##VIDEO ID:P5_0U3HBz2g## get started uh Samy sioban Jennifer ragno Mahir Rafi and Robert Thomas all asked to be excused this evening so it's councilman andaron here Theodor Chase here Robert Lor here Charles Brown here Rebecca Hilbert here Mark Dancy and chairman orini here so as you all notice now um you have um laptops um these are not consolation prizes or parting gifts leave them where you find them uh at the end of the meeting and uh so uh with that uh first item of business is regular meeting minutes from August 7th 2024 only Mark Dancy cannot vote um I'll make a motion to approve second councilman andaron yes Theodore Chase yes Robert Lort yes Charles Brown yes Rebecca Hilbert yes chairman Orsini yes um second set of minutes are from the planning board regular meeting from September 19th of 2024 Rebecca Hilbert Mark Dancy and chairman orini cannot vote so somebody else going to have to move second councilman and Barson yes Theodore Chase yes Robert Lor yes Charles Brown yes um to resolutions to G Burch Glen LLC relief of conditions resolution from uh October 2nd 2024 Robert Lort Charles Brown and Rebecca Hilbert cannot vote I'll move second councilman andaron yes Theodore Chase yes Mark Dancy chairman orini yes uh second resolutions 31 Vorhees LLC extension of time from 10:16 24 the same three cannot vote again Hilbert Dancy and orini okay I can't move it can someone make a vote I'll make a motion second councilman and Barson yes Theodore Chase yes Robert Lort yes Charles Brown yes um public dis uh discussion no items public comments uh so public comments uh the session where we open up to the public for any general planning comments if you're here um to comment on uh the rossback application or Macedonia Church of God in Christ uh they will have separate public uh openings uh for discussion of their application specifically so with that I make a motion to open to the public second all in favor I I any general planning comments from the public seeing no takers move to close see it louder motion yeah second all in favor I all right so depending on the version of the agenda you might have um the rossback application first because this is going to be um in my mind simpler um if it's not first it's um I'm moving it first so with that Peter the floor is yours good evening Mr chairman members of the board Peter Lanford appearing on behalf of Mr and Mrs rossback uh this matter was carried from August 7th 2024 on the at the August 7th meeting uh I presented the testimony of Mr rosback the property owner uh who explained what he wanted to do with respect to this subdivision application which was basically to create two lots of identical size and construct a excuse me a new single family residential dwelling um on the newly created lot for his family um during the course of the meeting uh there was discussion concerning the lot line adjustment we were proposing that the two lots be of equal size 16,000 Square ft each um the board had recommended that we look at changing it to make the new lot a conforming lot and the second lot uh a uh lot of 12,000 square feet uh are you hooked up Mr O'Brien okay uh thank you as a result of those comments uh Mr Fletcher our site engineer revised the subdivision plan uh to divide the Lots as was requested by the board uh Mr O'Brien will review that uh with you during his testimony uh two other things that we did do during the hearing there was a question of whether we can obtain public water to Service uh the new house and the existing house uh Mr rosbach met with the township officials uh found out that the closest water line is on easn Avenue but he is able uh to run the water line from eastn Avenue to uh his property so that if the subdivision would be uh granted by this board uh we would accept a condition as part of that approval uh to connect both of these new houses to public water uh the other thing that we did do unsuccessfully uh we try to contact the joining Property Owners to see if perhaps we can make our lot a bit a little bit larger uh although we are not required to but to uh because this not is not an undersized lot case but we tried to see if we can acquire some additional land unfortunately we were unsuccessful in that Venture so with that I think uh the only thing that is left to do is to move to the testimony of Mr O'Brien who did not testify at the prior hearing do you swear the testimony going to provide us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do if you could state your name spell your last name and give us your address for the record please Kevin O'Brien OB R ien Shamrock Enterprises Madison House Madison Avenue and raway New Jersey Mr O'Brien um we the board is quite familiar with you I assume you all your credentials are as they always were so I can spare you the CV um so thank you chairman okay Mr O'Brien I did renew my license that's good Mr O'Brien uh you heard my opening comments and uh for the benefit of the board you did uh put on the screen uh the revised plan that was prepared by Mr Fletcher in accordance with the requests of the board yes okay and can you review the changes to the subdivision plan uh as they are now proposed and what variances we are now seeking as a result of the change in the uh lot line adjustment yes uh we are seeking variances for lot area for the existing residential lot rear setback and distance from the pipeline the changes that were made to the uh subdivision plan are that the nor the um lot facing Second Street at the top of the display is now a conforming 20,000 s ft lot the lot facing first street where the existing single family home is uh is a proposed at 12,000 Square ft the uh applicant believes that these conform to the character of the neighborhood uh there's going to be no change to be seen from the street for the existing lot uh the new lot will conform to the other Lots in the area facing Second Street and uh we'll meet the character of that neighborhood uh we believe that this does meet the requirements of the master plan which talks about maintaining the diversity of housing but encouraging infill and stabilization of current residential areas we believe this advances the municipal land use law in items a alpha to encourage Municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in the state B to secure safety from fire and other disasters G provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for variety of uses I to promote a desirable visual environment and M to encourage the coordination of various procedures shaping Land Development in terms of a negative impact uh we don't believe that there's a negative impact from this application to the adjoining property owners uh in that the existing lot on First Street will not change in anyway uh it's going to be split horizontally across the lot so that this will meet the character of that neighborhood so we don't believe that there will be any negative impact and I believe that this application can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment to the Zone plan and zoning ordinance okay Mr O'Brien in preparing for this matter did you study the neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood and the Lots surrounding the subject property and are there Lots uh similar in size to what we are proposing uh yes there are I did do that study and there are lots that are smaller than this one uh the 12,000 foot one lots that are similar to it and uh we believe that the existing and proposed Lots uh the proposed lot excuse me provides as much or more lot area than 61% of the neighborhood uh we did that through the tax maps okay uh one other thing that I neglected to say in my opening uh at the last meeting we indicated that we had a agreement with the pipeline for Access uh to the new lot crossing the pipeline uh I did get a fully executed copy of that agreement and I provided it to Mr Healey uh if he wants to confirm that but the township does have fully executed agreement indicating that we can run our driveway through the pipeline uh I have no further questions of Mr O'Brien um so yeah that pipeline was going to be one of my questions um in terms of the setbacks the variances that are still there um Mr Brian they were more like they're they're more or less specific to these two lots right sort of inter lot variances right they don't really impact that is correct rear lot line will be facing each other and anybody who buys the new newly subdivide a lot uh is going to be aware of the setback of the existing home and in your professional opinion in the C2 criteria do you believe that the benefits substantially outweigh the detriments I do Mr chairman thank you those all the questions I have the board has any questions can you state again what those benefits are the benefit is the provision of additional housing um it's rare that such an issue makes a national audience but both of the presidential candidates that are running in the November election have each promised to provide significant housing because it's a national prom you mean affordable housing National No housing in general affordable housing here in New Jersey is definitely an advantage yes just want to make sure you are characterizing the president accurately the the two running um people go ahead yeah I was just what's the other benefit they're both providing both looking to provide housing so this is infill housing it's not a green field in as going out into a farm area and proposing housing this is infill uh this is between existing housing and I believe that that is is a benefit to the community and putting housing where other houses are the fact that we're going to be providing water City water to both of these properties I think is also an advantage can you answer the question that was proposed in a report regarding how are two undersized lots a better zoning alternative than one zoning compliant lot what we're proposing is one compliant one non-compliant what we're originally proposing was to non-compliant in terms of lot area uh and although they did match the character of the neighborhood this was in direct response to the board's request at the August meeting that we provide a bless you a conforming lot facing second and accept the residential lot facing first for what it was you stated that um you did a comparison regarding lot size and you put out a number of 60% I think um how do you define uh Community within the context of that 60% what what sort of parameters are you using sure give me a moment I'm more interested in the homes that are proximate to this location in their in terms of their lot size comparison as opposed to all of Franklin uh what I did is I surveyed the properties between first and second streets uh because that's the immediate character to the neighborhood and that's where I got my numbers from okay and out of that uh that block this lot is larger than what percentage you stated 60% I said that it was similar to or larger than 61% okay all right thank you any other board members have any questions I have a com I'm sorry go ahead t r Mr O'Brien you were reading from conditions why you want to develop and there was something there about protection from fire yes the new home is going to be fully code compliant uh the municipal land use law talks about uh protecting from fire and other disasters so an upto-date brand new code compliant home home is an advantage to the neighborhood but what about being that close to a pipeline and getting a variance to be much less than what our ordinance specifies people remember what happened in Edison some years ago yes indeed Dr Chase the uh Edison um incident was a terrible tragedy for everybody uh if you do recall the re reason for that pipeline uh having an explosion was the failure of the pipeline company to maintain that pipeline the area where the pipeline exploded uh had been repaired at one point no excuse me had been damaged at one point by a back operator who failed to report it uh there's been no other similar incident um since then the pipeline has certainly taken their responsibilities a lot more seriously and they now maintain Patrol the pipeline and as you can see from the visual the pipeline does run through Franklin Township uh comes across the river uh it does run down Easton right over to the vicinity of Culver Street and then it runs in a Southwest direction through all of these neighborhoods uh it it affects all those houses and in fact affects thousands of houses through New Jersey this house is going to be no different than the other houses that are adjacent to or have easements on their property as long as nobody runs a back ho in the backyard or does something stupid and this applies to the other thousands of homes that are here in New Jersey adjacent to pipelines so I don't see it as a specific problem for this specific property oh in effect you're saying that our ordinance mandating 100 foot setback is outdated Dr Chase a zoning ordinance is a snapshot in time and it's a on siiz fits all for an entire Township uh when this ordinance was passed in the late mid 1990s late 1990s the same ordinance was passed in hundreds of towns nearby including ones where I have uh I guess the league of municipalities came with it or came up with it or one of our friendly attorneys came up with it everybody passed the same one where 100 feet came from I have no idea I went to New Jersey Institute of Technology I never heard of any reason why 100 feet was safer than 101 um so it's something we all did made everybody feel good and now everybody has to go through scrutiny uh if you recall we approved one of Charter Schools adjacent to a pipeline because this this board I'm sorry the other board found that they did not have a concern uh provided all the regular conditions are met in maintaining and securing that pipeline so I don't see anything specific here Dr Chase I have to say that between the present plan and the one with two equal siiz lots I think I'd prefer the one with equal siiz lots because the existing house is being left with a 15 foot rear yard setback and that's an awfully small setback now I guess if Mr rosbach is intending to move to the new house it's less of a concern whoever lives in that the existing house May the children will be asking their parents why they don't have a bigger yard go next door if I may interject very briefly if if you look at the new lot though the the pipeline itself has no little or no impact it only goes through a corner of the lot so there is significant sidey yards available uh on that lot uh there's 44t from the property line to uh to the one side and the other side it's 45 ft so there's significant sidey yard for play area although the rear yard may not be as large as some of the others they're sufficient area for family if they have a family uh for the kids to play in uh and again uh our reaction to the lot line adjustment was because at least at the last meeting the board seem inclined to do that and again there may you know we can move that line no no I I mean I don't want to I don't want to you know yank you around the reason reason we we asked you to do this adjustment was because the board as a whole um preferred the larger house which is this is a this is a modern house I would certainly not call it a MC Mansion or anything like that but compared to the dwelling that's existing it is a modern house and therefore it makes sense to have in a larger lot and then the board as a whole felt as a planning alternative that you know we would like to see a more conforming lot which is exactly what you did so um yeah we're not going to have a um oh you know do you prefer the old version or the new version we will rule on this version so we give you certainty but that's why we did it and I think that makes planning sense um Ram uh yeah I really have a question for Mark Hy um so if somebody buys the existing lot the existing house and the lot and decides to demolish that structure can they build a much larger house on that lot what would be our position well the position would be that the the setback require require unless the board grants some type of I mean the existing house is getting the variance but it doesn't change the the applicable setbacks of the zone so if they were to tear that house down um they would need variances so does it make sense to uh stipulate that uh the location of the house cannot be changed arbitrarily without com yeah I don't think you I don't think you need to state that I mean if again if somebody was to if they were to tear that house down and build it back up if they built within the within the existing footprint um they would be allowed to do that but if they were to change the footprint uh and they don't comply with the setbacks of the Zone those would be new variances they'd have to go to the zoning board well and and forgive me because I don't it's the existing house a two-story house or a single story house single it's one so if somebody wanted to build a two-story house they would have to come back to the board anyway because they would need variance relief from the rear yard setback if they went straight up they would the way that we work it if they went straight up they would not need a variance if they kept within the existing they stayed within the footprint so and went straight up sounds good um following up on a question I'm reading in our last conversation around this project is can you provide more clarity on why we're wanting to build an entirely different house instead of just putting an addition onto the existing house and doing all this I I think Mr rosbach testified to that at the last hearing uh in that the well I'll let he's here so I might as well let him answer the question he was sworn at the last meeting he's under oath I okay Mr rusack you remain under oath any testimony you provide uh yes you know starting from scratch with a new home versus taking the existing home in the footprint which is is basically this would have to be a demolition nothing the cost would be so exorbitant to go ahead and take a house that is set up as a ranch with multiple bedrooms on the first floor a small siiz kitchen and then go ahead and go out up and over every which way and move out for eight months the cost would be far more exceeding going ahead and putting a another house up and starting from scratch on that so it boils down to the point where I I I couldn't afford to go ahead and put the house to where it would need to go and so uh I would think that the board since that house is from 1940 would not want me to knock it down uh since it's within 1,000 ft of the canal so I proposed to build another structure and some other family get use out of this new house whether it's through renting or through buying uh it's a nice little starter home like it was for me 14 years ago uh but at this point in time uh it's been outgrown and bursting at the seams and uh it's economical to start from scratch and not go up down out and over you're welcome have a question um back to back to impo are you saying you've done an analysis a cost estimate and your cost estim proves that the cost to build a new home from scratch would be greater than rehabing the existing home uh I am I am a contractor uh so yes I have figured out that it is going to be more expensive not to mention the fact that I with my own hands have touched every single surface in that house over the past 14 years and it would be a shame to throw away kitchen bath because everything would have to be gutted and started over scratch to make it a modern home that is open for plant so that is just inconceivable for me to put my house in a dumpster uh because it's all brand new on the inside so uh the cost to go ahead and move forward plus the cost of the hundreds of thousands of dollars plus the thousands of hours I put into that house in my opinion makes no sense to renovate a house that's been renovated thank you you're welcome any other board questions um if not um opening up May to entertain a motion open to the public Mr chairman just real quick before we open to the public I just have one question I guess I'll offer it to Mr Lanford and then maybe if Peter you can um just just the mechanism of how um so you said that both houses would be connected to water um connection of the new house that's easy I mean it would be a condition wouldn't get a CO unless that house was connected to to public water how do we do that with the existing house so well but here's but here's a scenario that could very well happen subdivision occurs the Lots get sold off it's one household in one house another household in another do we not issue a CO for the one house because the other the other homeowner doesn't is isn't playing nice how does that work he is the he'll be the homeowner of both properties I I mean how do we guarantee that how does that happen there a condition we can put impose a condition uh obviously it and and I have to talk to Mr rosbach but maybe what we could do is even before except that then we have to get an extension to file the subdivision D but we could probably run the water line uh before we file the subdivision to the first house and up to the property line of the second one uh if if you wanted to go that far into it we could do that but then we need an extension to file the sub division deed because we're restricted in time for filing a subdivision deed or could you do no Co on the new house until this the old house is hooked up to water yeah well that's that's a simple but that's it's a simple one but I'm just telling you well what are we concerned about the condition or yes okay I mean the lot the lot that gets subdivided and the lot gets sold off and now that house is dependent on the other house in order to get a CO why why don't we put put a a deed restriction on in the subdivision Deeds that that he'll be subdividing it he'll have both lots that neither lot can be conveyed until water is brought to the proper to both houses or actually to the first house he he may not build a second house for a while I have no problem with that I mean then yeah you he can't convey either lot until water's brought to the first lot and the other lot has to be hooked up okay is that that elay your fear I'm good if you're good I think will address it I mean I thank you yeah okay so we have a motion in a second to open to the public all in favor I anybody from the public wishing to speak on this application please come the microphone state your name and address for the record if I could just swear you in quickly in case you're going to make any comments into addition to ask questions which but I can okay if you were one of the first hearing you just remain under oath okay and you can just state your name give us your address again for the record certainly my name is Cynthia bacon um I am um the the address I'm representing is 1440 Easton Avenue um a property that's adjacent to uh the subject property here I have one question before I have a statement to read but I have one question for that before that um and that is that has to do with the um comparisons for the um property size I'm a bit familiar with the area and um there was a statement made that um a comparison was made between um of the properties between First Street and Second Street and that this one is the same size or larger than 61% of those properties can we be just very specific about what those properties are that were compared um I I the properties that are right around there actually B they appear to be larger yeah so maybe what we could do um because I I'm sure that mrb doesn't want to read out his analysis is can we enter that analysis into the record and provide Miss B and a copy my apologies I would have to prepare that at my client's Direction and and and if you want Mr rosback who is very familiar with the neighborhood can probably answer the question as easily as Mr O'Brien since he knows the sizes of the Lots yeah I mean the answer to the question is going to be when Mr O'Brien's answer is which is that's the analysis and I Mr rosc I I I know you live there so I I believe you I believe Mr O'Brien because otherwise you'd be perjuring yourself um which I don't think you want to do so therefore I would just um you know enter it into the record provide the board a copy and we can provide Miss Bacon a copy I say one thing real quick yeah sure sorry um yes I believe she's looking for the more immediate where Mr O'Brien has done an analysis of probably the eastn farm section in actuality if you want to take my block and my surrounding neighbors the house directly next door to me is a 100x 100 10,000 foot lot the house on the corner of first en Culver is a 100 by 100 10,000 foot lot the house that backs up to that on Second Street is a 0 28 acre lot so all of those are not in compliance to the today's standards and they are extremely smaller than even the proposed new Ranch lot size of 12,000 Square ft going across the street onto Culver there are a cluster of three houses in a row that are 6,000 square foot Lots very small home homes but 6 thou I could not believe it when I looked up the information 6,000 foot Lots over there and so uh in the immediate area of this house it's actually even more beneficial to talk about the numbers are even more favorable that the houses are much the properties are much smaller in the surrounding immediate block that my house sits on right now I can also give you examples chairman which I don't know if my client wants me to prepare a written report which yeah I mean I that's maybe you can just for the record just do what Mr rossbach just did very briefly very nice and just kind of give that sort of absolutely uh 26 Culver four Block 44901 it's 16,000 s ft uh that would be smaller than the 20,000 foot conforming lot 44901 28 Culver is 4,000 square ft uh 121 Street which is 44901 is 10,000 81 Street 44901 is 10,000 uh 14 Maxwell 44901 is 4,000 sare ft 12 Maxwell which is block 449 lot 01 I'm sorry 44901 is the block lot three is the uh Lot number is 8,800 square F feet 18 Culver which faces Maxwell block 450 um 23 Lots 24 25 26 27 28 is 12,000 Square ft I can put that display up if the board wishes thank you I I would just submit that um that data may be balanced by the other larger properties uh directly uh adjacent to um the property that's seeking the subdivision I don't doubt that true I think what the client and Peter you can correct me what you're representing is uh what you're proposing is not out of character for the neighborhood as a whole I I think that's what Mr O'Brien testified to and quite frankly I think what the board in suggesting that we make one smaller lot and a larger lot is probably the character of the neighborhood there's a lot of small lots and there's a lot of large Lots we have now one conforming lot and we have one less than conforming lot which is the character of the neighborhood yeah I think you're you've limited character character only to lot size and not the size of the house going on the lot there's also another part of the character we we can spend time going into that but uh I just I just want you to you know accurately uh depict character here it's not limited to just a lot size comparison we're talking about a larger home yeah and and quite frankly and we can go into that too but if you travel in the neighborhood the larger Lots do have the larger homes on them uh it's I'm good speak out a turn just go on yeah I mean I I think when you have you know when you H as as neighborhoods evolve over time right um and this these situations come up all the time right somebody purchases a house how how many of us have lived in live in neighborhoods where we've seen tear downs and rebuilds nobody rebuilds a 1940s Ranch they're going to build a modern home um you know we we've had applications in the past I I believe uh you know where where the the blueprint came from a company called Monster homes and and we turn that down so I mean we want something in character with the neighborhood which you know this home does not seem like it's like occupying so much of the lot that it's out of character with the neighborhood but I'm I'm taking up your time so I'm sorry so much for commentating I appreciate it all right so um I have a statement I'll read thank the board for the opportunity to be present to address the updated request for the subdivision and the associated Varian R for First Street I'd like to acknowledge Mr rossback and his family and his team of Representatives following the hearing in August which was met with a few days of advanced notice on the application um there was an opportunity to further explore the details of the application which has since been updated I am here to present uh support and opposition to the updated application and I humbly stand before you as a former member of the community and one who has an interest in a in property first I want to be clear that I and my family support Mr rosc stated underlying desire to build his new home it's a beautiful design it will provide a lovely setting uh for his growing family and that new home will fit perfectly but on the existing property I continue to represent strong opposition to the application for a subdivision I'll be brief I hope um regarding the reasons for the opposition first Varian of are intended to solve problems not create new ones right so the subdivision creates the need for variances in the smaller size property it's creating a problem the existing lot in its entirety is robust enough to accommodate the house design um the existing dwelling would need to be torn down but isn't that a common occurrence um otherwise the option exists to redevelop the existing dwelling on the existing property third there's no evidence in this record that sets forth a requirement for this board a requirement for this board to approve a subdivision that creates a non-conforming 12,000 sq foot lot in an R20 Zone permission may be but not a requirement the application in this record addressing the sought-after C variants predicates need in two ways it states strict application of the provisions of the devel ordinance would result in Peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional and undue hardship and I would submit that evidence of such difficulties or hardship to build the desired home on the existing lot as it stands are not present in this record if anything the sought-after subdivision creates peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties and exceptional and undue hardship also stated the purposes of the uh Municipal land use law would be Advanced by a deviation from the zoning ordinance requirements and benefits of deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment again other than for personal gain substantive evidence of advanced uh of advancing the municipal uh land use law purpose um are not present nor benefits articulated that outweigh the detriment of a property proposed to be 40% smaller than the required R20 minimum lot size not 1,000 square ft not 3,000 F feet but fully 8,000 square ft smaller and again if approved any further development will require um The Zone remains R20 and any further development will be subject to further vacancies I will submit to you that if the intention is to create a president for gaining smaller lot sizes which remain encumbered the optic is one of distastefully cre a workaround of the existing zoning regulations that form expectations for people who own purchase or reside in this R20 zone I'm one of them others are present if larger scale change looking for problem solving always right so if larger change uh uh larger scale change is sought let's work on it as a community let's bring the need or Desire by all members of the community to our leadership for a permanent and Lasting change I now turn to the importance of a credible and transparent intention and process um the need for subdivision and variance is sought here raised curiosity and a number of inconsistencies were brought forward so in the interest of I trust but I verify I'm going to offer the following um and I have some documents that I'm just going to submit for the record here what are these documents just you have a copy from Mr lfred okay you can let us know what it is you're providing so how many pages so there are uh a total of five pages I believe four four exhibits okay so we'll call them exhibit 01 2 and three and if you could explain what those are okay so um exhibits one two and three which are three pages of pictures are photographs taken of the existing property at 4ir Street um the ex the fourth exhibit which is a two-page document is the Zone a zoning permit that was Unearthed during a fouryear request for some information on what the history is here of the development of this property I want to refer to the applications that were filed here and they're part of the record um Parts there were two applications that were filed that were not updated they were they they remain um of record and parts C or D ask broadly if there has been any previous appeal request or application to this or any other Township boards or Tech Review Committee involving the property and the applicant responded no on both documents which were signed and notorized however public record reveals at least request for a zoning permit initially in 2018 apparently updated in 2022 from applicant Mr rosbach to construct an oversized freestanding garage on the existing property and that's the exhibit that I provided to you the two-page zoning permit the application was returned by the township to him with further instructions as to how to properly substantiate and apply for the consideration that wasn't presented here as um part of the consideration for this board or anybody else who is aware of this uh request and so I ask you just rhetorically perhaps what are the implications for misrepresentation or Omission on an application notably and furthermore the previously undisclosed closed application to construct construct a large freestanding garage includes a reference to a zoning violation for operating commercial use on the property at forer Street and there remains in fact evidence of continued commercial operation with commercial vehicles parked in the street on First Street a back ho front front end loader parked adjacent to the house on the property why not share such information to be vetted those are the photographs that we're providing to you and again back ho we're hearing about back hos because we still have this concern about pipelines also unavailable in public records is evidence of required permits and a CO associated with major work that was performed on the existing dwelling there is evidence and Mi and Mr rosbeck can respond to this as he is here there's evidence that the foundation of the existing dwelling was lifted with additional rows of cinder block added and I am very happy to apologize if I am incorrect but my experience is s is that such work requires permits inspections and a CO none of these documents were part of the public record so again helpful Mr rosback can submit those documents to complete the record and move the needle towards a transparent and credible process in summary the application for subdivision fails here under the circumstances that are present the application before this board um is a request by one resident and it presents as an example of using a variant to create a non-conforming space than requesting variances to cure the very violation the challenge created the impact has a ripple effect on property owners and their expectations the instant case is a Twist on a recent trend for developers to buy up undersized Lots many of them in that little area it's very congested right there um I grew up there I think I told you you know I was born a long long time ago and uh and grew up in that area and it's and it's become a very congested area there but the the the trend is excuse me for developers to buy up undersized Lots gain variances to build on those lots the distinction in this case is that that's that's not what's being asked the distinction here is that the applicant is flipping that calculus to request a subdivision of a properly sized lot into an undersized lot and then pursues a precedent of gaining Varian is to develop the undersiz lot so we've got it coming at it we we we've got it coming at it from both ends here at the end of the day these workarounds are eroding the significance or the relevance of zoning at all there is no evidence present here that you as members of this board must approve these workarounds this applicant has indicated that he wants to build a home for his family that is credible it's an understandable request um and that may or may not ultimately require variances on the existing property however there are no existing peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardships present that support the request for the subdivision moreover absent a correction of the record the intentions are skeptical in view of the history presented here the home can be built on the existing property the applicant and his family are wished very well with the construction of their new home based on the circumstances present I respectfully request that the board deny the application for subdivision and I again note that denying the subdivision will not impact the stated underlying interest which is to construct the new home thank you I have a few questions if I may Mr chairman go ahead Peter you can cross examine uh first of all you made a statement earlier tonight that you reside in this neighborhood my my mother resides in this neighborhood and I am her power of attorney did did you not make a statement at the beginning of this evening in your testimony that you reside in the neighborhood I don't recall and if I did that I must correct that because I my mother resides I reside periodically with her as she suffers from uh disease but you are not a resident of this neighbor I am not a resident of her home nor are you a resident of Franklin Township are you not no longer okay uh you provided uh a zoning permit that Mr rosbach applied for some years ago correct yes I did and you indicate that that should have been disclosed on his application correct it appears to be a document that the application asks for it the and I will read the application the application says has there been any previous appeal request or application to this or any Township boards involving this property okay is a request for a zoning application a request to any Township Board in your mind uh in my mind I wouldn't know that sir but uh on the document it refers to it specifically as an application assigns it a number and requests a date application but does does a zoning permit have to go to a board in your opinion I so I I've ask Peter to weigh in on this and I think I I think I can cut this to the chase where Mr lanford's going um zoning permit application is is not an application that would go to a Township Board uh that would be typically considered by a zoning officer who would determine whether or not what was being requested on the zoning permit application is permitted if it is permitted it is approved if is not permitted is denied and frequently a denial of a zoning permit would be something that might be a predecessor to a zoning uh board application but it is not something that is uh encompassed within the request on the application so based upon that analysis and what you had provided the no answer would be appropriate to that inquiry thank you you're welcome uh since you even though you're live so far away are so familiar with this neighborhood uh how many Lots in the immediate vicinity of the subject property uh are 32,000 Square ft or larger and contain one single family dwelling on them sir I wouldn't know that I will tell you that on the that's an answer thank you uh no I'd like to I I would like to finish the answer sir I she answered the question Mr chairman you can your discre go go you you can finish I think that's fair so uh yeah so on um uh on the Walnut Street side of the property which is directly adjacent I would submit without having a um uh a direct knowledge of the lot size that those lots are significantly larger um than that than 20,000 Square ft I would say um so so I think the question that Peter Lanford asked was do you know of any that are larger 32,000 which would be the sum total size of this lot um so I think where Peter is going in that question is um we're we're we're Mr rosp back to take your suggestion say demolish his one-story dwelling and build a single new house on a 32,000 ft lot are there any houses in the neighborhood that reside on a 32,000 ft lot with one house on it I wouldn't know the answer to that question thank then that's that's where we'll in that I have no further questions okay um thank you for your um participation appreciate it is there anyone else who wishes to speak last time yep sir I apologize I was not here last time did you previously appear and provide testimony I did not I was here I did not do testimony okay if I could just swear you again quickly if you could raise your right hand do you swear any testimony you provid is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes and if you could state your name spell your last name and give us your address for the record please John patr p t r i n e 13 Walnut Avenue in Somerset uh my property is perpendicular to his I look right out my back window since 2017 out of back ho but that's besides the point um the lots that you guys are referring to yes right around him down on Maxwell a few years ago that land was developed into houses but if you look at my lot my neighbor's lot my other neighbor's lot that is sitting here they are all his size there are more that 60% that he's claiming I'll bet you if you pulled up an aerial view of eastn farms 60% of the houses have typically 150 by 250t Lots or thereabouts they are sizable Lots throughout the neighborhood I've lived there for 57 years I grew up in the house I'm in now moved out for 10 years to Willow where I tried to subdivide my property that was 250 by 100 and wasn't allowed to so bought this off of my parents and just sold that as far as you know you want to build a house do an at a level I'm in the construction industry first of all starting from scratch to build a house and adding a level yeah I don't know where he's getting his numbers I've been doing it since 85 it's cheaper to add a level to a house not to even factor in what it would cost him to run the water because when they started on eastn Avenue my neighbor and I looked into it and the guys in the water department said sure you could have water but we're not paying for it you run it up from eastn Avenue and you're responsible for the pipes or any if something breaks you got to dig it up it's on you because this whole neighborhood East Farms is one of the few areas that still has wellwater so now you're talking about really tapping one in there because well well that's that's kind of why the board actually you you got to the committee one of the hard of the reasons why the board kind of sent this application back initially was because if if you if you have these undersized Lots it's far better for them to be connected to public water so that was one of the things we asked the applicant to do um I really don't want to get into um contractor versus contractor you know everybody El who's got estimates knows how that works so yeah I mean it's academic to the app to the planning question we're dealing with just this past week they the it's not Texas Eastern whoever runs it now I can't andridge I believe it is they were just there wanting to clearcut some trees from some of the neighbors so that they can better view this pipeline so now you're going to have a driveway over that pipeline basically if I can read that if I remember correctly that's going over that so how is that making that pipeline accessible number one number two let's say you don't you move it you put trees there you can't put trees there basically where that pipeline is and I know it because I lost my shed and a bunch of trees when they came in well that's got to be 30 years ago and dug it up after the Edison field Fiasco and you know the the whole landscape of my property changed from then and has changed since so that's my biggest concern yeah I mean and and and frankly you know we are having a discussion here about 100 foot I mean the municipality can probably do what it wants ultimately the utilities is a public good um you know I've been on this board for over 20 years Believe It or Not which doesn't seem believable but it's true nonetheless um there was an application for a um psng substation on bort Road off of off of Weston I don't know if you know where it's right near the high school we denied it noise expert we we hir our own noise expert the whole thing and it didn't matter because it's a public utility and you're building this for you know a public good so truthfully once a pipeline comes through you're probably going to have multiple house I mean if we were to go and see which houses um were within 100 fet of the pipeline I bet they'd have a lot of variance violations in retrospect um if they were to be built today um that being said the board can only rely on the fact that the applicant reached out to Texas Eastern or whoever runs it now um and and and got their permission for an easement which we now have as an exhibit I would assume that putting a driveway over it makes it accessible and you can rip it up um you know unlike a house obviously you're not going to put house over it um whether we'd want to live there that close to it it's academic again just putting my whole point to this is two houses on that lot is not indicative of the neighborhood and you have a house there he raised the basement in 2017 um I looked at it it was like that from Spring to Fall um the deck on the front isn't done there's a bunch of stuff that's started and not finished like the door that was put in the back that goes to Nowhere finish the house or at a level tear it down put a new one up there's no reason that you need two houses on that lot so okay is it thank you okay another a question anyone else who wishes to speak if not I make a motion to close I'll make a motion all right all in favor all right all right um before I go to you for estimation I'll ask the board if they have any other further questions for you I think we spent a lot of time at our last meeting talking about the point of zoning and what variances are for um in regards to this application I now have Clarity around the gas situation I have Clarity around the water situation I don't have Clarity in my opinion on why these variances apply I can sympathize with what an applicant might want what it might be easier for them or beneficial to them but I'm just not seeing it for the community for these variances and I could be wrong um but I don't know what other people feel as well well all I can say is when when we come up for a vote um you know that's vote vote what you what vote what you think is best I don't know if you can provide any more clarity to the board Peter I mean I know you have your analysis of the character of the neighborhood um um from both Mr rossback and Mr O'Brien so I don't know what you could I just I just want to be very brief uh first of all the pipeline uh and the issue of having a driveway over it the underlying easement documents uh don't indicate that the pipeline has the exclusive use of that property they have a right to put a line on in the easement uh the owner still owns the property uh if they're going to do anything over the easement they need to get the approval of the pipeline company which they did and we provided all of the documentation and a driveway is perfectly permissible yes I have Clarity around that okay with respect to the the subdivision uh some of the comments made by the neighbor I think reference a C1 variance uh what we are proposing is a C2 variance as testified to M by Mr O'Brien uh which indicates or requires that we show that the benefits outweigh the detriments uh clearly there may be a difference of opinion and perception sometimes of people and looking at the same set of facts and circumstances are different but I think the professional testimony of Mr obrien concerning what the character of the neighborhood is uh and the character of the neighborhood is not a 32,000 SQ foot lot the character of the neighborhood is quite frankly even from listening to them is a little bit of everything there are 4,000 s foot Lots as Mr O'Brien testified to there are 6,000 foot Lots there are 20,000 foot Lots there are no basically 32,000 ft Lots this is an anomaly for this neighborhood it is not the character of the neighborhood so in reality by doing what we're doing is basically creating two lots whether they were going to be 16,000 Square ft each or 12 and 20 which are consistent with the character of the neighborhood the the other thing is that in reality if you leave it at 32,000 foot lot and uh the chairman indicates you know uh the mcmansions uh if Mr rossbach decides he wants to build a 7500 SQ foot house on that lot he'd have the right to do it is that is that consistent with the character of that neighborhood no it's not you're actually affording or creating a situation where somebody can build something significantly out of character with the neighborhood if the lot stays the same size what we have here is in and again we can agree on where the line should be but we are creating two lots that are in character with the neighborhood and Mr O'Brien indicated that there is no substantial detriment to the Zone scheme there's no substantial detriment to the Zone plan if I were to be standing on First Street and looking back to the back of the the property if the new house was built I don't know where the lot line is between the first house and the second house unless somebody puts up a fence if I'm looking at the property on from Second Street I have a conforming lot 20,000 Square ft I think the lot that we're creating for the smaller house is in character with the size of the house and therefore in character with the size of the neighborhood and therefore I think we meet the C2 criteria of the ordinance the the other exhibits I don't know what they intend to show uh but as Mr violo opined uh basically basally Mr rosback at one time applied for his zoning permit to put a garage on the property uh it was denied because he needed a variance he didn't go ahead with the variant he didn't apply which is his right and prerogative it has nothing to do with this application there was nothing improper or inappropriate in his actions when he wanted to do something he's here before the board asking to do what he thinks is appropriate for this area in this neighborhood I think if you balance everything and all the testimony that you've heard this evening I think to leave the situation the way it is probably in the long run could be a worse situation than creating two lots that are consistent with the character of the neighborhood the last point I want to make is that they rais the issue well if this was done for Mr rosback somebody else will do the same thing well if there are no 32,000 ft Lots in the neighborhood it's not going to be done done by anybody else one gentleman testified he tried to subdivide a 20 some thousand foot lot and the board denied it rightfully so probably but this lot is an anomaly to the neighborhood and I think therefore because it's an anomaly uh subdividing it will make it a consistent uh lot or two lots with the character of the neighborhood being preserved I therefore think we've uh made our burden of proof with respect to the subdivision and to the C variances I thank you thank you P one quick question of um my planning FR here are there any other 32,000 ft Lots in the in the area no there is one 30,000 foot lot at 30 Culver and that is the largest lot uh and in fact that encompasses block 44 9.02 and uh Lots 24 2 5 26 27 28 29 the old numbering so that's in a so this is the largest lot in the area with a with one one home on it currently that is correct and after 30,000 you drop to 25,000 and the gentleman who spoke before is on a 25,000 okay there there's three of them i' just like to comment that in my experience on the planning board uh which has involved a number of lots in Houston Farms usually when there's a requested develop an undersized lot the planner involved presents a report with um paper that the board can see showing all the Lots in the immediate area and allows us to see where there are uh conforming Lots and where there are nonconforming lots I perhaps Mr O'Brien's testimony was sufficient uh I would have liked it to have been to have included uh paperwork showing what uh the nature of the neighborhood is or what the all of the lot sizes are the only thing I've had to operate with was a plan simply showing the 200 ft radius which doesn't distinguish between the Lots under common ownership and developed versus the original extremely narrow Lots from the original subdivision of the uh area which by now have been merged into larger Lots so I couldn't tell what size Lots there were in the area I could tell there were some that were 100 by 250 and some that were 100 by 200 but particularly in the area between First Street and Eastern Avenue it just shows all of these many Lots as originally subdivided which presumably provided some flexibility in what was actually developed so now I I mean that that's really just a criticism of the way this was presented it's not a reason for denying the application but I have to say that and and Dr Chase if it is important to you and if it's important to other board members and if they want that information we can again adjourn this I can get you that information fairly quickly but that's up to the board but we're not holding back any information and if if you you or other board members want to see that we'd be glad to provide it to you yeah I mean I agree with I agree with Ted it would be nice to see something that was like this is the area we analyzed and this was the result of the analysis that said I think between at least for me between Mr rossbach and Mr O'Brien you read off a number of examples that I think and your testimony um which of course you're all under oath uh we is truthful uh that said it would be it would be good to provide ultimately um I I don't you know I'll do what the Border wants if you want to adjourn and let him get that but um I mean I'm comfortable and T shaking okay no no we would like five minutes he could get it for us but um it it probably doesn't change the the nature of the testimony um last thing I'll say before I I make a motion or whatever um and Peter I assume you're done is that Peter Peter brought up a good point I just want the public to understand C1 versus C2 because um Miss Bacon mentioned hardship so hardship Varian is C1 variance and that's means generally a physical limitation on a land you you've got a triangular lot uh and you're trying to fit a square house in it or a square and and that can't be done geometrically that's a hardship variance C2 um is a benefits benefits outweigh the detriment which is why you heard me ask Mr you you think it's substantially because that's the way the law is written substantially what is substantially is it 51% to 49 is it 60 to 40 that's up to the board to determine what they consider a substantial uh benefit over the detriment but a C2 is not a hardship variance it is a variance that um either like the applicant testified would present a better zoning alternative or or or for some other reason the applicant wants that but that's the burden of proof um that you have to provide is that the testimony the board believes from the applicant is that the benefits substantially outweigh the detriments uh to Grant those variances so planning lesson over um so with that um if the board has no further comments I'd like to get us to a motion um so I I will um I'll make a motion to approve uh with the condition that the deed restriction um that was discussed um to bring the water to the first house um is is a condition to the approval um I don't think there's any other conditions that I U Peter you can I can confir I'll just review the record from last time and if there is if there are any any representations will be included in the resol I think if if that's you're requiring the deed restriction you also ought to give us an extension of time to file the subdivision deed Deeds uh because we can't file them until that water is is brought so yeah so let's let's maybe go one at a time um let's take vote if the vote is positive then we'll talk about extension of time is that fair that's fine or I can come back and request that if don't have to come back we'll do it tonight well was it the deed restriction was what the deed restriction was proferred as you can't convey the the any lot until water is brought to the first house right so you would conceivably have a subdivision that but but Mr Hy is concerned that if I file the subdivision deed unless you put that deed restriction both Lots it would it would be okay yeah restriction that yeah that can be conveyed until the first would that okay so I don't know that you would need an extension then then then that'll answer the question so you don't need an extension if it's in both Deeds that's fine okay so that's my motion Mr chairman was is is there a preference for which alternative which lot line or is it or is for this new proposal with this no it's for the new proposal as they said at the outset we're not going to um you know toss coins in the air and see which they land heads or taals the board gave the applicant Direction the applicant responded and now we that's my motion is there a second I second it okay so before I call pull the board I'm not asking you to but if anyone wants to deny it you have to State your reason why you're denying it that that's all I need to say about that okay councilman andaris yes Theodore Chase no I do not believe in creating undersized Lots by subdivision and that's what this is and I have a as I stated a further objection to the very shallow very small rear yard setback of the uh lot with the existing house I think this property is constrained by the uh pipeline easement uh it probably could have been developed uh somewhat better with uh the same sort of variance if there weren't the pipeline easement as it is I just feel that it's putting maybe not 10 lounds in a f five PB bag but putting eight PBS in a 5B bag so I it I admit that it was made a much closer decision by Mr O'Brien's testimony concerning U undersized lots and the neighborhood and I wish I had seen them before while I was studying the application Bob uh Robert Lor I have a an issue with going from uh conforming to conforming and non-conforming the water is an issue the pipeline is an issue to me and I'm going to vote deny okay uh Charles Brown um this one is a really really tough one uh for me um I respect the applicant I I respect the fact that he's trying to do something you know for his family beneficial I respect the the property rights uh that he has um I wish the zoning in Franklin would have allow would allow for um no I don't want to say that on record my bad um this is this is this is tough I'm going to vote no on principle right we we've denied other applications and I know every application stands on its own but we can't just simply ignore you know our zoning code um if it wasn't such a large home on a reduced size l um maybe I would have voted yes but I'm going to go with no on principle Rebeca Hilbert I think I'm going to have to agree with Charles in this case and vote no only because again and again we're having the same conversation about why we have these zoning laws and regulations and it's our job to enforce them uh so I'm going to vote no Mark dcy I'm going to go with no I think you know he has opportunity to build a family home that he needs and no chairman orini so if I were a good politician right I could read the room and say no but I actually vote Yes and I'll I'll tell you why um I'm not convinced that this is out of character with the neighborhood I'm I'm I can only go by the testimony presented by the applicant um I also weigh the fact that um when this application was originally presented it was two undersized slots we asked the applicant to move the lot to create at least one conforming lot which they did and the smaller house is on that smaller lot which is a 12,000 ft lot which I do believe based on the way of testimony is not out of character with the neighbor Hood um and the applicant you can say the pipeline or whatever and you can give me pictures of the fact has backhoe and that's a zoning issue not a planning board issue uh whether that's supposed to be parked there and there's a way to deal with that outside of this committee so I I'm balance vote yes thank you very much let's take a five minute recess so you can turn your a d around to your um next applicant um and okay board board members and public we're going to get back in session here um and and so uh during the uh recess um Peter and I Lanford that is talked and uh um so we're going to take the next hour to talk about changes but Peter you want to just give a brief overview of what we will and won't do tonight yeah thank you Mr chairman uh tonight I intended to present uh well first of all we we were here on this matter uh on July 10th we presented extensive testimony uh the board requested some additional information also requested us to look at certain changes to the site plan which we did uh we made a resubmission based on the last meeting uh hoping that it would help us go towards the approval obviously didn't work in the last application but we can try again uh but uh we were here tonight and we were going to present the testimony of of our site engineer to discuss the site plan changes uh our uh architect and our traffic consultant as well as our planner who has not yet testified all the other individuals have testified previously uh unfortunately for a reason unbeknownst to me uh our architect Mr Johnson's not here this evening so I I'm proposing that we proceed and try to get the testimony of our site engineer in and the testimony of our traffic consultant who did a parking analysis and then carry the matter for two weeks and hopefully we will then finish it up with Mr Johnson and Mr O'Brien yeah sounds sounds good um locating all the documents on this uh new uh new setup we have um so please proceed okay Mr I will call as my first witness Mr Sadowski and well do you swear any testimony you're going to provide us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do and if you could state your name spell your last name and give us your address quickly for the record Ronald J Sadowski sad d o wski 10 Edward Avenue Edison New Jersey Mr Sadowski you're a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey yes I am and you've testified for this board and other boards the zoning Board in this town previously yes and have been so qualified yesi on this matter as yeah yeah so that's good because you're you're back again so we like consistency so yes Mr sidowski has accepted oh boy um great question M Mr Sadowski uh you submitted well you were not the original engineer of record on this application is that correct that is correct original engineer was Mr gazali of Fisk Associates Mr gazali retired and then you took over this project correct that's correct and you submitted the site plan that was the subject of the review of this board at the July hearing correct correct and you did not testify at oh yes you did you testified at the J at the no you testified at the initial Hearing in this matter correct okay and after the last hearing uh there were some requests and uh for changes to the plan and some modifications to the plan uh I'm going to have Mr O'Brien bring up the plan after he plugs it in plan yeah nice Church oh okay uh Mr sadasi what Mr O'Brien put up on the board is a color rendering of the revised site plan that you prepared is that correct that's correct being the this is colorized do we want to mark this exhibit as A1 that's correct A1 uh and for the record the the church the proposed church is on the left side of the property on uh Fuller and the park working area is to the right of it at the intersection of Fuller and Booker correct correct can you take the board through the changes that you made to the site plan uh to address some of the engineering comments to address some of the planning comments and to address some of the comments that the board made at the previous hearing yes uh the previous um site layout had 38 on-site parking spaces and the row of parking spaces along Fuller Street had a setback of 1 foot from the rideway line This revised layout has shifted the parking an additional 9 ft to the north to provide 10 ft between the property line and the curb line what we were able to do um by moving the parking is to also relocate the plantings which were within the public rideway we've gotten them now onto the subject property by increasing the buffer from 1 to 10 ft we reduced the onsite parking from 38 spaces to 36 spaces that was that was necessary to continue to provide uh the uh existing 5T which is to the north I want to say by the the corner of the dumpster pad that's proposed on the property in addition on the on the uh this revised site reflects the reduction in the building footprint or the church footprint by 5T along the north property line uh We've now increased that setback which was the previous setback was 5 we've now increased it to 10 ft so those are the two main uh site changes from the previous submission okay now with respect and Mr Johnson will testify as to what happens to the building but the building has basically shrunk in size on the site plan by how many feet five feet okay uh I note that you have uh provided Landscaping basically around the perimeter of the property except behind the church EXC excuse me the lot behind the church is is that a Township own lot yes okay and that's why uh and that's the lot that the applicant was trying to get from the township then the township would not sell it correct correct and therefore uh you felt that there was no need to provide any buffering from that lot since it's not going to be really developed is that correct that's correct if the board felt that some additional buffering would be required back there you'd be happy to provide it yes okay uh now the only other thing so we have the record is clear the only residential use that is adjacent to this property is to the rear of the parking lot is that correct that is correct okay and that is landscaped yes all is there a fence that is proposed along that property line yes okay so that that would then buffer the parking lot from the uh joining property owner correct correct okay now you have also had an opportunity I hope to review a report from uh CME concerning the uh uh site plan review of your new plan correct correct and they've requested some modifications and changes and some additional information uh in addition to what you've already provided to them is that accurate that is correct okay and can you provide all of that information is there anything that you have an issue with or a problem no we can comply with the CME review letter okay and in complying with the CME review letter it does that in any way change what the board is looking at or all the changes that you're going to be making basically technical in nature uh technical we are also providing six electric vehicle parking spaces which will adjust the required parking on the property being that we're proposing six spaces that'll give us a net gain of six vehicle spaces as well okay so in in in essence uh that is another way even though there may not be an additional parking space but that that's another way to meet your the parking requirements pursuant the state law correct correct okay thank you I have no further questions of this we board have any questions uh the parking spaces for electric vehicles you're going to have a charging a dual charging station for each two that is most likely how it will occur yes so we'll have three dual charging stations yes that's I think is sort of the usual practice it's what the township has outside this building and we'll have one for a minimum of one for Ada uh parking correct comply well as a representative of the environmental commission I'm very happy to hear that any other questions for this W maybe I'll just make makeing observations that I think you know your testimony goes to so you know the first time you were through we we asked you to come back with some changes which you have they don't eliminate variances they make them less severe um so I just want the board to be aware as we go through the testimony excuse me that you the lot is small I mean there's just no no way around that um and so if you want to build a church on it there's probably going to be some variances same principle right do the benefits that way the detriments these are not hardship variances they are they are C2 I believe variances in in in total and then there are some design waivers so just you know the board can keep in mind you know the way I look at it is if you're going to build on this lot um and build something on this lot that is a church which is what the use is there now it's somewhat of a balance between the art of the possible you're going to have variances I don't think there's a way to do it with about it the question is does the board believe that those benefits outweigh the detriments and so that's the way I want to frame it to the board as we go through this um because you know um really some of the same principles applied um apply as to the what we just heard um but I don't have any any questions I think you know what you explained in terms of um what what you've done um you could argue could it could could you reduce building by more than 5T could you you know eventually you're putting forth an application where you're putting a stake in the ground saying this is what we would like to propose and they'll have to depend on us to whether we approve it or not um do I think you've improved it um marginally yes um but we we we'll see in the rest of the testimony especially um um yours Kevin uh what what what actually we we all have and there there is maybe a question and I don't know if this goes to you so in your plans you've taken out the mezzanine or the balcony seating a lot of seats like 60 of them right which has substantially reduced the parking again if this is not the right place to discuss it stop me and we'll go to the next we're good keep going until I figure out where you're going I can't answer your question where I'm going is simple on the plans it says for future seating no it's not it's not and and that should not have been on the plan and it will be removed from the plan well thank you because otherwise anything you're agreeing to you're going to say well you know no that pick the card out of the deck and put it back no that that was not to have been on the plan and it uh Mr Johnson will testify to that but but the answer is there will be no proposed seating in the at the present or in the future in the balcony so the the number of seats that we are providing and I I think it was 173 now that we're down to uh and we'll get into how those number numbers relate to what is required and and what we are proposing yeah that's fine I just want to make sure that what the board is looking at is what the applic is proposing and we're not doing slight of hand for the future so thank you for that didn't intend to as I recall I think it's 183 no hang on a second I do have although I don't have Mr Johnson I do have an email from him confirming the numbers uh uh 6 183 seats it is 183 I apologize I just read them this the plan this morning so y okay yeah I mean that that's all that's all I have sorry sorry okay any other questions I can go to my next witness I he'll remain sworn in so if we think anything we can always go back go ahead all right I'm going to call uh Mr trapman but before he testifies I just want to couple things that relate to his testimony when we were here last I referenced an agreement that was entered into by the church and RPM concerning 25 spaces across the street on the adjacent lot uh I had the provided to the board a contract which indicated that they were going to provide uh those 25 spaces uh that contract and I was not involved in that transaction many years ago but that contract never was formalized in any formal agreement with RPM I've been in touch with RPM uh we have a draft agreement actually it was reviewed by Mr Veno and Mr Healey there were a couple recommended changes to that agreement uh I can tell you there is an agreement that will be formalized I'm going to be making the changes based on comments I received today hopefully by the time I come back I will have a signed agreement with RPM for those 25 spaces but I can assure the board that RPM has agreed to make those 25 spaces available and that sort of plays into Mr troutman's testimony and Mr Troutman was here previously and was sworn so I don't think we need to swear him again you were remain under oath sir okay Mr TR you Mr Troutman at the last meeting you were asked to do a parking analysis uh regarding the proposed plan all of the parking that we had proposed off site and also there were questions concerning uh Street availability parking so did you number one do that yes okay and when did you do that uh we were here in July I knew that was a bad time of year and luckily we were carried to tonight which gave time for uh schools to get back in session and everybody get back from vacation so so I did that uh the first nice week of September September uh whatever that first Sunday was after Labor Day okay and the parking study you did you in fact submit a report yes it was Sunday September 8th okay 2024 all right and can you briefly indicate what you did in order to compile your report and what the results of your findings were yes um and I had previously been giving numbers at the hearing about all the parking and Mr Healey had asked for some documentation of those numbers and I think it was also important since two years had passed to also get some fresh uh occupancy numbers so so what I did is I went out there uh on a Sunday morning um starting at around uh let's just take a look here starting at around 10:15 a.m. um keeping in mind that the church service uh doesn't start until at least 11: actually on that day it started at 11:30 and um it had it peaked at about 12:00 noon but I started at 10:15 a.m. and I set up a survey area to survey uh all of the parking occupancy in the church parking lot and all of the joining streets and I also uh wanted to count the RPM parking lot to see what's actually available on Sunday morning in that lot um so that that's basically what I did I broke out every street face surrounding the site um I I did Fuller uh along the church Frontage I did Fuller across from the church Frontage I did Booker along the church Frontage I did Booker across the church from the church Frontage and then I did the block of Booker uh heading out towards uh Somerset Street as well and basically what we found uh was that um as you can see in my report there will be 36 physical parking spaces in the uh in the proposed church parking lot um I did find uh in the RPM lot uh that there were um a minimum of 13 empty parking spaces so the empty spaces in the RPM lot ranged anywhere from 13 to 18 depending on uh the time and all all the time and data and there's a map in the report that that shows everything um I also found uh that there were 43 available parking spaces on the adjacent streets and and then uh we also had the agreement with with PNC uh if if there's an event of such a size where we could shuttle people from the PNC lot that would gain another 70 parking spaces so I concluded uh in my report that there would be 162 available parking spaces for the church now let's dig into the numbers of the required parking spaces since we've now taken out the balcony and since we have reduced uh the size of the church and you've reviewed Mr Johnson's plans uh yes so where we are now is 183 proposed seats at uh one per three seats would require 61 parking spaces and um with the EV credit uh we provide 42 on site so that's a variance of 19 spaces the agreement with RPM provides 25 um and and actually the way I think it's going to work is that people are going to use the front edge of the church the park on the street because it's empty so they're going to use that that's closer than RPM and there's there's plenty of available parking there were only out of out of 49 available spaces on the street near the church there were only six parked cars on the street people do not park on the street in this area on Sunday morning so it's wide open all is the area surrounding the church developed are there buildings houses and everything else or is there a potential for additional development which may skew the numbers somewhere down the road no it's it's all fully developed all the houses are developed and uh nobody's parking on the street okay so um de now may be a good time to bring up this Quirk which I'm sure you've noted Peter um so because you remove the seating in the balcony um counterintuitively perhaps your actual requirement goes up because he's now by square footage instead of and so in In fairness right and that's what it said in Peter's report that's what I'm going by no that's what Mr Hy says okay but Mr but but your ordinance says that you are required to provide one space for for every three seats and when there is no seating and that talks about in my mind you know religious institutions where there is no fixed seating you know like some of the temples one space for every 15 Square fet however the space in the balcony is not proposed to be worship area it's not proposed to be occupied uh we are taking the note off of the plan so I don't think you can count or should count the balcony is having a parking requirement because we're not using it for religious purposes what is it for then there's there is going to be some live streaming there'll be cameras up there and things of that nature but it it is not going to be used for religious purposes so it's going to be more like an audiovisual type of thing where there's like you said maybe maybe sound for choir I don't have Mr Johnson testified to all that yeah I mean it'd be nice to know because I mean if you're so if you're looking for a waiv or whatever based on that that calculation um you know I I'm I'm certainly going to ask Mark for his opinion but um yeah you kind of let want to understand what it's for because if it is as you say then the question the board would have is how do we keep it as you say and that is not going to be occupied either by people who are standing there or whether it's feding or not that would be my question and and I think we can discuss that at the next meeting and I chairman let me just explain too where I'm coming from the original plan had I I I I don't know the D I see a balcony and mezzanine around you know on the second floor of a church it's a pretty common thing in fact you had you know your plans had seating on there originally and there was a note on the plan that you submitted again you know or your applicants your client submitted that said future seating so I logically conclude that that's part of the the worship area and it's Avail and it's going to be open and viewable to the worship space and available to put seating up there so under those scenarios the way we've always applied it in for places of worship it's if it's not fixed seating it's the one space for every 15 square feet if that's not the scenario perhaps a meeting with Mr Johnson beforehand if he wants to explain it to me how it should if it's not open to the worship area if it's some other type of scenario I'd love to hear about it because maybe it doesn't apply but i' need to know more okay I I will reach out to Mr Johnson if I can find them uh and I will try to arrange a at least a conference call or a meeting sometime next week uh and we can perhaps discuss that issue and and to be fair on the other side of it also your ordinance says because remember there is also a basement lower level that has seating and that seating has to be counted in your ordinance however just we testified previously that we don't intend to use and we've done this with other houses of worship uh the basement while services are taking place that is for Fellowship after the services but technically we need a variance because we don't meet the parking requirement because of the seating in the basement so I want to be completely transparent as to that yeah and I and I broke that down too I mean I did provide a subt assuming the the fellowship hall would not be used at the same time gave the board that figure and then there's the total when they're combined yeah so I I just again I think we we all need to be on the same page on this yeah yeah and that's what I'm that's what I'm trying to get to okay I will make uh Mr Troutman available for questions by the board any qu any questions from Mr Trump on parking yeah just a few and they're in my report I don't know if you've had a chance to I did and I think I get under my first question was what's this no build I guess the no build is is the current situation is 47 and then in I guess in the build scenario you're eliminating some curb Cuts so there's going to be some additional on street parking available so the on street parking Supply in the in the area actually going up from 47 to 49 correct okay this is why testimony sometimes is clarifies things um so well I think you also answered the next question because I I had asked are you using up all of the parking Supply or portion of um well I actually can you actually can you answer that question yeah no I can answer that um I I believe it would be a portion of I I don't see the block of Booker between Fuller and sumerset really being used I see uh Fuller along the church Frontage and a right across being used and I see both sides of Booker potentially being used and then the RPM lot but there there would be all that available parking going down Booker toward sumerset would be the next I think block that would be used okay and then I had some questions um my report was done before we saw the uh draft agreement with RPM um so Mr Lanford could you just summarize what the what that agreement says yeah the time frame Etc and it also goes into another point that you raised in your report as to how the building will be used and and during the week and weekends uh and this was testified to a prior hearings uh church services take place on Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 3M uh my original discussion with uh RPM was that you know therefore we would like the use of their parking lot between 10 and three but then I you know sort of said well people got to get there before 10: and they usually leave a little after so I amended the agreement in one spot to say 10 uh 9:30 and 3:30 which they've agreed to but I have to that's one of the modifications to the agreement so the primary church service is on Sunday from 10: to 3 uh and that's when we have the right to use the RPM lot as was testified to at the the prior hearing uh there are some Bible studies uh there's choir practice there are other religious activities that will take place at the church uh during the week uh in the evenings and the testimony was that historically and in the future they don't anticipate that there are more than 60 people attending either the Bible study or choir uh and a assuming even that it's a little bit more than 60 or 70 people there's obviously more than adequate parking spaces on site to handle those forgetting about the street parking or anything else uh there are no festivals that we are proposing no major religious holidays other than Christmas and on Christmas there's a Satur our Christmas day service and we have the right to use the RPM lot for Christmas services uh there are normal funerals or weddings uh but no other uh outdoor religious activities or major religious activities that take place at the house of worship and I think that's uh and we testified at a prior hearing that we have no intention of renting the basement for any outside usage and that should be a condition of approval that was asked by Mr hilly so all of those things have been testified to previously but I'll get them on the record again in case somebody forgot yes thank you for provid I think it probably was a few hearings ago so thank you for bringing that back since this application was filed in 2017 a lot has gone by yeah I mean you know the way I look at it is uses evolve so I mean while you may I mean let's just say you know you have a wedding or funeral of somebody um pillar of the community and and it may take your entire it may take the entire capacity and that's fine because if you have the parking for it however you Cobble it together here right we know it's not going to be on site then then that's the key thing I just think that you know for the board purposes and I know your intentions are all the best it's very hard and it it's impossible to enforce um it's impossible to police um and it's just impractical to say h you know choir is never going to be more than 30 people practicing our Bible study never you can't even bet on that I it you just have to you have the board has to do it through planning and Engineering controls and one of those is parking right which self-limits things um and and seating obviously which self-limits things I wouldn't care if it was filled to capacity for every event if you've got the right parking right if you've got everything but I I just I mean you you can say the basement is not going to be rented out make that a condition of approval and that is enforcable but most of the rest of the things for the board I think are impractical to consider yeah and and again I I think you've got to understand this congregation and and here's where I have an issue sometimes when I come to these meetings uh to be honest with you I you're sitting there concerned about all these people coming to the Sur services and not having enough parking and we need parking we need parking and then at one of the meetings you said well there's only 70 families why do you have to have such a big building if we only have 70 families we don't need a lot of parking so you know yeah you know uh no and it it certainly isn't specific to this congregation I mean obviously temples and Moss we've heard before uh they say the same things and again the board just has to do it through a planning and Engineering control it's no different than um you know when you have a a use and they say oh the dumpster and we promise that the the garbage is not going to be picked up before 7 in the morning and nobody's going to have to hear that this board 10 years from now and going to be able to do a thing about it you're going to be a bunch of pissed off people calling the township saying why is this truck in my backyard it's at 5:00 a.m. so you know as as a chair and I direct the board planning and Engineering control is the only thing that you got and and I also think and and I've been through enough houses of worship in this town I've probably you have done 15 to 20 applications and every one of them is different every house of worship operates differently and the good thing about this site even though the site is small this is one of the few sites that there is street parking in the area that is available I mean other churches like on Cedar Grove Lane on uh Elizabeth Avenue and all of these other places you either Park on site or there's no parking but this site actually is a benefit because there is street parking available and based on Mr troutman's testimony it appears as ample street parking and the chances of it being used in the future are not that great so that I think is an important factor so that's all I've got to say on that thank you and I don't know if anybody has any other questions with of Mr Troutman and if not I cannot call Mr O'Brien to to sum up because need Mr Johnson to testify first so does anybody have I think the only person who stepped out for a second was Charles if you have any traffic no I parking questions so all right I will ask that this matter be carried to the next meeting which I think is November 6th that correct yes just real quick Mr chairman I I forget how we were operating the meeting do do you want to open it up to the public to see if any questions yeah yeah actually maybe will do that for these two witness for these two witnesses um let yeah that's thank you um and we have we have a margin of time so um make a motion to open to the public for cross-examination on the two I made it but you can second it all right all in favor meeting is open to the public um please confine any questions that you may have to um to the two witnesses uh if your intent is to support the application in general and all of that um rest assured that there will be a another opening to the public um when this is carried to uh not only for any cross-examination of Mr O'Brien but for any general testimony so you might want to say of that till then um not requiring you to but that's that option and um with that anybody who wants to speak on this um can do so please come up seeing no volunteers I move to close second all in favor Peter will'll carry to November six yeah six yes November 6 is the next meeting okay and I'll I I have two other matters on that night I think uh so I will discuss with Mr Hy whether we think we can get to all three of them or whether one of them should uh go down the road but I'll your applications yeah I I don't I don't remember what they are to be honest with you but I know there were two of them I at least at least you are handling them all so you can work it out um the point the point being if it was another application ahead of them you don't have that flexibility that person would have that spot but no I get it [Music] um let's see do we have anything else on the agenda today hope not before we close I just I want to ask yeah Mr chman one question I mean you you did your analysis when you were there that that day and I again I understand it is a smaller church with less seating capacity but what did you find as far as the actual usage of the parking spaces by the congregants that day uh there was a total parking demand of 23 for the at the peak of the church service which obviously that would all fit on the new parking lot without going anywhere okay and and with the existing parking lot has about 11 spaces yes so how how did the People Park that didn't fit into the parking lot well they they they they they did do a little bit of high density parking in the existing parking lot they parked a couple in so they did get 14 actually on the property and then there were nine uh scattered on the adjoining streets and nobody went over to the RPM lot no nobody went to the RPM it was all on Booker and Fuller okay thank you oh and that that brings me up another question there was a question in the and we can address this now because it would be you um police report they asked you how you turned around um what the Turning like if somebody came into the parking lot and said oh you know the was incorrectly right um or was just turning around for whatever the reason or just said oh I I forgot something I'm going to turn around do they back out to the how what's the Turning movement I think that was in the police report right and and and the way that works at a church is that um they have an attendant and so that basically what they do is once that parking would all fill up they would cone that off so you couldn't even go in there and once the whole thing was full they they would just go so essentially the answer is you don't turn around um it's well it just makes it so you don't have that problem yeah that gets rid of the problem okay all right just one to get that we can get that report out of the way then um that was the only thing I had okay all right so we will see you in November 6th um motion to adjourn I need an extension for that extension of time I will grant an extension through November 30th and I will try to remember to send you a letter Christine but you may want to remind me because sometimes I forget thank you I don't think we need to vote on that so we're good all right we are jour have a great night