##VIDEO ID:ORiYlW23fNI## e e e e e um all right call to order uh in accordance with the open public meetings Act njsa 104-110 and the regulations governing remote meetings njac Ed in a notice dated January 24th 2023 that was sent to the Asbury Park Press Two River Times posted on the bulletin board and on the main access door to town hall filed in the clerk's office and posted on the Township's website uh roll call Mr Martin Mr Martin is absent Mr Akerson here miss L Mountain Mr L mountain is absent Mr Fagan here Mr Man here Mr Emma here Mr King here miss pelus miss pelus is absent Mr Silverman here miss Pina Miss Pina is absent Mr Bell Mr Bell is absent okay uh this time I ask everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge Alle flag United States of America one naice uh please remain standing for a moment of silence for to honor our military police and First Responders thank you okay public hearing item number one PB Washington Phillips LLC 38 Line Road Block 28 lot 22 r4b zone preliminary and M final major subdivision with Associated bulk variances applicate seats seeks excuse me a preliminary and final major subdivision to subdivide the existing lot 21.9 acres into three residential lots one flag lot containing 15.73 Acres containing the existing single family dwelling the two additional lots of 2.53 and 2.64 Acres will have Frontage on Line Road and will be developed in the future with single family dwellings okay um good good evening Mr chair members of the board salvator alfery clear giobi alfery and Jacobs on behalf of the applicant okay uh do we swear them in there one witness we'll swear him our tell theu the truth professional ready your full name my name is Mark zelina m a r k z as in zebra e l and a and Mark um would you please place your credentials on the record please yes I'm vice president of wjh engineering the engineering uh or the engineer for the applicant this evening I'm a licensed professional engineer and a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey I've testified before this board numerous times in the past and U as well as several other many other boards throughout the state of New Jersey AC any objections no that's fine the testifying as engineer only or both both please and we um before we begin with the the uh technical aspects of the application there was a completeness review prepared by tnm dated September 24th um and there are several completeness waivers that U I'm not sure how you want to handle those do you want us to go Point by point or do you want do you want to have your engineer comment on yeah we're going to let the engineer comment on it Mr chair good evening assciates there we go um so my complet this letter date is September 24th 2024 as you can see there are approximately 26 items that are either been requested or waivers are required for this application the application is unique in form in that they're just coming in for the subdivision only um they are not coming in with a site plan or any design design plan so there's no real grading plan drainage there's no proposed buildings Etc and the majority of the waivers are associated with any kind of um proposed design that would be required for this application um your ordinance does allow you to come in with just for the for the subdivision itself and that's what they're going to be presenting this evening I have no objection and it's up to the board to for granting these waivers as as itemized in my letter subject to whenever a formal plot plan or site plan is prepared that this information is so-called provided to the planning department and my office for review Andor upon review of whatever uh information would be submitted if we identify any further variances that may be um required that they would then be back before the board at that time so we have no objection to the board granting these waivers and then so for deeming the application complete okay so the only thing we're really here to discuss is the the subdivision of the into three separate Lots right that is correct the variances that asking right okay okay so um does anyone here have a any uh problem with the uh the waivers at this time no so do I make motion any subject to subject to what Bob put on the record and and also during the course of the testimony if you hear that you need you think you're missing something that would that you're granting a waiver for you could always ask for it at that point okay uh any want make the motion Tom seconds okay yeah yes yes yes yes thank you U now we'll get into the technical aspects of the proposed subdivision um and Mr Zelena your your office U prepared the plans that have been submitted in support of the application is that correct that is correct and um you're going to have a few exhibits we're going to refer to and most definitely will all right so why don't we pre-mark those so we can testifies without inter let's say op so we start case we okay Mark so um why don't we just run through each one identify for the board what each identify the exhibit number and what it what it represents and you have handouts of which one the first one I have them all you have them all okay would the board like to see the handouts yes yes okay so I just handed out an exhibit Mark um that was that I marked as A1 would you identify it please A1 is an aerial photo of the project site we've uh superimposed the layout of the project site the the dark white line is the uh outer boundary of the property itself the dark gray lines in the middle represent the existing and proposed driveways and then in and around the property uh representation of the existing um dwellings around the property as well as the existing property lines of the Lots surrounding the property as well when you so can I just the yellow line is the boundary right yellow well it's a combination if you look on the say the south side it's actually in white and then because of some superimposed yellow lines it appears to be yellow it's the widest line I get that point but the white line is the division yes no is the perimeter of the boundary right but you have the white line around the two lots immediately to the east the thicker white line uh is the boundary of the property and there are some lighter white lines that are represented no that's not what I'm looking at okay these two these two lots yes those are out those not that's adjacent properties that's not a part of the subdivision okay but this represents the boundary the thick white line represents the boundary of the property unfortunately there's some yellow lines superimposed over the northern boundary and then these are the two prop the two proposed lots are also in white so it's not super clear my apologies for the well we could see the white boxes which designate the three OS Lots right that's that's exactly correct yeah but I'm saying each lot has a boundary around it so you can see that um I don't know where best to stand out of the way here but I can propo I can show the boundary of the the project site is a thicker line this portion of it is shown in yellow and I'll explain that a little bit later then the white line Al along Line Road the thicker white line along two existing residential lots the front online Road and then the thick white line extends to the east towards the back of the property and wraps back around to the point of where we started and while you're tracing you also mentioned the driveway existing and the proposed can you show if there's a difference what it is yeah it's it's not obvious on on this rendering the U the proposed driveway runs between the two proposed Lots it it appears it's a straight portion of the driveway that comes out to Line Road beyond that where it's a little circular in nature or curve linear in nature that's the existing portion of the driveway the existing driveway through the front two lots is also curve linear and winds around through the front of the proposed Lots it's just not clear on this drawing but we can see it on some other exhibits assuming if the board were to approve this application which portion of that driveway is existing and which would be new the existing portion of the driveway runs East or along the back of the proposed Lots it's curve linear nature runs back to I'm pointing the existing house on the back of the property right where my pointer is currently the proposed driveway would be the straight portion of the driveway or the straight line that I'm running that runs between the two proposed lots that basically constitutes the stem of the flag lot that we're requesting and then the existing driveway that connects that the circular portion at the rear to Line Road would be eliminated it would be eliminated yes it runs roughly in this direction you'll see the little wider the clear cleared area at the fr front that goes out to Line Road runs across and up and around um that will be eliminated so in essence we're we're getting way ahead of ourselves a little bit but we're we're proposing to demolish or remove some of the existing pavement associated with an existing driveway and you'll hear later we're also wanted to we propos to eliminate or demolish an existing tennis work on a property so by virtue of the proposed construction that we're proposing as part of this application which is only the new driveway there are no propos structures there's no proposed anything else but for the new driveway there's no increase in impervious coverage there's a net increase of perhaps 80 square feet in total over the course of 20 acres so relatively speaking um so as you know some of the waivers that we ask for as it relates to storm water management and calculations like that that's part of the reasoning for those because the the this subdivision as it's presented does not propose structures roads driveways anything but the replacement of existing driveway and the removal of the existing tennis court which would interfere with one of our proposed property lines so I got okay you got a big Taste of what's Happening want to talk about the others or just you may as well just continue now tell me when you're ready for this and I'll bring give it to you all right just let me backtrack a little bit you know as far as what the the proposed site consists of right now it's lot 22 block 28 it's known as 38 Line Road it's on the west side of line actually it's on the west side of town but it's also it's on the east side of of Line Road kind of halfway between Deer Path and vanra road if you if you're not familiar with exactly where the site is itself it's 21.1 1 n Acres it's a very as I pointed out it's a very irregularly shaped lot I can't even describe it as a rectangle or Circle or boot or anything like that just it's just a very irregular shaped piece of property that's been created by prior subdivisions years before any of our time here um it has 531 odd feet of Frontage On the Line Road it's located in the r 40b single family Zone and you understand why that's important as we move move through this it's it's all bordered by Residential Properties currently developed and it's a combination of both r40a and R40 B Zone the kind of uh property it's a mish MOS the zoning in and around that exists both as the smaller Lots in the r40a zone and some of the larger zoning in the R 40b zone as we talked about it's currently developed with a single family dwelling there's a detached garage driveway patio and a pool all that's anticipated to remain there are no improvements proposed to that by virtue of this application and we talked about the driveway is approximately a th000 ft th000 linear feet from Line Road to the existing Residence at the rear of the property currently the site's predominantly wooded and some of this is obvious but I just think I better put on a record you know with some moderate to severe slopes the Central and the Northeast Northwestern part of the site up closest to Line Road some of the trees have been thinned and maintained as part of the existing Homestead then there are some steep slopes on the site we've identified those and it's it's included as part of our plan set but I'll present it as drawing A2 or exhibit A2 you just identify for the record what A2 is the exhibits identified the steep slopes map the actual steep slopes in the plant set are identified as part of the I think U I forget what it's called now but the environmental constraints plan so there are some other environmental constraints as well but for purposes of this uh presentation I wanted to point out the steep slopes and where they exist on the property there's three essentially Three Shades of of gray on the property the darkest shade or the steepest slopes the intermediate gray or the moderate slopes or those slopes between 15 and 25% and then the lighter gray is are those between 8 and 15% the ordinance in home though identify steep slopes as those that exceed 15% and those are the ones that are um or the disturbance of those is controlled or reduced by by the ORD itself anything under 15% is is not um what should I say there's no restrictions by the ORS as far as development on slopes less than 15% so what's not on the plan the environmental constraints plan that that's in the plan set is the lot the proposed lot layout what I've done is had this the proposed lots and proposed driveway superimposed on the steep slopes plan here to to show you how those two lots would would exist and and that there were very little steep slopes that would encumber the two proposed Lots itself the third lot can I just ask was that submitted to us I'm sorry was this plan submitted to us yes it's no no I I understand the the disturbance plan but no okay that's a failing I didn't realize that till I started putting exhibits together today that there is no plan a plan set that shows the Shaded slopes as well as the proposed lot lines that's why I wanted to create that on the exhibit here this evening and um what does exist or there are some significant steep slopes along the southern end of the property um that do that does do or does impact the development potential there and and they they have to be restricted and put into a conservation easement by by your ordinance while I'm talking about some of the the environmental uh restrictions there there's a um tributary to the hot Brook along the southernmost property line it kind of weaves in and over the property line itself it's not on one property other but there are also Wetlands associated with that we've identified or we there's a consultant that has identified the wetlands and made an application to the Department of Environmental Protection for a letter of interpretation to verify the limits of the wetlands that are shown on this plan um we understand that they've had verbal contact with the DP but we do not have affirmative or we don't hold that permit in our hand as we're here speaking this evening however you'll see beyond the limits of those Wetlands um we understand that there would be aif we understand that there would be a 50 foot transition area buffer associated with those Wetlands those are that is proposed or shown on this drawing also hll has a stream Corridor requirement there's a 150 fot requirement for a stream Corridor buffer that too is shown on this drawing then beyond that because of the C1 well the this tributary to the H Brook um is tributary to a C1 Waterway we have a 300t riparian buffer associated with that stream so thus a significant portion of the property is encumbered by not only steep slopes but also uh buffers associated with the stream and the tributary to the C1 stream as well it runs right pretty much through the middle of the site right towards at the back of the existing house and over to the Western property behind some of the existing Lots so I think that gives giv us a good idea of the site and what it looks like and some of the uh environmental constraints that we're dealing with on a site so the next question is you know how do we develop something like this and and that's what's happened when we were approached by this we like wow we looked at the tax map and said wow there's 22 acres of land here it's in the r4b zone the allowable the permitted density the r4b zone is 0.4 dwelling units per acre so if you were to just look at strictly the allowable density based on Gross Gross acreage you say 04 time 21 you'd get like 8 AC or eight Lots well you know that's kind of you know right away someone say eight Lots on a piece of property like this what's that worth in home though what unfortunately due to the constraints that we just outlined it's it greatly restricts um the develop develop l r and there's no way eight Lots were possible on that so the next question to us was well what can we do here so we looked at a variety of layouts here you know the very first one was a conventional subdivision would put try to put a culde saac off a Line Road a 50 foot wide right away 30 foot wide row very typical of what we see along here and we're trying to figure out how best to do this and the best layout we came up with was a road right along the northern property line kind of circled around cut off the point here and then tied back into this existing driveway here with a call the sack near the existing residents and I don't have an exhibit here for you but I can testify that we can obtain three conforming Lots with that however that would re that would mean that we' put a new road a public Road in that would be dedicated to Township of Homedale it would require significant uh clearing and Grading to to put the road in along with the infrastructure required to do that and the driveways and storm water management and everything else like that so we're thinking is that the best we can do so we started thinking about it and then we said Gee under the residential site Improvement standards they allowed for a rural lane or a Rural Street which is a little less it's more environmentally conscious than a big 50 foot wide rideway and 30 foot wide Road what that entails is a 40 foot wide rideway way with an 18t wide pavement so we said wow let's see if we did that in the exact same configuration along the northern boundary and out here or out towards the existing resin that would work but we have the same problem would have to do the grading and and the clearing and associate with that and plus that would I think create a little bit of an impact to the neighbors to the North in that we would provide for a buffer STP but nonetheless the road would be closest to those properties rather than anyone else on the property so you know back to the drawing board how do we get three lots without creating all that impact to to the property and as well as creating the neighbors or interfering with the neighbors that's how we came up with the flag lot okay well we kind of got to the flag lot because we're thinking if we could put a 40 foot wide uh RightWay through here with the rural residential lane or the Rural Street why not I mean we would do that it' be a dedicated road to to the to the township and the likes but you know why do all that and all the infrastructure associated with that when in our quiver where we could think even though it's not permitted in the R 40b zone we want to propose a flag lot this way what would would mean is we'd create three lots with all with individual driveways the back lot would have a singular driveway much like it does now that would run through the two proposed Lots out to Line Road then the two additional lots that would be developed in the future would also have singular driveways running out to Line Road so there'd be no Municipal Road no no Road no um public road at all there only three driveways independent privately owned going out to Line Road that's how we arrived at the flag lot even though it's not permitted in the r4b zone it is permitted in the r40a zone and then interestingly enough Mark I'm just going to stop your like it's not permitted in the zone I get it's permitted in the r48 you're not in the r48 I understand that but the Miss land use law understands that there's no two properties are like and I agree but my point is is that you don't with the requirements that we have for flag lot the requirement is a 50 foot wide stem you don't have that I understand that uh so at some point it's are you like why what benefit are you giving us other than to give you an additional lot so I'm asking well first of all I believe we can create three lots under the scenario that I show talked about earlier by putting a culdesac along the northern property line and three conforming Lots off of that with a public road it's not three conforming lws because the flag lot is not conforming is that what you said I'm talking in the alternate design proposal that that we've looked at that that I'm using as you know my just I I understand that it's not a permitted uh design principle in the r4a if r4b Zone it is per permitted in the r40a zone and by the way and part of the reason why we have some yellow coloring here are is that there's an existing flag lot bordering this property to the north and there's another existing flag lot that runs out to Van brackle Road regardless I understand but what but I have the opportunity to to to talk to the board about we're presenting a development scenario that is not unique to this neighborhood it will not impact the Zone plan or the master plan because basically we we're kind of repeating what's already been done in this area not only this area but it's also it's also the r4b Zone this isn't we make to the zone so do you have the information on when those lots were created I do not so no no so we do not allow this you're asking us to say in the area there's things that have been allowed but you don't have when they were allowed well I I don't think his argument is that they he's not arguing how they were approved he's arguing that what we're proposing is not not inconsistent with what's there he's saying they're there and we should take those as like just like information to allow this my information is or my question is when was that approved because my position is this don't allow flag lots that has been a a scenario for years so when were those logs created you don't have the information I know that they exist currently and what my my point the point of reference isn't that we should be entitled to it because they exist only that the development scheme that we're proposing is you not not is not unique to our property but is consistent with the properties in and around our our development right but my point is is that if those lots were created and allowed 20 years ago that doesn't have any implication on what's Happening Now which is why I've asked when were they approved let me let me let me jump in for a second here uh yeah I think past events are IR relevant right at this moment so let's not use the past events to substantiate what you want to do in the future just talk about what you want to do and why you want to do it and then we'll make a decision based on but just to be clear he's not saying the past events are relevant to his application he's only saying that by introducing this flag lot you're not it's not inconsistent what's out in the field we it doesn't matter how they were approved but we can move past that but yeah but I'm saying yeah whether it's in whether or not it's inconsistent what's in other areas shouldn't really matter we're we in we analyze each case on an individual basis right so let's let's not point to other areas that are may or may have gotten it let's just talk about this this particular that's part of you know what we're getting at the municipal land use law allows for this board to Grant variances they recognize that not every property is the same and not all ordinances are applicable to every property so you have the ability based on the testimony that we're going to provide you to Grant variances so for for deviations from your ordinances because what may in fact be true is that this development with a a flag lot and three lots may be better than an alternative where we came in with a true a regular culde act in three lots well that that may be true and I'm not saying that's not I'm just saying we none of us here don't know what the circumstances were for those other ones that may have been granted it's right it's IM material we're going to focus on this particular lot and you're can explain to us why you feel you're tied to a Vari explain is that there's a house that exists on that flag lot with a development pattern with a driveway out to Line Road so that if I were to do a similar lot that goes out to Line Road it's not unique to this area I'm not going to impair The Zone plan or master plan or anything by trying to introduce something that's so rare to this neighborhood that's going to impact the value of all the surrounding properties it's not because there are surrounding properties that are exactly the same the same type of development pattern as what we're proposing here so that should be a part of your consideration when saying gee maybe they are entitled to a variance because so that's that's why I'm kind of engaging with the history that you're providing it's irrelevant to this yeah and at the end of the day you could legitimately provide a conforming two lot subdivision correct I could do a three lot subdivision no I could not with the flag no not with the flag I could do a cack show you a cack plan with my point is that what you're proposing is not conform me correct I we're that's why we're here that's why you could you could provide a two lot subdivision based upon the existing access to that area and a new lot that's not what we're that's not what we're hearing what we're hearing is a non-conforming flag lot which we don't permit to allow for an additional lot right or the alternative is if the board wanted to see it we would come in with a conforming subdivision with a new public Street culdesac and three lots and if if that makes the board and the board professionals happy we think it's a poor it's worse planning than what we're proposing but if that's what the board and the professionals want we would consider it but so so Scott at this point I we have to let the witness finish I mean everything Jen said is accurate but the board has the right to Grant variances if they believe his credibility and all the testimony to negative and positive criteria you know are are are verified now I'm not saying they going to be but let's let them finish and look let's get this out of the way and yeah know I agree I mean that's why we have variances you know because you want to do something that's not conf pering so that's why we have these hearings to to hear his side hear our professional side and to discuss it amongst ourselves and you may ask for a some form of a plan to see what that alternative would look like and let the professionals look at I'm not saying you want to or not but those are all things but I think we can't get there unless we let him finish and then go to our professionals and let them give you we already read their letters obviously but okay let's that's fair okay so uh Mark you may proceed we covered a lot so little anticlimactic here anyway just just for the record you know the U the existing lot service by public water has an existing septic system uh associated with it there's underground gas electric cable lines that run from Line Road out to the existing house they are flagged in in the in the field currently if anyone wanted to go see where they are that's what we would propose for the two new lots that would front on Line Road they would have public water electric gas and um prop and septic systems for their sewage disposal we've done test Pits on both of those lots we found favorable soils on both of those lots that we understand will support the construction of two of a septic system on each lot um you know both of those lots exceed the minimum lot requirements they exceed all the bulk variances as it relates to width depth area they minimum of 108,000 square feet with the first one's 110,000 the second one's 115,000 Square ft so I have to tell you that that kind of brings us to where we are you had a third exhibit if you want to show it it was you know it kind of okay had the buffers and everything I I shown on it so you know really we've kind of gone over what's material to this this very irregularly shaped piece of property that's severely encumbered by environmental constraints steep slopes and the like it leaves very well at least approximately half of the lot developable along the northern property you know end of the property which you know in part there's two two types of C variances which Jen had identified there's a C1 which is Justified when there's a hardship confronting developer because of exceptional narrowness shallowness shape or exceptional topography conditions topographical conditions of the site well I would opine that almost all of that exists on this property it's a very exceptional shape and we have we talk about the the steep slopes on a site so we're limited as far as what can be developed on a site a site that has an allowable density of eight Lots where we're coming to you and granted not withstanding you know you can't do eight Lots here I'm not trying to say that but I'm telling about the relativeness of of what we're proposing here is three lots well below the allowable density in a Zone here which permits uh you a larger number of lots than what we're seeking we're only seeking three lots and what we think is in a different kind of a better development pattern if we came in with a conventional uh subdivision and public street with it Mark I have a question the acreage on the southern part of the site within the 300 foot repairing and buffer that's the slope is as it stands right now is that off limits for development by by your ordinance it would have to be included in a conservation eement yes thank you and we're not certainly proposing anything to be done there so I yes so if it was to be uh developed you'd have to come and and put your plans and we'd have to go through the whole process for for that acreage that's within that buffer yeah and it can't be developed it can't be deved any right it can't be but the regulations talk about it putting on a conservation easement we understand that we have to do we've done that before we'll do it again so there's a C1 variance we have a very you know unique piece of property here it's very unique in its shape and it's by its uh topography and then the C2 Varian is you know are Justified when the purpose of the ml would be Advanced from a deviation from the bulk requirements and the benefits of the variant outweigh any detriment to the public good I would opine that the the purpose e which would promote the establishment of appropriate population densities were certainly well within the appropriate population density and the concentration that will contribute to the well-being of persons neighborhoods communities and regions and the preservation of the environment again I'll go back to where I think the development of a flag lot with individual driveways to the street would is would create far less impact to the environment less trees being uh taken down and less grading to the site and and the associated storm water management improvements would have to be made to that where I think that this is a positive and certainly benefits the preservation of the environment and then um this proposal also you know limits environmental impacts and consistent with the surrounding density to development again again I'm not saying that anything that's been done in the past is right or wrong but the fact of the matter is that that it exists today that development pattern exists today and we're not doing anything that's contrary to that by our by our uh proposal so you know with all that said and I said that before then the graning graning of these variances will not impact or damage the character of the surrounding neighborhood nor will it impair the intent of the master plan or the zoning ordinances well well below the allowable density and we're also providing for what is a reasonable development pattern however but for it not being permitted in the r4b zone but in the r48 it is permitted in the r4a zone which does surround part of this site we're asking for the these these variances and so it's my opinion these variances could be granted because the benefits of granting them outweigh the detriment associated with with the proposals now a couple follow-ups first um in the tnm report there's a discussion about a tree location um it's F2 of the report I don't know if you want the report in front of you yeah there are approximately uh say six trees that would have to be removed but to reconstruct a new driveway and the the request was to make sure they appear on the plan ultimately they are surveyed they just don't appear clearly on the plan it's presented here but yes okay and then the other question is um are we proposing and I guess we could defer the Bob on this assuming it approved whether it be perfected by deed or plat we would form with every T&M suggests is that correct that is correct um I think we may you you know there's one other one that um Jen's letter has to do with Curbing and sidewalks along the the street Frontage um and we've done development here in home Del before if if it's requested it certainly the applicant has indicated they would provide Curbing and a sidewalk along the line Road Frontage how however there are is none currently exists certainly not to the north and not for quite a while to to the South so we understand if we don't construct it then the contribution would be have to made be made to the township sidewalk F and we would defer to the board on that point absolutely I think that that concludes our presentation yeah U one thing I'd like to ask is um people come in here and they always explain how these variances would benefit us uh but I'm kind of curious how it benefits you I mean you're not just doing this for the goodness of your own heart to benefit us but what you you're saying you could build three homes on that parcel of land conforming right we can construct a public right away with the Colac along the northern property line I'm just saying you you're proposing three there's an existing residents and two new ones right that is correct you're saying you could build three new residences no I don't mean to imply that at all it would be two new any proposal that we're discussing here this evening has to do with two new residential lots and the existing one existing lot for the existing residential devance so either way there's going to be one existing home and two new homes absolutely right so you can do one conforming and then the other one is based on this variance you're requesting that is correct so question is for me to simple terms like how does granting the variant two new variant two new homes yeah two new homes one existing home that's what he no so one is existing two new right in all proposals I didn't mean to imply that there's three new homes or three New Lots there's three New Lots but one of those lots will contain the existing res I just want to make sure it's not one new home it's two new two new homes that's the way I understand it right okay so my thing is like I need to understand why you want to do it non-conforming versus conforming like how does that benefit you and I'm trying to say how the two options benefit the town by granting you that well let them just well I you know what we I go through this and we look at a development scenario and we could put in you know the first one is the very typical standard residential development with a public Street a 50 foot well we still wouldn't propose a 50 foot wide right away but nonetheless it would be a basically a thousand foot long culdesac with again depends on this board whether it has curves and sidewalks we would propose regardless of how we did it it would be under the the uh rural residential standards where it would only be a 40 foot wide rideway with an 18 foot wide pavement but then now you're understand that you're going to have three lots an existing one and two New Lots all accessing that limited 18 foot wide pavement and all exiting out to one intersection on Line Road as opposed to this development which in my opinion is Superior in that I'm not providing uh public RightWay I'm not doing a street that the town now has to own and maintain and then I have individual driveways coming out to the uh to Line Road where each homeowner is responsible for their own driveway coming out to the street so it's not all Township benefit it's not all private benefit I think it's a mutual benefit here where it's a kind of a a different development pattern that is not unique to the Township in that the flag lots are permitted elsewhere it's just you know there there's for some reason and I can't explain it nor do I want to why it's not permitted in this Zone it's still a rural res uh development pattern we're not asking for an increased density I mean our density is extremely way below what's permitted here like I said you know the density allows eight Lots we're talking about three yeah look you know you sit here and you talk to us about all these other lots that have similar construction now if we were to approve something like this then the next guy that comes in here could say well you just approved a similar construction for another another project you know every every project has to stand on own exactly not what happens correct right so that's why that's why I'm trying to understand a little bit like uh you know you know in The Godfather they said what did I do do to deserve such generosity right like so what did we do here with the like what what's the benefit I'm just trying to understand why wouldn't you guys just build something that's conforming and we wouldn't have to sit here tonight like why is it two subdivision we wouldn't be here right I mean we'd be here for a subdivision but we wouldn't be here for the variant right that's what I'm saying I'm just trying to understand I'm just trying to understand myself no I agree well Jen let her let just let him uh speak a little no I I'm just I I understand the thought process here like oh we're coming in we're asking for something we're not entitled to but on the other hand is it bad I mean I'm coming to you saying as a planner engineer who does this in in throughout the state of New Jersey I I I don't see that why is this a bad plan with or without the variances it's like geez it's a flag lot there's no impact to the municipality as it relates to any road maintenance any storm water maintenance anything like that I have three private Lots three private driveways that come out to Line Road and Mark I don't think the question is whether it's a bad plan the question is is this a better plan than the conforming plan yeah your opinion is it is and I just need to know why I mean you know I just hear talking about this plan this but I need to know from you you're the planner you came up with this this conceptual idea of what you want to do I need to know why that's better for your client and why that's better for us you know what's going to happen if we were to develop in this scenario we're going have two new lot two big new houses on two lots along fronting Line Road and your engineer will confirm that we have to provide storm water management for those because the the ultimately the payment associated with that is going to exceed 10,000 square feet and we're have to provide detention that detention is going to fall on a private lot which that private homeowner is going to be responsible for owning and maintaining in perpetuity if a public roadway goes in there now the storm water management system becomes a public system that the town now has to own and maintain that's law you can ask anyone here that's not our responsibility it's been proven so is that better for the town I don't think so so it's it's a win-win I'm not saying it's better or worse for for us but I think it's like okay it's worse for my clients and my the homeowners because now they're going to have individual uh storm water management systems on their Lots okay is that good I don't like it that's the D requirements and the town requirements that's what we have to do but if I put in a Road and a public system I could put a public detention base in there and then and you could tell them the town has to own and maintain it so there there it's not all good it's not all bad the unique part of this whole thing is it's a variance and it's not permitted in this r4b zone so I have to come to you with a variance application which you're permitted by the municipal land use law to Grant because not every piece of property is the same and can fit in a box that the town say we we we know we we understand again our role here I'm just trying to become educated on your intentions here to make sure that we make come to a group decision with uh what's the right word here you know I've had a long day myself here but uh I understand I understand yeah with all concerns thank you Martin um all right so uh does anyone else have any because look honestly I don't even know if I've gotten the answer to my question to be honest with you um you know maybe I do need to see both plans and maybe have some sort of detailed understanding of costs and everything how it benefits the Town versus so we can make an educated decision I have a question on that I'm looking at the uh 200 ft adjoining owners I see 1320 2822 Q Farm James Manzo was the owner of that yeah tell me about that where is it I'm sorry where where the the property is a farm no it's it's Farmland assessed it's Farmland assessed yeah and I it's I think it's a woodland management plan they're not it's not okay which whether we like it or not the law allows you to come up with a plan to remove trees and replace them over time and get Farmland Assessment wow yeah so this this property so don't don't they like um cut out a section and say this is the house and then this is the rest of it I don't see anywhere on these plans it was slow because it's not relevant to the Zone IR W that's a different issue that's for tax purposes but irrelevant to this he'll lose that if this gets approved is that true if he doesn't have enough acreage if he doesn't have enough acreage he certainly lose it for the two new homes whether he could preserve it for the larger track I I don't know wait a minute so I understand you have to have five acres dedicated at least and obviously the two new Lots he'd lose it for that and have to pay roll back he wouldn't even own it right somebody whoever owns it but once he files it he he lose the farm the existing property would remain a farm assessed if it qualifies it's big enough uh if it qualifies we don't know what we don't have the parameters of what's qualified to make that for assess but that's not really relevant for the zoning think about it it's GNA be impacted by conservation ements and things that may not be exist on the property five acres plus one right which they have right yeah but and I think he's and and the witness is right I think some of the conservation area may be excluded from that so you know again not our that's beyond our jurisdiction but it interesting question but it doesn't impact I guess our ultimate Deion the end result is there'll be two two lots that will clearly will not have Farmland Assessment and we'll have to pay a roll back tax to the town for the elimination of the Farmland Assessment the what I understood on the proposition to create one lot that is one lot that's to the left of the driveway and then not have that second new lot that would be all conforming right everything you could create would first of all would you have to come here yes we have to for a subd we have to come they would have to come here but yes you're right if there was wasn't that lot to the right of the proposed driveway right and it was to maintain the existing driveway and then create that one lot yes it would be conforming 100% okay the um written um summary talked about um it's a bad idea to create non-conforming LS agree that was a question that was your summary that was me I in my letter i I don't Advocate the the creation of nonconforming lots I don't as a planner I don't I don't Advocate it now there's um various reasons something can be a non-conforming lot in this case we're talking a flag lot is there something specific about a flag lot that's makes it not because it's not there's no hardship associated with it right so if they created one additional lot and kept the the mother lot with the existing access there will be no variances associated with it so they're advocating creating a non-conformity to create an additional lot and that's not what I would consider good planning okay I was um struck initially when I saw the plan that you had such a large remainder the mother lot I guess you'd say my question Jen or if this were granted and first of all there's we agree nobody's living in the house now yes you've seen the house yes okay you seen the house yeah so it seems to me there's a certain amount of neglect that's happening here I don't know why I don't care why but to the extent that What if after this was granted access was granted from uh van braal through acquisition of another property or combination with another property to gain access to the remainder mother lot and then further subdivide this is that is in the realm of possibility and I say that because of the size of the remainder the fact that you can permitted eight homes no no no no not permitted I'm just saying under the permitted dens the density in the zone where it's that's all when I first look at a piece of property I look at a tax map I don't understand all the environmental constraints zoning constraints things like that so I turn to the zoning ordinance what's in the r4b zone the allowable density is you know 04 units per acre 28 you know so multiply it out so I just put that out there as it's a part of the consideration here we're not trying to be greedy and get a lot more than we're entitled to here we're creating a we we're going past but the but the to respond to your question all that land to the right of the plan can't be disturbed so this will be all conse getting access to vanle doesn't accomplish anything really so I'm looking at like um lot 2851 Alta Asset Management owns it I don't know who they are but that's a fairly substantial piece of property that uh almost adjoins this that's uh lot 15501 lot lot lot 20 ad joins van 20 20 does 19 so I think what Wes is getting at if if that property be came up for sale lot 20 and you could connect it to existing flag proposed flag lot would that not be a fair game fair game for for more houses four before this board see what that that Lots lot 20 yeah that's similarly Zone in the r4b so right now it's a non-conforming lot I don't think it's a conforming lot it might be undersized as it as it now sits but um so Ron you could always if you were acting favorably you could do some form of deed restriction too if that was a concern I'm not saying you're acting favorably but you could solve that problem ask him to agree to a condition deed restrict but but if that came before us in the future they somebody in theory could come before us and they have the right to to seek a new sub but they are restricted by that huge conservation which doesn't go away once it's identified that's that's where you're going right so what the back of the question is that the house is in total disrepair it's there's nobody nobody in there um and you've got the pool and part of the house that's within the 300 foot buffer also so as if somebody were going to maybe remediate that by removing the house I don't we have to deal with that I I don't know what the the rules are as it relates to some existing disturbance within that buffer that would have to be researched before we we certainly go go forth with it and the developer assuming this were approved is buying the entire parcel so they they were they would renovate that existing house to sell it as well it's not something that they're going to live in they're going to devel they're going to develop and self three houses um in your conf forming proposal where you move the road to the north create a town owned road so so I understand that you would still The Proposal would be to have the two lots on Line Road no okay tell me tell me how that would work again the the uh road to the north got here somewhere basically if there were a new road coming you know in general that direction they would front on the new internal roadway because of the lot depth required I don't have the ability to front one on Line Road and one on the new new um C thex say I have the ability to front two New Lots on the culdesac and then the remainder of the the existing lot on at the end of the C I basically create a culdesac right at the end of that where that driveway loops around with a a a um culdesac going through along the northern part of the property with two lots fronting on the internal roadway itself so they would back up to Line Road the house the side of the this would be a side Lot side lot of this corner lot front on the new road and then this would be a side ah so one okay and so then if that happened would we be involved in variances here potentially not in my initial initial layout I could I believe I have a conforming plan but then again you're talking about creating a road that the town is responsible for do do they do private roads can they do private I mean look I've I'm at a I'm doing something in the city now where the whole Community owns the road they maintain the road it's not a mapped Road per se but it's something that the people who abut the road could maintain we we did approve a three lot on Homedale Road across from the old small bell Works building or the Bell building um that is a private road different scenario obviously different facts but uh that right but uh an application that has uh access to something that's not fronting a public road that's a totally different variant right it's a it's a ml it right it's planning variant yes right but but the board if we came in with a conforming subdivision the board cannot compel us to take care take the control of the the town has to unless we voluntarily do offer main priv yeah no I'm I'm it's a different variance if if we don't front on a public Street if that's a private Street then those internal Lots become different variance type right yeah it's a planning variance it's not a c variance section 61 or something like that there's a there's a section of the mlu that requires them to get a VAR from right correct but we're not talking we don't want to do we're not there but basically we have three lots that conform the Lots themselves in terms of the area well all the B requ area size and whatnot but what doesn't conform is the access the flag aspect of the rear lot I apologize you're right now the rear lot doesn't conform by Nature it does have enough that the appropriate required lot area at the end of the flag that's required can I ask you a question why didn't you guys give the flag 50 lot 50 feet with I don't I don't have you have the frontage no I on both of the other Lots technically okay so we don't allow a flag lot in this Zone but in the other r50a Zone we do allow it but we require 50 foot Frontage they're at 40 feet Jen I I could tell you the answer to that okay basically it has to do with the frontage along Line Road I have the ability to to have the frontage for the frontage I'm sorry the lot width and the lot depth for two conforming Lots but I don't have an extra 50 feet for the flag between those two lots you do in the front front you don't have it in the width right that is correct that is correct because the front edge is significantly less than what the width is correct so the front Ed is 140 ft and the width is 250 width is 250 now I can if if it were permitted we could get around that by providing for an easement on one of the properties and allow for a what is would in essence be a 50 foot access easement 40 foot actual and then 10 foot on one side to provide a 50 foot wide flag but we typically first of all we don't allow fly Lots in the Z yes that's true I get it right I get it we're not arguing that it's if we did the width of the stem needs to be 50 feet they're not giving us 50 they're giving us 40 so I get that the lot that it's serving is well in excess of whatever but the stem is not conforming we don't allow flag Lots in the zone if we said no to the ex extra lot and gave them one lot plus this there'll be no variances required see when I read the definition of variance it says the hardship due to blah blah blah blah topography and everything you're telling me that if we didn't give you this you could still provide two other Lots so there's no real hardship it's not something that you can't do because of the topography it's something you just want to do they don't want to pay for it he gave justification under C2 which is not a hardship also understand yeah I'm not first of all I don't want to come here I'm not threatening that trying understand in terms of laying out the plan I'm not we're not coming here ask thinking that we're entitled this development scheme is going to get us one extra lot because there are alternate devel vment schemes call a scheme what Call It Whatever uh it sounds bad but there's ultimate development patterns where I can get the the same number of lots I don't know whether it makes sense financially or not that's not me I'm just a planner and engineer so I can grade the heck out it I can do the storm water management for it and I know all the rules as it relates to the development of it but you know yeah and to mitigate what you're saying if if for some reason the board felt inclined to approve a flag lot but we're uncomfortable with the idea that the stem wasn't 50 ft we would propose to mitigate it by providing for an AC a easement along one of the properties for the additional distance or width doesn't is not is not property you would have to be a dedicated which would create an issue with one of those lots on the wi so easement does not satisfy the issue well so at the end of the day it's you can provide an additional lot here and provide access to the back lot which is you know larger with two lots three lots create experiances that quite frankly I'm not 100% sure are legitimate like I I it's up to you guys but from a planning perspective yeah when you say justification when you say the stem Jen you talk about just the driveway itself so the stem should be 50 feet wide yeah Jen can I can I speak to that point for a moment yeah I yeah I just want to say real quick that in a minute yeah just one yeah minut um just if I'm reading this right because I went on the zoning and I think you wrote It's 12682 and I think that's C3 you think it should be C3 if unless I'm reading it wrong it says the access drive has a width at the Street line and along its full length of at least 50 feet right is that the one we're talking about yes right okay so that the way I read that is means the full length of the driveway should be 50 feet wide 50 feet yeah okay okay all right Bob you got anything that you're awfully quiet over there do you have anything to add to this I I believe this is a pretty much a planning discussion my concerns as I mentioned earlier with the completeness there's not much technical design so really I'm going to be involved if and when plot plans start to get developed to depend how big of a structure Hardscape Etc and that's where my concerns are going to come in it's noted in my letters that you know though there are um coverage coverages that are permitted up to I think 15% lot coverage until I see something other than a box you know that usually come in with a box but then when the actual plan comes in that house is grown on the New Lots on the New Lots on the new New Lots not the existing um not the mother lot then you're going to have driveways circular driveways hard skate pools tennis courts whatever else that's where my concerns are going to come in should this be uh approved by the board I guess the other thing for me is trying to understand Jen why why are flag Lots okay in one zone versus this Zone like besides put the putting aside what the rules say I'm just trying to understand I I can't answer that it that has been a a consistency for years upon years upon years it was allowed in the r40a forever definitely not allowed an R 40b for a long time I mean Marty how long like forever we've got a couple of those so my question is kind of off of that is looking at the map that provided on the plans the r40a is just North of this site and the r40a is just south of this site so this happens to be I get it the only section here of R40 B so why is that I mean why why would it be Z why would there be zoning around it that's allows that which looks like it's more developed I mean this L is gigantic and so it's not like it's like one tiny itty bitty lot in the r4b it's consistent if you carry it down and that's a governing body question we don't generally opine on what a site is owned but I will tell you that in my years of working at the at you know for the town and we''ve seen you and I have seen a number of proposed flag Lots when it's not when it's not permitted we don't generally allow it correct true historically we people have come in asked for Relief and our experience has been we have not allowed it correct I have not been involved in any flag so Jen you this would be a flag lot and it's non-conforming lot and you clearly don't like that but the the question is so so oh I'm sorry Ron I was just on the surface it looks to me like we're talking about two h two new houses versus one correct and the issue would be the 10 foot stem that would be the variance right he wants 40 feet versus 50 feet well it's not permitted regardless right right but yes you're you're um you're against approving not conforming Lots I get that there's a reason for that correct and you don't like flag Lots I get that but on its again on the surface if they were to do the conforming two lots with the public road it seems to me that that's then on the town even though that would be conforming so for a 10- foot variance for the stem seems to me like versus one lot versus two lots from an economic point of view of the developer it it doesn't seem because the lot is the the flag lot in the back is there already we're just cutting it up to make it a flag lot right kind of because if you look at the existing the driveway comes down so that existing the proposed lot this one what's this one 20 222 20202 the one that's like to the right of the plan right yeah that has that's where the existing driveway is correct got it so the extra lot to the left which is 20 2203 that would be conforming so I get it and the the issue becomes if they give us the 50t right right and so I get like let's get over the flags are not permitted right if they give us a 50 feet which I'm not an advocate of of allowing a a flag lot that's like not complying but then the one lot which has got to be this one right 2202 will not comply with the width so that lot is going to be con non C all right let me let me just say this for everyone the way I read this I have the zoning up it says flag lots are permitted only in the r48 district and shall have access only to an improved new secondary local Street the purpose of this district is to allow flag Lots flag Lots as part of major subdivisions in limited circumstances so it doesn't say absolutely no it says in limited circumstances as as the exception not the rule so it's certainly something that is to be considered but what it says is to gain access to difficult portions of a track that's basically why it's saying if you have to provide a flag lot the only re you really get that permission in the other Lots is because you have challenges to get access so I mean there is access there now um I mean the only reason this makes it a flag lot is if the street came down straight because of the extra lot right if they didn't have that third lot and they only have the extra one lot it would not but Jen if their street came down instead of between the two houses but further north or south and it wasn't between the two would that still be deemed the flag lot yes yeah because right now they have access to line r it's that extra lot that they're asking for that's creating the flag lot if they didn't have that one extra lot that that they would have this would not be considered a flag lot because it's going to be conforming with the width whatever it's the addition of that one extra lot that's creating this issue or if we install the street then it's not a flag right right but I was just wondering if this agree I'm just looking at you know the the language of the code and right as they're proposing it right now it's because of that one extra lot 22 O2 if that lot wasn't proposed it was the one lot on the left of it and the lot you know we the the driveway was reconfigured in a minor way they'd have more than enough Frontage more than enough width it would not be considered a flag lot it's the addition of that one extra lot if they did that and I agree with Sou if they agree if they added the the driveway or the road right South this we would not be here right well we'd be here but not yeah but I'm saying do you have k your pointer for a second Mark you got the loser Point yeah I'm just saying like uh right now over there the street goes through here and that creates our flag lot if if both properties were moved together and the and the street came straight down there would that still be considered a flag you're saying Street the driveway driveway if the drive we need 250 ft of width on the road on Line Road and if we don't have 250 then it's going to create a flag lot essentially or or yeah I I guess if we had 200 feet I don't think it'd be a flag anym right J correct right but because of the narrow the narrowness of that access point that's what's creating the flag yeah Mark you may want to watch you want to stand up so you see what's yeah correct right here is R correct so the only if that were R8 that would be is the 50 fet was the 50 fet right okay and Jen can I just ask you what's the rationale for the extra 10 feet like from 50 to to 40 like what's the I mean I think it's more kind of like providing access like legitimate safe access right yeah most most streets are set up roadway network is set up with a 50ft RightWay with your cartway varying in WID so your 50 ft gives you the appearance of a at least a right away that would go down the normal development area so it gives you enough room if you were to uh depending on what's happening in the back 20 25 30 foot wide cartway it does give you room on either side 10 ft on either side for grading utilities Etc um but that's usually we're to 50 fet and what's the size of the existing driveway now it's 12et I believe so it's 12 feet now and if this were approved it would be 40 feet 30 the r away be 40t so how how would the uh how wide would the driveway have to be 18 feet one of the development Alternatives whether we do a culde saac even if we were to run a culde saac through the middle or around the outside or whatever we have the ability to construct what they call a rural lane or a Rural Street under residential site Improvement standards I don't know if it's spelled out in the ordinance or not but under residential site Improvement standards we have the ability to construct a rideway a public rway that's only 40 feet wide with an 18 foot wide cartway and that would service three lots instead of one that would service all three lots and that's 100% legitimate and conforming so I'm a little bit confused why the 50 foot's so important to a singular driveway when when in essence it would prohibit or preclude maybe adding another lot to it in the back I think it's even spelled that in that ordinance like if you ever were to add a second driveway to that you know you'd have to do some other improvements or whatnot but I would almost feel that the 40 foot width or the narrow width would preclude you from trying to to get another lot from that in the future because you only got a 40 foot wide Drive 18 foot wide I think I mean I don't write the rules but an 18 foot wide row is pretty narrow in my book and I grew up out in Western Pennsylvania where there's a lot of them too but that's beside the point but just put a record I want it to be known because 50 feet isn't to be all and end all as it relates to Road design standards but that's not what you're proposing nope absolutely not nope I don't want to confuse you know again we're not taking so that's not what's being proposed being proposed is a flag with a driveway under siiz correct right that's with the the variant yeah all right um does anyone else on the board have any questions um guess we can open up to the public um yeah all right so this time uh if there's anyone from the public wants to come up was it questions or question first questions first okay so yes sir Patrick trus 56 Line Road comment for com no a question of the witness corre comment later after this period yeah okay do you have to swear me no no we'll do that for only for comments for comments these are just questions my my question relates to storm water management okay that piece of property I'm very familiar with is the second highest point in Mammoth County First highest point being Crawford Hill that is the top of the hill so the steep slopes is draining at some point down Line Road down to vanra and down to um north towards hell Park Mike um as someone who lives down stream on this my question is are you going to look at the storm water uh management impact of the downstream because we at the lower end of Line Road we've been inated by water coming down that's been increasing much more as the decades have gone so yeah we could so the answer is first is yes but you could explain why what you would do for storm weer management when the individual houses come in for a building permit that is correct our plan currently before you does not increase the impervious coverage so as it's proposed we don't have any proposal for any storm Water Management Systems however if we were to construct any new homes whether it's one two or three whatever how many number homes each of those lots have each of those homes have to be handled in independently with storm water management collection and recharge systems management system I just want to point out that it's incredibly steep slopes you have the largest Hill in Mammoth County of Line Road and you have the topology there's no topology Maps here but I believe that the center line is somewhere in that lot that it drains down Line Road and then upline road on the other side and then down to Van braco we're not touching any of the steep slopes so there's no disturbance but when it does come to the percent of impervious material that has to be taken yeah I mean for this point I guess we'd like to try and keep these questions on on point for what we're here to discuss but anything I gu I'm pretty sure that whatever gets finally approved all those things will be considered sure thank you and as Bob said it'll have to go through his office correct when when they build for new apologies if my question is too that's fine that's fine thank you okay hi um I'm an Wen I am the flag lot that you're all talking about to the left of the the proposed building no no we're talking flag lot that's where that's where you live at the map um you were saying that if the variances are not approved the culdesac is it going to buff it up against my driveway now there is no proposal for that there's no proposal for so there's nothing for that so that's something will come eventually that would have to come just for J J say one one at a time let let's I'm just saying your if this gets rejected the cold de it's a new no just just for the record the cuoac idea was one of the development Alternatives that we explored we opted not to propose that we opted to propose this flag lot scenario so there there is no proposal and there is no no one's I don't want to say anyone if if it were to happen if it happens okay but please don't think it's I mean no no no I'm just trying to understand what with other options for no but I think that's a fair question if we talked about a conforming plan I think she wants to know that with the conforming plan I had provided in the plan that I had conceived I had provided for a buffer strip between the edge of the property and the road itself it very they would have to come back though oh yeah oh yeah right it's okay no but we're not we're not proposing it but just to answer the question I'm just saying I wouldn't do that I I would I know enough about that that hey we're not going to do that but it w so in my conceptual plan that I did in evaluating the development is property there was a culdesac towards that Northern side of property but it provided for a buffer strip between that hypothetical culdesac and that property okay great thank you okay hi my name is Louise p and I own the property to Tilton place which is one of the neighbors within the 200 ft um for this proposed development the in the P the last spring when we first heard about it I went canvas door too and got 50 of the neighbors to um well let me is this going to be a question or a statement yeah I just was G kind of saying who I was okay so I've canvased 50 Neighbors in in in trying to will call it somewhat just fight a little bit I'm just going to object because she can't you can't test you can't talk about what you've discussed with other people without them all being here so we was I just was kind of saying who I was but I'll hit the I'll I'll hit the the what that I think most of the neighbors but maybe I can't say that would prefer the least number of houses built as possible well once again let's me we know who you are we know you address just ask the witness a question we can you can have a comment later and gr granting a flag lot to the existing house at 39 Line Road is approved what what my husband and I will say are worried about is now you're approving it as a as a flag lot and a driveway worried in the future would you then ask for it to be a road and for more houses to be developed on no we would agree if this were approved we would agree to a deed restriction that this property in in total could not be subdivided again so you could the three lots if they are created will be capped at three lots oh that's great oh well nobody ever said that's great when I answer thank you you're advocating for free oh no I I'm that's great for the deed restriction the deed restriction so we don't have to all be here again I don't think it's going to be a deed restriction I think it's going to be a condition of approval but the only way to to to have it run through the for with the land for a subsequent owner would be to have something recorded in the county clerk's office so a new buyer would know so you yeah say that's great I'm not okay thank you you're welcome thank you that ain't happening my friend uh anyone else going once going TW okay um now we open for comments um did you have something you want to have a question I sort of question sort of a comment well only question now then we'll do comment just state your name and address I am Chris Cadwell I live at 19 gold Smith Drive um so there's been a lot of talk about a hypothetical conforming three lot subdivision um if I were making the case for a flag lot instead of that I might have brought that as an example why did you not bring that as part of your case it's a mistake in judgment that's all I could have I should have but I I didn't chose not to my mistake okay before I close the questions anyone else all right now it's a comments anyone have any a comment they wish to put on the record okay now you have to be us sworn just uh raise your hand Chris anybody for the public anybody makes a comment we swear for the you SAR to tell the whole truth yes um I have prepared remarks um as a concerned of butter I do not propose development in general or necessarily for a flag lot on a neighboring property however I strongly encourage the board to consider if two or three lots is appropriate and for any future development of the mother lot and any second phase of development to be restricted I encourage the town to request a confirming subdivision of three lots with complete plans as this would allow for the town to assess all the overall impact and decide what's best for the town and for the community uh by reviewing a more complete comprehensive subdivision am the town would be able to make an informed decision that takes into account the long-term interests of the neighborhood environmental sustainability and infrastructure capacity um I'd also like to voice concerns about the future development Beyond what's proposed here um that could be po that could pose a serious environmental risk including inadequate storm water management to my neighbor um additionally increase devel that would negatively impact the Privacy Aesthetics and appeal of surrounding homes and potentially lowering all of our property values moreover The riparian Zone on the property is a vital ecological resource that must be preserved I strongly urge the board to consider a formal inclusion of all land within that riparian zone to be put into an irrevocable conservation easement this would provide longm protection for these sensitive areas ensuring I'm I'm a little nervous um ensuring that they remain undisturbed and safeguarded from future development while I don't oppose development in general I encourage uh and urge the board to ensure any approval comes with strict conditions that prevent future subdivision or development of the property and the form of a deed restriction or conservation easement that's all I got thanks Chris did great you did good okay anyone else yes sir come on up be sworn again I may have a secular affirmation youir you say the truth yes thank you Patrick trus 56 Line Road I'd like the comment that anything the board does uh will minimize the impact to storm water dra drainage so you look at that when doing the zoning um two lots has more two lots has um two New Lots have more impervious uh surfaces than one lot uh even with the pools and all the other things taken into account as the line wrote that is a very very sensitive area we have uh flooding problems on both sides of Line Road and every storms and it's not it's getting worse uh with t with time thank you thank you anyone else before I close comments okay now we we'll discuss so Mr chair can I just before you deliberate if the board wants to see a conforming plan we're willing to come back with one not not to apply for one but just to demonstrate to the board if you don't like the flag and you like the other plan we'll amend the application and do that if that's we'd consider it I don't know if they'll do it I haveen talk the client but I don't know if you need to see that in order to make a decision is what I'm suggesting well look I think it would certainly help me I don't know if I'm in the minority here but uh right just just just to look at both in the in the uh we're just doing our due diligence if it's not that much of an effort that would include the the public road then right yes yes or you you don't I I don't need it you don't need it West if I'm a minority I'll forgo it but FL well I think what he's saying is and correct me if I'm wrong that by they could provide a conforming plan with three lots but that would Avo that would involve the additional public roads which would be added maintenance costs to the town right and storm War all that stuff so there is some benefit I mean I know there's going to there's probably a benefit to them so I'm still trying to figure out what it is but uh there's there's certainly a benefit to the town financially yeah there's taxes for the third lot right yeah so there is a benefit to the town yeah and and we wouldn't have to maintain a road with this with this with this application yeah I mean do we deliberate in just front of everyone or that work get a sense from the other three if they want to see that plan I mean it could help you if they can show there are no variances that could help you justify this appc in addition you don't need it they didn't make a motion to approve or yeah I mean look for for me you know I personally don't understand why it's not acceptable here but it's accept 100 feet away across the street um just because it's written that way that's why there's variances to discuss site specific types of situations um you know even the the the way I read the rule says under certain circumstances it is okay it's not like an absolute standard um requirement you know maybe I just need to know a little bit more about that um it's not I me know we're always big on the bucolic effects of this town right and how it's I don't think it's going to affect us from that standpoint um I think if they're willing to show you what is allowed and conforming and why this may be a better alternative on the record that may be the best option for you guys to say I where you're coming from right I do but if you saw we could do this conforming and this is what it would be which is a not not a better scenario it would help you guys to say granting this relief is a better alternative right I think 100% that's kind of where my head was from the beginning is I need to so you're willing to come back and provide us with this forming option right yes and in either event we would have the conservation easement that was described we have restriction against future subdivision I think that's for you guys a better option at least see it I mean look I I look at this this letter from what's wjh right yeah and it's like a it's a it's a one-page letter that just explains I want a variance and that's basically it no but I think like listen I'm not a huge advocate of this kind of variant right yes right and I agree with Mr F 100% however I also agree with Mr Emma if the answer is this is a better alternative than the town taking on another road but let's see it no agree that's why I was that's what I was saying before I'm trying to understand where the benefits are so if I can see the two plans and I can have a a nice written description of why it's beneficial to the town maybe there's as well as a a visual like this is going to be a road that we have to take care of at X YZ whatever right which they could potentially provide yes and why this alternative is a better alternative they should provide it to you so when you're making that decision it's based upon legitimate data in front of you yeah and if you could yeah Jen that's exactly kind of where my head was at what do you guys think what you guys are kind of quiet down there what do you guys what's your initial thoughts I can see conc takes over obviously cost down the road and also the impct of the neighbor think both of those are weighing on and you know if this so ahead Tom that's all we're talking about it 10 10 feet is what we're talking about between two lots or one lot we're talking 10 feet plus we'd have to maintain a public road let's remember everything we do here always involves numbers and offsets and what's 5et what's 10et 500 feet versus 300 feet on on the other Road you know that's that sounds familiar yeah so you know um you know if you could do exactly what Jen said it' be helpful for me and it sounds like it'll be helpful for others too that are on the fence and you know some of the concerns today about drainage and things like that maybe those are things that can be addressed in the two options maybe one option will alleviate some of the issues that line Road's currently having with some of the storm water runoff and you know maybe consider that as well can I ask a question to one of the members of the audience that that made a comment before no they made a comment they be cramin but I I to the homeowner that the homeowner that is just to the north that has that flag lot I mean they had a question the question was about the alternate plans could I ask her uh her opinion or no I would would my I I would be interested to to because it's going to affect the homeowner that's directly adjacent to the property if if we they went with the additional the alternate plan it's close you saw the alternative I think if they presented you guys with the alternative plan that would be something you could engage with the surrounding property so that's why I would advise you to say yes we will give you the option to present this to us before you guys act on it to to justify in their mind not in your mind but in their mind what they're requesting and therefore you guys could at least have the data to make the decision so Mr Z zamina right zelina yes sir um how long would it take for you to put together this doc can we just clarify something we're what we don't want to do is do a fully engineered stormw management system agreed good so he said two weeks to me I don't know if he's say it's just a concept plan just a concept plan it's been sketched out I can present it nice gra graphically so it's acceptable to the board and the audience here in a matter of a couple weeks I would suggest just a concept plan to show you what it would look like if it's something you would if you would engage in then they would have to go back and deal with it but if you're like it's not look if we see the conceptual plan and we're okay if it's not the better alternative and this is a better alternative let's not have them go down that road of going through okay detailed engineering I'll just add for the board Mr know from a resolution perspective which is what I care about protecting this board's ultimate decision have that plan make sure you call out if there are hopefully none but as you said but any variances obviously because that'll help this board make a decision on this application uh that's to me is the critical one of the critical things that'll help um you know when we ultimately decide so if there are variances you know obviously call them out and Bob will look at it too but I agree so Mr chair you I would require is whenever a date is chosen that whatever concept is going to be prepared that it be submitted to courtly so it can be distributed far enough in advance so Jen and I can at least review it yeah and have some sort of comments how much time you need walking in the night of a meeting way great right I mean I me okay all that's plenty of time I just ask that you how many how many weeks do you need Bob to review it in a week as soon as it's turned in we'll turn it around okay but December seems to work that works that's fine so we just request um we'll we'll provide plenty of time for them to review it and to give input and we may come back and forth with them to make sure we're all comfortable and um we ask assuming that acceptable to you to carry to that date without the need to further notice the public oh yeah we'll carry that without further notice here just you'll make the announce when he's ready to do that yes y I would just say two just I don't want to overstep Scott you maybe also discuss with Bob that the rural laning standards if you're propose him on the new one or this one'll be fine right you know get whatever information you have not that he doesn't know it already but get that to him and us so 100% you know we have that information full disclosure we want all everyone to have all the information so we can come to a decision next yeah yes uh they're getting they're asking for the conforming development project proposal that would have three total Lots two new one existing M correct no but I'm saying that hasn't been they're not asking for that they could do that without seeing a we can't tell them to this is your notification yeah December 17th December 17 mark your calendar in one minute the chair will announce that it's going to be carried to December 17th without further notice this is your notice o00 the plans will be available so you at least two 10 days ahead of time so you go upstairs to Courtney office okay so what do we do now Mar this the party so what we do now we make a just just uh make a agree to we need to make a motion on that or no you can do you do it's just a motion just to I like in formal motion for okay so we're going to carry this to 17th of December uh the applicant was is going to provide the conceptual plan plans in the descriptions right talking about pluses and minuses whatever and um at least 10 days before and uh no further public no yeah no further Public Notices on this okay um now I'll just go to the next one okay so you guys are thank Sal thank you Mark all right and we just got a a memorial Mor memorializing resolution item number two uh p B 2020-01 Barkley Square at Homedale still in a meeting so yeah uh PB 2020-01 Barkley Square at Hell LLC Palmer Avenue block 52 lot 17 and 18 extension of time applicant granted a second one-year extension of the preliminary fi and final major site plan approval memorialized on July 20th 20121 right yeah and that was just gred that second onee extension there's no condition right and the formality yeah uh any professional reports today no real good oh we have do okay sorry so we voted okay roll call I guess you you approved it at the hearing now we're approving the oh okay motion to approve yeah I'll do one yes yes yes last okay um okay no professional reports at this time so I guess uh we're adjourned see you have a good Thanksgiving everyone we won't be here go metss go Mets just throwing that out there on the record good night