony please feel free to come forward at this time I see if you have a question question these just questions is a question hold it yeah yeah S I don't I'm not sure what your your name is but would we have permission to take a look at the the pipes that you were speaking about on your property okay do you need that's that's sufficient yeah I mean our engineer saying that we would like the ability to locate the pipe here why why don't you why don't you specifically request you're seeking I don't know if you want the microphone or this work we just abity well but you can you can look at the piping that's underneath the applicants property there's been there's been com if I can finish Mr Stars if if there's uh potential that the gentleman said that there is potentially a pipe running from the pool area in a West in an easterly Direction maybe you could at least explore that on the applicant's property my thought thank you well let something for that's something for your client to negotiate with the gentleman it's not for the board to require of the neighbor thank you any other questions from our public okay that will close the public portion for this witness may I just um point something out just and I don't mean any disrespect um just because there is a drainage where that poola area is that does not mean that it ends up in that location um that's just assuming that drainage leads to that so unless uh our engineer takes a look at it to make sure we can't say that drainage is on their property leads to their property well well we can our engineer could certainly look at whatever infrastructure is on our property um and we've already agreed to do that so whatever's on our property we'll we'll investigate we can only do what we can do Mr Burr is that satisfactory for the moment that's the best we can do for now yeah okay Mr silbert I would ask you to bring up another witness but we're over that time for the evening okay okay uh's uh are we closing to the public or we have closed to the public correct okay and at this point I'd like to ask Miss probest uh what dates we have open uh for applic here to carry this meeting is that the sole application on on five s okay Mr Silver how does that work well I know this is this may be difficult to to judge with complete accuracy but what is the level of complexity with that case on 57 and you know is there any reasonable likelihood that we would still have time that night no no my my question is you know we we apparently have this 57 uh item I I'm again impossible to know for certain I'm interested in knowing the relative complexity of that so that we can understand is there a viability to still having time left on 57 no guarantees yeah yes see this this is where I look at life differently once I'm here I I don't mind being here all night mhm if I can com back yeah right did you feel same way the 21st will remain open until could I just ask um complicate this for Mr Burr and Miss Smet is there anything that um any specific length of time that either of you would need is the seventh sufficient time for any additional review you need for the board's benefit yeah the the only concern I have with May 7th is two plus weeks away three weeks from now um to do site CRA whatever us be days before that meeting doesn't leave a lot of certainly the 21st more time to do a thorough job but maybe they can jum on their tomorrow but it is a compressed turn around I would just request that if you do have any documentation that you're submitting from tonight's hearing um before the 7th maybe have it in by like Friday the 26th for for Bill and I to be able to review it um and if you can't make it by then then maybe we we carry it so that's just to ensure that we have a good time frame we don't need our professionals they need to have the enough time to be able to advise the board properly we do have that other item tonight that we cover oh all right all right see I got to bring my papers home and bring it back we'll have car to published or served yeah e well I think I think the line of questioning that you guys heard tonight 90% of the questions revolve around drainage concerns so you need to do whatever site reconnaissance is necessary to determine what the existing drainage conditions are where all the existing water flows and what issues could come from adding an additional thousand square foot these two properties and then in the proposed condition what viable opportunities are there for new storm water features to manage that additional coverage so to answer some of the questions I think we need revised plans showing what the proposal is either to minimize the coverage or address what runoff is going to come from the plan that's been laid out out here if I could add one item I'm also interested in understanding the Topography of what this house you know like at what elevation will it be built um and what those implications are because and again I closed up my packet but since the water is basically running from the West to the east if all of a sudden you know this house is is built a little higher which it it wants to be so that it stays dry you know the water is now going to potentially go around um and so so I guess that's where I'd like to understand the to the the the the the the proposed topography and that and its impact on water flow in the neighborhood I don't know what the name of a report like that is um but I'd like to be I'd like to understand what it what would the build condition look like and how is water going to flow through those various streets in in Bradley Gardens that we've been talking about yes and and you know the whole would there realistically be a shed where might it be would there realistically be a paer area where you're going to put garbage cans is there going to realistically be a a you know a sidewalk along the side to get to the shed in the back yes that that would be very valuable very good Mr sht therefore the meeting shall be carried to the 5th of May without Carri I'm sorry the 7th of May and carried without further notice okay thank you [Laughter] okay moving along forward we do have another item up for discussion this evening and that's a resolution authorizing a director of the planning board of town BridgeWalk to undertake a preliminary investigation of block 349 Lot 2 which many of us commonly know as a municipal waste site dumb site um either Mr peek or councilman kers I invite you to disc discuss to the board what this resolution authorizes the board to do the same drill as at the at the last meeting so the township Council has decided it wants to investigate whether or not that particular piece of land is suitable for redevelopment so they've asked the planning board directed The planning board to undertake a study to make a recommendation back to the council whether it's an area in need of Redevelopment so what this board uh should do is then delegate it's investigatory um yeah yeah I'm I'm drawing a total blank here I don't know how but to delegate its responsibilities to the uh to the Township's special Redevelopment planner uh Michael Sullivan okay and then he'll prepare a report analyzing uh that property with the Redevelopment factors he'll bring it back to the board the board will have a public hearing to decide what kind of recommendation it wishes to make back to the Council well I'm just very very limited additional commentary um so again there is a six step process so in that way it's the same step one the council uh uh authorized the planing board to undertake a preliminary investigation that happened I believe last week or week and a half ago this is now step two uh taking the actions that um Mr pek recommended the one thing that's different about this property is it is municipally owned um and as a result frankly we as a governing body have a fiduciary responsibility uh to investigate if there are commercial appropriate commercial opportunities for it um so that's what's that's where the flavor is a little bit different but the process will essentially be the same and there's a motion on the floor mun yard so it's a portion of the Municipal Way site uh accessible from Foothill Road by the uh no before the Stone Center going down toward Chimney Rock it's still on Foothill Road on the left there's a there's I think a cemetery across the street from there and some other some other businesses okay I'll I'll SEC well no maybe I shouldn't second oh Mr was it was moved before I think heard it moved by Mr papus and I'll take a second from Mr Sora yes yes yes yes yes yes very good we do have one last last item of discussion here and uh Miss sarmat I do believe that we have to update the board on some uh uh new dates regarding the master plan Workshop sorry my mic's not on it is being rescheduled for uh Wednesday May 22nd um so that's on the calendar I think a not a new notice is going to go out for that so um same situation nothing's changed except for the date and just to reiterate the board members are welcome yes they are okay what time it'll be at 7 o'clock so we're going to keep your working that week potentially with both a planning board meeting on the 21st that meeting on the 22 and anyone wants to can come to the council meeting on the 23rd and then take the Memorial Day weekend for your own Endeavors there you go I will take a motion for adjournment motion that's Miss sakur and a second please I'll second that's miss chtz all in favor I I have a good even everyone on May 7th oh absolutely