all right good evening everyone welcome to the June 13 2024 Hillsboro Township planning board meeting please show me a salute to the flag pledge aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all please be advised this meeting has been duly advertised according to section 5 open public meeting act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 otherwise it's known as Sunshine Law notice of the 2024 annual meeting schedule has been provided to the officially designated newspapers Township Clerk posted on the Township's website and available here at the Hills Road Township municipal complex in addition application documents and plans have been made available in the township Civic clerk website at least 10 days in advance of this evening's meeting complete application files are available in the planning and zoning department for inspection in accordance with the public meeting notice that may have roll call of planning board members and also board and Township professionals please Deputy Mayor and Mr D absent Mr Wagner here Mr Vander here Mr redwitz here Mr scobo here M Smith here Mr Vitali here commit in the P pres Vice chair peas pres chair s here Mr K pres bste here Mr May here and myself and the videographer are here okay welcome everybody starting off we have consideration of meeting minutes first up is the executive session minutes from November 2nd 2023 and Mr Bernstein who's eligible unless anyone has any corrections they want to make which we would have to do an executive session the board can adopt the minutes I would indicate however to Mr Co and the public that the mere adoption of these minutes does not make them public under the open public records act since the matters in question are still ongoing okay thank you it's all moved ja comments from the day because if you have any we can't do it the eligible members are Mr Wagner Mr rowitz Mr scobo Miss Smith committee man leani Vice chair and the chair okay thank you roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr rtz yes Mr scobo yes Smith yes Comm in the P yes Vice chair PE yes R yes next regular meeting minutes of March 14th 2024 eligible members Mr chairman are everybody who's here tonight okay well done everybody is there a motion to adopt so move Mr chair second any comments from the day hearing none roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr vanderley yes Mr rtz yes Mr scobo yes Smith yes Mr Vitali yes commit in the P yes uh chair PE yes chaj yes next our consideration of resolutions we have one that was carried from last week it was slightly revised Mr chairman just for the edification uh I had been contacted by the neighboring property owner who got back to me between last Thursday night and today with a change he made I ran it by Mr ogrodnik he had no issue with it the change you will find is in paragraph 30 of the findings on page seven otherwise the resolution is accept is now acceptable to all and we would recommend it be adopted the eligible members for the purposes of the record are everybody but Mr leani okay thank you is there a motion to approve so moved second okay any comments roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr Vander yes Mr rtz yes Mr sco yes Smith yes Mr Vitali yes Vice chair peas yes chair Sr yes we do not have any planning board business nor consideration of ordinances so now we'll go to business from the floor for matters not on this evening's agenda is there anyone from the public that would like to provide any comments the public waved their hands so we are moving on to applications this evening first is there a motion to ajour the meeting no uh you're not eligible for for those of you who forgot used to be an old running joke with another member of the bar who used to be here on a regular basis and when he'd get up he could so since Michael and Michael are here normally every week okay so first up SI s AI middle sex forms LP file number 22- b-15 mspv time of decision July 11th of this year block 142 lot 34 otherwise or commonly known as 216 Route 206 South and I won't ruin it for Mr AR grodnik I'll let him describe the application introduce it um good evening members of the board um and Susan Our member of the public um my name is Michael ogrodnik I'm an attorney at savos shock Law Firm on behalf of the applicant SII middle sex Farm LP we're here tonight uh seeking preliminary and final site plan approval for the construction of an 18,000 ft building and a 12,375 ft addition to the front of the building uh for Block 34 block 142 otherwise known as 216 Route 206 property is located in the i1 light industrial zoning District where light industrial and other uses are permitted this application proposes the construction of an additional 70 parking spaces um and uh this applicant proposes to comply with all the use requirements in the i1 zone subject property is 16.1 acres in size and was constructed in the 1980s has been operating successfully for many years uh of note there are there is an approval on this property for the front yard for a 50,000 foot office building as you can imagine nobody's been building office for probably two decades now of of any size and this application seeks to continue the the existing nature of the of the structure um that industrial Flex type uh construction um in addition as pointed out my M by Mr quise lots that have Frontage on Route 206 also have to conform with the I2 bulk standards uh and we're very pleased to announce that there are no variances in this application and this this application conforms to all the bulk standards for the i1 and the light I2 light industrial district um this property has a number of existing tenants and has had uh these types of tenants for many years including a flooring guy a baker uh a drywall guy a detailer a boating parts manufacturer large Plumbing outfit uh a school for adult and children with uh developmental disabilities it has the high school robotics Warehouse painting contractor cabinet hardware uh B mainly online store uh of course this subject property is adjacent to the active railroad line to the north and derco Business Center and a heavy trucking business to the east Northeast this applicant this application proposes that the two new buildings will be utilized for the same permitted principal uses already existing on the property uh those existing uses that are permitted in the zone are office space assembling finished products completely with an enclosed building research lumber yard uh compliant outdoor storage restaurants this isn't intended to be a restaurant but child care and adult care facilities contractor facilities with compliant outdoor storage indoor wreck medical offices and veterinary hospitals retail sales of good and services and fiduciary institutions just like to highlight um kind of the interest that we're getting specific would be indoor rack dance crosfit those types of tenants are interested as well as um contractor facilities which we're going to talk about for that uh rear building um as indicated in Mr CO's June 12th uh memorandum um there is a 12,375 ft building in the rear lot that's proposed for essentially a contractor use which is a permitted principal use with outdoor storage uh and we'll describe the buffering and the requirements that the application believes we meet uh which is governed those permitted accessory uses are regulated and governed by section 1886 9 uh and again that 18,000 ft addition in the front uh again we're proposing uh permitted uses allowed in the zone pursuant to section [Music] 188-193 Flex spaces um but you know it wouldn't be uncommon that that would be uh operated by one tenant and it provides some small area for things like landscaper trucks tractors snow plows things like that um we have Mr Ford from vanle engineering our civil engineer to provide expert testimony uh John manino is our architect he is not here tonight I I let him have the night off along with Mr Dean uh although we do have uh substantial reports and plans submitted by both those professionals uh although Mr manino from seronera Architects is not here he did prepare some renderings so I would ask to circulate and introduce A1 which is a front it's the elevations colorized elevations that are already submitted of the two buildings um so instead of um going through a lot of witnesses tonight we thought we'd just stick with Mr Ford uh we do have our planner here dby Lawler in case there's any planning questions um but since most of the comments are technical in nature I would first ask to pass this out and then move on to Mr Ford [Music] I do you want to take that and then maybe we'll just pass this down yeah all right we're going to mark this for introduction ladies and gentlemen is A1 this is a rendering from U um Carmine SE samera Architecture Firm uh for building a and Building B it appears to be dated and you would be a better it appears to be dated August 26 2021 is that correct Mr Mr ogrodnik that's correct John manino is the architect on this project and he had signed and sealed these drawing signed but okay we're going to mark this A1 for identification [Music] [Music] we also have John viiga here uh on behalf of the owner so if we want to swear in everybody that's here that we do one at a time Mr Ford for up yes where intim ton truth the whole truth Michael thank you Michael Ford f d with Van CLE engineering 32 Brower Lane licensed engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey here before the board before and my credentials haven't changed since the last appearance okay unless there's any objections we accept and welcome back okay um the the uh rendering I have on the um screen now is in existing condition rendering it's the market is sorry market is A2 and again just describe it and sure and date okay and and then also I'll be utilizing a rendering for uh proposed condition so the existing condition rendering is uh um illustration of the uh existing site outlined in yellow uh with a aerial image you can see the existing building well to the right side of the page is Route 206 um directly across the uh 206 from the site is a existing Church um the one access to the site is from 206 that is the only access we're not proposing any change changes to that uh which is on the right side of the plan although I will point out that this site fronts on that portion of Route 206 which was under construction um and set to be uh improved with uh concrete median down the middle of Route 206 with two lanes North and southbound so this while today um you know has unlimited access it would eventually be right in right out and then just to the south of the site just off the page is Valley Road where dot is proposing a Jug Handle so there'll be you know right out of this site immediately onto a Jug Handle and be able to proceed North on Route 206 you so you have the one access driveway that bless you um you see the existing building I'll say it's an L-shaped building with the parking in front of it uh in excess of 180 parking spaces exist today we're proposing with the two building additions uh 30 additional parking spaces uh you'll see in the front and I'll highlight it now so you can see where I'm when I refer to the front I'm referring to the front of the site just to uh the left of the entrance driveway is an existing parking area that seems I'll say as if it's out of place it's not uh a location where people park now in fact some of the board members may recall there was at one time a proposal for a daycare facility just to the south of this site that was going to gain potentially access through that area that that dot now owns that site where that daycare was proposed but there's this existing parking uh and then a lawn area between that existing parking and the existing building the original site of approval and proposal for this site as Mr grodnik referenced included a proposed building in that area that was never built so the initial anticipation was that there would be a building in this area and when we get to the proposed condition that's the subject of this application you'll see one of the two buildings is being proposed in that area that open lawn area so as you Traverse into the site with the access driveway to the right is an existing detention Basin it's a wet Pond you can see it on the aerial is a wet Pond and as you continue toward the rear of the site there's uh direct line of access driveway that that stops right now just before you get to the rear of the site that's an open wooded area along the railroad that's the site of the second building that's proposed the the contractor area yard that that we referred to where will be a proposal with outdoor storage the site has existing public water and sewer and now I think I would like to go to the proposed condition A3 this is the site plan as proposed with a colorized version of the proposed landscaping and again the aerial image uh depicting the remainder of the site that would be not uh changed or disturbed as part of the application so again in the front as you uh come in the existing driveway offer Route 206 an 18,000 sqt building is proposed that would utilize this existing parking that I referred to earlier that that's unutilized now in addition to some additional parking along the front of that building and a driveway at the rear of that building with parking as well and that would be accessed via this existing driveway that accesses the 180 plus parking spaces that exist today and service the existing 75 approximately 75,000 foot existing building and that's to remain unchanged if you continue to the rear of the site uh where that driveway is that I referred to earlier would be continued into the rear of the site where there would be a proposed Ed 12, 275,000 foot uh square foot building 12,275 square foot building uh which we're referring to as the Contractor Yard which could potentially be suitable for up to three tenants we're envisioning you know a typical landscape contractor or other type of local contractor utilizing this type of facility with parking along the front and side of that building and then a paved area beyond that which could be utilized for outdoor storage we've respected the enhanced buffers that are required for outdoor storage both along residential and non-residential uses so you'll see for example this is our closest resident at the end of Wolf Drive and and I'm highlighting Wolf Drive cesac here our closest resident we've uh provided for the 60 foot wide buffer even in that area where there's not outdoor storage in proposed and and I I'll refer to some of the review comments as I make this presentation and uh the results of some discussions we've had with the staff over the last 24 hours since we receiv received the review memorandums and that would include there a 10-ft wide paved area at the rear of the building uh mainly to a provide for access to uh man doors that are at the back of this 12,000 foot building the primary access for Drive-In doors and and main entrance is along the east side and North is to the left of the page here so East is at the top so when I refer to the east is it's this portion of the building I'm highlighting now A W facing away from the residents that would be the primary entrance but there are M doors proposed at the rear of the building uh suspect to address you know building code requirements for Access but with there's no intention to provide any opportunities for storage at the rear of the building in that 10- foot space and what I discussed with um both um the board professionals is that rather than have that a 10-ft wide paved area at the rear of that building we would just converted to a walkway on this area that faces our closest neighbor so there that takes away the opportunity for any outdoor storage and again we've we do provide for that 60 foot requirement as if there were outdoor storage there the the building setb could be as close as 50 ft we're not proposing to move the building closer to the resident just eliminate that 10-ft paved area and make it a pedestrian walk uh the outdoor storage would be at the uh most Northerly portion of the rear area that would be immediately adjacent to the rail line you can see on this rendering there's substantial plantings proposed to buffer both the residence and that outdoor storage area um there was a review memorandum that referred to a earlier plan that proposed only 40 plantings and a reference to the tree mitigation requirement uh We've um uh done an assessment applying the economic hardship waiver that would require 27 trees and this plan provides for all those 207 trees on this site to provide you know for buffering as well as Landscaping throughout the site so with regards to tree mitigation we're in compliance without the need for any contribution and as we've it's been our experience with a recent uh visits to the environmental commission it was the preference that you look to plant as many trees on your site as you possibly can and not uh look to make a contribution to the tree fund and we've endeavored and succeeded at doing that for this site so the two buildings would be serviced by the existing public sewer and water um the uh lighting would be in compliance with the town code uh to the extent that we need to Shield uh lights especially along our immediate residents and in this case we don't have any areas that are in need of lighting IM immediately adjacent to our closest resident so there's not lighting proposed there but we would comply with that uh aspect with regards to the concern of buffering and shielding the outdoor storage uh also part of the discussion with the boards professionals today uh that would be an enhancement and addition to the plan is a proposal and I'm highlighting it now along this area immediately adjacent to the parking at this rear storage area where there's a curb so you know there's no opportunity to drive past that area but we would enhance the buffer by providing a solid six foot high fence here so that any cars pulling into this area uh with lights on would be the the fence would effectively screen that that lighting and then similarly in the rear of the site again this short stretch of area adjacent to the um targeted outdoor storage area we would provide a 6ot high fence uh and I think this would also help um to delineate those areas besides the curbing being in those places the six foot high fence would help to um encourage the uh limitation of the outdoor storage being limited to those designated outdoor storage areas and there would be no creep if you will beyond the designated areas in that 60 buffer would be protected and preserved by that fencing uh with regards to storm waterer management we uh have an existing wet pond in the front of the site uh that actually was a project um designed by our office some 40 years ago that included on those plans the proposed building in this area um so we've documented how that existing basin would uh continue to provide for storm water management for both the existing and proposed expansion in that area and then with regards to the rear area where it's a wooded area today we've uh secured um a freshwood wetland letter of interpretation from njd dated January um of this year um after a 2-year U process of um securing that Wetland delineation approval so there are some Wetlands associated with the drainage feature and that's beyond the area of disturbance but there are two small pockets of isolated Wetlands that would require a gp6 which we'll have to secure from njd and as part of that Wetland permit there'll be a review of our storm water management uh facility design so continuing with how storm water is to be addressed at the rear area it's a pwn constructed Wetland with uh a permanent pool a low Marsh and high Marsh area as well as extensive plantings um Wetland suitable plantings and then surrounded by the Landscaping that I described earlier uh with regards to some other outside agencies I mentioned the freshw Wetland letter of interpretation we've also secured County approval uh dated August 25th 2022 and in October of 2022 we secured the sumerset union Soil Conservation District approval and then also process the fg3 storm water discharge during construction approval as part of that SCS approval and we're also in receipt of uh January 31st 2024 report from the Delaware and Ron Canal commission where their only remaining uh ask of the applicant is to provide uh copy or proof of Municipal approval because again you know that they only act after final County and Municipal approval but since the only you know remaining condition is a municipal approval their letter goes on to describe how they're satisfied with all of the other aspects of the project design relating to their jurisdiction including storm water runoff um and then what I'd like to go into is our uh professionals reports we're in receipt of a May 8th 2024 review memorandum from Christopher wieger the Chief Fire Marshal of the township has a multiple uh bullet points in it and the applicant would agree as a condition of approval to address each and every one of those bullet points to Mr Winder satisfaction then with regards to other professional reviews we have a June 12th 20124 review memorandum uh by Mr kise as Mr uh AG grodnik indicated uh the applicant is in complete compliance with all the bulk standards of the zone that is the lot area setbacks uh impervious coverage limitations so there's no variance relief required um there are on the last page of uh Mr Ko's review page three um uh some requests for some clarification as to we're addressing specific items I've already spoken to the tree mitigation we we've applied the economic hardship waiver and since our appearance at the environmental commission I believe it was back in April uh we have uh already actually revised the plan and made that submitt it's on Civic clerk it's part of the record that enhanced landscape plan that went from the 40 plantings to 207 and all the tree mitigation uh plantings being provided on site the buffering for the outdoor storage I think there was some concern about the proximity of this paved area behind the building being closer to the residence and the side of the residence we've provided that 60 foot area and I think that simple conversion of that 10- foot paved area to a say a six foot wide walkway along the rear of that building in this area that I'm highlight now uh immediately adjacent to our neighbor for pedestrian access would uh limit the and and exclude that area as an opportunity for any outdoor storage and then I've described the enhanced plantings that have been provided since the environmental commission meeting and the addition this evening of the proposal for the six foot high fence in the area I'm highlighting now U directly behind our closest neighbor and directly to the side of our closest neighbor along the um paved area of the Contractor Yard um we would comply certainly with any state statutes with regards to make ready EV stations as well as um compliance with and the DCA Statewide EV ordinance uh relating to parking I mentioned we have an existing 75,000 square foot building approximately with a over 180 spaces that has functioned uh and serviced the tenets in use of the property for uh nearly 40 years without issue um I would bring to the board's attention even this rendering shows the underutilization and and you know I haven't done a study but my um personal experience of driving up and down Route 206 has never s seen an abundance of cars at the site so that existing parking uh satisfies the existing use of the building uh for these many years and then with regards to the two proposed areas both The Contractor Yard where we're proposing uh 17 parking spaces 10 along the east and seven along the south side of the building uh that provides for basically uh one space for every 800 square feet which would be an excess of what the contemplated uses would require for that building and again it wouldn't because they're all new spaces wouldn't rely on any existing uses for that additional building area and then with regards to the front building the 18,000 ft building there are 23 new parking spaces that are proposed there and that's not including the additional about 20 spaces that are in that existing parking area that was in front of that proposed building that was never built immediately along Route 206 so um it's our opinion that the proposed parking is um more than adequate for both the existing and proposed conditions and again we there's a review memorandum and I'll get to it in a minute um uh by your board engineer we would provide specific parking summaries for both those two proposed buildings that illustrate that the proposed uses of those two buildings would be satisfied by the new proposed parking so there's no Reliance on the existing um parking for the new uh buildings and then lastly before I move on to the board Engineers review there is uh last item number seven uh in Mr K's memorandum that uh the no idling parking sign shall be installed in compliance with state regulations and again the applicant would agree to that state requirement as a condition of uh any approval the board May Grant so next I'll go on to uh June 12th 2024 memorandum by penon Associates Mr Mayu I've had a brief discussion with Mr Mayu today uh regarding the number of comments uh we would agree to address each and every one of those comments to Mr Mayo's satisfaction including all of the you know very um detailed uh items regarding storm water management uh to his office satisfaction and again uh I think I mentioned this earlier uh because of the isolated Wetlands that were located at the rear of the site and the need for njd permit the stormw management which has already been reviewed by DNR Canal commission found satisfactory and and would be you know ultimately uh vetted through your engineer is ALS o going to be uh reviewed by njd as part of that D permit and perhaps I'd take a breath at this moment and see if there's any specific items or issues or concerns that the board may have or the professionals um there there were maybe before just we did receive another memorandum today from the environmental commission uh dated June 12th 202 4 um first uh I'll go to page two page one outlines the items that were reviewed page uh two starts uh with the upper paragraph at the top with uh some four comments uh there's a reference to the a need for an onm manual for the NJ the storm Water Management Facility of course that's also already included in the board Engineers requirement and as the board knows on any application and Land Development now there's a requirement not only that we have that operation and maintenance manual for the stormw management facilities but so that it doesn't get lost uh in some file cabinet it's uh been the policy and I think the requirement of the town that Mr OG grod's office would be required to uh record uh restriction at the county clerk's office so any future tenant or owner of the any future owner I should say of the property as part of a title search would have that uh need for storm waterer management um recognized and and uh made uh known to them uh and then there are other uh comments regarding storm water management in the uh environmental commission memorandum what I'd suggest is a number of these are I think are redundant and overlapping with with Mr uh mayu's comments and and we would agree to address um those comments to Mr mayu's satisfaction as part of the stormw management related comments in in his report and again subject to njd approval um there's some I'll get some specifics now for example the existing storm water management Basin that exists at the front of the site today that's functioned for nearly 40 years and you can see it's wet in this aerial image um an enhancement has been suggested to provide uh at least for 50% of its perimeter um some landscaping or plantings that would be more native and not require maintenance and right now I think the part that's mowed now is along the driveway and perhaps along Route 206 but the other portion that encompass is the 50% and and lower areas along the edge of the Basin we're talking about the first 10 ft beyond the wet Pond would be planted with say a native grass uh that wouldn't require maintenance that would help with the ongoing Perpetual um protection and uh and and lower the maintenance costs of the of the Basin and enhance it uh to bring it more in compliance with with the current Rags um lastly sorry I said I would take a breath but I'm not out of breath yet so I'm going to uh the site soils we did extensive soil testing found that the soils on site class uh uh qualified for D soil classification not requiring recharge So that obviously by the wet Pond both the existing wet pond and the proposed wet Pond by virtue of it having permanent pools doesn't promote infiltration um there's and the diesil classification carries with it a um not a need for a recharge and with regards to water quality we're proposing uh mechanical treatment devices in the paved areas um in the rear area what I discussed with Mr Mayu this today uh in in response to his uh suggestion in his review memorandum that while you might not be required to provide for recharge can we find some opportunities to to propose improvements that would offer opportunities for recharge that is even though it's not a requirement um and and the site soils might not be uh something that would promote it um but there would be perhaps opportunities to provide provide for recharge and uh some of the opportunities we discussed and I've discussed this with the applicant just prior to uh coming over here this evening and that would be right now we proposed uh in the area in the front building some minor additional pavement that's proposed as standard pavement what we can do is convert that to porest pavement with a stone bed on it so that any Ren rain runoff that uh transfers over those paved areas with standard pavement would have no opportunity to recharge by converting it to porous pavement with a stone bed under it it would give that opportunity uh for recharge and what we would propose to do is have an underd drain under that stone area that would be connected to one of the local catch basins on site with a cap on that underdrain so that that is we would promote this uh infiltration and not utilize the underd drain until if and when there was some issue uh with the sight soils perhaps or the functioning of that recharge opportunity and that would be in this parking area along the front of the front building along Route 206 at the rear of that building those parking spaces so that surface area and then similar at the rear building the uh parking spaces immediately adjacent to the south and east side of that building would be porsc pavement with that underd drain thus providing for that recharge opportunity um to promote some groundw recharge of stormw runoff now I'll take a break and see if there's any specific comments or questions I could address May here thank you Mr chairman [Music] um as as Mr Ford has testified uh we spoke earlier today and discussed uh the key items contained in our review letter of June 12th [Music] um we agree with this testimony um that with the addition of the items that he's offered this evening such as converting proposed parking areas to porest Paving um to adding a landscape native landscape area along 50% of the existing wet Pond um and we talked about a minor change to a Aigner along the proposed wet pond in the rear correct um with all those those additional agreements that was just testified this evening our office believes that every item can be worked out and addressed with with Mr Ford's office and I and I would also add that with the items that Mr Ford just mentioned in our opinion this would address the concerns of the environmental committee as well as stated in their letter that we just received this morning but we reviewed the letter and the items that Dave mentioned I believe Mr Ford's suggests Solutions are an appropriate way to address those comments as well okay of course thank you Mr chairman Mr Ford good evening um thank you for addressing my comments uh just what I'm going to be asking for is a little bit of a better clarification as we had spoken earlier today when looking at the proposed outdoor storage area those lines are not exactly clear they they get pretty pretty close to where circulation can occur especially with all all the parking um I believe it's going to put uh make some challenges for the zoning official to um to make sure that your that you know future tenants are in in compliance and also in terms of ensuring that emergency vehicles have access to get to the different parts of the yard uh what I would ask for as a condition of approval is to make it very clear of which areas in terms of circulation are going to be free of storage and and what some of those um areas are in terms of how far the contractors can go in terms of of of putting the different uh storage in those in those areas those are my my main concerns to to the board is to make sure that that gets addressed uh just so that there's some expectations of uh if the township ever has to go out to the site uh that there's that there's no surprises other than that I have I have no other questions or concerns yeah we we would we would agree to that and uh we could uh right now on plan sheet make it up part of the record we could recite the we already actually have on plan sheet three the buffer requirements so it actually recites the entire section of the code on there and if there's not only delineation of areas but to help uh with the zoning department re in addition to delineating those areas on the site plan we could recite those sections of the code that apply to outdoor storage and the limitations of outdoor storage as approved by the project so that if uh even years from now they pull out the site plan it' be clear thank you um if I may to to help with Mr K's comment there there's a emergency vehicle turning plan and I think maybe what Mr Co maybe what you're looking for is some way to make sure that that vehicle path is unobstructed in the future correct right that would be part of uh our satisfying Mr winegar's comments as well yes so how would we effectuate keeping that path we uh would delineate areas and cite them as uh no parking so some striping correct signage on the plan yes in the actual correct okay thank you thank you board members thank you Mr chair actually uh the striping was what I was going to suggest for the delineation of all the parking areas makes it easy to determine what's in what's out of of the storage area I think that's a pretty easy uh ask just for my vations now was the original plan had a weet Pon why are we using a wet Pon in the back as is it for engineering reasons versus a regular detention base and what's the reason for a wet Pond uh the the new RS have specific requirements with different types of bmps you know best management practices and for a site with um lacking suitable permeability for an infiltration best management practice or a high groundwater table the pwn constructed Wetland is the is the method of choice it's really the only method you're left with okay I just want to put on the record so people might wonder why yeah uh just and the other there's an engineering reason why it yeah that's the engineering aspect and uh from an environmental standpoint as opposed to um you know the the old uh grass line manicured lawn Basin with concrete lowf flow Channel we've moved away from them for years now and this is you know providing for a better uh Aesthetics even though this is you know obviously it's in a Contractor Yard it's not in a public view but you know uh lower Perpetual maintenance better water quality management for the storm water runoff perhaps even opportunities for Habitat um but water management is fun is there a fountain in the pond in the center no this wouldn't not for the uh for the pond constructed Wetland no just just natural corre okay right there's plantings the permanent pool that's deeper in that is a small area and and similar to like a wetland As you move away from that they call it a low marsh and a high Marsh where the water depth is only a foot and perhaps 6 in as the permanent pool moves out over those low Marsh and high Marsh areas and again that's to provide for opportunities for plantings that are suitable for a wet feet if you will do plants have feet sure wet Roots uh just a couple more uh is there a trash encloser for the back area I didn't see one located we didn't propose anything back there and that was one of the comments and I think we would add one so there's a designated a area even though it's in a Contractor Yard and buffered around it but it would be a typical you know wood fence trash enclosure that we would place at the rear so you would work with Mr me correct plan okay um and my last uh thing this is the the landscaper in me that plows snow and actually 20 years ago I used to plow snow at this site so I know it very well um so you're you're putting fences or proposing fences in the in the back area to delineate that and the neighbor I wouldn't suggest that you give six to seven feet room because the plows they're going to push the snow over that curb and and damage the fence so you got to leave some room for snow to move um so that would be my suggestion not to put it right on the curb good suggestion um and my last thing is is there a possibility on that back area to maybe to since you have some large grass areas maybe to put a a rain Garden or two if Poss Poss way to help with the recharge um in the landscaped area for example behind the proposed building yeah that big grassy null there yeah we can provide plantings in there that would provide for opportunities for recharge again for storm water management if you will we can work with Mr Mayo's office perhaps that would be one of the other opportunities for recharge if if we can uh you can work it out if we can you know make that area also drain into the deten Basin uh to the extent it doesn't recharge it would continue on to the Basin like it normally would and perhaps the roof leaders from the building could be discharged into that area to provide storm water that would go into an area that would have a recharge opportunity very good thank you that's all I have anyone else I've got a couple of questions but I don't know if it's going to be for you Mr Ford or we're going to have to bring her planner up because in the application Mr Ring I think you alluded to with the the various uh uses I think that there's a couple that have me a bit concerned if and I'm just wondering if it would be um if a client would be willing to remove a couple of those because I think there would be more additional work done mainly Child Care Centers and restaurants cuz I'm not sure we have a layout here that's appropriate for those that they may need you know some additional consideration I mean there's certainly no no uh anticipation for restaurant we talked about that with our traffic engineer we would have to come back for an amended because the trip generation and the parking demand um child care though I mean we have a a disability uh child disability Center that that's taking up I think two large spaces there uh the organization um me school is called what is it called methi school methi school yeah so there actually is a a component of child care that's that is being used on that site um so we would you know prefer to have you know since it is a permitted use um you know the ability to to uh to you know to conform with with that requirement and the building in the back I mean obviously it's anticipated for contractor's yards but we could see that being a CrossFit we could see that being a brewery things like that um so I I don't have a problem with um agreeing to come back for a site plan if in there's a long shot that a child care facility would would want to go into what's essentially an industrial Flex complex um but it is a permitted use so um so either child care or food retail food yeah I mean the I mean the restaurant there's this is not a site that's suitable for a restaurant um but again there is a sort of a child care facility there um and it's been operating for many years it's without any incident yeah I'm just more concerned about you know the the two new buildings because between parking and activities and I was going to make a comment about that one application because I remember Mr Bernstein made me recuse myself of that one but but there are you there are a lot of activities going on with what we would consider more of a I'll call it a full-size operational daycare sure you know so so that again that's just where my concerns are but if be willing to make that a condition to come back applicant's willing to make that a condition then we do yeah okay come back for a site plan if you have a child care center in the new building in the new building Child Care retail food facility or retail food just if if I may Mr chairman there's already a requirement in this Zone although child care and adult daycare is a a principal permitted use it does require site plan approval so and and the reason for that is obviously some of the concerns we have here the board would obviously want to contemplate PL how a Child Care Center or adult daycare center could function which they're they're not addressing any of those things so this this approval if this became an approval wouldn't wouldn't be considered um a site plan approval for for that use so if they came to the planning zoning department put in a zoning permit application we would automatically tell them that they would need s plan approval uh I'm assuming whatever is currently there had received the approvals in the past but there's no other part of the uh current site as far as we know that's contemplated those uses this is an fi [Music] okay okay there's I think microphone sorry um you know there were a lot of storm water comments in the EC memo we obviously didn't go through them all but you're confident that they're addressed with the the considerations that Mr Ford talked about based on the additional items Mr Ford testified this evening yes okay thanks okay I have a quick question oh okay go um from the proposed building in the front to the existing commercial building what's like the approximate uh space between at the closest point I guess in the one corner to the existing commercial building me it looks like it's like 50 this space right here between building it's 60 ft 60t yeah I guess there there's no intention of having any larger tractor trailers to go to the back of that point uh there's no loading docks proposed on either of the two buildings okay that's not an issue then no thought if there was a big truck then wouldn't be able to back you hear that no loading docks appreciate it thank you okay any other comments I have a motion open to public all moved second all in favor all right I if there's anyone from the public please come up state your name and address for the record as to this witness y to ask the Mr Ford any questions regarding his testimony Susan Gula for Hunt Club Road um first on the contractor's yard lot what is proposed being stored there what type of items are you taking Stone mulch right yeah like like I said are it's not a very big area the 12,000 foot buildings is not a large building and it's set up to have up to three tenants and our expectation is it would be a local contractor like a landscaper that would have uh his you know trucks with the trailers with Lawn Equipment uh where he could service you know bring them inside and then have some materials um stockpiled in the uh area the lawn the the yard area um that wouldn't be that would be really just for quick access it wouldn't these are all materials that cost money to store so the the goal would not to be to store a lot of materials it would be to be able to store materials so you could address a customer need without uh a supply chain issue okay so we're not talking putting in salt domes or something uh that would carry with it different requirements in order to do that a diff a structure to cover that now okay the parking along the two sides of the building are we talking employee or customer cars or tractor trailers what type of parking the uh all the buildings as we said already don't have any loading docks so they're not uh set up to Service uh a tractor trailer they have Drive IND doors with parking located on either either side of the drive-in doors and the main man door entrance along the front of the building I'm highlighting now on the east side of the rear Contractor Yard building and then parking along the souths side too um that would be targeted for employees um typically a Contractor Yard wouldn't have customers necessarily coming there and then the front building is similar set up with again this one is actually with the drive-in doors at the rear they would not they would be on the side opposite Route 206 and one of the aspects we thought that was uh a positive that came out of the application aside from the um utility of an existing improved site that is the existing parking and adding potential additional tax generating um buildings complying with the zoning code but this building in the front uh to the extent it does it would actually block the existing straight shot view you have from Route 206 and those Drive IND doors are at the rear okay um this is a a very unusual lot um that point what is in on inside that point not on the lot is that part of the residential area yeah right there correct yeah there's a there's a there's a paper street right away that the township owns right in here that would you know at some point in time perhaps have been a plan to extend Wolf Drive we're not proposing any access driveway to Wolf Drive and and that right now that's just uh it's not our property and it's it's vegetated okay so that access to that area I don't know how wide it is it's only between that point and the sideline there's no access from example an emergency access from the railroad side or anything like that there there is no access along the rail to this property now so it's just however many feet it is between that point and the site you're saying right here yeah right there right right that's where our driveway is proposed to access this rear area correct okay you mentioned you took care of uh headlights and building lighting for the neighbors for example on Wolf Drive um what about noise is there any like backup warning beepers that type of thing or will the buffering do you feel the buffering will handle some of that well the the the town code um presumably uh takes that into consideration by the enhanced buffer that they require for an outdoor storage area uh right now in the I2 Zone the the buffer is well like I said already the building setback in that area is only 50 ft this building the required building setback this this Contractor Building is 70t from the property line so so 20 feet more than the the required standard and the code in in the buffer requirements for outdoor storage uh severely expands that parking area or that that buffer area adjacent to residential areas as opposed to a 20 foot buffer in other areas it's three times that or a 60 foot buffer and yes I would say that that is adequate and is a Fallout of this design the the the rear of this building where there's very limited activity just the man doors for Access is primarily what is immediately adjacent to our closest neighbor okay thank you you're welcome good evening Grant colmer Taylor Avenue uh my my question is just about the drainage and making sure that the neighbors that your closest neighbor on Wolf Drive isn't going to get your storm water management so I'm looking at the revised drainage area map area three runoff travel path yeah the the the runoff right now well the the part of the landscape buffer that we're proposing to to buffer our closest neighbor uh is a burm so that would cut off any storm water that and not allow it to drain from our site onto the neighbor site and there's swes along the I'll call it the east side of that burm the direct runoff to the Basin and toward that vacant that right away that paper street that we just descri two feet from the elevation tables does that sound right um the existing and proposed Contours are shown on the grading plan okay uh what on that thing uh on that drainer map says time to a time of concentration 6.10 minutes what does that mean as an engineer that's uh utilized as part of the stormw analysis to develop High graphs that um are used in calculations to develop the the runoff flows Peak flows could you give me does it mean six minutes and all the water will be gone no it means uh from the most hydraulically remote point the start of that path to the end of that path is six minutes is a six minutes six minute travel time is two feet sort of an elevation buffer enough for a huge storm I guess I'm just going to cut right to the chase uh well it I think the burm is higher than 2 feet and and there's there's it's it's really depends 88 I'm looking at the grading map right now 88 is the low point and at the high point it's 90 for where the burm is and then it goes down to 88 and then 86 it's even a higher burm over here well to answer your question it really depends on the drainage area in this case the there's a really limited drainage area it really is only this lawn area that drains in that area because there's curbing along the entire perimeter of the paved area that directs runoff not it it it precludes runoff from draining into that grass area and directs it to onsite catch basins that then discharge into the Basin uh those are those big circles a b and c okay thank you okay I don't see anyone else no now I do Maria Janu 6 720 East f Avenue Manville New Jersey I'm also Hillsboro Township property owner block 86 lot 3 2155 camplan Road um what is what is the uh size of the the currently existing uh building on the property uh it's approximately 75,000 Square ft and what's it being used for uh it's multiple uses is with multiple different tenants there's not a single one oh okay uh uh comments were made that there were originally there was supposed to be a building another building built uh um on on the property when was all of this originally done how old is this this project it's as I recall more than 30 years and that other building was proposed in the area where we're proposing the building along 206 and I think is I testified earlier to that as evidence of that is this existing parking area now that would have been in front of that building that's not utilized at all for any of the existing building in tenants is is that mentioned in the original uh application that there was supposed to be another building or it's based only on the parking no the the the plans uh showed the proposed building okay where uh there's there's uh freshwater wetlands on the property and that's where the building in the back is going to be built in that area yes two small isolated wetlands and then uh a portion of wetlands is along this Westerly portion where we're not proposing any development we what where we are not proposing any disturbance or development okay did you say that that you already have per permits from the uh New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for the freshwater wetlands uh after a lengthy process um processing the freshw Wetland letter of interpretation that was issued in January of this year and we uh need the gp6 for the filling of the isolated Wetlands okay so the only thing that you got was the letter of interpretation you don't have you don't have uh permits yet no we don't okay um what about the county did you say you have permits or whatever you require in regard to the what is it Soil Conservation um well there were two elements there first with the county I testified that we have an August 25th 2022 approval from Somerset County this project doesn't front on a County Road and has no adverse or impacts to a County facility then we also are in receipt of an October 14th 2022 approval from the somerset Union Soil Conservation District okay I think you had said that the drcc the Delaware Ron Canal commission um do they have to give uh approval or they just basing it on uh other uh agency approvals no the Delaware RAR and Canal commission did a an extensive review there were at least two reports we received from that and the most recent report in response to the materials we submitted was issued on January 30th 2024 and the only comment they have now that they're requesting in order to process their final approval would be a proof of Municipal approval planning board approval from Hillsboro Township okay planning board okay [Music] um all right thank you you're welcome okay anyone else from the [Music] public hi I'm Stacy paus uh I live at 18 eert drive on here um thank you for putting this all up and I'm sorry I was late I'm a principal so that's what I'm doing is closing out the school um I'm curious about my property is at the original structure so um I'm happy that these two structures are kind of far away from that but what had happened um in the other was that uh when this was originally built the setback was so far that it actually took uh to our properties uh there was about four or five property owners who were looking at warehouse backs so the setback that you have in the new structures um where you're having a burm and things like that seems so much more responsible and so much more helpful um for those new neighbors I am concerned about the water that would come down too I appreciate that there's uh water and retention moving from that area as well um my question is is that uh what is going to happen to the already existing structure is there any and I'm sorry I missed my the beginning of this but is there anything that's going to happen to the original structure especially behind it that abuts our property uh there's no proposed changes to the existing building beautiful the property that would the new building is there going to be parking located in front by 206 still and then there's a new building there is that what I'm seeing that's correct okay and the maadam on the road in the parking lot it's yeah right up in the whole area there is very chewed up um the existing structure is that going to be pulled up or repaved in any way uh we had a meeting in preparation for the evening uh and the applicant uh suggested that as part of the new project it's like that that would have to be repaced or rehabed yes the only reason I suggest that and and uh why it's good well we mentioned the snow but there's so much curbing there that it's a very difficult uh um area for everybody to maneuver including the buses for methany when they come in and they're dropping off the adult daycare um it's just a lot of curbing that just seems superola I'm not sure why it's all in there but I go in there a lot and um my other concern is that the attachment when you're looking at the back of the structure into the new area um where is how wide will that access be in human terms it's just hard for me to see it from here um so I'm just concerned when you actually go around the structure and you're driving through um on the uh keep going back sorry I love that you have the cursor there thank you uh go back no not to the new I'm talking the back new structure there by wolf okay yes oh thank you you're the best okay so now go up where the green trees are and then that's going to be your drive way now going from the old structure to the new structure correct how wide is that is 25 ft good Engineers are not good at is usually so my concern is is that when you have the old structure it widens out there with the maadam and that's where it starts bumping into other property areas that's not mine but that's I just I'm looking for that um concern like just to make sure that we don't have the same mistake that was made in the '90s with this setback and that people are looking at warehouse backs or they're looking at garbage dispensing it's just it's there's so much Greenery there that we can do this responsibly to make it look like everybody can have a structure here that we can live with but that it's not going to be somebody's backyard who's hearing the 3:00 garbage cans being opened and and picked up um it's just for you know for me for quality of living because in the summer I want the windows open and I made one call to this property owner a long time ago and said I'm hearing the garbages and I swear it was changed the next week so I know that they responsible if it was you God bless you but you know but I'm just saying it was good it was very good yeah it was you I swear it was you yeah so is there any um outdoor storage that's going to have any smells that we're concerned about anything like that that would be there because that would be a concern I'm always outside is there anything on that be a zoning our Envision is is raw materials that are like uh if a a plumbing contractor were there he'd have a perhaps a pallet or two of pipe um more benign materials even the landscape materials I I have a trouble with the judge's smell cuz mine's not good but like I like the nine b n was good yeah is a like a pile of mulch I don't I don't think it's offensive so it will be a pile of mulch well I'm saying for a light landscape contractor might have a little pile of mulch that he could use for a small little job like I said earlier the the the uh proper business model wouldn't be a it's it's not a material supply uh Contractor Yard it's a it's a contractor that has some materials on on on hand so they can reply to a customer need without a supply chain issue yeah so I don't I think that the all this is uh controlled by zoning and and I think the code already has in it just just like there's a noise ordinance there's a David a smell ordinance ordinance that's why I asked may I Mr chair please still I'm not going to touch that one uh so when we start talking about um the storage of mulch and things like that there there could be other regulations that that kick in correct from other agencies uh even including fire and there might be some requirements to to do um like the proper storage bins and and things like that so your your testimony is obviously important because it it helps us understand the limits but also the idea of of um what's permitted as a accessory well outdoor storage it's accessory so the other thing that the zoning office can use is measuring that as as well but the more information that we could get especially when it comes to the compliance and things like that the the more references that there are in the plans that will help us administratively and enforce this and enforce it properly so that there's no surprises when um you know tenants Tenants come in or when a tenant starts to do something um um something we'll have to revisit perhaps each time a tenant comes in and proposes something something different and and working with the property owner uh as well uh the management company and everything it it's back to you Mike I can go now yes okay I just want to jump in if he was gonna answer anything no um you don't want to be quiet right um the 206 we're still only going to have the one entrance exit correct it's awful because of people trying to get in or out of there it's very difficult and it's the best place it can be but it's still extremely difficult and now with the church added across the street it's been adding a lot um uh do how much more traffic cars do you anticipate being added to the structure as compared to what it is now is that a way to ask that question there's the I think I best way to answer it is this this is has it's under jurisdiction of dot with the access driveway and there's no change in traffic that would trigger a d permit as part of this application and yes we're I don't know if you were here earlier we I'm sorry I wasn't I I'll watch it on the re we were we were we're in that are you know we're in that area where do is is got a project for the widening um this project ref you know uh respects that and this driveway would become a Right in right out driveway so you'd only be able to make a right out there'd be a concrete median down the middle of Route 206 and and as part of the improvements that the do is making no left turn right I understand that there there there would be a Jug Handle coming through in this area where you make that right turn out of this site and then if you wanted to proceed North on 206 you immediately have access to that new drug Handle by Valley Road that's correct with the two stop lights that are there right um I just wanted to mention a safety problem last question last comment behind the existing structure the old structure literally there it's it's um when you're looking at the uh far left side by the new uh structure that you're looking at there's plenty of space for cars to get through and the driveth through I'm just don't where the cursor yeah go up that whole area right there easy to drive through and go through when you need to uh I know the trucks can make it through they've all made that through but my problem is it's extremely narrow where you come through past my properties why because I've lost my dog and I've had to drive through there I am concerned for that area because if you're going to add more here that whole spot is actually half of it is still grass so there's maadam on some spots but then it's a dirt path with grass in the back I just don't think it it's a a great way to access it I'm sure it's acceptable but it gets very muddy very goopy and um I can tell you there's a I know that there's a lot of trucks that go back there and they're tearing it up because I don't go there all the time and I get to see it especially in springtime so I'd make a recommendation to do something with the area there just so it doesn't add to flooding or make it more goopy and muddy we'll take a look at it usually there's a we in the past have put a chain across it because only supposed to be fire yeah I think for the definitely Ed though cuz I do see headlights yeah right for the record that's an existing um I think for all intents and purposes its primary function is for emergency vehicles um and we for it to the extent it needs some maintenance or upkeep um we can do that it would be nice yeah because there I mean there's people who are using it because I see the headlights when they come through so busy body okay that's all my questions thanks for that appreciate it thank you okay anyone else from the public okay thank you Mr Ford mik yes I have um no further questions for Mr Ford um I just wanted to mention one more thing that since our architect's not here we feel that this would um also aesthetically improve the site U you know it's a it's a structure that is you know definitely um been active for 40 years so we think it would be be a good uh Improvement visually from the highway uh onto the site which I think would be another a positive of this application variance free waiver free um you know it's just been a it's been a a successful site it it has a variety it's believe it's fully leased it's been nearly fully leased for decades so um the market you know there's a strong Market uh it's almost impossible to as Mr quise knows contractors yards are very difficult to um regulate difficult to uh get approved uh most contractor yards are existing and there's an incredibly high demand uh for contractors and uh we think that with all the existing contractors that are you know all local um this will provide a good appropriate land use for this industrial Zone okay was that your closing comments yes Mr chairman thank you Mr Burnstein uh I don't know if the board has any other questions I would indicate that the architectural renderings are not in evidence and that it will be left to engineering and construction and planning to ultimately address address the facades of all of the buildings because we have no testimony as to what this is so if Mr on grodnik is resting on Mr Ford's testimony I'll point out that A1 is not in evidence um I don't know if there's anything else any of the board members wish to address I have just one question since it really wasn't addressed and the owner didn't come up maybe he can uh with the proposed use of this property obviously the other property is uh more of a benign business use the potential of this being a Contractor Yard the hours of operation could become I not say problematic but a concern for the local neighbors as far as noise Etc um I don't know if there's any way we could uh ask that they not start at 6:00 a.m. Etc Monday to Friday or more like a seven or I don't know what kind of restrictions we could put on because they are do a butt right next to the the backyard of a house even though they're relatively there is a buffer there and there'll be outside storage we certainly anticipate that these uses will be a single shift um you know 6:00 a.m. to 9900 p.m. you know is would think typic you want to try later and earlier well maybe we can have the owner come up and testify just to what his come on you got to get sworn in state your name for the record and and get and have Mr foryd walk out of the chair for exchange seriously oh [Music] guys John Bia spelled v as in Victor i ceg l a owner summon Associates one of um so my question obviously your your other properties are more benign 9 to5 kind of light use you know office complex Etc the introduction of a contractor you kind of opens up the a can of possibly anything going on so you are in Ali Zone but let's be sensitive to the fact that it does a butt up to some some houses in your West Side as we said we don't have any attend right now we we believe it will be typically the same type of tennis we have now that really don't start 4 six but I will give an example that if we have a landscaper who does snow plowing also if it's going to snow at 11:00 at night they may be back there if it's a snowplow contractor so it's hard to make that determination you know um well the snow plows is are plowing out your area also at 6:00 in the morning too correct right so I so I say more on on a 90% uh use you know Monday to Friday type weekends Etc I don't know what restrict you know what's the current hours of operation on most of your businesses to be honest with you I couldn't tell you I mean I think some guys do get there around 5:00 you know contractors start off early um right to get to their job sites buy Six if they're commuting so we have not received any complaints from Neighbors with respect to noise um we haven't got any complaints from the township on noise use so it's hard for me to put a restriction on it right now without knowing who's going to go in but I don't I could say 5:00 if you want to say that I don't anticipate it being a problem um I don't see it being heavy diesel trucks that you're going to start up that are going to be noisy on it Mr Co is there anything that we could add that would make if there's were complaints that we could use to or just ask them politely to uh not start so early we're really good at asking please and thank you um I'm trying to think of past I mean my experience is more with the board of adjustment when when we have very very strict hours of operations in those kind of conditions and it's very much uh spelled out when it comes to the planning board and permitted uses it's a little bit less less common um you know I I think having a a general range is is helpful and in terms of how we would administer it uh and working with the with the property owner it just it depends on the language that ultimately the board decides to put as a condition approval in order for us to administer it Mr grodnik would your client agree that if the township received complaints as to noise and hours of operation that they would work with the township and if a the township officials believe that there can continues to be a problem that your client will come back to the planning board to reopen that issue at a future date yeah I don't have a problem with you know kind of a good faith uh language try to work it out first and if you can't come back correct yeah that's no problem okay thank you thank [Music] you anyone else is to him want to ask true now that you got sworn in you're you are in the hot seat anyone from the public would like to come up and ask this witness any questions on the testimony testimony on his testimony that he just provided you're free to do so okay I see no movement motion to close public so move second all in favor I I I with that Mr chairman uh Mr ogrodnik has rested you have this application before for you you have the indication from the testimony of Mr Ford that the applicant will comply with all the requirements to set forth in Mr K's report Mr mayu's report and to coordinate the uh issues raised by the environmental commission as they overlap with Mr mayu's report regarding storm waterer management the provisions of the of the proposal as provided as well as any in all conditions the applicant agreed to on the record okay do we have to open for one last bite at the Apple well I think we get that on then you can open it and then they can make the last comments okay make that motion second now again the public wants to have his last comments on the application but do we have to get a motion motion open yep okay motion to open back to the public for what we like to call the last bite at the Apple but I'll make that motion second all in favor I I okay if there's anyone in the public that would like to put any final thoughts on the record Pro or con to the uh application I see no takers so motion to close to public I make that motion to close second all in favor I okay motion Mr chairman the second so unless the board has any comments Mr lomber doy can take the role okay any final comments from the board members okay let's go to roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr vanderley yes Mr RIS yes Mr scobo yes Smith yes Mr Vitali yes um commit in the py yes Vice chair PE yes CH s yes thank you very much thank you thank you good motion to turn no not quite second no not unless you're going to be paying some other folks bills there no watch Mr phone screen but I think we will take a recess take a break we'll take a 10 minutes we'll reconvene at quarter of the next upep is Sherman track Phase 2 Eminem at Camp Plane Road LLC file number 23- pb-8 dmsp MS P time of decision today July 13th 24 block 86 lot 2.02 formerly known as block 86 Lot 21 and this is continued from May 9th of this year without further notice and counselor thank you Ira algart on behalf of Eminem at camplan Road I got hit the button go Irina Elgar on behalf of Eminem at camplan Road um as everybody knows knows this is an 88 uh unit low moderate income um development it's at the Sherman track um we are phase two um and I have tonight we have our planner that's going to be giving the planning testimony however I have um Mr Ron allenbach who will be back um to testify with regard to a few things that we just need to clean up I think from last time um first and for foremost uh there was a memo from uh Mr KO it was uh April 16th 2024 um there was one item there I think that we did not cover there was some overlap uh with Mr mayu's letter but there was one um issue that we didn't address with regard to the superintendent um and that we don't plan to have one but I'm going to let Mr Rach address that okay so we're gon just back before Mr Rach get warn in Mr chairman for the purpose of the record we have two certifications by absent board member examination of record eligibility to vote I have one from Mr Vitali who's indicated he reviewed the May 9th video I have one from the vice chair Mr P with the same uh having signed both they are now both eligible to participate in this application thank you thank you I do sure it's Ronald allenbach a l n b a c h so if I can direct you to uh Mr ky's memo of April 16th um I believe it's on page five uh item six correct um my understanding and and I Mr chairman I will not get into um what the state statute or state law requires uh just addressing the uh comment in the Redevelopment plan um all of our rental properties uh and we have several thousand units um throughout New Jersey all of them are equipped with a 24-hour 1800 number um for residents to call in event of emergency it does vary from site to site because typically we have our own maintenance division uh depends on normally somebody lives in the area that's whose number gets that who draws the lucky card to get the 24-hour calls uh but we do offer that to our residents uh no matter whether it's a affordable job or a market job uh and this will be the same right and the Redevelopment plan from what I understand uh gives us the option to have a superintendent unit but we choose not to so um with regard to the next item um so we had made some changes um in terms of the intersection of camplan and buffalo uh after reviewing there was a May 29th 2024 Memo from um Mr Bellinger which is I believe the Township's engineering director um also I think some comments from Mr mayhugh's uh May 2 letter we were looking at so we resubmitted um certain radiuses if you could bring those up and we can mark it what's the next 85 okay so uh this is get a description of what A5 represents and who the author is [Music] sure uh A5 is entitled uh preliminary final major site plan block 86 lot 2.02 Sherman track D Phase 2 uh I'm sorry Mr chairman it's three pages the first one is entitled School Bus circulation plan uh the second page is entitled uh fire truck circulation and the last one's entitled garbage truck circulation they are prepared by midlantic engineering Partners the civil engineer on the project and they are dated June 12th 2024 uh thank you Mr chairman um the first exhibit is obviously page one this is the school bus turning radius um what we did is we took a look at uh what was going on on site um and Al as well as offsite the bigger concern we had here here was not only just to provide the truck turning but there was a a comment raised by the engineer about fire trucks and their access uh to and from the site and crossing over the uh the center line and that was a concern uh although it's a fire truck and their Sirens are G you never know what's going to happen so we took the liberty of taking a plan and we're offering a couple of options here um we are offering to provide a shoulder uh an 8ft shoulder uh which will extend uh 130 ft to the east of our site and 90 feet to the west of our site um there's existing pavement out there now so this will take it from where if you're familiar with the area of driven down uh as you're coming down heading west the pavement kind of ends goes out around the bushes and then reestablishes itself uh once you get near the next uh residential property or commercial property across the street we're simply going to connect the dots so to speak and we will provide the 12ft travel Lane as well as the 8ft shoulder from Center Line uh that compiled with a 40ft radi es on the curves around Buffalo Street we also took the opportunity to widen Buffalo Street from 24 ft to 30 ft uh for 100 fet from the edge of pavement into our site and then it'll taper back down to the 24t width it's tapering back down obviously because we have the constraints of the the stream and the D Crossing but we believe that these three implementations the the shoulder the larger radi and The Wider pavement that's extra six feet on Buffalo Street uh will help with uh any conflicts that may exist if a fir TR is leaving the site and he does cross over uh the center line there is a shoulder there will be a shoulder there now so that'll help uh with that the cars can simply move over and allow access there was no issue with the garbage truck or the school bus that was just something the engineer asked uh for us to provide which we have provided thank you and um with regard to um it was Mr mayu's letter on page 8 uh it was dated the it was dated May 2nd um page 8 number five with regard to the landscape screen as well as uh number four sorry as well we were if you could address that yeah Mr chairman uh as you may recall we testified previously one of the comments uh talks about Landscaping on both sides of Buffalo as they uh join the Residential Properties which we agreed to do the other comment was potentially installing some Landscaping on the I'll call it the westbound side or across the street on campaign so when our cars are exiting the site the headlights don't go through um Mr Bernstein I'm not allow I'm not sure if I'm allowed to bring up Google Earth or what I'm allowed to use as far as exhibits here well we're we're we're already beyond your testifying as engineering documents you didn't you didn't draw nor have any part in so you know let's let's go for the whole en chalot and then we'll see where we go okay um as you can see on the screen uh when you're looking this is on wson property I'm sorry the wolson um as you look on the screen this is a camp Lane looking into the site uh which is the paper Street Buffalo Street um if you look you can see this uh survey marker on the left hand side is the front Monument uh for the property adjoining and then there's another hard to see there's another stake down here which is the other so our 60 foot RightWay goes from that stake to the right if you flip 180° you can see there's existing vegetation there there's a large mature tree there's some underbrush some of this underbrush will be removed for the OT shoulder but a a large portion of this existing vegetation will remain I will point out as well there's no dwellings or anything behind this house the dwelling is off uh to the west or to the left of the screen um so again we would rather than having a condition that says we will plant Landscaping we don't think it's necessary but obviously um we're going to be here in town and if there's issue we would agree to come back if Mr coise gets complaints come back and supplement Landscaping there but rather than just offering and putting something that doesn't really need to be there uh we'd prefer to work it out that way if that's acceptable to the township Mr alen back for the purposes the record could you indicate where you got this material from and of it thank you uh this image that you're seeing here is from Google Earth um street view uh in the upper leth hand corner it's indicated that the shot is taking at 2160 camplan Road hillsb New Jersey uh and this is a photo data of August 2023 but this is live Google as we sit [Music] A6 um Mr chairman I do have PDFs of these both views looking North and South if I do need to submit them to the township as a record sure I said let's get PDF A5 yes okay I also have hard copies of A5 if needed to hand them in tonight okay okay thank you um I think that's all we're going to address for the time being before our planner comes up so if anybody has questions from the board with or or the professionals um of Mr all start off Mr B do you want to put back probably A5 I I wonder if you could clarify um you mentioned that you're offering um to revise the intersection and I I apologize I can't read that from here but we can enlarge that zoomed in you want the fire truck one or doesn't matter just the fire truck I mean the intersection is going to be the same but if you want to use sheet to the firetruck sheet and zoom in at the [Music] intersection um I was I didn't get a chance to write down everything you were discussing you you I thought I heard you say 12 foot travel lanes and and an 8 foot shoulder but is that shoulder shown well the what's shown in yellow here is the additional widening to get the 12 the 20 foot from Center Line so as I indicated there's an existing edge of pavement that runs um east to west here and then it bumps out around that vegetation that we spoke about to the inlet and then as you get closer TOs towards the adjoining uh dwelling unit at this point here it's at this radi point it's 222 fet from the center line so we would just widen in this area here to provide that 20ft center lane or 20ft travel Lane 12ft travel Lane 8ot shoulder so you're proposing 20 feet of cartway on the westbound side westbound side from the center line correct and how much cartway are you proposing on the eastbound side that's remains unchanged and how much is that give me a second just wait for Mr Park Hill I don't know the number off the top of my head Mr may you correct me if I'm wrong this is a county road it's not it's Town camplain Road is Township doesn't go into [Music] Manville if you could um zoom in just a little bit more on the [Music] intersection am I reading this correctly um even with those 40 foot rad radi if a fire Tru is trying to turn into the site from the eastbound Direction which is the lower vehicle turning right into the site the trucks would still conflict if there was a vehicle waiting to turn out onto camplan Road correct correct and the other conflict is if a fire truck was leaving the site and going eastbound on camplan road uh a portion of that truck would cross over the stripe Center Line on camplan road as shown on your plan correct that's correct um I've uh just for the record this plan was sent to our office maybe 5:00 last night so we haven't had a chance to fully review it but we put eyes on it I forwarded this plan to the um fire chief in Hillsboro and asked him for his opinion on this latest plan [Music] um want to see if I can quote his comments that he wrote back to me um it was from Chief uh Wier he said uh Mr Mayhew having apparatus enter the opposing Lane to make access is not ideal this can create issues with other vehicles and will be exacerbated when dealing with snow piles along roadways um not quite sure where to take it from here um as we can as it was testified and as can be seen on this exhibit there's still potential conflicts um my other concern with this latest plan is the proposed curb is almost on Lot number one if uh maybe R you could high if you have the ability to highlight to help people exactly right at that Corner unfortunately Buffalo Street right away does not have a radius at that lower corner like it does in the upper corner um and so I would be concerned grading and and constructing that curb so close to that private residential property line I don't know if maybe it makes sense to shift Buffalo Street a little bit east to right provide a little bit of separation I don't know if it has to necessarily be centered yeah I think because Buffalo Street's currently a 60 foot right away so there is room there that uh instead of having you know it doesn't have to be exactly in the center you can shift it to the east to eliminate that potential conflict where you have the where you don't have the radi on the property um so you know I based on your testimony time be more comfortable shifting that that proposed cart way a little bit farther east the from the property line as far as the conflicts that still remain our office still believes that it's appropriate to provide a shoulder on the eastbound Lane and that will help facilitate limiting the type of conflict we've did a little bit of research in there camplan road is identified as a major collector in Hillsboro based on the road classification so we looked at other major collectors in Hillsboro the standard road is 12T travel with an 8ft shoulder um and we actually looked at other T intersections in the township um such as Joshua Road intersecting on Hillsboro Road Hillsboro is a major collector 12ft travel Lanes 8ft shoulders and so our office took the Hillsboro uh fire Tru and ran it through that intersection and there's no conflicts going in or out uh we looked at the millstone River Road and at the intersection with Hillcrest Road again it's a local residential Road intersecting at A T intersection with a major collector road again the major collector has 12-ft travel with an 8ft shoulder and again there's no conflicts with the fire trucks entering or exiting Hill Crest onto Millstone so I'm not sure why we would proceed with a project with known potential conflicts and proceed with improvements that are less safe than what were done elsewhere in the township um I'll leave it to the fire chief and and the board to decide but I think if their shoulders were added to camplain Road for a short distance this would help minimize those conflicts um Mr chairman and again I I would agree to to work with the the professionals to see you know one of the issues we had here is the utilities you know what we're trying to avoid you can see on the exhibit here there's a a large utility pole uh as soon as you make that right turn onto camplan uh providing an OT shoulder would require um that pole to be relocated and you know you never know what happens when you move one pole sometimes there's not slack and you end up moving more than one pole uh it's just not cost effective maybe there's a way where we could provide a partial shoulder so when a p truck comes around a corner it's wide enough for him the back end of the car the back end of the truck to still stay on a pavement uh and avoid that conflict and by the time he reaches the telephone poll he's back into the travel Lane so to speak I think there's a couple ways that we could um work with the township engineer and the Fire official uh and come up with a compromise that works uh for everybody without going through and just committing to uh 8ot shoulders up and down the road and um unnecessary cost of Culver to the west and utility polls or utility polls potentially to the to the east okay so so you'll find a way to eliminate the conflict yeah we understand you the conflict there we we get it and we understand why it's got to either if it's not eliminated be minimized you know instead of being three three to five feet over the line get it it's one foot over the line I I I would be reluctant because now we have something on record from the Fire official and God forbid that there's some type of collision there's a lot of liability out there we would agree to work with the with the fire commissioner there a condition of approval for the parties to work between the the applicant board engineer fire department to try to come up with a solution if you can't we'll have to address it at some point uh Mr ber if we can um we just had the township engineer only because he commented on in his memo as well [Music] well let me just say for the record that our office would be uncomfortable taking the liability of approving the plan with conflicts unless the fire officials specifically in writing approve that geometry no I I would be in agreement with it the Fire official needs to sign off on this thank you and we would agree to that condition thank you okay Mr Co because I think they started off with one of your [Music] comments back it did it's been it's been a while thank you um uh so just a clarification Mr albach um and thank you again for for addressing my question um so looking at the looking at the statute um it gives the option of having the superintendent uh or providing the 24hour uh service so you're just you're clarifying that it would be the 24-hour service instead of the superintendent correct that's correct okay thank you I have nothing further Mr chairman okay board members yeah I think I uh just reiterate I believe I said in the past I still think that it needs to be wider to because there's a lot of traffic going in and out of Manville at a lot of times whether it's the morning the afternoon in the evening to making that turn to the right with traffic backing up up if the shoulder was wider that's what my concern is it's almost similar to the turn the radius if it was opened up a little bit I think it would be better if it could be done thank you okay okay we have a motion to open to public all in favor I if there's anyone from the public that would like to question his witness on his testimony [Music] Maria Jan 6720 East f Avenue and I'm a property owner on camplan road 2155 camplan Road uh why is there not going to be a superintendent versus just having a 24-hour phone number I think the other uh uh development does the other development have a superintendent or is the same situation with a 24 hour number to call uh first question was why we decided for 24-Hour because that's our business model that's what we do at all of our sites and that's an option that we are allowed to choose and we chose that one and I am not familiar with phase one and what they do over there okay so um who looked at this uh entrance issue over here uh that there's still a problem and a comment was made that that that this is less safe less safe so why why is it why is it uh still a concern why haven't the proper changes been made to make this safe I think we've already come to an agreement that they're going to work with the professionals and more importantly the Fire official to get sign off on a I I'll call a an improved design why why can't something be shown before or you say we're going to work with why why can't the proper proper because the Fire official we would be more than comfortable Fire official is the expert on this and it this is just it's it's not uncommon to put conditions on this and allow uh applicants to work with Township U officials uh I think Mr Mayu had stated uh a few other locations in Hillsboro that uh are uh uh collector Road and things are done properly over there whereas this is a mess and it continues to be a mess and this is what's being presented to the public is that a question yeah why why we're still working on it we just said and and there's going to be a decision made uh on this today we don't know it needs to be looked at when I hear a statement that says less safe it needs to be looked at that it's trust us it's going to be looked at anyone else from the public S headshake no so thank you thank you thank you thank you um I'd like to call uh Miss Christine Kone Kone and Associates um who's going to be our planner for this evening okay Miss Kone say hi to Mike hello give the truth the I do Christine nazaro n a z z a r o Kone c f NE e business address is 125 Half Mile Road Sweet 200 Redbank New Jersey 07701 I'm testifying this evening as a licensed professional planner I've been testifying as such for about 28 years in the state of New Jersey now have been qualified here in Hillsboro and hundreds of other boards throughout the state I teach plan and Zoning courses for the Rucker Center for government services my licenses are current and valid and I'm also a courta appointed um special adjudicator in about three dozen communities for affordable housing I guess that's relevant right I would move that she uh be admitted as an expert in planning if that's uh appropriate no changes in your any licenses certification since the last time you were here no I just renewed them both so the aicp and New Jersey license are both good for another two years okay unless there's any objections we approve or we accept sorry you may continue thank you um so miss cfone um so you've taken a look at some of the review letters and also um what has been identified as waivers um if you could just go through some of the waivers and uh give us your opinion as to whether they're Justified yes of of course again for the record Christina zaro Kone good evening um it's nice to be here finally getting a speaking part on this application so this is what I would consider uh a substantially conforming application we need just a handful of waivers from the uh Township's uh Redevelopment plan for this property this is also what I would consider an important property this property as you know is providing for 88 units of low and moderate income housing so this is a 100% affordable project and the reason it's so substantially um important to your housing element and fair share plan is not only are you claiming credits for the 88 units but you're also claiming 75 rental bonus credits from this property so collectively this project is contributing 163 total credits of units towards your affordable housing element and fair share plan that was approved by the courts a few years ago so it's what I would consider um an important plan and of course in order to be eligible for rental bonus credits the site has to um you know have a a reasonable success or has to be um relatively likely to provide the affordable housing so it's it's a very important project again the density and the unit mix and the the propos unit type the bulk criteria as far as setbacks are all conforming this is a fairly constrained site it's about 31 almost 32 acres and only about nine of those acres are usable it is an existing treed site so we are asking for some relief um relative to the location of our detention Basin outfall structures we are um locating them in the Stream Corridor they have been contemplated um in our buffer averaging plan and as was testified by our engineer there is no other way for us to accomplish our stable drainage plan without having them where they are given the fact that this site is so constrained we really have no other no other areas to place them uh in addition to that we are asking for some relief from the stream Corridor Crossing out to Camp L I know there were some substantial discussions about having um access through the RPM or the adjoining site the the phase one of this which would also require a stream Corridor Crossing uh collectively as a team we felt that that would avoid to Pro have the traffic going out to campain avoid running the traffic through um a private development which is rpm and it also avoids having all the traffic from the two communities go to one point of access on Camp plane um the ordinance here in Hillsboro is very clear and when I read section subject to a waiver by the board having jurisdiction in a stream Corridor when subdivision or site plans cannot be designed in the matter set forth in subsection d36 above or in the case of a pre-existing lot with one or two family dwellings where the zoning officer determines there is insufficient room outside the stream Corridor for the proposed permitted accessory uses the following activities are permitted subject to conformance of best management practices so one of the things that are permitted at section 10 is detention or reten B retention basins and outfall structures that section of your ordinance goes on to read that waivers required for activities permitted in stream corridors stream corridors when prohibiting such activities would cause hardships new structures other than those permitted exceptions um and then it goes on to read that um in a stream Corridor only upon a demonstration by the applicant that prohibiting such activities would result in a hardship and or would conflict with a compelling public need as a 100% affordable project this is absolutely an inherently beneficial use and while we're not here on a use variance if we were on a use variance case in New Jersey it is abundantly clear that the um the use variants would presumptively satisfy the positive criteria because it promotes the public good and the general welfare so I think from a planning point of view we can certainly agree age that this is a compelling public need to provide for affordable housing so as far as those first two waivers I I see um that we are actually meeting the intents of your ordinance and I think your ordinance actually sets up a very nice structure to allow for both the detention um Bas and outfall structures um and if I could also we had agreed at some point to uh provide pedestrian access into phase one from phase two yes um so and that was a request from the board so we were looking to see if that that was justified as a waiver as well yes that's number six on my list working my way down last jumped ahead but I'll get there I'm a little jet lag so I'm sorry if I'm not my usual Speedy Pace but I'm sure our court reporter loves jetlagged planning testimony because it's definitely a bit slower than it usually is so those are the two I'm sort of grouping them together those were the first two for the stream Corridor the next um two I'll talk about is the tree removal mitigation um now there is a requirement in the um in the Redevelopment plan that we have 60% contiguous uninterrupted conservation areas and or open space where we're providing 66% so we absolutely exceed not just meat but we exceed the requirement in the Redevelopment plan for contiguous uninterrupted conservation and open space so to the extent that is not the controlling governance and we have to seek the relief for the tree removal maximum and the tree removal mitigation we will in fact sink those waivers um the ordinance at section 188 163b has a governor of 20% for tree removal and we are at 37% and that is simply a function of the existing condition on the subject property uh that was granted as a waiver in in accordance with the phase one um I believe they were at about 34% per their resolution of approval so that is simply a function of without that relief you're not developing this site which gets back to this being an important part of your housing plan that was vetted as being a site that is suitable available developable and approvable and also creating a realistic opportunity for the rental bonus credits so without that relief you certainly don't have a realistic opportunity to develop the property and claim both the credits for the units as well as the rental bonus credits um and then same thing for the tree removal mitigation we are um removing approximately 4,060 trees where we're putting 283 back you know we have done done our best to work in the conf the findes of the site that we have and putting back as many trees as we can um and so that number looks to be at 283 now and again to the extent that the board doesn't consider that 60% to be the governance because that is clearly what the Redevelopment plan requires and we comply with to the extent that we do need to comply with these other two Provisions which seems to be that it it it would be the Redevelopment plan and the contiguous uninterrupted conservation and open space that would control but we are seeking that replacement or seeking those waivers if in fact they are required the other relief that we're asking for which I I believe this one we we also I I think we meet it based on the structure of the um the Redevelopment plan but this is for the two points of access so Mr K in his review um points out that in section 3.5 of the Redevelopment plan it reads specifically the redeveloper of parcel B will provide at least two Street connections to the surrounding Street Network that will allow for a free flow of traffic within and through the rehabilitation area including emergency vehicles and school buses so we are actually providing two means of vehicular access um even though one of them will be an emergency access we have out to uh Jackson Street but we do have a full access to camplain and as was testified to at the last meeting we will absolutely provide P pedestrian connectivity to phase one if the D will approve our connection through there so you do have um at least two Street connections to the surrounding Street netor nwor um that will allow for a free flow of traffic within and through the rehabilitation area and including emergency vehicles and school buses so the Redevelopment plan does specifically reference emergency vehicles and I think with the access plan that is being proposed and agreed to by this applicant we absolutely meet the spirit and intent of section 3.5 um but if you are going to interpret that conservatively that we need to have two full access which is is not the language in the development plan then we would certainly request that waiver of the board the last um section that we would need to if again we we are not able to have the sidewalks to the existing Street network if we were unsuccessful to get to have them through the um the to the RPM site if we were not able to se those D approvals we would need to then ask for the waiver um of having the sidewalks to the existing Street network but uh we are optimistic that we will be able to to accomplish that and then by connecting through the RPM we will certainly have access to the adjoining Street Network um we have eliminated the request for the bicycle racks which I'm happy to say that I think that that's a a good idea most recently I went out to the site it was the first week of June so I had an opportunity to go visit our site this phase as well as to drive through the existing phase one and I can tell the board that there are a number of bicycle racks existing in that development that's an occupied development and those bicycle racks were very well used so I do think it would be a good benefit to the community to have those on our site and we can certainly work with your professionals Mr um Mr Co and Mr Mayu to locate them on the site as we have had a willingness on behalf of the developer to provide those and then I believe we have also eliminated the parking setback the building to on street parking St back as we are eliminating our Boulevard so that leaves us with just those six um in a most conservative interpretation those six waivers that I identified for the stream Corridor Crossings for the tree removal mitigation the points of access and then the sidewalks so statutorily if you treated um these as waivers let me stop you right there just with regard to the sixth waiver that we were talking about with regard to your item number six the sidewalk the uh pedestrian Crossing to phase one and that we wouldn't need potentially a waiver um with regard to the stream Crossing for that yes we would so I just want to make sure that that's also identified and that is something again if you look at the structure of the um of the Redevelopment plan the Sherman Redevelopment plan um that talks about the shared access and parking Arrangements between Community joining properties is encouraged and it specifically uses the terms possible and practical wherever possible and practical each parcel will provide cross access easements for parking and as access driveways guaranteeing access to adjacent lots and surrounding streets that's language that I consider you know we like to call that that language aspirational right when it says possible and practical that is certainly not meant to be a mandate or something that shall be provided it's something that if can be looked at and explored and accomplished that you contemplate it but it's certainly not something that the plan uh set fast as as shall and shall be complied with so I think as far as meeting the intents of the ordinance which is when you're dealing with waivers that's that's the test um unlike things if you if you treated these to the level of they had to rise to a variance um a bulk variance the proofs are a little bit different but when you're looking at waivers you look at the you know the intent and are we meeting the intent of the plan or the governing ordinance so even if this relief did rise to the level of a variance I think we would certainly be able to meet our statutory burden of proof they would of course be treated as C or bulk variances because the use is certainly consistent with the type of use as well as the density established in the Sherman Redevelopment plan so that would leave us with C variance relief I think the board could certainly Grant this under the C1 um which is a hardship or the C2 flexible C as multiple purposes of the land use law would be Advanced by this and I say C1 hardship because this is quite a constrained site it's recognized in the Redevelopment plan as a constrained site that has had a history of of struggled ability to get developed in the past I think it CES to 90 years um so it's been it's been a long time to get to get a a proper development program going here so I think certainly both the C1 and C two looking at purposes of the L use law under the C2 section of the statute I think that there are a number of them of course criteria a talks about promoting the general welfare which when you're dealing with 100% affordable projects the case law is very clear that they are inherently beneficial uses but also criteria C is established by this project which talks about providing adequate light air and open space I already told you earlier that we exceed the minimum requirements of dedicated contiguous un interrupted conservation and open space at 66% where the plan require the Redevelopment plan requires 60 so I think Reliance on C is appropriate also criteria e which talks about an appropriate population density the density that's proposed by this applicant is exactly um what was contemplated in the Redevelopment plan and your housing element um criteria I which talks about a desirable visual environment we've worked with your um your professionals to come up with you know a landscape in a layout that is attractive and efficient and I also think criteria M and efficient use of the lands as well as criteria G sufficient space and appropriate locations is Advanced by this application so statutorily in order to meet our burden of proof we would really only have to advance one or more purposes of the land use law I just cited six for you A C E I M and G um that I think are Advanced and then that would leave us with a burden of proof with respect to the negative criteria and of course the land use law does not ask you to hold us or any other applicant to a standard that there be no detriment just that the benefits of the grants of the variance would outweigh any detriment and there would be no substantial detriment to the Zone plan or the public good when you look at the um the goals and objectives that are in the Redevelopment plan and they reference back to the housing element and master plan the goals of this Rehabilitation or re Redevelopment plan are to to provide Parcels of lands of sufficient size and dimension to enable an orderly and arrangement of new land uses to create land use and building requirements specific to the rehabilitation area that are sensitive to environmental features particularly those associated with the Royce Brook and nearby residential uses to conail the encroachment of non-residential uses into the immediate neighborhood and to require that 100% of the units constructed on site meet low and moderate income affordable a affordability require re Ms so those are the four um Redevelopment plan goals that are Advanced and then the master plan goes on to talk about providing housing type to serve all ages and economic segments and to um identify and manage stream C or buffer areas by maintaining undisturbed vegetation which we certainly do so you have a project here that in my opinions is substantially consistent with your Redevelopment plan clearly advances all of the articul Rel ated goals and objectives stated in that Redevelopment plan so I can unequivocally say that in my professional planning opinion this is a very important component of your affordable housing plan the site was acquired using affordable housing trust fund money and provides a substantial um a substantial contribution to meeting your constitutionally mandated obligation to provide for low and moderate affordable housing units and the relief that's required is is is really quite di Minimus and the confine and structure of your ordinance to me sets up very well to for the board to Grant the relief that's being requested for the reasons um that I articulated and read from the ordinance thank you um I don't have any further questions if the board or the professionals do okay off Mr manew thank you Mr chairman I wanted to clarify one of the items on your testimony and I think we t upon this at the last meeting that your um client is agreeing to make an interconnection between phase one and phase two um according to the Redevelopment plan section 3.4.3 item e as an echo there should be bicycle circulation a combination will be made for safe bicycle circulation to and through the rehabilitation area so I want to clarify that this connection between the two phases would be a paved connection it will be my boss yes yes and it will be able to accommodate bicycles so I'm assuming it should be six or seven feet wide yes yes yes we would agree to that okay and ultimately we'll see some plans that um of course as a office and office will be able to review the only condition is that the D would have to would have to approve it so subject to D approval um right which is what I the reason we asked for the my understanding is you will make a good faith absolutely apply for General permit through the D yes and that is why we're not we didn't eliminate our request for the waiver because it is contingent on us securing the approval from the D okay yes thank you yes agree that's all I'll have at this moment Mr chairman M good evening good evening Mr T do you believe in your professional opinion that the um the best access is Buffalo Street as opposed to some of the existing paper streets and existing uh surrounding Network yes I had an opportunity to to in after the last hearing and before I came here tonight when I went to visit the um the RPM site I went and drove some of those streets and they are not rsis compliant they are um not improved to um those standards and I think to and I I was here when I heard some of the residents from that area um Express concern about having the traffic come down those streets so I think it is a clear demonstration that is a better zoning alternative to have that traffic go out to camplain rather than some of those smaller I I would consider a more sleepier streets some of them only have about four or five houses on them today so even if it meant uh by going through those you would avoid having to to do um go through the stream Corridor yes I think it would be still a better zoning alternative I think your ordinance does set up Provisions to go through the stream Corridor and I think we are able to balance that I think it's on balance right so much of what we do as planners is we have to balance things and I think it's unbalanced better to have the traffic go out to Camp plane that would also be because those roads are not improved to rsis standards that would be quite cost generative to have the applicant have to go and then improve those streets and now you have to take the traffic from these 88 units and send it down streets that like I said my my impression of those streets is that they're pretty sleepy and when I was out there I counted some of them had maybe you know four or five houses on them okay thank you Mr chairman thank you you board members want somebody else go for us for a change welcome back Miss Kone thank you committee I'm sure you're always nice to come back to work immediately off getting off a plane I like to throw myself right back into the she's a very hard worker with regards to pedestrian and bicycle movement around the site and the adjacent camplain Road uh obviously it's a busy road um and there is a uh scoot stop around the corner if you I don't know if you're aware uh about a quarter mile or so to the South looking at the map here at the West at uh Sunny me Road and Camp plane where obviously might be a place where people want to use mass transit um in your opinion would you feel it would make sense from a safety standpoint to create some sort of safe walkway on camplan road to get to that that site to in order to promote safe and effective uh egress to get to that bus stop so there are no other sidewalks on camplain now right so I'm not sure that that's where we want to encourage pedestrians to walk now I think we may be widen Camp plan at some point but I don't know you know certainly we don't control all of that property so I think it would be not desirable to have an incomplete path to encourage people to walk if there weren't if there weren't the ability to do that and since we don't control all of that that would be very difficult for us to do uh with the fact that there is a school at the end of the paper streets there um would that be do you feel uh if kids were going to walk to the school or go to the school would they use the the paper Street Jackson Street whatever you feel that's a a safe way for them to go if they could leave instead of walking on Camp plane if they want to I think that would be a better alternative than going on Camp plane I think it would be unsafe for them to go on Camp plane without having the ability to have a full a full path so that access or ESS or that emergency road would it make sense to have at least a pavement along that emergency access so people to walk to that street if they wanted to then walk out of the development to go to that that school I think it would probably be more desirable to do what was done in the RPM site and that's to have a site for the bus to pick up the children in the development interior to the development which is what was done on the enjoining property there's a designated bus pickup area interior to the property okay thank [Music] you welcome comments okay I just just quick I don't know if this would be more of a point of confirmation but with regards to the settlement agreement and the um and the Redevelopment plan I know there's the tie between the Glen Gary project and this one so as far as from what you you understand with those two documents I'll call them that the building of the 88 affordable housing units wouldn't be adversely affected regardless of how many of the market rate units are are actually developed I'm sorry can you repeat that I I I didn't the question I'm sorry so with this plan this is 88 affordable housing units and I know I'm I'm just reading Miss kone's um memo here or a report you know just making reference to the 380 market rate units that regardless of how many are eventually Market rates are ever built that it should not have any impact on the 88 units well there's a phing plan and from the settlement agreement there's a phasing plan that's consistent with what we would be building right so you couldn't build you couldn't build all the 380 non aordable units and then say Oh we think we want to do less than 88 affordable so and you have there's a a governor that kicks in for the amount of Market cosos that you get that you have to build the affordables there can't be too big of a lag there so it's definitely tied to the amount of market rate buildings and I should have said this earlier we discussed this is a 24% affordable housing set aside so let me Mr chairman the agreement between the parties relative to what will be built at chairman is tied to the number of units it's built at Glen Gary if the number of units at Glen Gary is less than 380 the number of units at Sherman may be less than 88 but the current plan is the 380 and 88 and that's what the agreement says [Music] Miss gon's testimony may have been slightly incorrect this is not a standalone affordable housing project this is tied to the Glen Gary site unlike phase one the RPM site which is a standalone affordable site phase two is part of the overall agreement for Glen Gary to build market rate for Eminem to build Market rated Glen Gary and affordable exur yes I didn't actually use the word Standalone I well you us an all affordable housing project which would lead one to yes it is absolutely tied to the 380 and my report references that my report references specifically that this was tied to the 380 market rate units at glenar right I and I don't think it didn't make a mention of phasing so I just wanted to get points of clarification it's set forth in the settlement agreement set forth in the settlement agreement set forth and the fair share housing agreement regulations okay [Music] I'm going to open correct me if I'm wrong miss cfone the stream waiver quter the stream Corridor waiver still requires D approval to allow the road to be built on Buffalo is that correct yes so in fact the waiver being sought to avoid two measures of Ingress and egress is still conditioned on De approving the one access point is that correct yes so if the so I would assume miss elgart that the applicant is agreeable to a condition of approval that if D does not approve the Buffalo Street access you'll be back here for a whole new application relative to the access point so that everybody it's on the record and there's no issue down the road I think that it would be just a general condition that we need to get D's approval and obviously if something changes that requires an amendment to the site plan because of that we will be back before the board based on your client's request for a waiver of a second access point wouldn't that automatically condition bringing the application back if the only access point if your waiver is granted no longer exists if there's no access to to the site obviously we have to come back thank you I want it on the record case there a question I would imagine that if there's no access obviously I look I you know what's the point in building anything if there's no access right it it solves the nobody can get there Irene it solves the problem down the road that how come the your client's aware the public is aware the board is aware that the granting of the requested Act waiver if not approved by the requires you to come back that's understood thank you okay so with that motion open to public I'll make that motion thank you second okay all in favor I I anyone from the public that would like to question the Planner on her testimony please come up state your name other than Mr wolson I never thought I'd say this but I actually agreed with almost everything ER said maybe we should I want that on the record for the record almost we can't I must really be jetlagged did I hear that did I hear that right Maria Janus 255 Camp Lane Road property owner um this is always awward because I hate to answer my qu my qu your questions with my back to you but I can't turn my back to the board either so I'm not trying to be disrespectful but I I'm going to try to go to the side here that's fine everybody else has been doing it it's okay that's more comfortable for everyone thank you so miss miss cfone have you been before the Hillsboro uh planning board previously yes um and numerous times Miss J and you've been here for them do you uh always represent the developer no no oh okay um so at the at the last minute now uh references were made to the settlement agreement um what is the settlement agreement there you want it's up to you settlement agreement between Eminem and realy and the township of hillsbor related to their litigation brought regarding the affordable housing the settlement agreement of Eminem realy of which this is a part the same is that the same as Eminem at camplan Road yes is the same yes and so what what exactly does that agreement agreement the agreement that you've asked about for the last six years it's a requirement that they build 88 affordable units at Phase 2 Sherman in exchange pay for 380 market rate up to 380 market rate units on the Glen Gary property of which they have been designated the redeveloper for this site so they've been designated as the redeveloper for Sherman Phase 2 and Glen Gary is is a total different Glen Gary is I I refer to as the property as the name of the property it is part of in exchange for building a market rate development on the Old Quarry site the applicant is being required to build 8 affordable units on this site and this is the application for the affordable housing on this site okay you're saying the applicant is being required as part of the settlement agreement did the applicant did the applicant choose to be the redeveloper the applicant and the township the township chose to designate the applicant as the redeveloper is part of the agreement okay um So currently who is the owner of the property the Sherman track Phase 2 property the township owns it it will be transferring the ownership when when this property is ultimately ready to be developed uh transferring the property or selling the property for a dollar you can call it whichever you want Hillsboro Township will be will be selling this property for $1 to Eminem at camplan Road LLC that is go whatever ultimately the designated party is but that yes Eminem Camp plan LLC is the currently designated party who will be acquiring the property I'm sorry why do you say currently designated isn't this because Mrs Jenis as you have been through this process before sometimes applicants change the name of the development for purposes of ownership it is still the same property owner we are transferring it to a subsidiary of Eminem realy okay so by the way none of this has anything to do with Miss kon's testimony well well well but this this was brought this was brought up this settlement agreement and the Glen Gary project so I just needed clarification on all of this um so um you're stating M Kone that a sub this is a substantially conforming uh project yes okay and it needs a handful of waivers uh it got a little confusing between what were the waivers and what were variances um so what is the handful of waivers so I already testified to all the waivers and what I said was if they Rose to the level of variances we would meet the standard of proof for the variances but those waivers were the stream Corridor Crossing um the tree mitigation waivers the points of access and the sidewalks were the the general topics of the six waivers that I talked about the stream Crossing now that that is so that's an that's an or ordinance of the Township in the stream stream Corridor uh what is that I'm sorry is that section 18864 was that correct and and what does what does that what does that ordinance specify well that ordinance is voluminous it's a couple pages so it sets forth um the stream Corridor Crossing requirements and then it sets up a framework for um if the board were to Grant waivers for that what is permissible for the board to Grant waivers and under what circumstances so that ordinance uh uh protects uh protects the uh streams in the in the in the uh um in the uh in Hillsboro is that what that what the purpose of that ordinance is in part yes okay um so you're saying you you have stated that this is a compelling need uh but are there not other other areas in Hillsboro that could be that could be developed for affordable that's not part of her testimony is whe where it should be built it's please keep the questions to this application Miss cfone do you did you read anything of the um Hillsboro's affordable housing plan I did is there a section that says that there are constraints uh Hillsboro basically uh is pretty okay with things being built except that there are con environmental constraints are we talking about generally or we talking about this site for for the affordable housing particularly this site or are we are you asking about generally in Hill in the affordable housing plan there's a section that talks about constraints uh in regard to building affordable housing and one of the constraints is uh uh um environmental uh uh properties that have environmental constraints um yes but this site was selected and part of the Township's affordable housing plan so while that may be true and there may be other environmentally constrained sites this site was found to be suitable approvable available and developable which is the criteria that needs to be utilized to select sites and that settlement agreement or that settlement plan was approved by the court so this site again while you may be correct and there may be other environmentally constrained sites this site was certainly uh in the plan the housing plan okay you you had stated that this this property wasn't built on for the last 90 years I yeah there was something to along along those lines in the Redevelopment plan okay and uh was there ever a reason uh given as to why this wasn't built on for 90 years so reading from the Redevelopment plan page one the report found that in spite of a long history of proposals and approvals for both residential and Industrial Development on the property dating back over 90 years none of those development approvals had come to fruition fruition and the property remains vacant so that was the statutory basis for the Redevelopment plan in the Sherman Redevelopment plan and and how was that in that in that plan how is this property described um I don't know that I understand your question and what plan the Redevelopment investigation the Redevelopment plan what you were what you were just reading from for the past 90 years Mrs Janice you have examined the former plan in director multiple former Township committees as to the designation of this site as an area in need of Redevelopment or an area in need of Rehabilitation the questions have been answered the situation hasn't changed one bit and the fact that it's mentioned in the Redevelopment study doesn't make the situation any different than it has been for the last half dozen years and the situation is that onethird of this property is Wetlands there's a DNR uh uh Canal commission easement there are and the current application environmental constraints M Jan you said questions not commentary please that's what I had asked what what is the what is the the um uh description of this property in this plan that's this is all part of this application uh you have access to the plan you could read it yourself I would like I'm asking the the plan she has seen this and and if she would please answer the question I have it right in front of me actually it's on page one of the Sherman Redevelopment plan section 1.2 description of the rehabilit the rehabilitation area it describes it by tax Parcels it describes it by size and it describes it by location and does it also state that there are wetlands and a DNR Canal commission easement and and and and uh any other environmental constraints and Ru it references we plans flood planes drcc commission buffers um on the southern onethird of a lot okay also flood planes all right so what is the size of of uh block 86 lot 2.02 I'm not sure that that's relevant to her testimony that wasn't part of her testimony Miss yes it was the size of the lot yes yes what was the answer Lot 21 in Block 86 covers 62.2 Acres okay not not block 86 l21 I'm talking about the one that we're talking about for phase two now oh phase two this site's about 30 Acres roughly 30 or 32 Acres okay and and how many are usable about nine so what what is the reason why the other um acreage is not usable that was part of uh Mr Park Hill's testimony and Miss cfone is not testifying as to why the rest of it is not developable okay you you State uh is is this property in the Stream Corridor yes okay and is that a desirable you're you're stating that this is that this is uh substantially conforming is that um um building a building in a stream Corridor is that is that something that would be uh conforming for develop um this was site that was designated by the township it's not I'm asking if if if if if uh in a Township that has a stream Corridor ordinance is that a desirable um feature this is a site that was identified by the township as an affordable housing site this I understand this is an a stream Corridor I'm asking if this is a desirable feature to build a uh development in a stream Corridor it's not for m phone to answer that though but this this is what she's talking about how if if this is a desirable location why it's desirable why it's conforming uh if it needs waivers that's all part of her [Music] testimony how many trees are being removed 1,500 I misspoke it wasn't 4,000 I think it was 1593 the number of trees that are being removed approximately 1,500 what percentage is allowed 20 and and how much is going to be removed 37 okay so that's a huge difference trees aren't trees important on a on a property especially in an area where you have issues with flooding and you've got Wetlands so I don't see how that can be [Music] desirable question is there is there going to be a pedestrian access from phase two between phase two and phase one if approved by the DP yes so you have so so that that that's uh that's an uh question right now because we don't know if there's going to be access or not I cannot speak for the dup uh have you have you addressed any safety issues on this property that's not my role in this project not your role [Music] currently there's there are there currently there are two points of access are there two points of access proposed yes proposed are there currently So So currently there are not two points of access if it's going to be if it's proposed is it a yes or no there is or there isn't well it's proposed so it's in the plan a lot of things could be proposed asking how many points of access are there currently it's proposed but it has to be still approved by agencies so right now is there it's in their plan right now is there just one on on Buffalo Street no there aren't any there are two what is the answer to there are no proposed points of access on the property this time because the property is not developed to have points of access the applicant is proposing one point of access and an emergency access and requesting a waiver so there isn't a second point of access beyond the emergency well when you have a site plan and you're telling us this is where people the the the the the no you asked no you asked Miss Janice the question you asked was how many existing points of access are there the answer say existing I said how many points of access no you said existing I did not say existing okay did I did not say existing access are there Mr Burstein provided the answer next question please so there are two proposed but currently what you're showing the site is vacant it's not developed so there's nothing to access it's it's not a developed property you're talking the applicant is proposing one point of Access One emergency point of access and a waiver as to the second point of access not emergency related that's the testimony it's not getting any different there are no points of access now because there's nothing on the site B based on on on the site plan and what is being presented to the public how is this property going to be accessed exactly as the testimony has been the one access off the proposed Buffalo Street and an emergency access they are seeking a waiver for the second point of access it's the fourth time you got an answer seeking a waiver for the Emergency no the waiver for the second point of access not emergency related which was the testimony of Miss cfone the testimony of at least one other witness for the applicant before and what's been discussed [Music] I'm sorry I don't have it written on my notes you stated that there's a need for a continu continuous uninterrupted what um open space open space continuous open get closer to the mic I know you're thank you Christine yes sorry the requirement is for 60% um open space and we have 66% and that would be that would be on the acreage uh that's not the nine acres that uh are that are uh buildable predominantly yes so what what is on that open space property that was for Mr Park Hill he addressed that what Mr Park Hill our civil engineer addressed that that's not for Miss Kone to address Miss Kone doesn't have to answer that question that's not her [Music] expertise Okay so right now you're asking for waivers but they may become variances is that what is going on right now yes [Music] no we're asking for waivers but I provided in an abundance of caution I provided the testimony as if they were variances so how many waivers are there that are waivers six and those six and are there any variances requests for variances right now no all right so you're calling them waivers that may become variances no those were waivers that had been identified by the board professionals um so that's what we're addressing are those waivers that had been identified by the board and in abundance of caution we're also saying that if per chance a court some later date were to say that it was not a w waiver we are showing justification that they would still qualify as variances okay thank you okay okay all right so then a property that is 32 acres in your opinion uh that has only nine usable acres is consider considered a good uh location for this project this property in my opinion is a good location for this project thank you you're welcome y Okay so we've gone past 10 I that's like a motion to extend I would ask that we just take a vote because we've been here for I'm asking not an Extinction for you I'm asking for a motion for the board to extend the meeting oh to stay later I'm sorry about that okay gotcha if you'd like however for us to come to an end we can t for the waiver vote away Mr chairman the bylaws require that the no more new testimony after 10 and that no more board action after 10:30 the board does have the right to extend beyond 10:30 at 10 o00 cut it off because that's what we require but if you want to solve the problem I would request the board make a motion to extend the time of the board meeting this evening I'll make that motion I'll second it we do by affirmation all in favor I all thank you okay all right so the public can still come up and ask Miss cfone any questions on her testimony okay no takers I would I assume miss elgard that this is the last witness for this evening it it certainly is okay and if anyone wants to come up relative to the overall application at this time before the board decides what action it will or will not take this is the moment standard closing arguments from the public okay any final thoughts from the public regarding this application oh look and please state your name and address for the record again Maria Janus 720 East fck Avenue Manville New Jersey I'm also Hillsboro Township property owner block 86 lot 3 2155 Camp Lane Road my property will be severely impacted by by this development there are already issues with flooding uh at the last meeting there was a gentleman who lives on Camp Lane Road I think his address was 2161 I'm not sure 2163 and he's stated that he's lived there for 32 years and when this Phase 1 Project came in now with regular rain his basement gets flooded which it never did before now you want to put a project on land that has wet lands that's in a flood Hazard area that's along the Roy Brook where from all over water is coming into the Roy Brook you're going to talk severe flooding and and and then you had a planner come here and say that's an ideal location this is really Beyond ridiculous Hillsboro already has a lot of flooding problems uh superstorm Ida was devastating and and there's more building and there's building on property with wetlands in flood Hazard areas this is this is beyond ridiculous and why the the township bought this property and is now selling it for $1 sold sold uh one property already for $1 to RPM and now he's going to sell this proper this other property for $1 to Eminem at camplan road to create and and make it look like this is such a fabulous thing because you're creating affordable housing is really really uh a travesty to build on that land and it was mentioned oh it's a air in need of Rehabilitation what needed to be rehabilitated Wetlands flood Hazard area the the the the the the land along the Roy Brook this is going to cause flooding and you know it and you know it I didn't know we were going to get to this phase uh Grant colmer Taylor Avenue you I think you have to do this I'll just state it from The public's point point of view that objectively doesn't seem like a really great site I wish the developer would really do a much better job at protecting the residents that are going to be there from flooding because this does not seem like a really great idea but I think your hands are tied and I'll recognize that but it should be objectable no matter what though any other members from the public okay see none motion to close I'll make a motion all in favor I [Music] I any last words Miss elart no thank you for having us and thank you for extending so I I will not take any more of your time so Mr chairman the request is to approve Eminem at Camp Lane Road LLC which is sensible is also known as Sherman property Phase 2 it is part of the Township's affordable housing plan it was part of a settlement agreement between the applicant and its uh other related companies and the township is part of also part of the fair share housing agreement we have for this round uh the applicant is asking is agreed to all of the conditions I believe in Mr K's report Mr Mayu news report is that correct Miss elgard there were a few that we did not agree to other than those noted on the record by Mr Allen back tonight which the parties have agreed to relative to the conditions as to same on the record correct as it been stated on the record correct as well as the requested waivers made by by the applicant through the testimony of Miss cfone with all parties under the understanding that the access issue is not not agreed to by D we'll all be back here again or at least some of us will be back here again uh that's the application M chairman okay and we should know that it was approved by the courts this agreement has been approved by the courts right both of them the fair share and this one yes okay so with that is anyone would like to make an Mo motion for approv Ral as stated by Mr Bernstein I'll make that motion I'll second thank [Music] you final comment by board members okay hearing none roll call please Mr Wagner yes Mr vanderly yes Mr rwit yes Mr scobo yes Miss Smith yes Mr velli yes commit in the pony uh I'll just say for the record uh yes but we uh hope that you will take in consideration the the safety concerns that were brought up by our engineer and that you uh do everything as we you promised okay thank you Vice chair P yes Cher yes okay thank you thank you very much and hope everybody has a good evening and uh doesn't miss doesn't miss Kone have to stay for a while longer it's like 4 in morning we don't want her falling off her [Laughter] [Music] feet I know she does all right so with that um just a reminder everybody oh wait we got to cancel so may I have a motion to cancel the June 27th business meeting it's all moved second okay okay do we got to do we need to do a roll call on that all in favor all in FA all in favor I I let me try Mr chairman the next meeting of the board is Thursday July 11th I remind you all Because unless you all want to be here on the 4th of July we do have an application and it does begin with the magic word w and Mr Bernstein in terms of the resolution I guess you'll be preparing it and the normal course of events as your office is aware the man busily shaking everybody's hand is that Mr lombardoi will finish the transcripts we will draft the resolution we will circulate it to your office for review as well as to Mr Mayu and Mr K once everybody is Happy it comes back before the board understand that the board will meet on July 11th and then the board will not meet again until September which is why I was just making sure I will endeavor to try to get it done but the man who's controlling it right now is the court report the extra fee understood thank you okay so with that I will entertain a motion of adjournment second all in favor I I we adjourn see everyone on July 11th good night