e e e e e e e yeah we're good also good evening and welcome to the Bridgewater Township planning board regular meeting for Tuesday May 21st 2024 adequate notice of this meeting has been given in accordance with the open public meetings Act njsa 10 4-6 on February 7th 2024 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 municipal bulletin board in the municipal 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 10:00 p.m. hearing assistance is available upon request accommodation will be made for IND individuals with a disability pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act or Ada provided the individual with the disability provides 48 Hours advanced 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 to the flag of the United States of America to the rep stands na indivisible andice Miss propes have a roll call please here here here thank you Miss probes yes here thank you m bres at this time any members of the public that wish to address the board on any land use matter under than any other application that's going to be heard this evening please feel free free to come forward at this time okay seeing none moving along we do not have any minutes up for adoption or approval this evening we do have one resolution this evening and that is for the Hidden River Farms or the hall residence commonly known as 639 Meadow Road are there any questions or comments or change to the record hearing none could I have a motion to adopt the resolution memorialized on May 21st 2024 so moved that's Mr Papas could I have a second please that's Mr chowri a roll call please yes yes yes yes thank you Miss probes moving along to our application portion of the evening we do have holah house returning more commonly known as 147 Chestnut Street good to see you this evening Mr silbert good evening Mr chairman good evening board members board professionals members of the public my name is Michael silbert and I'm an attorney from the law firm D franccesco baitman located in Warren Township New Jersey I have the privilege of representing the applicant this evening Miss hoolah hos so I'm sure the board recalls we originally presented the application on April 16th 2024 and then we returned to the board on May 7th 2024 uh I'm sure at this point the board is all too familiar with the application so I'm not going to waste any time outlining the application again or what brought us before this board I think however it would be prudent to remind the board where we left off before we concluded the last meeting on May 7th so at the last hearing and at the request of certain board members Miss hus agreed to increase the minimum sidey yard setback on the Northern side of Lot 12 Jason Jason to lot 15 and that increase was to 15 ft uh the sidey guard set back on the southern side of Lot 12 as a result of that uh the applicant agreed to ensure that it would be no less than 9 ft that resulted in a change to the minimum combined side yard setback for Lot 12 uh where the combined yard setback would be no less than 24 ft as relates to screening or buffering that was a concern of of one of the objectors at the last hearing as well as the board and the applicant agreed to provide uh screening or buffering in the sidey setback to the northern side of L 12 again adjacent to lot 11 this can include fencing vegetation landscaping or a combination of them obviously the goal was very clear it was to provide screening and buffering to the neighbor on Lot 12 and the only issue was the exact location of the screening um and that was a result of the uh easement drainage area located on the lot um if it's if we can't locate the uh the document which we still have un been unable to locate the instrument uh my suggestion would to the board would be that they allow us to install a fence within the easement area provided that the applicant stipulates to not um not constructing a fence that in anyway would would harm or damage existing drainage infrastructure and I'll remind the board that there is a fence within the easement area on the neighboring lot um the width dimensions of the proposed home on Lot 12 that that again was a major concern we reduced that from 28 feet to 26 feet so Mr styr prepared a supplemental plan which he'll present uh to the board I think it has to be I think Mr pcket would be A4 we can mark it when it gets there um but assuming approval is is granted the maximum width permitted would be 26 ft for any dwelling on Lot 12 and the width would be um as shown on the supplemental plan would be 41 ft uh I'm sorry the depth would be 41 ft um the applicant agrees to comply with the following uh just to be clear again that the lot width of a home on laot 12 should not exceed 26 feet so as to comply with the single minimum yard setback with the neighboring lot 11 uh F on Lot 12 shall not exceed 25% which is the maximum F permitted in the zone lot coverage on Lot 12 and really on lot 13 as well will not exceed 35% which again is the max permitted lock coverage printed in the zone and again the appin reaffirms its agreement to comply with the building height requirements that the proposed dwelling on Lot 12 will not exceed 35 ft which is the maximum height permitted in the zone if it's okay uh Mr chman I'd like to recall Mr Styers to present this supplemental exhibit that I described um oh one yeah okay and one last thing just because uh um Miss Miss sarmad made an excellent suggestion about op requesting the ordinances so I just wanted to outline what I found if I may so I did op request um the ordinances and based upon my review it appears that the r10 Zone was established in 1977 7 uh when the Township's current code was enacted I point that out because there there were amendments that I looked into um that took place in 1991 uh as well as in the early 2000s none of those amendments had anything to do with upzoning or I use that term upzoning meaning that there was there was never any indication that there was a legislative intent to increase the lot size dimensions in the r10 zone dating back to at least 1977 I didn't submit a request for um an ordinances in place prior to the current code I I would imagine that there were um there were ordinances in place but um again the Oprah response indicates that this was zoned and uh zon to permit Lots 10,000 uh with a lot area of 10,000 square F feet dating back to 1977 so again there was never an attempt since then to change that um and that's that's that's what I have here with the OA request but I'll turn it to Mr Styers who remains under oath and I presume your license is in good standing yes excellent thank M Silber uh yeah I guess I'll just go through what Mike um presented in a list form and I'll show it graphically um I'm sorry yes um it's the grading and Sol erosion plan uh colorized so the first item I believe was that we were to maintain the minimum sidey yard setback on the North side so that is 15 feet the next item would be that the house is going to go from 28 feet to 26 so we've adjusted that which leaves us with a remainder on the sidey yard setback of 9 ft on the side yard uh stly sidey yard and that would give us a total of 24 feet combined side yards um again Mike said 26t wide 41 ft deep that's what's shown on the plan here 41 or 4 41 I mean in in any case it would comply with the maximum F and the maximum um imp perw improved coverage um the other thing as Bill mentioned is to remove a portion of the driveway on Lot 12 so we've shown that as well so it's get gets cut off at the back of the house so that puts this lot at approximately I think it was 32 a half% so so now both Lots comply with the impervious coverage which was the first driving factor and then the last meeting was the more the setbacks and the configuration and I think the other thing was that uh one of the board members brought up a concern about the trees that are currently planted through the middle of the property and what I've shown is just a number of trees along the rear property line um so that's I think the intent is to if at all possible transplant them and get them uh along that rear property line and I think the last item was uh regarding the fencing what I've done to this point is shown it along the southerly side of the 10- foot drainage easement and I'm sorry a six- foot privacy fence so that would go from the front of the house back until it ties into the fence that's currently in the backyard so I think that covers the list that you just just presented yeah and then um the uh one of the neighbors had met had concerns about uh the tree on lot 11 that we about that a little bit can you just show the board where where that is and yeah we've added that tree um I think one of the um neighbors came out one thing important to notice is this tree is probably about 10 feet from their house and it still survived despite getting that house constructed and we're 15 maybe 25 feet from that house so if they can build their house there and it survives I think we should be okay on ours we're 15 feet from the setback well right 15 plus another 10 so 25 I'm sorry okay and um what was the date of this just so I can mark it um last revision um we put it 521 okay thank you and of course garage is is gone but I'll just highlight that that the garage on lot 13's been removed right the garage is gone the shed would be relocated and as I said the portion of the driveway in front of the garage to the back of the house is also proposed to be removed so again again just as a reminder these are improving um existing lot coverage conditions correct thank you thank you very much Mr sers no problem I'd like to open up to the board for any questions regarding this new testimony Mr uh you mentioned that you know fence will be to protect the drainage fence will be on the other side of the drain uh pipe right the the drainage pipe is in this approximate loation here the easements right on this side so we're following the easement so we wouldn't even be close to the pipe we'd be 10 ft from the pipe oh so the fence obviously will not be in the neighbor's property it will no no no no the neighbor's property is right here we're 10t over but Mike even suggested that possibly if we're writing the easement and what's permitted possibly moving that fence into the easement if the board should let us so I I took the conservative approach and kept it out of it but you know if the board were to choose to allow us a little bit more room um potentially we could do that too and Mr stars there is a fence in the easement area on the adjacent property is that accurate it is essentially follows the property line yeah so it's right in the easeman area right dead center yes probably right over the pipe yes U Mr chairman a few follow-ups if I may please counc um so just want to I know a lot of numbers floating around um I think most of them are moving in in the right direction so that's good but I just want to make sure that everybody on the deis and in the audience we know exactly what we're talking about so it's still a 50 foot wide lot that hasn't changed the side uh neighboring lot 11 is going to be 15 ft and then approximately a 26t house correct and then approximately a 9 foot yard correct and that's how we add up to the 50 going 41 deep correct okay all right I my main area of concern and it's been the case throughout this hearing is um the lot coverage and concerns about you know drainage and um you know giving water somewhere to go um preferably not into anybody's basement so where do we stand right now with this this rendering on lot coverage for both lot 13 and Lot 12 what what are the percentages as shown they're both approximately 32 to 33% okay all right I'm I'm in a nice mood so I heard that as 32 um now the current as it exists today uh is roughly 57 I'm sorry so it's 32 and 32 so the average is obviously going to be 32 uh the current is 57 on on one of the lots and the original proposal that we talked about was uh oh I'm sorry TW without the Improvement but with the subdivision Lot 12 would be 29 right so we were talking about 57 and 29 as the two numbers correct so yes okay now since the Lots would be relatively equal size the total disturbance between the two would be some number that's about an average of 57 and 29 right I'm sorry it the existing 12 is uh 13.5 existing 13 is 57.3 okay so our original proposal were the numbers that that you're referring to okay so 57 and 13 is uh 70 divid by two is 35 it ends up being it ends up being slightly over what's permitted 35 okay it's it's it's um about 35.5 okay so so each lot currently if you evenly divided them up is about 35% coverage you made up as 57 and 13 what you're proposing is is basically a uniform 32 a relatively uniform 32 yes okay so so here a couple questions and I'm I'm hoping that our planner and Andor engineer can also weigh in on this if I'm particularly concerned about drainage in the whole neighborhood not just these properties not necessarily just the immediately adjacent properties is it better worse or the same to have essentially an even a more even situation than a case where part of a lot has a whole lot of building on it and part of it doesn't have much or does it really does it make a difference does it make a tangible difference is it maybe just at the margins may I so it it's important to take a look at the percentages but I think it's more important to take a look at the square footage that is allocated to each property and if if I'm understanding Craig existing Lot 12 and existing lot 13 I think you have just over 4600 square feet total coverage existing today with the latest revisions your total square footage should be less than that 4600 I can probably say way less so you're going to be reducing the overall coverage yes on both Lots compared to today overall yes but I guess Bill really what my question is right are you is there a benefit to somewhat a more even landscape right versus there's not that much going on on on one lot and there's a whole lot going on on the one right next to it so I think when you take a look at the drainage area and where the runoff from the coverage is going these are two small Lots the drainage is all flowing to the same location so whether you have a 5,000 squ foot lot that has a lot of coverage and not so much directly next door if you develop both properties with lower amounts of coverage still going to the same spot in my view it's a benefit if that makes sense so you're you're looking at a very small area I think a little over 10,000 12,000 Square ft total I think it's an improved condition from a drainage perspective with the way that that it's being designed right now so so given the choice between a whole lot here and not much here sorry to use my hands or more even across you're saying the the the water will have a somewhat e slightly easier Journey if it's more even you one of the one of the goals of the enhanced storm water management rules is to break up impervious coverage areas and I think in in that vein this plan achieves that so if we can introduce more green space if we can if we can reduce some coverage um that's a benefit okay and then the final question the trees being relocated which I I think is outstanding if it's the existing ones terrific if it's Replacements then that's certainly uh uh acceptable you know my sense and I guess I just want it on the record and confirm the reason why trees are so valuable is not just they're pretty to look at but they're absorbing substantial amounts of water correct so I I guess I just wanted to make sure that that's on the record it's not just you know hey we want to make sure that it's pretty although they are they are serving an important function I agree okay and in this case we we're talking about a one a one for one situation correct I would say it's many as many as we can healthly put in okay you know you don't want to jam them all together but I mean just based on because I think they're staggered front to back as well so if we can get them in there along that line yes I mean we can you know if they don't reach to one end to the other can supplement as well and I I know we did have concern from the back neighbor um I guess in this case once this tree line is in and certainly once it if it needs to grow a couple of Seasons there would be substantial benefit obviously on that side in terms of a natural buffer and a place for some amount of the water to be absorbed correct okay thank you should those transplants not survive let's say a year or two after they're transplanted with be some type of maintenance plan that could be required I know that in the Past Scarlet is required a two-year guarantee so I would say we do the same thing any other questions and you'll do the plannings working with the board professionals to their reasonable satisfaction yes thank you Mr any other questions from the board no Mr silbert do you have any further testimony or any further Witnesses have I don't have any any further Witnesses um I I just want to confer with the applicant she had prepared a statement that she was um considering to conclude with versus a summation from m um I don't know how the board would would view that I don't know if the board would conf would view that as as testimony or um so I would like the opportunity to just ask the the applicant and then maybe you can consult with uh with your board attorney as whether or not you would accept that I don't think it's a problem I think we'll provide uh our professionals a member this just to uh question Mr Styers here on any any question they have Miss sarm matter Mr bur are there any questions that you would have regarding Mr st's testimony I don't believe I have any questions I don't either Mr chairman my questions were uh responded to with Mr gers thank you very good go to the public yeah there any questions from our public for Mr Styers please come forward to Lector and if if I could just clarify this would be questions pertinent to what we just heard we there there will ve very soon there will be public broad-based input very soon seeing hearing no other questions we can move forward so um I I think um if it's your reference Mr chairman we can open it up to public comment and I can put a a closing statement or summation at the end um Miss H's has deferred to me so I'll I'll end with a closing I don't know if you want me to do that now or after public comment I think we could allow the public comment at the present time say this is the broad the broad base even name is address for the record PA veter 148 Chestnut Street you I'm hearing a lot about lateral pipes going here going there I've been there about give or take 50 years I've seen a lot of storms heavy rains there's four storm drains right at the corner of Lot 12 and lot 11 they can handle the rain it floods there in that low spot we've had already pull the cars out that was water up to the uh rocker panels and if you walk towards Cherry um Perry Street a little ways up and look down toward Lot 12 go up to the north and look down towards uh Perry Street Lot 12 is the lowest lot in that whole street of Chestnut Street and that water collects there four storms drains can't accept that water and then you got a ditch coming from lyen Street between house 150 and 148 uh 152 it it just can't handle it and where the water goes on the east side of the road up over the curb right through that 12 Lot 12 through the harpes through the where the swimming pool used to be and right into Ron my friend used to own that house I've seen it numerous times nobody has talked about this and it's going to be a problem and my house like you say 50 some years I got a 10t by 8T basement just for the furnace never had a problem with water for about 5 years they built the house 150 next to me I started getting water I had to put some pump in they disturb the water level so I get a lot of water not a lot but it runs a lot when I get heavy rains it super runs and runs and runs that some up I got a spare on the Shelf because I know if it goes out it's going to be 12:00 on a Sunday so um there's some things you you got to send somebody up there and look at that situation I think you're asking for problems especially with that water it's terrible I mean you could see the dip in there it's when when you refer to the dip you mean existing Lot 12 is the lowest lot is where is where water is collected exactly and and and it takes a period of time after a storm before it dissipates from there yes I mean not just a trickle you're talking almost two feet it clicks right in that Basin actually that's what it is a basin but to visualize it from what I'm trying to explain it I mean you always just go there and look and you'll see it right away I have been in your neighborhood a couple times I did notice the double catch Bas and yes the double doubles yeah right and I conclude that there's a lot of water through that neighborhood and I'm just bringing it to your attention because I hear nobody talking about that situation well I think we've discussed it not in the specific term that you've me that that you've brought to to our attention attention but that's the reason why I'm so concerned about you know when we talked about the 57% the 133% and it'll be a if approved a 32 and a 32 you know that is a big determinant of is there anywhere for the water to go so even even though this is new information for us overarching concern is where does the water go so so it's definitely been substantial focus of what we've been talking about and I would like just real quick bring one more thing up the first meeting you guys had I was on vacation I missed it I went to the video I watched the replay the previous owner like I say he was a friend of mine he went on some hard times now the new owner comes in and made a statement to the board about about them being pigs and living like pigs and had 18 boxes of garbage they took out of that house I don't think that's right what you know what she said and that shows me and tells me what kind of person she is so do I get the vote on this here for this variance or just the board well okay well anyway that's that's all I have to say thank you very all right thanks for your time anybody else my name is Cheryl rcky and I live at 153 which is lot 11 so I will say in some degrees I like the fact that you're going to clean up the is saw that I have to look at every day out my window um you know that backyard is horrendous and then but other aspects about I am concerned about my property um you know we do have a big lot and we are high this proper this house will be pretty close to us I like the idea of you putting in that fence and giving some more Greenery um I did hear about you moving those Arbor VES which is good but there are existing trees at the back of that lot so and by moving the arities you actually will be taking out the probably six to seven fruit trees that sit at the back of that lock as well so actually reducing the number of trees in that section um I will Echo the comments about the flooding our house is only 5 years old and when we did have the big storm within approximately 5 minutes there was 2 ft of water between across the road I had to wait across from the neighbor's house it came above my knees I went into my house and my basement had 2 ft of water through it so in a worst case situation it's not coming from the creek it's not coming from the Ron River it's coming from these drains not being able to cope so I get that hurricane Idol was a one in 100e storm but these are happening much more often so my biggest concern is is I don't want to have to spend another $30,000 a again to repair my basement because of the fact that the neighbors drains cannot cope with this because the city drains cannot cope with the amount of water that's coming across from the back and back streets and collecting there so if you have to walk across the street and it comes up to here you see how high this is that is a lot of water to come down and flood the property within 10 minutes and there's no way that any sump pump can cope with that so that's my comments I hope you take into consideration that you know this was likely to cause a loss of value of my property and um and also at some degrees I'm likely to flooding again and again in their basement thank you thank you oh yeah my name is Gan jorski we're uh lot 14 next to Lot 12 and we had voice the address 14 five chest uh we had voiced the same thing the know the concerns the flooding and we noticed over the years you know we've been there almost 30 years you didn't see this kind of uh flooding some pumps and everything and just with all the building going on recently there's many you know houses the lots have been changed they bigger houses being put on there so we've noticed over the years you know more flooding the slumps are kicking on more water coming in and you can see that the yards are getting more saturated and you know we listened to the testimony we thought the same thing maybe that's why they went to uh 100 foot lots a while back instead of 50 maybe they realized the problems they were having wanted to avoid it and we've seen it with the houses being built on the street now how it is picking up um I think let's see one thing they said too about the uh the way that lot was built the one house was way to the one side and they you know say was that a mistake or not said did they ever stop to think that maybe that wasn't a mistake that was put on the side so you would have a yard to play with and everything like that you know for the kids the other being it is the lowest spot it does flood you didn't want a house there where it's going to flood and like they said a foot two foot it it all goes there and whether you put a house direct the water to the street the back wherever you're going to do it it's all going to go to that same sear system right to those pipes where the water can't you know the Brooks just can't take it the storm sters can't take it it's going to build up we even have sumps that drain into them when that water backs up it comes into your basement your sumps won't empty out it's just going to get worse if you keep doing it and you know it's like you say if you allow this to go through what's to say other Lots why can't we do the same thing or why can't we only have you know s eight n foot variants you know you could be opening up a can of worms too I do have a letter here too from uh Anthony Gua s overdrive in the back he was the one that was concerned about the water because he's directly uh behind them yeah I don't know that that's uh you really can't read else okay he was curious because they had a graduation to go to he was upset he couldn't make it tonight so he figured next best thing would be to have a letter and he signed it and everything whether he could give it to you where you could see it I don't know I would also object to that just because he's not here for cross-examination may may I ask a question uh uh is there material difference between that letter and what he has previously stated to us or is it more a summation of what we've already heard it's probably a summation uh I think you you know he just brought up the same thing that we were talking about like you said that missing tooth where uh you know it didn't look like as you drove by you saw the swing set so it didn't look like hey there's something missing here we need to put it there and that but I think it was probably basically uh summation in okay thank you thank you anybody else okay seeing none I'm going to close the public portion for General commenting Mr schelbert H hand it back to you thank you Mr chairman and um I'll be brief with my closing statement so obviously we've been through three hearings thus far the board and the public um can appreciate the time that went into this the cost that went into this and we've demonstrated each and every hearing a continued willingness to address the board's concerns again hearing after hearing um to the point that and and it and I want to make sure it's very clear that there if this were to be one lot you would have a non-existing uh a pre-existing condition with law coverage where I know it's only a half percent but it'd be over the 35% permitted and because we listened to the board and we addressed the board's concerns we came back at the third hearing with a plan that is now conforming with lot coverage on both Lots specifically to address the concerns as it relates to drainage um again the board knows the background and this isn't this isn't to the variants relief for seeking but but MOS is a single single mom looking to to raise her family she's a long time uh she sent all of her kids to Bridgewood rid in high school and she has a track record of success looking at the improvements already already made to the house on lot I I don't think any of the testimony that Miss hos gave was meant to um to in any way uh hurt the previous owner it was more to demonstrate the work that Miss hos put into remediating and renovating the house on lot 13 so if she was speaking I think she would probably say that but we heard testimony from our planner that what's being proposed is not at all out of character as it relates to the surrounding neighborhood um our planner testified that approximately 90% of the lots are undersized and the fact that since if if my interpretation of the uh Oprah response is accurate um it's I think it speaks volumes that the that approximately 90% of the surrounding neighborhood still is has undersized Lots even though the r10 Zone was established going back to 1977 um so this is obviously a very unusual uh case and unfortunate for for Miss hus that we're here before the uh board which would otherwise have been a simple variance application if not for lot merger but we are dealing with lot merger we are here and we've done everything we can to work with the board uh to create an application that was uh that was an improvement to existing conditions so I'll conclude uh with that and I thank you for the board's patience comments from the board um although you know the applicant wishes that that could have kept the garage um it has created uh an improvement an improved plan as it relates to the Township's ordinance and Township Zone plan um so so thank you thank you Mr silbert Miss saret are there any outstanding items from your report that need to be addressed I don't think so um I appreciate the comments and I appreciate the research that was done based on my feedback at the last meeting um particularly related to kind of the background it's unfortunate that the history that there is no history um and in my own research you know the one thing that I think and Mr silbert had just repeated it which kind of jogged my mind on it is this was this application was opened up describing the the the merger Doctrine as kind of the reason why we're we're here for this application why there's a subdivision and um in just trying to do some of my own deed search and you know land record history on the property uh I will note that the property was under or both properties technically both Lots were under common ownership for at least back until 1949 that's as far back as I got on Deeds um and so I don't want to just chalk it up to the merger Doctrine because this site has existed this way for 75 plus years um so I just think that's important for the board to you know recognize thank you Mr bur are we okay with the testimony I I do not have any um outstanding issues at this point Mr chairman there's obviously been a number of plan revisions there's been a number of um conditions or potential conditions agreed to by the applicant but as far as outstanding issues from our engineering memo I don't have any thank you thank you Mr any other comments from our board I have a question um what is the timing on this project more specifically is time of the essence here um so the the minor subdivision plot and the deed there is a time restriction just based upon the ml I believe it's 180 days after the memorialization of the resolution um if that puts anything into perspective and then then that's when we would proceed forward with pulling permits so you're looking at uh more than half a year before any types of permits would be pulled oh oh I'm sorry let me let me that's the that's the deadline um my it I haven't done too many projects where the um applicant's been able to meet all the requirements and and uh go through compliance and file a plot before that 180 days so that's why I said that it is the deadline Craig corrected me but that's usually approximately how long it'll take for the subdivision to actually take place okay that's the regulatory requirements right how can I ask does the owner have pressure to get this involved is time of the essence for the owner aside from the regulatory part of it yeah the answer is yes usually developers try to move unless it's uh uh you know something unorthodox they're usually trying to move as quickly as they can um I would say be she' get going right after we comply with compliance at the town or with the planning and engineering department MH so probably be a few months okay Mr chairman I'm sorry are you finished Jim are you finished I'm sorry I'm done okay are you looking for questions or comments just comments well I thought questions deliberations there are questions well I mean I actually have a question that may inform our discussion so did you have a comment or a question com okay maybe my question will help the commenting because my question is not to put Mr peek on the on on the spot but I'll put Mr pek on the spot um this neighborhood many neighborhoods in Bridgewater already have far too much water um whether we leave the existing condition or whether we build as is proposed in either case there's too much water um according to the testimony the situation on these two lots will be slightly improved but given the whole neighborhood and the vast amount of water it'll essentially there's a lot of water and not a lot of places for it to go I guess my question for Mr peek is do we hold this applicant responsible for that situation or do we not hold the applicant responsible for that situation because either way if we build it there's too much water if we don't build it there's too much water so how do we weigh the level of responsib ility that the applicant has for a condition that is neighborhood wide in terms of all this water and all these homes that are are are built in such a way that there's just not all that much place for the water to go the general rule is that you can't penalize an applicant for offsite conditions that are out of their control now if an applicant is going to be exacerbating some of these conditions then that could be you know that would be a consider but you can't you know just the fact that you know there's heavy traffic in the neighborhood or there's an excess of storm water in the neighborhood you can't penalize the applicant for those conditions okay any other questions Mr Papas I think you had one I don't have questions are you looking for board commentary okay so I if I may um during these uh hearings I've I've listened a lot and the two witnesses that I most uh going to comment on are the applicant herself and the planner um the um and for the reasons that councilman kers and Mr peek mentioned I'm not going to dwell on that because I think they have made improvements uh regarding minimizing problems with lot coverage but uh for me it's the bulk standards sidey lot Co lot size uh width of lots this is an r10 Zone I I asked the applicant question she bought the property in 2019 The r10 Zone existed she either was informed of that or wasn't and that's not the board's uh responsibility to inform a property owner what the bulk standards are for a um property that someone purchases the applicant's planners testimony did not EST Lish in my view any substantive rationale for granting of the bulk variances um applicants planner made numerous statements where he offered opinions about um the um and when questioned he admitted admitted that he had not undertaken any research regarding the creation of the r10 Zone nor did he give any uh testimony concerning the designation of this neighborhood in the r10 Zone the applicants planner's testimony uh when he was questioned uh about the um information about how if there were any other sub property subdivided creating 50 50 foot wide Lots he didn't uh know uh the existing lot is in Block 150 Lots 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 and 16 are all conforming to the r10 bulk standards uh these lots are also in Block 150 as the proposed or the subject property is and these lots that I've mentioned are uh in the same Block north and south on the same side for the most part of on of Chestnut Street um The Proposal as the applicant planner said is a better zoning alternative and that's an D direct quote uh I disagree with that comment and I don't think his testimony didn't uh substantiate that claim was a very broad statement without much substance um the um you know I I viewed his statements as dismissive and uh disregarding the work that was established to to create this Zone uh in Bridgewater Township as well as designating this part of Bridgewater as uh the r10 zoning District um and so for that reason I'll be opposing the application thank [Music] you any other General comments from the [Music] board satisf I mean they've put on all their their testimony I mean once okay uh Mr chairman I just wanted to clarify one more time I think I I like councilman K's uh question way he propos it so basically I wanted to confirm it one more time so condition of the flooding was there before and now at least with their allocation of the square fet it's actually slightly will be improved so whether it is 2 ft water or 3 ft water we are going to see the same thing at least approximately same thing unless there was some disaster again happen so as Mr Pac says uh that is not the application applicant responsibility am I hearing correctly Mr P okay thank you that's what I want to know thank you Mr trry with that we'll close the public we'll close this portion of the meeting we're going to open up for deliberations at this time Mr Atkins I feel kind of conflicted with this application I I do have to be honest because on one hand I feel like the applicant has been uh very responsive to our concerns uh but on the other hand there's it doesn't seem that there's any precedent uh since we have uh in recent history to uh split a Zone in to I'm sorry uh to split a property in the area especially uh given that this property has been under joint ownership both Lots uh for about 75 years um although this seems like it may be a slight Improvement to the impermeable uh surface of the area um I'm not sure that it would be enough to uh address the board's concerns thank you Mr Atkins Mr mura I am sort of conflicted here uh and I do appreciate really the the residents coming out to talk with us some of us weren't fully aware of how bad the water problems are and I'm not sure you've contacted the township with these problems and perhaps you know we can suggest a point of contact U you've got those problems that are outside of this project you might say the water running down the street I was I've been there but not during rainstorms I could see where that water might not have a place to go but I do appreciate you coming here and expressing your concerns really it's I understand that I okay so but uh the board has you know indicated we didn't know how bad it was until tonight on the flip side you know you've got this property owner with this undersized property according to the zoning and it's that's where I'm also conflicted uh this property was there and then the zoning came afterwards increasing the size of the uh requirements and I have a problem with that but it's a law it's part of our requirements in the township you know the side the setbacks coverage it's all part of our uh the requirements of the township so I um I'm having a hard time with this right now Mr Wang um thank you chairman um I uh I I was absent of from the first yearing um but from what I U he heard you know from this PO heing on one on one side I I I think the applicant have been um modif improve the application um though you know to me I think that they they are really at the beginning a lot of vices so the other side I I really struggled with the stor Waters where where the water going to go this this is on the border of two townships so you know if if in the same Township maybe the other side townships know this is not Miss chtz um so I feel the same as mostly everybody else I appreciate the applicants willingness to work with the board for all the modifications for all the changes that you've done I do understand that coming from a real estate valuation perspective that the Desir to subdivide the Lots would be what we're looking for the highest and best use here and if you're thinking about the rules of the highest and best use it's it could be physically possible with the changes it could be um maximally profitable financially feasible but is it legally permissible which is what we're here for and it's not as it stands um so Mr silbert brought up you know if this was one lot you know speaking in the hypothetical like if this was we wouldn't really be having too much to deal with but it's not so if we're thinking about the hypotheticals and moving forward hypothetically if this were to happen what else could happen and Mr peek mentioned um we can't penalize the applicant unless it exacerbates the situation however we don't know it could possibly exacerbate the situation and we can almost all see the writing on the wall that it would cuz we all residents here I'm a resident obviously we've all seen that over time the situation with water and drainage has gotten worse so we can only assume that it would exacerbate so in light of the public comments tonight and in good conscious I don't feel like I could support the application Mr chowri U I actually I'm going for a big because uh we cannot penalize applicant I think everybody has a right to build a small house of their own dream uh we came to this country at least to you know have a that dream so I I would not like to uh penalize the applicant at all we know because of the reason that you know the storm water condition will be same before and after even now uh at least probably mathematically as uh the engineer on the township says that you know it will be slightly better so I like to give the opportunity for applicant sakur I actually was probably one to start with that uh was pretty against the application to be really to be really honest um and I I appreciate you coming back today and making all of the changes I mean our concerns were side yard setback privacy to lot 11 which is very important to me I wouldn't want somebody right up next to my home home or ruining um a tree that's beloved in the area um storm water management the willingness to remove a garage that you just spent a good amount of money on on renovating and fixing up removing the um the shed U moving the trees to the back of the property adding a privacy fence um I actually look at that lot right now lot TW the vacant lot lot 12 um and I believe that a home on it will be better than what is what is currently there um so I'm actually inclined to to approve the application um with the expectation of the privacy fence the moving of the sidey yard setback the knowing that I completely agree with what storm water management I have water issues as well and I I completely understand them I don't believe from the testimony I'm no expert but from the testimony that there will be um conditions that are worse than there are now knowing it is has been slightly approved uh slightly improved um yes so I'm more inclined to approve councilman kers um I I want to um compliment the applicant for um certainly hearing everything working with this board um and coming up with a uh uh a proposal that is certainly much better than where we started um I want to just clarify the way that I'm looking at this which is um and I stated this earlier uh we are essentially operating like a zoning board even though we're a planning board um because of the subdivision so I I you know and I I spent eight years on the zoning board so um pretty familiar with the thought process particularly in this municipality um and what I typically do is try to break break it down um you know to to component parts uh and and where it comes down to for me is um you know really is this property viable for a house based on particularly the sidey setbacks required um given that there's no house you know if there was a house you know was some old d idated house um you know and someone came and said we want to invest in the neighborhood we want to make it better but we need to make it 2T wider this way or 3 feet wider that way to me that that that's a that's a that's a fairly compelling argument in this case you know the 40 foot is is is is practically impossible so to me I'm focused on the 15 and the 15 you met the 15 so now the question comes you know are we going to enforce a side yard on on the side closer to the house or or are we not and and candidly the result of that answer either gets us to an approval or causes us potentially to not approve and you know I I know the planner testimony was mentioned would have been much more valuable to hear perspectives of the whole neighborhood Hood what's going on with sidey yards we didn't hear that we just kind of heard wouldn't it be nice to put a house here um that's kind of what I heard from the planner um the other thing that I come back to is that this property was bought and the conditions should have been known that there were to you know they were merged lots and you know one of three things could happen either you know leave it the way it is with a essentially a very large side yard knock down the existing house and you know build a larger one in the middle or what's being attempted here and and what I keep coming back to is candidly either answer could be justified and I guess to me in in without a compelling 51% on one side or the the other to me a 50/50 says the case was not made um and so again I I think you got to go 51% I I think a 50/50 it could go either way uh in in a case like this is is is not good enough um so you know with with appropriate appreciation to the applicant the time the money the effort uh that's been put in I I just I think we needed to hear a little bit more more from the planning standpoint which we didn't um and um I I I I'll be voting no Mr Papas do you have any additional comments it's difficult for me to Simply Echo all the sentiments that I've heard here this evening um I myself received the packet and I looked through raw material we all studied it and um originally it was very difficult to say that what was presented originally was an improvement that was what was going through my mind and I said this is not an improvement to what's there but you graciously returned and we've been here for three hearings we've learned quite a bit about storm water mitigation we've learned quite a bit of lock coverage things that some of us on this board we've really done a deep dive this time around um I had a lot of issues myself about the neighborhood transition from some of the smaller lots to the larger lots and I think a lot of that by this this meeting this evening was was mitigated uh I I felt as though the transition was was met you know by coming back here this evening and and changing the size of the house and uh and removing the garage um removing a portion of the driveway so in my mind things are starting to work with storm water mitigation you know breaking things up a little bit allowing for a little bit more of a of pervious coverage as as opposed to just straight sheet flow so things are starting to work in my mind but then I'm here and I'm thinking I'm hearing the Public's concerns and I have my own concerns about storm water and I asked myself is this still an improvement on Lot 12 I'm not that concerned about neighborhood density anymore like I said I think the the the proposed home was an improvement I think putting a large home as Mr cor mentioned um I think believe it or not that would come with its own host of problems as well putting much larger home on over two lots so I'm not so concerned about that either I think what this comes down to this evening is that Lot 12 is on the lowest point in this neighborhood and I'm having way too many questions this evening to support this application however the work that has been done to bring us to this point I have to commend Miss hos I would like to make this work but for me this evening this just will not I have too many unanswered questions with that are there any other comments okay perhaps this is out of alignment out of alignment if the zoning if the zoning were changed would that change my opinion and secondly we have a meeting tomorrow on the master plan for the township what if and those answers like you know are not really uh I'm not seeking an answer right now I'm just making comments that's all well I mean just just to manage expectation for tomorrow's meeting and and by the way everyone who's in this room should be encouraged to attend because it is a workshop um where uh we're going to be presenting uh the current work of on the master plan it's a cons it's it's a work it's still work in progress although that doesn't mean it isn't close to finished um because a lot has already been done um you know these are exactly the types of questions that we're asking is what do we want this community to look like um now just to manage expectations though you know tomorrow is a is a workshop there'll be some good dialogue there will not be takeaway uh per se uh and a final decision and a final document we're still you know looking uh probably several weeks or even a couple of months away from that final document um if I want I want to understand your thought process are you suggesting that a read designation of all or some of Bradley Gardens into something other than r10 is something that that should be considered again having been through the neighborhood a couple times I'm thinking that the r10 may be uh too much possibly it could be reduced that street or the eight or 10 houses in that area we reduced to something like uh r7000 with changes to setbacks or am I opening up a can of worms [Music] here I I think um you know as a suggestion and and this is just my suggestion is when we're looking at the master plan one of the recommend commendations may not be necessarily let's change the zone and change the minimum lot area but rather let's do an analysis of the Bradley Gardens r10 Zone and see how many lots are conforming non-conforming and then make decisions so rather than jump to any conclusions have the master plan make a more General recommendation about that so that any decision in the future can be informed by whatever that analysis determines thank you Mr M any other General comments we'll need to hold a a vote I'm assuming well M Mr chairman and maybe Mr P can can can weigh in I I haven't really been keeping score I'm sure maybe some in the audience have I haven't really been keeping score um and in addition you know we have an order of regular members who vote and when we hit seven we we we know right is it seven or when we hit we hit nine you know that's the number of votes um so candidly I'm not sure if the motion would be in order to approve because there's enough or to deny because there's enough it either either way for a motion is made the applicant has requested whether the board would consider carrying uh the vote until the planning board has um finished its review of the master reexamination of the master plan based upon um Miss mca's comment the master plan could take four months I mean we're still months away doesn't mean that the council would then approve any change to his zoning ordinance I mean it could happen but you know there's there's there's no definitive [Music] timeline that would be like an indefinite kind of adment sorry you could you could withdraw without prejudice withdraw the application right now without prejudice which would not affect your ability to return B would not app to do you want to take uh a couple of minutes yeah if you don't mind to review thank you please we'll take a 5 10 minute recess I'm so tired I was allergic to um e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e yes here here here here here yes here Mr silbert Mr chairman I spoke with the applicant outside and uh it's my position that in light of deliberate in light of the deliberations from the board that they were considering potential zone changes as it Ates to Bradley Gardens it makes sense uh for the applicant to request an adjournment to the first hearing that's available in October uh I think that'd be October 8th uh given the fact that again again knowing that the um that the governing body may not be changing any ordinances however we heard planning testimony this evening and uh if there are changes coming to this Zone um the applicants planner would like to address those changes as it relates to the reexamination of the master plan you have to re notice that's totally fine and just a general commentary uh there are eight eligible voters here this evening there is one absence this evening which would have made it nine therefore had we had been in nine person eligibility this evening you would have you would have had you would have been more entitled to having non eligible voters this evening any other comments Mr silbert um no thank you okay Miss propest that's October 8th okay Mr PE we don't have any dates available for or ready for October yet at this time no I mean it should going to reti I guess just someone should make a motion to just even though I think it's on their own to accept the request accept their request all right I'll make a motion to accept the request to adjourn uh this hearing to potentially pick up where we've left off uh our first Hearing in October scheduled for October 8th second Tuesday of October that's councilman kersch and that's Miss sakur have your roll call please yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Mr silbert we will see you in October you will see me again this evening but oh that's right well sorry about that let's let's fast forward moving along we do have a second application this evening and that is for Gerardo Leonard Mountaintop roadblock 718 and who will be representing the applicant this [Laughter] evening good evening Mr chairman good evening Mr Silber board professionals members of the public my name is Michael sober I'm an attorney at the law firm D Francesco baitman and I have the privilege this evening of representing the applicant Leonard Gerardo this application is for major subdivision approval together with requested relief for three bulk variances for property located at block 718 lot 50 and 51 as shown on the Bridgewater Township tax maps more commonly known as 1926 Mountaintop Road subject property is a 3 78 acre tract approximately it is located in the Township's R40 single family residential Zone district and the proper property currently contains an existing single family dwelling on lot 50 the applicant proposes to subdivide the property to create three New Lots they noted on the plans is proposed Lots 50.01 50.0 2 and .01 the existing single family dwelling uh will be demolished and the three lots will be used to construct three new single family dwellings on each lot as previously mentioned the applicant seeks bulk variance relief to permit a very small departure from the minimum lot width required for the proposed Lots uh where the minimum lot width required is 150 ft and the applicant proposes a lot width of 14358 Ft 14782 ft and 141 1.80 ft respectively for each new lot each of the New Lots uh would be in excess of the required minimum lot area by approximately 15,000 square ft so just to be clear the minimum lot area permitted for each lot is 40,000 square ft and each lot is proposed to be either just under or just over 55,000 square feet so kind of the exact opposite situation that the board was just uh pressed with this evening where we're dealing now with oversized Lots however with a uh dimensional uh shortcoming on the proposed Lots um this application as proposed eliminates a pre-existing non-conforming condition on lot 50 where lot coverage of 19.625 where a maximum of 18% lot coverage is permitted and that doesn't take into account to my knowledge I'll have Mr cyers confirm the township steep slope calculation um where the existing non-conformity would actually be much greater so with the exception of lot with variance relief this major subdivision application is fully conforming with the township zoning requirements I do have two witnesses this evening Mr Craig Styers who was responsible for the preparation of the subdivision Plan before the board and Mr dowy the applicants planner who is here to address the Dom Minimus relief being requested in connection with this application a few points that I'd like to address before I call my first uh witness so Mr Styers will address this variance in Greater detail um but to be clear the lot area for proposed lot 51.0 is 54,692 square ft after steep slope calculations the net developable area is 42553 square ft not 39712 squ ft that has to do with the Contours used on the plans um which the steep slope calculations in the Township's ordinance is very confusing it was a point mentioned in in uh Miss arad's report which I can address later on in our testimony but um I just wanted to note that there was not actually a departure there um another thing I wanted to point out is that the dwellings shown on the plans that were submitted to the board Were Meant To Be conceptual in design only they remain conceptual design only um however it's my understanding that the applicant as a gesture of good faith to address some of uh the concerns with the neighboring property agreed to locate the dwelling at proposed lot 50.01 in the approximate location as will be shown in a supplemental plan that Mr Styles will present to the board um not withstanding this agreement to be completely clear and for the record the app applicant stipulates to complying with all setback F and improved lot coverage requirements a even after the steep slope calculations which we can speak about um with respect to any new dwelling to be constructed on the proposed Lots the building envelope is what the board should should really focus on um this agreement in about constructing the the dwelling uh closer to the street on 50.01 again was kind of was was essentially made outside of the board's purview but um again the building envelopes are shown to show what is permitted on each lot if the lots are to be subdivided so as to comply with all of the Township's requirements um should the applicant or a future home builder One Day wish to deviate from any of the Township's ordinance requirements they'd have to come back before in in this scenario the zoning board and get further variance relief in order to do so so again um think I think I've covered that all right so um as a condition of approval um the applicant stipulates to complying with all applicable storm water management requirements and regulations Mr Stars will address this in Greater detail but an on andm manual will be recorded in connection with this application as it relates to storm order management and my last point before I call my first witness is that I wanted to make the board aware and I know I've done this for the past couple of applications and either either sadly or fortunately for me it's sadly uh that I that I'll say that the applicant the reason why the applicant is proposing three lot withth variances is based upon their um meetings with the board's formal professional Miss Doyle both before the submission and after the submission of the application the applicant could have created two entirely conforming Lots with a lot with variance grade greater than what's being proposed on one of the three lots Miss Doyle at that time thought it would uh be a better better planning practice to present uh the three lots with very di Minimus variances rather than showing uh to conforming in one lot with I would still characterize it as the Minimus but more than what's proposed so that's where that's where this is coming from the applicant gave consideration and thought to the application remains open to to commentary of course from the board and the board's professionals if the board's professionals and the board prefers that the um subdivision be done so as to create two conforming lots and a greater lot with uh variance for one of the three lots we can certainly accommodate the board um but there was thought put into this so um I would ask uh Mr chairman that's my my introduction so if I can have my two witnesses sworn um that'd be great thank you very much for your introduction Mr silbert and please have them sworn in we'll go Craig and then Mr Dy uh do you swear affirm that the testimony you're going to give in the course of this hearing will be the truth or nothing but the truth and could you state your name all right state state by your name and Mr Styers if if you would be so kind to just put your credentials and uh academic background on the record in the field of engineering for the board I the board have any objections to Mr Stars approval no objection no objections please proceed so why don't you start by showing the board what you have there on the uh on the exhibit here that's this wasn't submitted this can be oh this but it's not colorized rightor subdivision plan landscap how about it Curr properties are e e e for for e e for what that the existing house is as I said located in this general area so what we decide to do is with the removal of the house is to limit the disturbance of the property in the area that was already Disturbed so that's the reason for the location of these two houses then obviously with the third house we just kept them in line um these two houses which are the two Westerly houses were're taking portions of the existing Drive driveway even so this portion right here is the existing driveway whereas the end of it is the existing driveway going out to Mountaintop um the houses were again set on kind of the top of the ridge for the view of the Valley and the minimal grading to that get the houses to tie in um you can see it's primarily around the house and you know using the existing driveway we tried to minimize the removal of the trees because of the um amount of disturbance this is so it Disturbed greater than one acre of um of land this was considered a major project for storm water management not because of the fact that the um it didn't trigger it because of impervious coverage but only because of the uh disturbance so what we had to do was either build a detention Basin or come up with some other ways of storm water management and what we intended to do was to keep each of the stormwood management facilities located to each one of the Lots so by doing so we did dry Wells for each of the lots and pervious Paving for the driveways so that way we got out of the fact that we didn't need a big detention Basin we didn't need it e or you know spread over all three lots we didn't need a big easement we didn't need a homeowners association because it's all contained on each of the Lots secondly the reason we because of the U major project is the reason that we showed these houses in the first place I mean as Mike introduced this is a subdivision so why do we need to show the houses that's the reason that we showed them so we needed to show the impervious coverage how we were going to address the impervious coverage how if there's groundwater recharge if there's water quality we had to address all those factors of which we did on the individual Lots since we've submitted the application um and prior we were as you recall we were scheduled to supposed to start on the 7th and between the 7th and the 21st the applicant received um a letter or was contacted by the neighbor to the west concerned mostly about the the Westerly lot and the location of the house since that time period um he has had discussions with the neighbor and what we've done is come up with a secondary plan can introduce this as as a A2 overlay plan yes overlay yeah Al yes so what we've done essentially obviously the subdivision doesn't change uh we've moved all of the houses approximately 100t towards mountain top so you can see this is where we originally proposed it the new location originally proposed new same thing um that that also reduce the impervious coverage on each of the Lots what we showed originally was a worst case scenario so what would happen is if the application were approved you have a worst case scenario it can't get any worse of that until unless they came back to the board and got a variance so in this case now we're reducing instead of getting bigger we're reducing so that you can see how much the driveways are being reduced on each of the lots more importantly I think I wasn't personally involved in the discussions but the the concern was the view from the neighbor's house of the valley so that you can see that I mean that this this H new house location's actually in front of theirs so they have would have a full easterly view where's the existing home just the existing home is in this location right here okay so like I said we were that's what we were looking to do originally is kind of maintain that location but because of the concern and what the applicant discussed with the neighbor was to move this forward to alleviate her concerns so hopefully I mean I believe she's she is here tonight so hopefully we can you know we can address that but we feel that we've done it but um I guess as the meeting progresses we'll find out but um the other thing was um I think that was really it the the intent is for this particular lot on the Westerly side was to maintain that um grinder pump it has still has four years left of that license agreement um once that license agreement were to expire then obviously the homeowner would take over and the the full maintenance of that and going forward it would be theirs the middle lot would also be on a grinder pump because it's still in that um Force main area the one to the right would actually be able to connect in by gravity um there are a number of trees that we're taking out so we're replacing along the slope uh I know that uh at least in the past with Scarlet she'd like to enhance that slope whenever we whenever she could so that was the intent along the bottom here and then also just kind of giving some privacy we put them the remainder along the property lines between each of the Lots um I think that is it as far as the presentation of it so if there's any Mike if you have any if I missed anything yeah I'm going to go through um the report here so you addressed you addressed the grinder pump one um Bill I'm sorry the we did do I know there was a concern about possible High groundwater and testing related to this um the dry Wells we have done T testing subsequent to the submission uh no groundwater in any of the holes we did approximately a 14 I believe so there was testing for the the dry Wells as well as potential House locations so between those 14 tests um it looks like it would be believe it or not a good lot for uh recharge of the with the drywalls so the um the driveways and the overlay plan those are still intentionally meant to be perious pavement yes and you already explained exactly why the applicant is is using perious payment the maintenance of those driveways would be recorded in an onm manual yes each of the each to the Lots because it is a major project they would each one would have a operation and maintenance manual associated with the dry Wells and the maintenance of the driveways um I it's I believe it's got to be filed um with in the clerk's office as well um did you talk did you speak about any um drainage SES that exist on the property uh there are none okay so if there're all we can obviously there's a there's a comment here in Miss arad's report that it'd be a condition of the approval if the applicant be required to clean out and maintain any any drainage swells so if it's applicable we'll yes comply with that um how about Wetlands did you are you aware of any Wetlands on the property no and we look also looked on the the DP as a u I guess it's a website there we go uh you can go on on to that website and see if there's any indicators for wetlands and there was no indicators so we didn't pursue anything further after that um do you think a a letter of interpretation or report should be prepared to to ensure that's the case that there are no Wetlands um we could have typically we would have um Ed cook is our Wetlands consultant he could walk the property and issue a letter if if the board so were so inclined board will accept a letter and I'm referring to comment four uh comment number 41 on page nine as it relates to storm water management and Miss arad's report um if the board will accept that from our professional as far as wetlands are concerned uh that's what we'd like to be able to provide um so is there um speaking about the the grinder pump for a moment we don't know the condition of that grinder pump right now right it to your knowledge it's working the way it should or uh I don't know I know the house hasn't been occupied for a number of years okay because there was a comment that it should be um replaced but if it if it if it is uh at the end of the of the term of the grinder pump agreement if it is in good condition would you recommend replacing it or should if it's in good condition I would I mean personally I would use it until the end the termination of the lease or the license agreement okay but then at the termination of the license agreement they would fall to the homeowner fall to the homeowner um okay um any public improvements associated with the subdivision no so other than the the standard maintenance bonds do you think there's there would be any other um required bonds associated with this uh just with the uh the trees most likely that's so there is a comment here about a developers agreement um just because there aren't any public improvements I know this is in every report but I always request that if there's no public improvements that um that you know the the conditions and requirements on the applicant just be included in the resolution in lie of a developers agreement um did we receive any comments from fire police I think I don't I don't know if I did I don't think we did I think I'm I'm sorry I don't think that they had any concerns no comments no exceptions for the fire okay yeah so that's in the on the cover page here I'll notice um least no comment that's all I have as it relates to miss arad's report I'm just looking through Mr Burr's report how about sidewalks did you speak about sidewalks there's no there's nothing on um Mountain Top okay and yeah nothing no sidewalks whatsoever on mountain top so you don't think that a a contribution make sense for this I I honestly probably not no I mean it's from one end to the other there's nothing so and uh are you aware of any uh easements no other than the license for the the grinder pump right okay with number six for the drainage the intend is to actually recharge all the impervious coverage so the houses and the driveways would be recharged so theoretically speaking you don't have any impervious coverage draining off the property can turn it over to to the board and the board's Professionals for further questions but otherwise the reports looked looked good from from our end that we could comply other testify to yes correct yes thank you Mr styes for your testimony does the board have any questions yes well as soon as you mentioned pervious driveway pathway we all got excited so because we were talking about that one before now uh I I know for sure probably I should not put my own expertise here but there's a several different areas of the how you can make the prvious uh driveways if you uh please make sure that those are not breakable and also take the maximum pressure from the different track or something because once it is break the prvious problem is that you know you can be board may be approving it but once you once this break it actually create more problem of flood water than what you would not have so kindly think about because I know about it that's why I'm telling you I'm not recommending anything I just wanted to let you know because uh people do short circuit it and we always approve it and then things may go wrong so you mentioned that one year maintenance uh no it it' be continuous because of the operation and maintenance yeah okay so it would with the operation and maintenance manual it would be a period so you know either brooming it or whatever multiple times a year may may I request you to at least consider uh at least check one more time once the heavy rain comes in because you will know everything with the first Heavy Rain uh that is one and also I thought we talked about the pavement that pavement is a new pavement the front road the main road Mountain Road yeah this one is new uh I think it's a couple years old yes yes so you'll have to dig it up so you'll have to basically fix everything from end to end then because it a seven years of uh okay I think last time we discussed about it like uh right Mr chairman okay thank you so much to to conern Mr Stars will the uh well need to be reinspected since it's been uninhabited for several years ironically we when we submitted for will serves put it out there obviously for water as well there is actually water in uh Mountaintop now so no Wells at all so they would tie in publicly I had a question if you moved up all the houses to not obstruct The neighbors's View are they going to now be obstructing each other's view like would it be better to stagger them all um I mean you can kind of see the general yeah I think if if they're trying to look towards that what we tried to do was actually um go from one side to the other so they they kind of line up with all the the remaining houses so it's more of a consistency along Mountaintop and I just to follow up with that I think the biggest concern at least with the neighbor is is this one I mean these can vary but as like I said we talk to our client and it's most economical for them push him up as as much as he can which is you know it's fine with us and the size the Rel the approximate size of the front yard setback is is now how much in the new location the required is 50 so I would estimate it's 75 feet or so okay so this is 50 yeah 75t because before it was 177 you said you pushed them all up 100 right so pretty good guess and um you're still using the the I what what we call it semi- perous uh perious okay so the theory is that the water drains through it so if there's different versions there's could there's concrete there's black top there you can use pavers so so say for example you had black top which is everybody's most familiar with what they do is they take def fines out of the black top so now it's like almost like a honeycomb the water drains through it okay but there's going to be less so you're using that that product and there's going to be less of it so the net result from moving forward is more Grass Grass entries yes okay again we you know I always try and go on the the worst end I don't know whether it's good sometimes it's good sometimes it's bad but I want to show the the board the worst case scenario okay you know I think what we did is we showed the worst case to the neighbor and that brought out the reason to pull it forward so I think it was a good thing to show the worst case scenario in this in this case okay and the guidance that you got in terms of why each um each of the Lots is proposed as they are instead of having two conforming and one really not conforming if that's a phrase um the feeling is a relative uniformity is is is is more desired it will ultimately allow uh uh you know a a more even uh uh view uh of the neighborhood I agreed with Scarlet you get the you know like I read the the various lot width down the street you get a more of a uniformity and I mean the other thing is to keep in mind is that you know if this weren't done you could put two 12,000 square square foot houses on each of these Lots which to me I don't think you know going down Mountaintop this is kind of the consistency right now um so to evenly to distribute them and you know both size and lot width I think it's better because you also control the size of the house so if you were to get bigger house a bigger lot wi to that can form you're getting bigger Lots as well which ultim leads to bigger houses you could have two big big houses and then one smaller one if you do the two conforming and one not conforming MH so I think it consistency wise I think it it works out better so consistency of size and location so that you have you know fairly uniform side yard so to speak when you take half of the side yard of one plus the side half of the side yard of the other you're seeing a more consistent landscape as you're going down the street and coverage wise okay because you're also you know the the Aver you're averaging the the lot area which ultimately goes to the coverage and the F so it's consistency okay also just because I was in the meetings with scarlet and the the board can lend as much weight to the statement as they as they wish to but she said that basically if you're from a street view perspective it's very hard for somebody to notice a 3-ft departure when the lot width is 150 ft or a 6ft departure but then if those numbers are increasing to say 20 feet then you might notice from from standing there on the street you notice it on on a plan but you have a different perspective standing there on the street versus what the board is seeing on a plan okay and one more one I don't know if you mentioned it or or not the proposed square footage of each of these homes I believe the footprint we have here is roughly 4,000 4,000 each but again conceptual in nature it's it's very um difficult to uh well it's not difficult to say what the maximum F can be but it's difficult in the sense that the board or the Township's ordinances when they calculate for f they don't count garage space or they don't count attic space I'm not specifically citing to the ordinance but I think that's why it's difficult to say the house will be exactly this size but what we are agreeing to is that we will comply with all of the requirements so lock coverage F setbacks um that's what we're we we would certainly agree to comply with okay and and just going back to the comment about you know somewhat evenly dividing these I want to make sure that um miss sarmad you agree with that line of thinking that you know again instead of having conforming conforming and really not conforming you're better off having relatively even um uh lot widths I would agree with that okay okay thank you this is quite a wooded two properties here how many trees are going to be taken down and how many uh would be put up uh it's going to change with the plan revision um like a general estimate do you have correct 30ish yeah that this plan we had 30 removed I drove up there and how many total on the two properties [Music] I I'm I'm not sure off the top of my head the total number that's what Mr ains you were asking about the total trees that exist right yeah just an estimate generally how many trees are on the two properties or an exact figure if you could offer that I know we have with this plan the original plan was approximately to be 30 to be removed uh I'm not sure the total I said probably three four dozen maybe more thank you you know it it it it is wooded it's open if that makes sense you know it's got a good canopy to it but it's not there's not trees every five or six feet there's probably a you know it's it's not Woodlands but it's a healthy lot let's let's put it that way uh Mr sty speaking to um to the trees um we agreed to comply with the report but there was a mention of conservation easement um that would also maintain trees in the rear of the property yeah um what we have done in the past with Scarlet um again sorry for keep referring back but with other projects especially relating to the the slope and that you know the really the top of the of the mountain there was to create a conservation easement that would be equal to the rear yard setback so you know we I you can see that we're supplementing but we would put a conservation easement along that that back line because you really can't put anything in there anyway you can't I mean that's why you had the setback so um we would respect that setback by creating a conservation easement in that so that's roughly the back 85 ft I believe 75 Mr chairman I have questions um Mr Styers uh you um spoke of the existing house what's the square footage of the existing home I think the footprint is probably around 6,000 I said it's mainly when when I was at the when you go in the front it's a one-story but as it comes out you you have the basement as well and uh what was the square footage of the proposed homes footprint was roughly 4,000 um so we have two lots lots 50 and 51 do you know are they under common ownership I believe yes but they're not um they're not subject to lot lot merger it's a why is that it's just a lot width it's not under like the total area they're they're oversized Lots so it's a I was it's kind of it's similar in the sense that there's a a dimensional uh departure from the ordinance requirements as terms of lot width but these lots are actually way in excess of what the minimum required uh lot area is well they're yeah they're fully conforming so when a lot so when lots are adjoining commonly owned lots are conforming to the zoning they do not merge I learned something today pardon me substandard and under common ownership then they'll get mer okay um when you sorry to interrupt just if the board's if the board approves a subdivision they also would be protected against if if this were like the last application the lots of course would be protected against Lot if the board grants a subdivision right Mr Stars when you were engaged by the applicant did the applicant speak to you about this project yes and did um what was did the applicant ever in any conversations you had consider building two houses on the two existing homes two existing Lots no he mentioned building a substantial house on the Westerly side and then further subdividing the remaining two lots so the the larger lot would actually take up be in l-shape to accommodate the lot SI or the house size and then two smaller lots to the east you mentioned that uh I think 12,000 sare foot house or something like that as was being considered um I think you also made some reference to that being out of character are there you're saying that there's no other homes in this area that are larger than the existing home I would say driving down Mountaintop there may be one or two that are further down maybe down on Rose Lane that is that there's one house that I'm familiar with that is you know substantially larger but for the most part on either side of Mountaintop I think you have a pretty good consistency on both sides um were you present at the meetings that were referenced with Miss Doyle the first one and could you describe that conversation again that's been referenced here give us your vers give us your version of the discussion my conversation had happen I'm sorry my conversation about the the view from the streets happened after we submitted and I wanted to beet with her to get the application deemed complete so that wasn't like a a a conceptual meeting okay not at the the second one okay so Mr Cyrus did you have any conversations with Miss Doyle about this property that uh yeah I mean we had the first meeting just to kind of get a gauge of you know like like Mike said how to how to lay it out but um I think that you know I I got the same take from it um did you restate that for your own in your own words for me that's a lot should be laid out evenly so this we were looking to to go from two lots to three lots and that the the um this the lot should be laid out evenly um she also brought up the street trees um as you can see we showed two Street trees and to more specific there are Street trees along Mountaintop and that we should really call these out as Street trees um so rather than you know you take out an existing tree and put a new tree in we would just theoretically designate Street trees along Mountaintop but other than that it was honestly it was pretty straightforward okay thank you that's all I have for Mr styes Mr silbert who are the other Witnesses just the planner the applicant will not be testifying that's correct okay thank you Mr chairman just a brief question maybe this would also be um addressed by the planner instead um so you could construct homes that are in the vicinity of 6 to 7,000 ft um without um uh having an F challenge but realistically given the marketplace given construction costs given people's preferences um the anticipation is that the homes would be somewhere in the vicinity of that 4,000 you mentioned yeah I mean I mean let me ask the question differently speak for the the owner but I would say yes I mean that's kind of one of these he's conveying yes all right but let me ask the question a little bit differently in in your professional experience and estimation um given current construction the construction environment um you know is the is the reason why someone would construct a 4,000 foot house even though they could build larger is that's what the market is bearing right now conceivably yes but can I piggy back off of that question and um ask if the building footprint of the home is constrained because of the lot coverage requirements meaning you build you build a a home that's X number square feet but you still need to build a driveway that can get to the home and you want a patio and whatever that I guess my question is the footprint of the home is is determined in part by other improvements on the property yes and that's what I said earlier is that by by creating these three lots you have better control over the size of the houses like I said both the setback wise coverage wise and F wise and if the application weren't approved you know we're not before the board and they're one and a half times bigger potentially the reason why I'm asking this this question is because you sometimes see not necessarily in Bridgewater you know you're driving along and you turn a corn you're like oh my goodness someone just built a Convention Center um and I guess the answer is well um up to you know 5957 6292 and 70001 somebody could build a pretty darn large home um but that again the economics of it more likely support something a very still a very nice nicely sized home in the vicinity of 4,000 someone could build that that home but then again you get out of scale with the neighborhood so say you build a home and then you go look to sell it you know for example you know your appraisals are based on all the number of houses in the area so you get an you know I'm not saying I'm an expert at it but I'm just I just went through and and I bought a house so I went through this whole thing and the appraisals they come in low and all of a sudden somebody can't buy that house so you have to be respect of i as a builder and as a developer or investor you have to be constant as of that as well so I think we are kind of saying the same thing in In a Different Light I guess you could say Mr chairman just one followup Mr Stars you talked about originally the thought was to have an L-shaped lot and then two smaller Lots what were the square footage of those three lots approximately I believe the two on the the two smaller ones met the 40,000 square ft and whatever the remainder was so maybe 10 I guess it' be 120 there still have been a lot width variance required yes thank you any other questions Mr SARS I focused uh a bit on board engineer Mr bur um question number 11 I think you mentioned that you did test the soils and you testified they were how how far did you go down 14 well there was 14 tests there various places um there is a knob at the top here that was probably I believe six feet or so that they hit Solid Rock whereas back behind the existing house they went down I think 8 or 10 feet and there was no water in any of the holes so as far as that concerned and there was you know like I said we hit rock and and again that's one of the reasons probably that the um the applicant also moved forward is because of the results of that so there it's a multiple things you know as far as economics and buildability as well to get up and towards the front more get off that knob so what I noticed on your site plan uh lot 51 had much higher elevation toward the center part of that yeah the the the knob is like right here yes so that's mostly comprised of rock and yeah I said they got down I believe we didn't do it ourselves we had somebody do it but I believe they said it was uh around six feet before they hit refusal or engineer Mr BR I wanted to ask you that question uh based on those holes and test holes that they had checked do you feel that that would have been adequate we're having this conversation regarding storm water from previous applications into tonight and we're looking at the the impact on soils and well I'm I'm encouraged to hear that Craig said that he had favorable results but I haven't seen the results myself so one of the things I was going to ask is that they provide that information either by way of a separate submitt or documented on the plan set so we can get eyes on that but um I'm certainly encouraged by the fact that Craig um supervised the work and and said that they were favorable results I don't have any information that I also noticed on the site plan that there were several um or there was a few drywalls per lot toward the rear of the properties um how large are those sized for or what's the capacity of the drywalls and and they're based on the size of the house if there's a smaller house selected or you know the footprint smaller the number of drywalls would also go down okay and I'm assuming you would agree to any preconstruction meetings should board engineer Mr bur or the team would like to absolutely okay any questions for you Mr Burr I I do have a few Mr chairman thank you so Craig um talked a little bit about the typical home sizes and you had mentioned this shows a plan reflecting around 4,000 square foot home footprint footprint so is that to mean that on a two-story dwelling the way this is shown now you could be looking at a six or a 7,000 foot house is that yes I just want to make sure understand how you yes you came up with it okay um so one from my perspective and and I know as the board and and you guys reviewed my report a lot of my comments had to deal with the steep slopes the hillside development or you know ordinance the the storm water management um impacts one of the appealing Parts about this overlay plan is obviously moving it closer to the road you're reducing the coverage presumably you're getting further away from the steep slopes have you Quantified what that means and you give us any you know any numbers here as far as how much of a reduction this plan represents or how far away you are from the 30% slopes just give us an idea of what you know some of the improvements are uh as far as the actual numbers I didn't get a chance to finalize them that was kind of a you know the last couple days a little bit back and forth as far as you can see these are the true steep slopes in this area which is the southeasterly corner of the property behind the existing house is relatively level whether they you know in in the past he leveled it off or whatever it is relatively level in this area here um so yes the steep slopes we we we got 100 feet away 100 feet more away from them just from the relocation of all the houses so again that knob is like right here so anything behind that is going to re other than removal of the house is going to remain unchanged so I I heard I don't know if it was you or Mr silbert earlier mentioned that this was an option and your original plan was worst case scenario this was an option to address um perhaps one of the neighbor concerns if the board was in favor of this option and if the application was approved H how does the board memorialize the location of the of the overlay map recognizing that it's going to come with reduced coverage or lower coverage certainly no disturbance or or maybe minimal tree removal in the steep slopes I heard earlier that this is an option but we're still going to comply with the zoning requirements which to me it doesn't really allow us to nail down the specifics of this plan is is that fair does that make sense is there is there a way to craft an approval around this plan if if this was the way the board was inclined to make sure that we had you know a certain limit on the coverage that's being proposed for example well I think the steep slopes ordinance controls the coverage uh as far as the location I think maybe if it's all right with you guys is to increase the the rear yard setback at least for the principal dwelling I mean you can obviously do pools and I don't want that restriction kind of placed on pools and things like that but as far as the principal structure maybe we can do it that way yeah I mean my my concern again is if if board's inclined to approve the overlay with the houses move forward there has to be some protection from somebody coming in and saying well I'm allowed to do the original plan and and it's contrary to what the board's approval was so that you know that's something that that I wanted to bring up um you had mentioned the pervious pavement driveway and there being an onm manual and operations and maintenance manual um or for the maintenance of such in your opinion is that is it common place to expect a homeowner to maintain a pervious or porous driveway is that a reasonable expectation I should say it better be have you just ba based on the rules I mean that's what you have to do and have you proposed perious payment on residential applications before um not specifically no on on Commercial projects industrial jobs we we have but um I think Mike is mentioning that we did one up on Sunset Ridge but where we put the um it was more the patio related than than the driveway itself so the driveway has a little bit more UH responsibilities to it so yeah yes you're right but I you know the rules are the rules now I I understand the state accepts and endorses that and we have to product for addressing storm water management but the Practical reality is it does require maintenance and I want to make sure that if this is approved and built out that homeowner knows what their obligations are yeah no matter what we pick I mean we could pick a bio retention Basin we could pick you know even the dry Wells themselves I mean you put them underg ground and you know as long as the homers home owners forget about them they're never maintained so it no matter what you pick you they have to know it and you know they can also hire somebody at the same time Bill we could also require a note ons in addition to recording the I was going to recommend that but on the deed also to make reference to the that the home owners have responsibility responsibity that the yeah if I may also add Mr chairman I think this is a very very critical and important point that you mentioned uh Mr bar because the since I know about it distance prvious driveways if you do not maintain it's a MTH make more mass than what you had the imperious driveways so I'm glad that you mentioned that one and as Mr P says I think if you can kindly add this it'll be really good thank you I mean when we do stuff we always have that in mind and try and do the least amount of responsibility even on Industrial and any kind of job it's you know you have all these abilities but practically speaking as an engineer and knowing what's going forward I'd rather make it is simp you know I wish I could make it a detention Basin but that's that's out the window anymore you're right the way the the requirements are set up make it very difficult to address drainage with just one component yep you you normally have to introduce a number of different drainage features to address the end goal but like I said that that's somebody's responsibility um let me ask you a quick question Craig about the sewer you mentioned there's an existing grinder pump on the existing home yes taking a look at the grading plan and I just glanced at it real quick if you were to move the homes and and that becomes a condition of the of approval moving the homes closer it looks to me like you may have the ability to get gravity feed for your sewer to the street so I would recommend you take a look at that I know our our sewer utility um issued a memo that they had recommended replacing the grinder pump yeah uh but if it's not not necessary obviously that should go away well that's the thing is the from what our what we've gathered I mean you guys have may have better records is this is a force main until here until this point right here so I can probably get this one in probably with an easement over this lot so you have the East lot the middle lot this one's going to be tough unless maybe put put another easement along the front of these to get into that last one cuz it it is is deep so we can probably get there it's just a matter of easements through it yeah I I'd rather use gravity as well if we could um last question has to do with tree removal I think you mentioned you had 30 or 32 trees proposed to be removed under the original plan correct is it safe to say that by moving the homes closer to Mountaintop that you're going to be able to preserve some of the Tre trees that were originally proposed to be removed on the sloped areas well as you can see you know we hit the knob we were never really on the slope itself so these are this area through here was relatively level but to answer your question yeah I mean anything back here is going to be going to remain um obviously instead of removing here there's going to be some removed where the new locations are and we you know we'll meet the ordinance as far as the tree rep placement thank you um Sol question on the previous pavement so um I have a commercial property that has prvious pavement so I know the maintenance on it is is not very fun um question on Township salts the roads right with normal salt you can't put regular salt on prvious pavement what happens to the edge of the driveway to the road it backs it attaches to well the aprons are going to be um like your planner said is within the RightWay itself will be normal pavement um that's a good question and then other parts um not saying we did this maybe we did the we've repaired areas with asphalt because a certain percentage can be repaired with asphalt versus pervious pavement if you've got a pothole or a piece that you have to repair what's the stop on that for a residential home or how can we ensure that the the homeowner won't repair areas with asphalt versus the prvious pavement good question is it a percentage or is it a I I I don't know that I don't know that answer specifically but um you know again it's just it's the nature of the Beast I mean whether it's a homeowner or a business owner what what's forcing the business owner the same thing is you know and that's what bill and I are talking about it it's it's in the rules it's a great idea but practically speaking I don't want to hear this on the record but it's a terrible idea I mean a lot of the stuff is just when you go through and you think about the consequences just like you're bringing up all these rules have consequences and we all have to live with them but you know that's the nature of trying to control storm waterer management everybody's got the concerns we got to address it somehow and you know they're not the greatest ones but I have a different Theory but you know I can digress for another hour if you want all right same Mr stars for the members of the board that aren't aware of what the pervious coverage is right for the driver how to maintain them what's a typical maintenance on a perious driveway I know I understand there's a basin underneath yeah it's basically Stone underneath and you know it the perviousness allows the water to filter through it so that is the filter as well for not only recharge but also water quality and again you have that honeycomb aspect of the of the pavement you got to keep that honeycomb home open and any sediments or what have you Sands they fill in those Honeycombs they fill in the voids it becomes black top just like you're saying so you know it's almost like you have to have a small sweeper or a vacuum and you just you got to maintain it it's normal salt yeah and salt it yeah we had a job in Branchburg and it was the year that they ran out of salt during the winter our client came to us and they had the ruts of every parking spot like 19 parking spots nothing left and just put it all in again so that's the part that like I said the rules you know they throw them in there but thank you Mr Styers reality is another story yep Miss sad I wanted to give you an opportunity to ask a few questions it wasn't going to be my first thing to to cover but to segue on the papers [Music] um I was just talking to Mr Burr about you know why the pavers were chosen and you know it sounds like testimony is not that much in favor of the use of them um and I think it's a weak point on the application and it is a concern because it's not going to be an engineer who's handling the papers it's not going to be a commercial property owner or commercial property manager that's handling it it's going to be a homeowner who may feel hamstr strong or may make decisions about their pavers in the future if they're feeling like it's a problem snow removal you know a driveway is probably the most has the most wear and tear patio you know you don't really remove the snow off it you're not going to go outside and enjoy your patio in the middle of a snowstorm necessarily but you're still going to drive on your driveway and want to enjoy it or not enjoy it use it to get out of the site and um I think you know using a plow or anything like that it's also going to damage to the P so there's a you know in in the whole scope of it it's it's a concern and if it's for the purposes of meeting storm order management for water quality I really really would emphasize that I think that a bior retention Basin should be explored as an OP option for storm water management um I I really think that that would would quell a lot of these concerns and by the time you're clearing preservation of the existing B what's the difference the the property owners are going to go through the same things that you have with the perious paving you know with as far as plowing snow you put a rubber blade on that's the easy one you put a rubber blade on the plow it's perfectly fine yeah but the the every home owner walks into a new homeowner walks into a home and doesn't think about those things despite it being in the deed despite it being the documents and the first time they don't put the rubber blade on or their plow guy forgets to that they hire you know they're you're taking out a chunk of pavers and you're maybe you're filling it with asphalt so over time we don't know what this is going to turn into as far as actually achieving storm water management because it's not in it's not going to be in this planning board's purview it's going to be at the homeowner and it's going to be on the honor System essentially and same with the bio retention Basin well bio Bas isn't going to be driven on every single day isn't going to be plowed in the winter it needs to be cleared out but it's a lot easier to say okay once twice a year have some know company go in and clear it out hopefully is there no other option I mean we've used the dry Wells already so you know the other thing is if we can get the dry Wells to work on their own because we've moved it so far forward that could be an option as well so we you know again we we were more concerned about citing it and kind of getting the rough grading done but because this driveway is so small maybe we can eliminate that as an option and just use the drywalls so with with so the exhibit that was presented with the updated slope calculations and then as a result the hillside development calculations I actually didn't receive a copy prior to the meeting and so I didn't have a chance to review how that impacted cuz the bulk table was impacted based on the hillside development calculation um and so specifically with moving the houses up as well you're obviously clearing off some improved lock coverage if the entirety of the driveway wasn't p is the entirety of the driveway pavers or just a portion of it at this point all of it is the entirety and and the proposed overlay here shows them as papers as well yes okay so there's no there's no impact on the lot coverage from the driveway perspective is there from the pavers being part of the driveway do they impact Improv lock coverage were they included in the improved lock coverage calculation yes so they were yes is that from your perspective of being a major development based on the over one acre disturbance does this lower your disturbance by moving the houses up as well the pro the problem is the house the house itself yeah I mean that's another reason we were trying to get under the threshold total disturbance of that one acre that's another reason we kind of put it back here to see if we could condense it to under an acre and we got close but we didn't so okay you know at that point we kind of left it where it was but you know again with the applicant and you know working with the neighbor everything moved forward so okay so these a lot of these unknowns I think will factor into what the what's the optimal design on the site at the end and this is a subdivision application but you know clearly the situation the scenarios all matter too because you you know the original design of the driveways are especially if they're all pavers they're not the most efficiently designed driveways they there's some jogs in them they're pretty long like a lot more maintenance the longer they are um the three revised ones are basically St and the but so my question is the revised drawing is that just another you know you called the first exhibit the underlay the worst case scenario is the overlay that you're presenting that's been revised is that the you know something that you're going to comply with or is it just another view of it it's a concept for the board's education or whatever so it it could the homes could end up in the middle between the two of them right well we can show nothing no I understand I'm saying when you let's say theoretically this is approved when you go for building permits the homes could end up in between where they're shown right now right this is not a set plan of where the homes are just it's just conceptual well what bill is saying is to lock these locations in is and that's what I'm asking is that something that you're agreeable to yes so having having a like a setback requirement for the primary resident having it comply with yeah the concept plan that's been presented um okay and uh if I could just speak to that very briefly in my introduction um I I commented on the um proposed lot 50.01 with respect to locking in the home in that location just because that was what was that was the lot that was brought to our attention from the neighbor so that's why I said that that's something that we would agree to do but if the board wants all the homes locked in in this approximate location we can do so and come up with a setback requirement okay um just need a number you know how many this and this setback is only with respect to the principal dwelling principal structure not shed what if you put a heat Source on the driveway that you don't have to what if you put something on the driveway that would melt the snow instead of needing to yeah they have those my dream mine too oh oh every time it snows that's like my my in my dream oh yeah I know someone who does it of course if you tell me that's not that expensive to do I'm going to be really upset cuz I assume that's a very expensive solution well people that are buying these homes are well I'm talking about for my limited driveway yes oh yes same I have a giant one of the comments in on page 4 of2 of my review in in the bulk tables a footnote is that um the hillside development calculations did reduce basically you know the allowable lot coverage it wasn't up to the maximum in the zone because the slope calculations uh impacted it because I didn't have a chance to review those I'd hate to go through each of the numbers but can you just tell me if they've as a result of the change in the slope calculations using the one foot interval have those C have the improved lock coverage and Max floor error ratio increased as a result I the mic unfortunately I don't have with me made a hand out to dip to the board but it did go up because the amount of coverage or amount of steep slopes went down I I actually have it what you have this is what was submitted this is based on the uh one foot Contours uh four yes so what we've done is we made an overlay and another overlay we can Mar exhibit three slope overlay yes know there's more where they they mostly went away is actually in the front you can see these in because there's really no there's no 10 foot Contour in between so these went away you can see it's uh in this area these are somewhat consistent obviously the steep slopes are consistent these smaller ones so it's the smaller ones that are between the onef Footers that theoretically went away because you're to measure it in 10 foot intervals you're supposed to use the 10 foot Contours and 10 foot sorry I didn't me say one foot it it appears at the rear that there's more steep slopes identified that kind of block back there but they're there they're lesser they smaller range of slopes yes they're the 10 to 20 as as opposed to the 20 the 30 and 30 above okay understood um which would all impact the hillside development calculations I would recommend to the board that if this is looked favorably upon that that bill and I have a chance to look at those calculations and my recommendation in my memo was essentially if those calculations end up with them having a lower allowable F and lock coverage that those numbers be locked into the resolution just to make sure um and they're obviously going to be different than the ones I identified in the report as that recommendation but whatever they end up being you know like the to review it with Bill and then to put that Inman I do have uh a supplemental exhibit that I could pass out to the board I don't know if if you if you want to take a look at it now or okay we'll do it another it's a little too late GNA be hard to do this on the spot no it's a little too hard to do on the Fly exactly um you're correct in that the um the trees that you've taken credit for at the fronts of the frontages of 50 proposed 50.0 2 and 51.0 can be credited towards the requirement for the street trees but I will say that's with upon inspection that those trees are suitable and in suitable condition so would you be um agreeable to a condition that if they're not suitable that they would be supplemented with the well if it's not yeah if it's not if it's dead we'll take it down and put a new one on yes okay correct so as you've shown on 50.01 there's two red maples at the required interval so you'd supplement with the required Street trees at the required intervals where necessary if there not suitable okay thank you okay I think that's all I have for right now thank you thank you Miss s other comments by the board or questions are there any members of the public that would wish to ask questions regarding Mr star's testimony please feel free to come forward at this time good evening I'm Dana caparosa I'm at 65 Twin Oaks Road I am block 718 lot 64 I'm directly below I am the steep slope um so obviously I have great concerns um uh Mr cers I was reading in your environmental impact statement uh you had said the type of soils were hydrologic soil Group C and then organic matter content is medium to high and runoff is rapid and the hazard of erosion is severe if the slopes have been cleared left bare um your storm water management report however says it's hydrologic soil Group B so I'm not sure what it is and if that impacts the use of these dry Wells if it impacts your calculations and the runoff obviously I have a lot at stake I don't want to be like California mudslide territory I am directly below and I have wellwater so I have concerns because I do have a well and that is where we get our drinking water so these are uh questions I'm hoping you can answer yeah as far as the soil classifications they're generic uh you get them from a soils map a lot um more recently they have like a website so again they're they're mapped by county and you know you can kind of get zoomed down into the town so they're very generic the more important thing is the report that we actually got so that is site specific very specific as far as the soils themselves whether they whether it's High Ground we whether they perk or not um so we do have that report from the actual testing I more importantly as far as your concern is moving the houses forward that like I said that Ridge line is proximately in this location right here so everything going towards you is going to remain unchanged um any of the runoff coming from these houses are actually going to drain towards uh Mountaintop if your report said it drains the southern souly portion of the property which ISR it says it was going to mainly continue to drain to the southernly portion and I can tell you that you know I I'm I'm concerned where is it going to run off to and you're replace I don't know if you're replacing those trees at the southerly portion there these are supplemental those are supplemental okay so you're not cutting down any existing trees because your original plan had 38 trees being removed and a significant number of them were taller oak trees um I I did the math there there were a significant number it was 38 trees um a lot of them some were 20 ft tall some were 18 ft tall um that you know just anybody knows that if you have a tree removed a lot of the water is going to just have to go somewhere well like we testified to before as well uh we're putting it we would agree to a 75 foot conservation easement so anything in this area would not be removed so and I know last week you testify with the Hulu um application that you don't like drywalls um but they're being proposed for this property and I understand if those become clogged with leaves if the homeowner doesn't care for them what where's that water going to go because in our neighborhood there are leaves you can see it on the streets with the sewer grates when the town doesn't clean them out um I can't imagine a homeowner is actually going to trudge to the backyard of their property and clean these out so where does that water go and how does that affect recharge and the sto storm water run off well they they actually don't drain surface water really doesn't drain into the dry Wells so the roof leaders would be piped into the dry Wells and then they would drain into the dry Wells so they don't typically have grates on them that they drain into right well I didn't mean to compare them like that however they do become cloggs with leaves and debris and sediment which is very common in our area running through and they might not drain out because of that so they might be clogged if a homeowner is not carrying Port so where does that go what's going to happen then essentially that it would you know again these are going to be relocated up into this area in all the cases so if anything it would e it's either going to sit in the yard to be honest with you or it's going to drain towards Mountaintop because those dry Wells I mean there's um four for each of the houses so that and they're the dry Wells are essentially like 8 in r or 8ot rings so they're still going to hold a substantial amount of money or money of water but if they're not cared for and maintained that's then what no matter what you select as far as stormw management everything has to be maintained and we are making an which is required by the D it's going to be filed with the county it's going to be part of the deed there there's nothing else we can do I mean we can educate the the homeowners it's the same with you know like we just talked about we can the homeowners the business owners the stakeholders in the entire State everybody's got to learn about it and maybe it'll make an effect on storm water management we're all talking about it all the board members everybody in the in the public we're doing what we can and we're doing it in conformance with the regulations so I I mean other than that I it's hard to give you a better answer than that well like the the township here I would like to have a better solution that would work because if if I get storm water pounding towards my house in a Mudslide that hey we put it in the operation man manual and on the deed that's not going to help me out well I I said like as far as you're concerned nothing is changing on on the Downs slope side of of the ridge we are moving it forward we we're Beyond so it would have to go uphill before it got to you and most cases water doesn't go uphill but your report said it drains to the southernly portion on the property which is which is mine which is we're also moving it forward like I said and I believe I'm almost positive the report should say that the existing drains that from 2/3 back to the to the South drains to the South and the rest drains to the north and do you guys have an arborist or something in terms of which trees are going to be targeted for removal to construct this it would just is in the way of the of the development should there be an arborist to do that I don't believe so because it if it's the middle of the house Arbus is not going to say there's nothing he can say it's got to it's got to go but at the same time if we take a tree down we need to replace it and it's in Bridgewater it's not one to one but I know some of the trees you're proposing to there Evergreens and those types and everybody knows during superstorm Sandy those are the ones that were falling um where you have an oak tree there's you know pretty steady if it's alive it's we have a mix of Evergreens and deciduous that we're supplementing with right that that's all yeah it's pretty much Evergreens and and Spruce trees and whatnot um I didn't see anything about other trees there these larger ones are deciduous what what type I mean oak trees Maples uh is a variety of unfortunately I don't have the schedule me something that's going to suck the water up and not be subject to falling in a 100e storm that happen every like years so there's a of uh deciduous trees there's nothing is it specified and I I don't have the the thing before me from the original plan I don't have your new plans either I I pulled whatever from the website the Township's website so we'll all that information be on the weite all the new information that you were referring to these are the plans that were submitted to this point revised plan is just what you see before you right now the hillside development plan is that what because I think you're referring to something else that was just submitted a set of nine sheets okay and that's on the Township's website so I can locate that I know that hard copies are with the township not sure yeah we did give a electronic copy yes okay umop and and 24 hard copies were given to the township okay was that with the original or the completed application supplemental exhibit okay so this the only supplemental is the overlay correct okay so I can come to the township and get a copy of that then we would have to submit that this is right now it's an exhibit before the board Ju Just to confirm we have not received that exhibit either oh okay okay okay and then just finally in terms of like the impact on my wellwater I just want want to make sure like you know if I have all these you know Lawns whatever fertilizer is that going to have any impact it's going downhill or is there just enough again hydrology and rocks and whatnot everything from the ridge going towards your house is not changing so it should be able to sufficiently be filtered by the time it hits my well which is at the very base of the mountain I would say whatever it's doing now is would continue to do so I mean I've my house has been there since 1963 we've never had an issue I haven't been there since then but I've been there 20 years we've never had an issue so I just want to make sure that continues and that we don't have any mud slides and that there's no erosion and subsidence of the of the steep slope because I know that there is that concern and and again the that's another thing that was taken into account with the storm water management to try and treat this individually as opposed to a larger detention Basin because you know for it to run downhill then it would impact you you'd have a larger Basin that would accommodate all of this rather than that we took we did the dry Wells and the intent with the you know some sort of um treatment with the driveways so it's sight specific very condens as much as possible okay I have to be honest I'm not entirely confident in the proposed plan with the drywalls and the you know and the maintenance of that and the perious driveways so that's I have concerns about how that might impact me but that's all I have thank you thank you good evening Mr chairman members of the board Samantha Alfonso of Alfonso and Weber here on behalf of the neighbor uh semma Teek who has been referenced here tonight um unfortunately as the board may be aware I did file a request for adjournment earlier this afternoon because like the application uh first heard this evening it's our feeling that this is not prepared for hearing at this point um our our understanding was that there was an agreement to be reached with the applicant the neighbor semma had met with the applicant in person at the site all good uh some emails back and forth regarding the details of that agreement um and then uh much to my surprised I was uh told this afternoon late this afternoon that there was no agreement um and now today for the first time right after 4 pm we're looking at a new plan that does AD place an objection on the record because the board is not privy to any private agreement between an objector and the applicant and I'm not going to address the the specifics but we're requesting a variance this I'm not saying that just to to protect my my client here there's a variance there's variance relief requested I don't want want to in any way Prejudice the board in their in their evaluation of the variant because those the one objector now there's two two people not necessarily objecting but that there's a private agreement or Arrangement um between two private parties um whether the applicant agrees to accommodate an an objector is really not a uh outside of this setting here is really not a matter for the board's purview it's something that was testified to by your expert if we were going to engage in any type of formal settlement agreements I would have requested just as I had for any other settlement agreement that the uh Rules of Evidence 408 would apply just like it normally would for any other settlement so that if things fall through the board wouldn't be prejudiced by uh an understanding uh that may have been in place prior to a formal settlement agreement so I I object to this and I think it's it's it's not appropriate for the board to hear about um discussions between an objector regarding a settlement agreement outside of this hearing and the applicant is entitled to proceed with whatever documents and Exhibits that they've filed and at the end of the day if the board finds that absolutely not sufficient the consideration certainly entitled uh to proceed absolutely thank you I just wanted to note um that that's why I'm here tonight uh ejecting to this application instead of coming to you saying yes we agree uh great you've moved the homes um we're going to go through questions that's okay thank you I'm sorry Mr chairman I'm I'm a little bit confused and maybe I'm not the only one um you're representing the neighbor I'm not that neighbor lot 49 correct okay a and so we heard earlier in this testimony that there has been a friendly agreement about the location of these homes to the satisfaction of that neighbor are you suggesting it's not that simple that's my understanding now okay I mean if I can just address that there this plan that you're seeing came about this is the first time I'm seeing it as well and my client hasn't this really again is not for the board's perview but my client hasn't communicated whether there was an agreement of the minds to um any of the other points raised in that letter Miss alonso's letter uh dated today um as far as the location of the home on lot 50.01 I very clearly represented to the board that has a gesture of good faith even though the applicant isn't required to do so they agreed to locate the homes on the on the front of the property it wasn't until uh today that I was approached by uh Miss Alonso about a written settlement agreement um at around three three 2 2:30 p.m. this afternoon without any discussion with with my client if I can interrupt I mean I don't know that we're going to get much further this evening anyway given the the time and the board's policies so perhaps Mr Styers did indicate that you could provide paper copies of the ex uh Exhibit 2 Al the alternate plan they're looking at the overl I'd like to see it as well and have it at the end of the day so perhaps you could get a c that to miss Alonso is Alonso um you know soon so she can review with her client and who knows what what magic will happen I would be happy to do so again this the first time I saw this today as well it's a fluid situation I do have a few questions for Mr cyers if you want me to proceed I know it is late there any questions please yep okay thank you um one of the points that I understand the S and Len had spoken about is the sidey yard setback what does the now proposed sidey yard setback to lot 49 uh just under 40 feet okay and the current building uh just under 62 feet I believe I believe that was one of the points right that was discussed among them that we are asking uh that that be considered to stay at 61 or at least uh increase that setback because I believe the sorry that's not a question what is the setback on the other side the other side of what the other side of that same uh lot proposed lot 50.01 the other side yard setback proposed talking from here to here M I believe it's a little over 44 yes correct is it possible to move the home a few feet to that side to allow a little bit more buffer for the neighbor who's asking for more buffer uh what we typically do is put the driveways 10 feet from the property line and then 35 fet for the for the driveway so it's kind of driven by the requirements of of the Town actually was putting the driveway on the other side considered the other side you'd have a driveway 10 ft from the property line so this is probably your maximum setback distance the home further right there was a question earlier um about whether or not you would do a bio retention Basin or if there was another way to comply with the storm water standards could you comply if you had two homes instead of three but be here and have a building type of approvals or notification to you thank you uh was there consideration given to improving the existing home excuse me the existing home on uh lot 50 right now was our consideration given to subdividing and keeping that home and just adding one or two other homes on the existing lot 51 uh in place of the existing house and then subdividing to similar to this but the the Western lot would be larger and so would the house consider improving the existing home that's there I don't believe so I know when I was out kind of run down are you aware that a building permit was issued approved finals inspected everything 2006 no for an addition alteration to this existing home no are there any patios uh proposed now everything's shown here okay and what's the proposed get uh actual building PL and if they go under contract they would go into you know if they want a pool or anything else uh what's the estimated proposed lot coverage now I don't have with the moved houses I don't have specifically we we have that no it hasn't been updated with oh it hasn't been updated because of the new location well because also the 10 foot con I got it yeah this is even before I moved this though but it would show your maximum allowed is the driveway area included in the calculation for it is right um that particular lot be just over 16% Which is less than if you were on a flat piece of ground it would be 18% okay uh the plantings proposed those are along the the rear property lines are those within the slope area is that going to cause an issue with uh they are not into the slope area except in this area right here this is Believe It or Not relatively flat I guess my other questions uh we'll have to wait until we see these plans uh because I haven't had a chance to take a look at the landscape schedule or you know those lot coverage culations ET i' like to keep it open forti F question thank you anybody else okay that'll close the public portion for this witness any other comments or questions for Mr Stars Mr Atkins please quick uh the trees that you're planting uh on the sloped portion I guess the southwestern most side of each of the properties how high are they expected to grow could they impact the view of neighbors absolutely how high do you think they mro standard standard situ but from the level that they are planted versus the level of the houses say that again from the level that they are planted versus the height of uh where the houses are positioned her house or our house Neighbor House neighboring houses so she's roughly at elevation 420 which 420 is really running in this location right here so the these are down below that and there currently trees there these are or yes okay yeah I mean there's there's trees that are in like window wells I guess you could say so they're I mean they're all 30 35 ft and these would end up being the same the the the Evergreens wouldn't they'd probably get to you know 10 10 12 feet yeah but the the thought of the Deciduous would be to grow to 30 35 feet yes Mr silbert we have turned into a pumpkin so two we'll need to resume this at a later date and um i' like to ask probes what the calendar looks like next few days not on October 8th though not on October 8th correct we're all in agreement there I'm sorry those are for June 4th I have a a conflict on June 4th ju one other thing just for notation um I don't think we're going to have a quarum problem on June 4th but we will want clarification that with an election occurring that night in the conference room after early voting has occurred through that Sunday in this room I think we would just want to double check that we will in fact have access to this room on June 4th because early voting occurs through Sunday June 2nd I think they clear out pretty quick but the conference room just behind us is used by two voting districts just so that we don't have unhappiness that night [Music] and then as an additional note as as I guess Mr papis is looking into that there may be uh a quorum Challenge on um June 18th okay so at this time there is no hearing scheduled for J uh June June 18th or so when are we carrying this to Jun July 16 can I can I'm sir go ahead well I just going to say for for the public who's here for this hearing the uh meeting this hearing is been carried to July 16 same location same time no further notice will be provided I'm sorry not to complicate the things can we just go back to the date that we provided um Mr silur for the other application because you you quoted I think October 8th yeah that is not the first Tuesday in October we have to yeah we have we'll we'll Ren notice anyway we're going to reot all right so so if we are meeting on the first uh Tuesday of October that would be October 1st that's been bugging me for like two hours by the way but we've got like six month we got like four like five months to figure it out so okay right [Music] yes well they use this room for early voting through Sunday do but they use the conference room for two districts of voting I mean given that it is an anticipated light turnout primary it probably would would not be a problem but certainly double-checking it is always a good idea Nancy I also just wanted to ask about October 8th is that an actual date we have I thought we have October 1st on our schedule I thought it's the 1 and the third it shouldn't be that was my mistake yeah no I think it's the first and the third so it should be October 1 October 1st we're going to re we were going to have to Ren notice anyway so unless you'd like to come before our zoning board unless You' like to come before our zoning boards that's true then it'd be a new application that's right although I don't think um think there's a there's a strong likelihood of that yes first and 15th [Music] okay notice has been given we will carry this to July 16th yeah yes please okay do you have the form we supposed to fill something out the email oh okay okay CU I oh I have it I just forgot it so if you had something I would just so ultimately when is the next meeting is please can you tell us next meeting is oh when the next meeting he's wondering when the next meeting is could you confirm when the next meeting date is June 6 June 4th June 4th June 4th thank you that's the evening of the two extensions I believe okay but does that very brief then and are you able to tell us who has returned the storm water thing to you do you know who okay I'm trying to remember if I did no no hearings that I know I did it I just don't know if I sent yeah that's I signed it I just forgot okay I'm I'm even though there's a primary election going on given that limited scope I don't think you can make PS but me too all right drinks on you yeah drink yeah you go Motion to adjourn oh did we have one item we do have one other item here okay so we do have one discussion it moving on close the application portion of the evening Miss Sarma as our board planner would you like to give us an update on the master plan sounds great with that I'll take a motion to adjourn I'll make that motion second second Mr Atkins all in favor I with the suitc wheels was your my husb tiets for