##VIDEO ID:sKjalPMGR7E## [Music] all right good evening everybody Welcome to the township of how planning board meeting for Thursday October 10th 2024 Eileen opening statement please I hereby declare this meeting of the Howell Township planning board to be open adequate notice having been given pursuant to the New Jersey open public meeting act in the following manner first on January 5th 2024 a copy of said notice was emailed to the Asbury Park Press and the Star Ledger second on January 5th 2024 a copy of s notice was hand delivered to the clerk of the township of Howell third on January 5th 2024 said notice was posted in the office of the planning board and on the bulletin board in the Howell Township Municipal Building 4567 Route 9 Howell Township New Jersey in accordance with the fire provision vention code in your safety please be advised that this facility is designed with two emergency exits which are at the front and rear of the meeting room furthermore smoking is not permitted in the municipal building please take note that this meeting is being videotaped for possible future broadcast on Howell Township TV 77 thank you thank you roll call please Mr Cristiano present Mr Greenfield here Mr leio here Mr Mr Mercer here Mr tanin house I have not heard from Mr Withers here Mr reel here councilwoman Fisher's been excused Miss Pike here Mr Carbonic has been excused and chairman huster here you have a quorum thank you uh would everybody rise for the Pledge of Allegiance and take a moment of silence uh think about those down in Florida that are just dealing with this awful weather and uh just say a prayer for everybody down there please to flag United States America to the rep for it stands one nation God indivisible with liy and justice for all all right thank you ien approval of minutes uh for the the regular meeting of July 18th 2024 eligible voters Mr Greenfield Mr Mercer Mr Withers Mr Rebel and that's it do I have a motion I'll make a motion Mr Mercer do I have a second second who was the second I'm sorry uh Mr reel thank you Mike Mr Greenfield yes Mr Mercer yes Mr Withers yes and Mr Rebel yes motion carries thank you okay and an approval minutes for the regular meeting of September 5th 2024 eligible voters Mr Christiano Mr Greenfield Mr legio Mr Mercer Mr Rebel Miss Pike and myself do I have a motion I'll make motion Mr Cristiano do I have a second second Mr legio Mr Cristiano yes Mr Greenfield yes Mr leio yes Mr Mercer yes Mr Rebel yes Miss Pike yes and chairman huster yes motion carries minutes are approved thank you okay thank you e do we have any correspondence I don't really have any correspondence other than there are still a few members that have either taken the storm waterer course and didn't let me know or still need to take it so I ask you to please take that course it's about 45 minutes and you need to send an email to me because we have to keep track of everybody that sees it for our compliance okay yeah please everybody get that done um and then on one other note uh we had a meeting schedule for next week there were two applicants or applications on there both attorneys have asked to be carried so that meeting has been cancelled and I I sent something out to all the members about it so just next week November excuse me October 17th okay Thursday next Thursday cancel our next meeting is November 7th and that is the only meeting in November so right okay okay wow thank you that's all I have do we have to make an announcement for that for that meeting for next week no I actually put a on the website that they're being carried with no further notice and after tonight's meeting there'll be notices on the meeting room and the doors cool thanks e you're welcome all right resolutions uh case number sp-11 128 for links waste and recycling Solutions Incorporated this is a resolution granting submission waivers eligible voters Mr legio Mr Mercer uh Mr Rebel M Pike and myself do I have a motion to memorialize motion Mr legio do I have a second second Mr Mercer Mr leio yes Mr Mercer yes Mr Rebel yes Miss Pike yes and chairman huster yes motion carries resolution to memorialized thank you thank you and there's no submission waivers this evening correct no submission waivers okay let's get started with the applications first one SP-10 55 1228 realy LLC for an extension of time councelor good evening good evening board members may I begin sure absolutely good evening uh my name is Carlton Cromer I am the attorney for the applicant we are seeking a one-year extension for our development approvals we experiened the delay with progressing with construction because of the complexities around utilities we have septic took a while to determine that that was not feasible and then we had to Pivot to sewer I'd like to give you some background about what we have been going through quickly and briefly respect everybody's time so you can understand what we were dealing with and why it took so long yes so you're not presenting a witness correct correct and you're an officer of the court I don't have to swear you and you're already tell going to tell the truth absolutely okay just make sure with a smile thank the property right now has septic and well initially we tried to figure out a way to install a new septic system and we found that it was not feasible some of the complexities are around that the property is near Wetlands for several years we had to communicate with the DP about where to put the septic system that's acceptable and that back and forth took a long time the D doesn't respond quickly they have shorting staffs and they have a heavy workload each request that they had we had to wait for them to make that request then we had to develop the information to respond and then sometimes it would wait the file would wait with the D and then we would finally hear something and then we'd have to get more information either soil borings or we would have to revise the plans to relocate the septic to try to appease the D and then that process of awaiting again would happen until we determined that it was not feasible so then we had to go to plan B and pivot to a sewer system now the complexity with going with the sewer system is that we had AC cross a road and it wasn't just any road that we had AC cross we had AC cross route nine the the reason why we had to cross Route 9 is that there's no sewer system or water system on our side of Route 9 we had to go to the other side of Route 9 to connect to the sewer system and the water system and we are making progress with that we are reaching many Milestones first we reach the Milestone of getting approval by the town Howell Howell in June of this year approved us connecting to the sewer system we also received approval a few weeks ago midt from the sewage Authority allowing us to connect to that next up we're got pending the approval for the county and then we are going to progress to finish up the rest of the work that needs to get done to get this sewer connection done so we are asking for one more year to finish up this leg of the development initially we requested years but we don't need those years because we've already made progress we're at the end of what we need to do we ask for one more year I don't believe that there's any objection from the town engineer on our application and so we ask that the board Grant it thank you for your consideration thank you any comments your name Ryan I don't know if your mic is on thank you Ryan McNeil with CME Associates um I do can you just go through the history of the extensions that previously approved we I don't know if I have that so you you had you had two one-year extensions right originally and now you're seeking three oneyear extensions and that's just to get us to current time we don't need three I think we were asking for a lot initially truth be told we only need a year now because we've had made progress and we really only just need that one year hold on a minute let me just do my math here what it it doesn't explain what what was the project so my my understanding would be that three one-year extensions would have ended in July of 2024 this year right that's right so you're looking for another one on top of that yes so that would be four one-year extensions correct correct right got it can you refresh our memory what the application is sure we are looking to there's an existing building already we're looking where's it located on Route 9 1228 Route 9 Northbound side or South southbound side southbound side okay there's an existing building now there uh the prior use was office space we're going to add on to it and continue uh permissible uses oh is this this is the piece Nick that's next to um they sell the tractors yeah right next to it's next to us that's not us but it's next to us yeah that's this is the piece it's the white building agent Landscaping Parks their trucks over there a lot north yes sir they've been doing some work in the parking lot okay just so we know what what the lot was all right so absolutely so we're we're talking Ryan we're so you're going to be asking for four one year extensions now no just one year well how is it one year one additional year I'm sorry so it' be seeking four one-year extensions yes okay got it um so I do want to state that the uh CME did a report there was no indication of their position on whether the extensions were able to be granted or not granted I did review this matter was originally approved in July of 2019 following which there was two years where uh this matter was pending but we don't see any action in 2021 they came here and we're granted two years that covered the two years from TW from 19 to 20 and 20 to 21 of course those are covid years right uh from 2021 now our position my legal position is we would be able to give extension of time for one more time three years total under uh um uh uh section 52 of the ml so that would only take him to 2022 if we were to consider the whole three years that they originally requested unlike what the attorney the applicant for the the applicants engineer stated I want three years until 26 it's actually has to be counted from 2021 when we last granted extension so each year from the time you Del you you deliberated and approved that counts right even though Co happened for two years and we understand that that delayed things there were requirements that had to be filed to preserve rights under covid so they're not arguing Co toight what he's arguing is look we had we were doing Wetlands we were trying to do a sep we were trying to do a well and when we realize that the wetlands we couldn't place the septic uh we had to Pivot and they did in fact obtain a an approval this year not too long ago from your Township for the sewer connection however they don't go by our guidelines which are the ml so we believe that this board really can't GR anything beyond July 19th 2024 so if you're to Grant this the maximum amount we think is three years that's five years which under some cases you can get a fiveyear extension we just don't think that this matter applies because it's a small development but they're stuck in a sort of a Twilight Zone kind of you know they finally got some movement this year with the application and I don't know whether there I guess there's only sewer on the other side of Route n and and so that whole thing they've got a permission to connect but going across the state highway or doing this undoing the state highway to make that connection you know closing the state highway that has to all be approved yeah I guess my question is did they approve go for a licens AC Cross of NJ do I didn't hear you mention that one as well we those discussions are happening those discussions are close to finalized there's another application pending and whoever goes first to get that approval then the second person will have to connect through the person who got that first approval so those steps are pending I I can appreciate that there's no physical action but it's kind of like when my clients say to me hey what did you do I'm like well there was a ton of research that I had to do there was a ton of brainstorming that I had to do you may not see all of that work but that work is there similarly here you may not see physical changes on the property connected to this application but there has been a ton of paperwork there's been a ton of planning that's been done trying to figure out if this septic system can work and yes it moves slowly but working with the D and trying to respond to their request takes time and at some point we had to Pivot and we did pivot and we did make progress and we're just at the end of the road and we just need to finish up these last pieces and the project will go we are ready to move we want to move we have no reason to stall this project this has been a vacant building that's been an expense these guys want to produce this property yeah I mean listen in my professional life I understand where you're coming from I deal with the DP every day and state bureaucracy it it it is a waiting game you know you factor in covid so I I I definitely understand where you're coming from just protocol wise I just want to make sure we're doing everything correct and I I think all of your test that you put on the record supports that like you you guys are doing everything you need to do and I I get it um I just want to know if the one the four one years right would put us to July of 2025 correct no it would not with a four one years the five one years would be July of 2024 from from July of 2019 20 but if they already have two one-year extensions for which were memorialized that was 1920 that was 21 or so that's 20 and 21 right so so then 22 23 24 2 additional three years no 22 23 24 total of five am I missing something here 1920 21 I understand that but if if you read this on the on the on the right two you had two one years that were memorialized on 20 on in 2021 in August of 2021 count from July of 2019 okay correct so 20 and 21 right that's two 22 23 22 23 24 25 that's four years right so why wouldn't it be four oneye extensions that's five years 20 from July 19th to 20 from 20 to 21 from 21 to 22 22 to 23 23 to 24 that's five you count 19 to 20 you're counting 19 to 20 as the as the absolutely that's when your memorialized resolution of approval was entered now their position is you need to count from the two years we already got and give us more yeah yeah yeah I get that and it still doesn't get them beyond the date I know if you had a crystal ball you'd say this is when we're going to to get it done right if if we do Grant yeah an additional year I mean do you think this it's it's reasonable that you can complete it within a year yes uh uh but when I think of a year I think at the end of 2025 um it's not though it's July it would be it would be halfway you know it would be July okay is the board o open to the end of 2025 um I'm just trying to be practical we're not trying to um you know keep some benefit that's changed which is the purpose of the extensions I don't believe that the law has changed that if we were to reapply we would not get the approvals again it's a way of being efficient of being practical and keeping the project moving along we also don't want to lose the approvals because we are fearful that this may impact our application on getting the sewer on getting the water in place you know because those discussions are premised upon a use I'm sure they make calculations based on the use so we want to preserve these approvals so that that conversation can continue I I I and I understand it looks like the owner has something to say I'd like to hear what he has to say that's why to me that there's a potential teny as well yeah we we well we are eager to start work and what the ownership was telling me was that they wanted to express to the board that they would start next week if they could what that is around is the idea that sometimes I have been in a position where I didn't fulfill all the conditions of an approval but we were able to get a permit to Begin work um so that is something that I had spoken to them about today and they're like yeah duh I would do that tomorrow if I had the opportunity so they're ready to pull the permit today or tomorrow if they can they don't want to delay Len and I understand all of this it's just I also understand the state of New Jersey and how it works you know I I think we're kind of in between a rock in a hard place here let me just address something that the attorney uh stated which is the purpose of extensions when you get an approval you probably know sir when you get an approval what you're doing is you're preserving that approval as to that use so if the township Council had changed the use during the periods of extension legitimate extensions he would not have to get a used variance he would still have an approval so what he said was we can we know we can come back and we can present the same application and it's not a used variant and you'll probably approve it because you'll find everything you already found so what I would like to just if the if the board is going to consider an extension whether it's till July of next year December of next year year or March 31st of next year I don't know but if you were what we would put in the resolution would be that this would be the last extension and it is subject to any changes in codes and ordinances that were established for public health safety and Welfare he can't stick with the fire code from 2019 he's got to do the fire code now which may may bring bring upon it revisions to plans yep I don't think he can pull a permit because he has to have according to his his Engineers letter that we have dated July 18th the last thing the county approval is still P but the last thing after that is the tww which this engineer estimates at 90 days which I would say is optimistic absolutely but neverthe tww is is a pretty a significant application I'm surprised that it has to go for this small of an application he's only add he's adding less than 2,000 square feet to this building it's not a huge project but it requires sewer and water so in that respect it's a great project because you either have sewer and water or you don't right so with that caveat I just have to tell you you know I reviewed this with Ron I reviewed the statutes I reviewed it with the applicant and we don't see the ability to extend if this board does it the question is is it going to be challenged is there some harm that you are doing by interpreting some of the statutes within section 52 to say yeah we can do this in light of everything that they've done to dat but you would need to put restrictions and they would really need to get this thing done Y and they they say that they estimate maybe January of 2026 they would have the tww I doubt that but perhaps by March 31 maybe July but I don't see that you should extend this beyond that and you are stretching the statutes you know there's some language in sections B and C that are debatable uh the only other thing I would say to you is since he since the attorney and I were discussing this pretty much 4:00 today uh if he wants another month and wants to research because I read the statutes but I didn't go looking at case law I don't know if there is any case law but I know what other boards have done and some have granted this type of extension and most I would say would not Grant the yeah I mean here's my two cents and I'm not going to make a motion obviously but the it's a good project you know it's it's a where it is it's it's it's improving that area you know improving the property uh and again I I stress that it is not easy working with the Department of Environmental Protection so I I sympathize for you and I think the project is a good project um at the same token by granted an extension like in my opinion this is just my opinion it would be it and then if you know I understand you're kind of rolling the dice it the balls in their court and if it if it works great and if it doesn't I guess you're back to square one you have to come back anyway you know yeah and we respect that and yes we agree that today's standards apply okay um so we're not looking to pull a fast one we're just trying to keep the project going and we appreciate anything that the board can provide I just want to provide one note which is that I think the attorney and I have spoke about other Provisions in the statute for extension and how it provides for additional extensions for complex projects that are big and that defines complex projects by size this is a small project that has a big complexity and so it fits within the spirit of that provision that provides for additional extensions even though it does not fit precisely in it but this is what that that section is meant to capture the situation where there are approvals beyond the control of the applicant that need to be obtained in addition to the one from the municipal board in order to begin instruction is there a way we could put a caveat that all work's got to be done at night time route I wouldn't want to be shutting down route nine to do that work uh probably naturally aul won't let it have approval to open that Highway yeah so we have I I don't know what it's called it's called is there something called a t something in order to connect with uh the engineer was explaining to me that there's some sort of way to connect underneath horal directional Dr we do all time so what do you think uh well yeah I mean I'll leave it up to the we made we we made a motion to give you till December 31st of 2025 with all I love that I'd give you a hug if there wasn't a barrier here but it's it's with the stipulations yeah with all the that the attorney has has said that you would have to do everything up to up to 2025 codes corre yes that's the last extension corre if you think you're not going to be ready I'm I'm talking about this is the time for you to pill the building permit right it's not that's not the date that he has to finish construction corre right everyone know right you have to pull a permit and put a shovel in the ground yeah and if you think by November or even October that you're not going to make that don't wait until the time passes okay talk to me or talk to the board board secretary you could throw yourself mercy of the board again or you could just file a new application to to present all over again so one of the problems that is here is they're applying after the fact right so you know that's also problematic but uh I leave it to the board if that is what the board wants to do uh is there any member of the public however that's here to talk about this matter I wonder yeah they have to open open a doesn't seem so you do have to open to the public yeah well that was it that was the opening okay now it's the all members of the public all right so Mr legio right so Nick I'll make a motion to Grant this applicant extension of time to December 31st of 2025 under the stipulations discussed stipulations as per the attorney okay do I have a second I'll second Mr Cristiano second all right Eileen Mr Cristiano yes Mr Greenfield yes Mr leio yes Mr Mercer yes Mr Withers yes Mr Rebel yes M Pike yes and chairman huster yes motion carries great good luck thank you thank you thank you thanks talking uh next case is case number sd- 3015 aaham weinman and this is for a minor subdivision with ancillary variance and design waiver relief Mr Pape how we doing this evening good how are you good good evening board members board professionals my name is Jared Pape I'm an attorney with the law firm of hurn Pape and our office has the privilege of representing the applicant Mr weinman um before I begin I'd like to confirm that the notices that we provided uh were adequate I I know that this matter was originally scheduled for a September meeting and was carried to this meeting so just want to confirm for the record that um not this is adequate to provide this board with jurisdiction I'm not in September was it announced to the public that it would be carried without any Yes we made an not here right we we we did make an appearance um and it was you were here in the room I was okay yes and it was it was announced to this meeting so that that notice that was done then still stands and your jurisdiction has been extended great thank you um I'll begin with an overview of this application um this is an application for a property located at block 16 Lots one and 2.01 on larabe Boulevard um it's technically for the ordinance deemed a major subdivision although it's probably more accurate to describe this as a resubdivision in which the um lot line of two existing Lots is being adjusted so there's two lots that are there today lot Line's being adjusted and there's going to be two lots there at the end no New Lots are being um are being created um the properties are located in the R2 residential Zone where minimum lot areas are 20,000 Square ft so of the two lots lot one is about 8,500 Square ft so it's well undersized and lot 2.01 is about 30,000 square ft so it's a bit oversized and what's being proposed is to modify that lot line to create two two lots um each approximately 19,500 Square fet so just shy of the 20,000 square foot requirement um and it's worth noting that on either side of of these Lots there's two um paper streets that are not developed and likely won't be developed and if those paper streets were ever to be vacated um we it appears that uh the excess land would make both of these Lots conforming so I just wanted to point that out at the beginning um so with that as the background um we have two witnesses Peter strong is the applicant's professional engineer Allison coffin is the applicant's professional planner Mr weinman is here as well as although I don't intend to call him for any testimony so uh unless there's any questions at this time I'll ask the Mr Mr strong be uh sworn Jared just just on the record this application is to create two undersized Lots two undersized Lots correct so you have one lot that's conforming one lot that's not conforming currently currently making both of them equally sized just shy of the required that's correct that's correct in the past in the past with these applications I don't want to put Christine on the spot there but I'm going to put Christine on the spot Christine was in the past normally Township we do not you know allow non-conforming Lots correct um typically you know we do not encourage the creation of a non-conforming lots um it is not good planning process uh practice sorry um I think we can let the applicant make their case um in this case it would go from one conforming law and one non-conforming law to two non-conforming laws but you know it's up to them to make their case yeah well we're prepared to make the presentation and we'll certainly hear uh any comments from the board U once we've made our made our case sure um I believe Mr strong would need to be uh sworn to tell the truth truth help you I do your name for the record and your expertise pter W strong St n I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey uh with Crest Engineering Associates located in the microphone so everyone can hear you can pick that one up off the table and speak right into it sorry pick that mic up right off the table and you can speak into it so we get you on the record yeah that's the mic okay okay um so I I know we Mr strong you prepared some exhibits that have been submitted to the board perhaps we could just Begin by um identifying the exhibits that that you've submitted yes we have two uh two exhibits one called an aerial display uh A3 in the Township's exhibit list um which shows the property itself self outlined in yellow uh the smaller of the two lots lot one is on the left or the uh Westerly side um larby Boulevard runs along the top the larger lot uh with the existing house is uh to the right um and then there are the two paper streets uh Glenco and Shetland Avenue um are to the east and west of the uh the yellow lines and the subdivision area so that shows the whole the whole neighborhood uh which is kind of varied as there a lot of 20,000 square foot Lots but there's also lots that are bigger and smaller uh in in this particular vicinity to site display yeah uh the the next display we have is called the site display it's a 14 on the uh the list and this shows um the subdivision line which is the white line down the middle um and how we would uh possibly uh fit to conforming homes on the uh on the property after removing the existing house um the the lots are equally sized at 19511 squ FT a piece um the the homes have septic systems in the front which are the this rectangular dotted areas uh the driveways come off of larby Boulevard obviously and um in the uh lower portion there the or show the wells that would service the two the two dwellings uh in that area now we've we've uh this this area is a is a not in a sewer service area obviously um and we have to uh we had to provide uh proof that the proposed utilities sewer and water as well as the storm water management uh for this uh site uh would fit on the on the property after it was subdivided uh in order to justify having lots um of 20,000 square feet or thereabouts um and we have done that uh on the on the plans that uh were submitted as part of the subdivision of the property excuse me sir you have to speak enough so members of the public can hear you okay it's not just reporting members of the public have to be able to hear you okay project a little sounds loud to me right here but okay and just to back up for a moment I I want to make sure it's clear what the existing conditions are perhaps we could flip back to the aerial for a moment Peter could you touch on um what is there today in terms of the improvements on lot 2.01 and and really the lack of improvements on lot one yes um maybe I can use if you uh the the major lot the 30,000 sare foot lot has an existing dwelling with a driveway and and uh uh uh some decks um a couple of sheds and the septic system is in the front of the uh of the lot the other lot the smaller lot is totally wooded and uh vacant at this present time and and again as I mentioned before the two um uh uh paper streets Shetland and Glenco are to the east and west and those are totally wooded as well and what's being proposed here is the existing improvements on the lot would be removed so the existing house would be removed that's correct the the well would be abandoned septic would be removed that's right and what would be what's being proposed is two new homes with new septics and new wells yes just wanted to make sure that was clear um for the board who owns the paper streets the township owns the paper streets and they're not used for anything I'm sorry they're not used for anything no they're not developed um and they're they're not used they're never paved or cleared or improved with any any utilities in any way shape or form so you touched on septic you touched on on the wells um perhaps you could speak to the the zoning standards obviously we have two slightly non-conforming Lots but can you confirm that all other uh bulk regulations would be met yes the uh as I said before the The Zone requires 20,000 sare feet per lot the two lots proposed are 19511 sare F feet a piece a piece but um we do have we have done the soil testing with the uh County Health Department uh for the septic systems and have received approval uh for the ability to to place septic systems um and those are shown on the uh the plans and as well as the site display exhibit um and we have met all the requirements with regards to uh setbacks not only on our own property but to adjoining properties the um the properties to the south of us there are two lots which are 20,000 ft a piece each as you can see and they have they have houses and their septics and we've um planned our separation from our proposed utilities from their proposed utilities so that uh we all meet all the required distances that uh the uh State and Health Department uh require for all of those facilities I believe um you in your application called out and you would also need uh front yard setback variances for each of the Lots um for the frontage on those paper streets um because uh they are technically a front yard so each of these is a corter lot um and a 50 uh foot front yard set back would be required um proposed lot a you had 28 feet and proposed Lot B you would have 25.5 correct so there we did note that and we noticed that there is language in the ordinance think I can read it here which indicates that um the front yard setback may be reduced to 25 ft for Lots fronting on internal streets um so if Glenco and Shetland are deemed uh internal streets it appears the front yard setback could be reduced to 25 ft but no they're not internal streets internal streets would be like a private Street within uh development this is a public owned Street um while it's technically just paper street at the moment it's not considered an internal well I I defer to you on the board of course but when we looked at the subdivision that created the two lots to the South um the the setbacks off of those two paper streets were deemed as internal streets and they the houses are 25 foot setback off of the rways for the two paper streets on on those two lots so that's what that's what happened at that time I know that have 20,000 ft sorry they have the 20,000 sare ft they do and we have 489 ft less yes the the term internal Street we didn't see a clear definition for it in in the ordinance that being said if if it's deemed that 50 feet is the requirement we we'll ask for that variance it was designed um to honor the 25t setback which we which we do have which is greater than the um 20 foot setback that's typically required so it if it's deemed that that's a necessary variance that's one that we would be asking for correct um Peter perhaps you could touch on the uh report that was issued from CME uh dated June 13 2024 um okay you could we have that report we have I have reviewed it um I don't have any uh problems with the recommendations that are in the report uh for the for the most part um uh pet Peter so you you can comply with all of our comments in in that letter I believe we can yes okay yes so needs to be St that comp yes thank you thank you um um there is one additional Weaver they need uh there's currently no sidewalk um existing on larabe Boulevard or either of the paper streets um and they're not proposing any sidewalk yes so we are requesting the waiver for sidewalk of course we'll defer to the board um there's there's no sidewalk in this area um but again we'll we'll defer to the board's Direction on that on that matter we would contribute to the sidewalk fund yes we would contribute to the sidewalk fund as required as as in cme's report correct similar to that there's another waiver as well for uh really removing the trees on the property um and it seemed like due the availability um payment to the tree fund may be required so again just one more waiver on top of that correct well right well we would we would pay into the tree fund yes absolutely so we would we would comply with the ordinance okay yes correct that's all I have of Mr strong unless there's any questions for him before we move to Allison coffin uh any questions from board members I'll just open it up to the public just for Mr strong here yeah of course of course not so this is kind of a legal question um but normally tell me if this is not applicable but normally if there was a property that was under signed you would have to make efforts to to gain property so that you're not under here you have two paper streets I understand that they're owned by the township but if there is no intent for the township to pave those streets and make them public streets has there been any inquiry at all about purchase of part of those streets and if it was vacated the law calls for half of a P Street to go to that property and the other half to go to the other neighboring property I don't know if that would make your Lots compliant or not but it's a question that I think should be addressed with regard to the second part of that question if with the lots that are being proposed if the paper streets were vacated and half of the the width was added to the proposed Lots it would make them compliant in its current configuration that I'll defer to Peter I don't don't believe that would be the the case as to the smaller lot so lot lot one if if if just the one right of away for Glenco were vacated and half of that RightWay was added to that that particular lot that would still not make it conforming it would still be significantly undersized as it as its current configuration but with the proposal of 19,5 for each lot what's the square footage from half a street on one side and the square footage from half the street on the other and would both of those proposed Lots make up the 500 ft your Miss oh yes it would more more than make up the 500 square F feet for for both Lots each I'm not suggesting that you could require that but it is something that the board can consider what efforts were made to discuss that kind of thing we we did I'm not sure and forgive me I don't know what the Township's position would be whether or not they need those streets well they're not streets they're fully wood lock they're not oh they're like the street paper street but they're fully wooden they're not even it's not even like they're cleared and you can walk down it right okay and it's not like emergency vehicles could nothing that's correct we have a Township official here they're completely wooden they're not you know I mean I don't know what the township plans for those but and I I don't know that the board would you know require them to investigate that before you vote or after you vote or come back to us I'm just saying that that requirement to attempt to gather land from neighboring properties is from a case it's from a case that but this is it's private property usually you would ask your neighbor can you sell me a few feet of land this is not private property it's public property would they donate into the uh sidewalk fund for just the front of laraby but those are both Corner lots are they well I had a question because I didn't hear the requirement for sidewalk and curving on the other Street lar is on the top what's that other Street down there and I think the the donate the that's here this the street and that's that's a road yes that's Bri Aven all of those four the two paper streets and the other two streets create four frontages that normally would require sidewalks and curving so my guess is and we have well the proposed Lots aren't going through all the way it's just on the larabie Frontage and then the two paper lot okay and what what there is there different lot on there's two the testimony was there's two uh conforming lots to the rear of the so for the waiver for the sidewalk you would need to also include the paper streets as well on top of the calculation will be based upon that understood and like the way I would write the resolution is calculation to be uh determined and and applicant sh apply with those both of those formations the trees and the sidewalking and uh uh cban just to respond to your earlier inquiry our client did reach out to the township to inquire if there was any um consideration to vacate those streets and he was informed that the township was was not was was not looking to do so with regard to the uh the Nash letters for lack of a better term reaching out to the neighbors to see if there's any excess land um I mean because these two lots are adjoining to one another effectively the smaller lot would have written a letter to the larger lot asking for extra land which is effectively what we're proposing um that lot line would be adjusted um to provide that extra land the the lots to the rear don't have any available land to provide as you can see they're fully developed um and they they would not be able to provide additional lands at least not without creating additional variances on those lots yes um right those those lots are exactly 20,000 Square F feet each right no excess land too so so there's no excess land so it's kind of a unique situation in that these two lots are both part of this application and already subject to uh you know didn't make sense to send a letter from one to the other and that that's not the intent of the case or really what I'm saying uh but earlier the board said you're going from one conforming lot and one non-conforming to two non-conforming you also could have just made one conforming at 20,000 and the other needs a variance more of a variance but only one lot gets uh gets uh the variance I'm not saying that that's a better thing I don't know what the planners would think but certainly it would be a consideration for the board as well so that is something that we considered um and I I believe Mr strong has an exhibit that we can present this evening uh in which exactly like you said you have one lot that would remain conforming the larger lot can remain conforming um and the the secondary lot which is currently under size would get larger would still be slightly undersized um but would still meet all other um zoning standards is that but that smaller lot would not be SL in other words what I'm saying is you the subdivision create lot a as 20,000 and create Lot B as whatever is it's a lot it's going to be a lot bigger than what it currently is oh yeah yes you're right yeah abolutely that's correct and still not conform yeah I'm happy to show I can't hold the thing okay so how visible we don't have this available electronically so we'll hold it as we can see as best you can it's got number yes can you identify it's the same site display that that you have the only difference the only difference is that I've sketched a uh a red subdivision line that is 2.97 Ft farther to the West than the current line and would make this lot the Westerly easterly lot exactly 20,000 Square ft and would make Westerly lot 19,22 ft so this is an alternative that the applicant is willing to do so this in this instance just as the attorney mentioned we would not be creating an additional non-conforming lot effectively the um the arrangement that's there today would would would not change in that you have one conforming lot and you have a small lot that is getting larger although it's still slightly less than the 20,000 Square ft um and you'll I don't want to steal aliceon Thunder but you'll hear in testimony from Miss coffin that the the small lot as it is today probably is buildable but it would be a very small footprint um of a of a house that really would not be consistent with the neighborhood that's there and it would need lots of variances correct so yeah that would never so what are the what is what is the application that we're seeing are we seeing this or are we seeing this well hearing the comments of the board I I think we're going to shift to this proposal sounds like there's some reluctance to Grant an additional non-conforming lot that was what was presented is that okay yes that's okay to to present it I mean they they've done notice for what they want which is too non-conforming you're now making it less than what they noticed for you only going to have one conforming LA and it's still 19,000 square feet plus right so it's closer it's actually doing something that planners talk about which is improving a non-conforming condition for that second lot by taking the extra 30 you know the other lot's 30,000 so clearly the applicant has control over doing that he can present that as an amendment he he could if uncomfortable voting on it he's showing you a plan however we will Mark we have to mark that as an exhibit but you can vote on this and then he will be required to revise his plans to meet with the testimony and this plan shows and is there any documentation that your client reached out to the township about the paper streets like any confirmation from the township believe there's an email thread that we could get our hands on I'm sure okay just curious and was it was it for both paper streets one one for each of the Lots or what about if you have the one non-conforming and one conforming and you only look at one paper Street was that could you could you repeat that uh so if you're looking at if you're looking shi7 over you originally said you talk to the about both paper streets and taking property from both of them one for this lot and one for this lot if now you're making this lot forming discuss taking proper one of street oh um well I think that would be in the Township's hands um you we we don't have control over the vacation of those paper streets so I I suppose that would be possible but it you know it's not not something we have control over doesn't talk to each other but you could ask right I me the board can vote yeah I'm just saying it's another scenario to you know like the town might not want to give up two Pap exact that's what I'm thinking they one Pap right because then you you're still giving one you're connecting larabie and the other one at least with one so maybe they they' go for that as opposed to two of them y that that was my fa isue be the noning it's a good so my client shared with me a email exchange with Mr Matt Howard we can certainly forward this to the board uh in which um Mr Howard is responding to our client and Advising that although the township has commonly approached to vacate uh right aways their policy has always been that they do not execute such agreements in connection with like private applications like this we can forward this to the to be part of the applicant's file um so while I think it's a good suggestion I I don't know if it's a realistic um uh option you yeah and the question as well is the law is when they vacate it's automatic that half of it goes to one lot and half of it goes to the other lot but if there was an offer maybe not fair market value but close to fair market value or if the town wanted to actually see if there was a value to it to bring money to the coffers for that land that could also be its point but it's a process that requires a Town Council approval and probably an ordinance oh I'm not saying probably there is an ordinance that would be required and legal fees would be incurred that the applicant would be responsible for so it's a whole process for what appears to be less than a th000 square feet to make that second lot conforming so I am not suggesting that you should impose this this condition upon the applicant I did want you to be aware and consider it but I I certainly am not saying we should oppose that kind of condition it's really up to the board how they do and the applicant is reluctant obviously and he's tried something at least so the the case that I'm speaking about which is called lochner that case when you're buying from private properties the letters actually have to be submitted to the board so he's telling you will submit the emails at least we verified that that happened and at least the can didn't in fact do it so that that's good testimony I also want to point for the record just just for the board's knowledge and my client pointed out I believe there's um some some kind of storm water facilities on on Shetland I don't think it's visible from the aerial so I'm not sure if that would have any impact but it's worth noting and you know we we didn't look into it too closely to see what improvements are there I think it's mostly wooded um Bacon Land but that's that's another unknown okay um I was going to open this just up to the public right now for Mr strong if anybody has any comments or questions just for seeing none close all right Jared um we'll move to Allison coffin got it just sorry can I just have that exhibit so we can work yes and my question is what are the variances restate the variances for the reconfigured lot one that's conforming at 20,000 and one I need the exact amount of square second and the front yard issue that the planner raised what are those okay Peter I may assign you with this task so the um I think uh ultimately uh they I don't wait for the engineer to provide the exact number but um I would think that the uh two front yard variances would remain um they would get rid of one lot area variant uh because they would be proposing to make one lot conforming uh but they would still require the other lot area variant um or whatever the square footage of that LE that's exactly right so I think the only calculation we would KN we would do for purposes of the of a resolution would be to to um identify the exact square footage the revised square footage of the of the undersized lot which would be lot a is going to be 20,000 sare ft correct yes and Lot B would be 19,22 sareet yeah and and that's basically lot 2011 that lot no 2011 is the 20,000 okay got it flip so that's lot one yes uh and we're calling it Lot B because you got to get new lot numbers from tax that's correct okay so we're marking this as a15 a15 and then you will need to submit this in electronic form as well so that the board secretary has it we'll do and just um the only other followup I would have to that is um you provided testimony that uh the uh septic could work on the two 19511 squ ft Lots uh do you think there would be any issues um if the one was uh 19,200 and change absolutely not no issues thank you no it just be the variances yeah no changes with our report except for the variances we just discussed okay okay we'll ask for Allison coffin to be sworn like changing your the It's a Small Change did you raise right hand tell the truth the whole truth the truth yes I do and your name and spell your last name for me Allison coffin at C FF i n like the Box provide your credentials for the board hi my name's Alison coffin I have a bachelor's degree from Boston College I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey I'm also certified by the American Institute of certified planners had my license certification for almost 20 years now I work for James W Higgins Associates we're out of Ocean Township uh in the years since I have been licensed I have appeared in front of boards in more than a 100 communities throughout the state mostly stick in momth Ocean and middle sex counties I do appear here in Howell very frequently but I'm usually at your zoning board we will accept your credentials thank you thank you so Alison you you heard the changes that we we made to the proposed plan um if you could walk through the the variances that are required and and the justifications for those variances sure the property that we're looking at tonight has a total of 39,2 squ feet so it's just under 40,000 square feet and it consists of two tax Lots existing lot one is a mostly vacant extremely undersized lot it has an area of 8,520 sare fet where 20,000 s 20,000 ft is required it has 60 ft of Frontage on larabe which is an improved roadway and a 142 ft of Frontage on Glenco which is an unimproved paper Street this lot does currently contain two shed structures which would be a non-conforming use as you're supposed to have your accessory structures on the same lot as the principal structure so their presence on a lot by themselves as principal structures is non-conforming uh lot 2.01 is an irregularly shaped lot it's bu with a single family home and this lot is currently conforming it has an area of 3052 ft 200 ft of Frontage on larabe and 132 ft of Frontage on Shetland which is an unimproved paper Street the applicant is requesting the board's permission tonight to Res subdivide this parcel to create two new tax Lots out of the two tax lots that currently exist uh one will be a conforming lot of 20,000 Square ft and the other will be slightly under size at 19,22 square feet uh the existing house on lot 2.01 and the sheds on lot one will be removed and both lots are proposed to be developed with new single family homes served by new septic systems and Wells the property is located in the R2 Zone and the purpose of the zone is to permit infill development at moderate densities with established centers identified in the H how Township master plan the existing and the proposed homes are permitted uses there's bulk variants relief that's being requested uh the one lot will be slightly undersized and is a technical variance for front yard setback where 50 ft is required and to those paper streets it's um uh little less than 25 ft a little more than 25 ft and there's no other variances for side yard rear yard or height that's being requested um there is waiver request for sidewalks uh they're asking not to install them and instead to pay into the fund there is for the board to note there's no other sidewalks in that area and there's no public schools within two miles of the site so the variances that are being requested here are bulk or C type variances and there's two tests in the municipal land use law for this type of Varian the first the C1 standard it's commonly called a hardship variance and this is appropriate when a lots unique shape uh topographic conditions or pre-existing structures create a situation where the strict application of the ordinance results in hardship the second standard the C2 standard is Justified when the variances Advance the purposes of the municipal land use law um and the benefits of those variances substantially outweigh any detriments it's my opinion that the variance relief requested tonight can be granted under that C2 standard the proposed subdivision advances the purposes of the municipal land use law purpose a is to encourage Municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in the state in a manner which will promote the public health safety morals and general welfare purpose e is to establish the appropriate population densities and concentrations that would contribute to the well-being of persons neighborhoods communities and regions and preservation of the environment though relief for y lot area is required for one of these Lots the relief is not substantial in scale and is mitigated in this case by the fact that the lot fronts on a paper street that is unlikely to be improved and if the half width of that paper Street were included the area would be conforming uh this indicates to me as a planner that the density proposed overall is consistent with the intended density for the area as this street is not like ly to be improved in the future there's no real need for it it would just add to the public cost without any new public benefit as to the front yard setback relief that the applicant's requesting to the paper streets these front yards are not to on improved streets and they function fully as side yards for these lots and the 25 foot setback proposed is appropriate for those conditions furthermore the ordinance does have consideration for 25t front yards on internal streets and while internal streets are not defined in the order the board previously did take action on the lots to the South where these were treated as internal streets so the applicant thought it would be appropriate to apply that same standard to these Lots there is a clear benefit to the subdivision as proposed the existing condition of two separate tax slots that we currently have one of them is substantially undersized uh and it may be technically possible to develop that substantially undersiz lot with a home with its own septic system and well but a lot of this size is substantially out of character with the neighborhood and any home that would be accommodated on that lot would likewise be substantially out of character with the area the benefit of this land swap subdivision that's proposed creates two lots that would accommodate homes that are in scale with the area one fully conforming and one just slightly undersized the proposed subdivision allows for the use and development of these Lots in a manner which is consistent overall with the intended density for this Zone and the scale of houses that you would find in the R2 District there is in my opinion no significant detriment that results from these variances there's no negative impact to the area uh when viewed in the context of those paper streets the density that we're proposing would be fully conforming with the intent of the zone and the new homes will meet the front yard setbacks to larby and the rear yard setback to the adjacent existing homes and the proposed front yard variances again are paper streets and have no detrimental impact to those there is no significant harm to light air in open space and no significant traffic noise odors or other such impacts that result from having one of those lots slightly undersized approval of the variances would not substantially impair the intent and purpose of your master plan and zoning ordinance under these conditions the use is permitted in appropriate the subdivision uh corrects a substantially undersized lot replacing it with a slightly undersized lot which brings this property overall more into Conformity with the intent of that zone um and it eliminates the non-conforming use that exists on that one unders lot by eliminating The Sheds so for those reasons it's my opinion that the variances can be granted without detriment to the health safety and general welfare of the public and the application would result in an improvement of the site which is substantially consistent with the intended purpose of your master plan and development ordinance thank you Miss coffen um Mr chair that's the applicant's full presentation Miss coffin's available if there's any questions or comments for her okay any questions from the board Mrs coffin coffin I just I want to explain I'm sure you understand what I'm going about to say but okay we as a board member I've been sitting up here for several years and non-conforming applications yes have not been something that we have been approving it's that's been consistent with our uh our attorneys and our our our planners and it's that's the issue that I'm sitting here having because what's good for other people that have come up here applicants that were not granted those conforming you know non-conforming lots should stay consistent as far as I'm concerned because I don't want to open up you know the can of worms that's going to bring problems to this board okay so I understand it's only a few feet but it's still nonconforming so my position okay is I I'm not in favor of this because it's something that we have said no to many many times sitting up here which is consistent with our professionals so you know if there I don't know how how the board feels but I am going to make a motion well well we can't do that right I'm just saying can I can I address that go ahead I mean I I agree with you and generally creating non-conforming Lots out of nothing If This Were One lot asking for a non-conforming lot lot would make no sense this is a a slightly different situation in that we already have two building Lots they're not under separate owner they are under separate ownership they haven't combined but one of those lots is significantly undersized we don't have enough land to make both of those lots conforming so what the applicant has agreed to do tonight is amend their application so that one of the Lots remains conforming and we get that significantly undersized lot as close to conforming as we can we transfer as much land now I know the board has done that sort of variance in the past it's not a common situation because usually somebody would come in and ask for three lots as long as you got the the 50 Foot lot you try to get three 50 foot lots and we're not trying to do that here we're just trying to look to balance the land a little more equitably between these two lots and just to touch on a follow up on that and I think you mentioned it in your testimony that the density is not changing I mean the the there's two lots here today that can hold two single family homes albeit the undersized lot would be a little difficult to put a home there what's being proposed is still two single family lots so density is not changing anybody else go ahead just like 50t uh south or west for lot a and Northeast south or west for Lot B uh and also so we see proposed dwellings but we're not approving a site plan yeah so what you're saying that in the future when you go for a site plan approval uh you you expect to have a house that will be 25 foot or more from Glenco for example and 25 ft or more from she is that accurate that is correct I was just trying to figure out which one was Lot a and Lot B because I don't have that in my notes yeah if you could it would be I need the direction and I the 25 foot setback would be to the east as measured from Shetland and to the West as measured from Glenco okay and it's 25 uh exactly for both we it might it would be no more no more of an intrusion than 25 ft okay and that's what you no for yes I think with moving the lot lines the buildings might shimmy just a little bit okay very good thank you you're welcome Christine yeah so um this one is hard it's uh unusual right because typically um like I said at the beginning you know we do not encourage the creation of uh non-conforming lots that is not a good planning practice in this case though you already have one extremely non-conforming lot um I do think their uh proposal to create one conforming lot and one larger lot than you have um currently is certainly an improvement over the proposed originally proposed two non-conforming lots I think um what they're proposing now brings that uh much smaller lot into conformance as much as possible um it is hard because you know it's there's four existing Lots on on the Block um with streets all around them uh so I do think um the revised proposal is an improvement over what was originally proposed okay um I guess I'll open it up to the public now for any questions comments don't come all rushing up okay Jared any closing remarks no just just to not to U reiterate the same fact is that you know we're not creating any new lots and we do think it's an improvement because we're taking an undersized lot and extremely undersized lot and and making it as close to conforming as possible as was just mentioned okay thank you all right uh so at this time just to reiterate we are voting just on a minor subdivision with ANC variance ancillary variance and design waiver relief um so at this time I'll entertain a motion I'll make motion for denial as non conforming to our master plan I'll second that okay so we have a motion for a denial by Mr Cristiano with a second by Miss Pike uh let me reiterate that voting yes or no you're voting yes that's in denial and you're voting no you're against the denial okay got it Eileen K have a roll call Mr Cristiano yes Mr Greenfield yes Mr leio yes Mr Mercer yes Mr Withers yes Mr Rebel yes Miss Pike yes and chairman huster no motion carries thank you thank you okay the last application this evening um you know what it's 8 8:30 can we just take a f minute recess sure counselor we'll be with you in about five minutes thank you all right thank you the board will take a short recess they'll be back at in five minutes back on the record all right so this planning board will reconvene thanks Eileen um last application for this evening case number sp-11 13271 Adelphia LLC this is for preliminary and final major subdivision and preliminary and final major site plan councel good evening good evening Mr chairman members of the board John Jackson on behalf of 271 Adelphia LLC uh my client principal uh Mr Joseph moric is here uh and his business partner Roman lazarof is at home uh initially I've been wearing a jacket uh to to to school and to work uh since freshman year at St Joe's in 1974 and tonight I forgot my jacket and then I fell up the stairs coming in so I apologize I'm off to a shaky start so I apologize for not having a a jacket this is the second time in my career I've done this um if if I can so what my my client has done he's really got a pretty fascinating story uh in 1978 uh he came here as a refugee from the Soviet Union he and his partner a couple years apart and he worked driving a cab in New York City he owned various furniture stores and now uh they have this uh Stone fabrication and distribution business on 271 Adelphia Road they've built it up to approximately 25 employees and what you have before you is their catalog they are uh in National demand they build Stone Products out of uh Limestone out of uh slate out of marble out of uh granite and they make kitchen countertops as well as facades of buildings and things like that they're working on uh big projects in New York City and and everywhere else for commercial buildings and they also make things like pilasters columns and and various uh Stone items that go inside um and are part of buildings so uh their business is expanding and right now they have all their materials their slabs of granite and such outside and and some of the materials uh I believe it's Marble in particular don't I forget if it's one of the stones doesn't do very well outside the sun weathers it um and uh it's outside in the rain Etc they and they have to cut and and manage and work the stone right now they're doing it in a warehouse that's that's not really big enough so we're here tonight uh technically this is a warehouse application but it's not it's really a fa where they fabricate where they store and where they also show their materials they have um customers come commercial customers it's not the the you know homeowners but their uh businesso business people come because they have to be able to see the stone they have to look at the granite and they have to examine the product uh before they order it also inside a a large portion of the of the volume inside is used for actual fabrication cutting the stone uh they have Machinery that does that they have the latest Machinery they're also required to move it around so they need a certain height and ceiling some of the slabs are as high as 7 feet high to get the forklift in move it around lay it out do the work uh that's basically uh what the room is required for our architecturals do show it as two users that's uh just to give flexibility for the building you're building a warehouse uh that large uh potential in the future we have to come back to the board if we had a second user uh but our client anticipate that their business is growing and that this would be entirely used for their business so um thank you for that little overview so if we could just go to the to the PowerPoint presentation or in particular um the uh the rendering that Mr Patrick W our site engineer has done to show the colored rendering of the site um that uh there there we go I think that's that's that's it that'll do the trick okay so we we have um a couple of what I would refer to as technical variances that we're asking tonight related to the buffer now we know what this board's uh sentiment is uh toward buffering and buffers are certainly important and they're certainly something that uh how uh enforces and and and and adds High importance to and that was communicated to us clearly uh by the board's professionals two um but we would propose that these are very technical in nature I'm going to point them out Out Mr Ward our engineer will describe it in more detail but essentially because we are an overlay Zone where commercials allowed and the underlying zone is residential technically uh the residential zoning occurs that was the ruling of Mr cachero and also miss beam they said that this does require uh the buffer for a residential Zone however uh as uh you can see what we have on the right side of our site is the fio building that is a relatively new building uh that the board obviously someone recently approved it and the buffer that we're talking about is right here between our commercial use and the other commercial use you could see the building next door has no buffer uh between us and them or maybe they have a very slight one you could see a couple shrubs there and you can also see they have very minimal shrubb around the perimeter of their building um but but we think that this is a a perfect circumstance where the board would be authorized under the municipal land use law particularly C1 and C2 to Gran a variants where because of the unique circumstances peculiarly affecting a specific piece of property that relief is appropriate we think that the the purposes underlying the need for of a buffer really don't exist when you're going commercial building to commercial building in a zone that has a a residential underlay uh where houses are not going to be built because these are both going to be very new struct structures um the other area uh where our buffering is slightly deficient technically underneath this driveway uh we have installed a uh a a uh a basin of sort um a storm water management where it's underground and the the engineer can describe it better than the lawyer can but essentially under that driveway area has a storm Water Management Facility where it's absorbed into the ground so where we're deficient in a buffer we're perfectly allowed to have a driveway over anyway so it you know we think that while technically uh that's a a variance from the buffer requirement because our storm water management is in that area we think that that's a perfect reason uh why the board can grant relief and say you know really the purposes behind there are outweighed by the benefit of having a business that's thriving that's there now and it's there now and we ask the board to take this into account it's an older facility all the materials are outside that's all perfectly okay and by having a beautiful new building and I handed out to architecturals we'll get to them in due course we have the architect here now it will make it cleaner tidier less impact around the surrounding neighborhoods and we think that that is a good reason uh for the board to approve this um we've had uh two uh technical review uh uh meetings with the board's professionals we've uh greatly um changed the plan there's also one thing related to this buffer that's also we kind of backed into this if you'll bear with me we are going from I think five lots to three lots or five uh five lots to two five lots to two lots astoundingly that makes us become a major subdivision even though we're going from five Lots down to two lots and because it's now technically characterized as a major subdivision as opposed to a minor sub subdivision when you're only creating uh like two or three additional Lots Mr cachero said well since the the the unique language in our ordinance since Lots is involved from the beginning it's a major subdivision even though you're reducing the number of lots that is what trips us over and enhances other buffer requirements and made us the major subdivision so it we you know these are all technical ways that the ordinance all works together and um but we think that that's good good reason for Relief so we we have the buffer around the perimeter of the property um and uh we're going to have uh Mr Ward describe now and go through thank you for your IND in my overview but that's basically what our case is we have Mr Ward we we have our uh architect Antonio scalisi here we have Mr John Ray uh who's going to say it's a minimal impact on on traffic and then we will have Christine kaone Naro kaon who will uh clean up with the planning testimony so with your permission if I can have Mr Wards sworn and he'll go through the engineering sure you swear to tell the truth the whole truth nothing the truth help you got I do name and uh Patrick Ward Ward with Insight engineering uh our address is 1955 route34 Wall New Jersey I am a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey for over 11 years and I've been before this board in that capacity um several times good to go you accept them AB thank you Mr Ward can you just uh with the board's permission U Mr ward has an outline I'd like to just give him his analysis and review of the application this way you don't and maybe I'll ask a question so Mr Ward can you just give the board uh the benefit of your review of this application and uh all the features The Zone Etc sure uh and Eileen can you put up the existing aerial it's the best way to describe it I got mine I can't but Ryan can thanks Ryan I don't know who's controlling the control center back there okay thank you so just some quick property information the mailing address here is 271 Adelphia Farmingdale Road it's block 157 Lots 1 through five the five Lots the this current tract is broken up into five separate tax Lots it's a little unusual we're our goal here is to take those five and turn them into two which I'll get into in a moment we're in a unique Zone here in the township um there this is this property and the fio tract are the only two properties that are in the S overlay2 Zone zone so what that means is we're in an agricultural real rural estate 2 Zone but the Special Economic Development overlay permits a variety of uses that are more in line with the SED Zone elsewhere in town so what we're proposing here this Warehouse type building is a permitted use and there very unique property in the middle of town here so the applicants here seeking major subdivision approval to take this tract of land and turn it into two new proposed Lots which get into in a moment and propose a new building uh and accessory improvements on the Eastern side of the property so today and that's what you see before you is the existing conditions aerial the tract is 17.49 acres and as you can see we have Frontage on two roads and they're both County Roads so we to the north is Adelphia Farmingdale Road which is County Route 524 and to the South that sweeps around the property there is squankum yellowbrook that's County Route 524a for East uh is the fio industrial building in our analysis of this property investigation we found no Wetlands nor any flood Hazard areas affecting this property so today what you could see here on this aial is the existing Stone Quest facility you can see the outline of the building um it's kind of a multicolored stained roof there but you could see that and then there's a around the entire perimeter is a bit of a hodg podge of storage and parking um storage is for their materials their Stone materials and you can see off to the West there mik pointers green that's really the main parking area access is provided by a double driveway off Adelphia Farmingdale Road and then another really unique part of this property is Right north of our building there is a twostory frame dwelling um that is uh within the confines of the property so what are we doing to the existing property to get to where we want to be proposed the dwelling will be removed than raised that's a non-conforming structure right now um because we have two permit two uses on the property so that dwelling will be completely removed um I'll get into the buffer how we're providing the perimeter buffer later on but there are two corners of the existing parking and storage areas here which I'll show a little bit clearer later we're actually pulling that in uh several feet to get existing hard uh excuse me impervious areas outside of what we're proposing as a new buffer around the entire perimeter the exis of remainder of the the remainder of the existing facility is to remain as is in terms of tree removal there are three uh coniferous or evergreen trees in this North part of the property that are isolated those are proposed to be removed and then there's some you can kind of see it here there's some overgrowth um it's not great quality woods but it is overgrowth we're classifying it as Woods for the purpose of Woodland's management and that ordinance with the town the rest of the site you can see is like Open Meadow grass there are Street trees along squankum yellowbrook um not consistently all the way through but there are Street trees uh starting at the intersection we're going to work around those and keep those and that was at the request of uh the board uh tree expert um which you know we we typically work with hand inand to get to her satisfaction so um Alene if you could put up in John's PowerPoint there's a Subdivision plat in there it is I believe it's sheet three there you go so I'm want to describe to you now what we're doing in terms of the subdivision so we're proposing two Parcels propos lot 1.01 and 1.02 1.01 is on the left and 1.02 is on the right and you can kind of see if kind of recalling the areial we're proposing the lot lines to work around the existing facility where we struck those lines was really just so that we were not causing any incidental relief needed for the existing facility so by striking the line where we have it all the existing improvements on 1.01 are conforming with the setbacks and the coverage limitations there is one sanitary sewer easement right here that actually goes to that dwelling I mentioned that's being removed that easement will be extinguished um because the house is coming down so there's no there's no need for that all the other easements on the property are to remain and and there there's a sanitary sewer easement that cuts through we actually don't have the benefit to tying into that um there's jcpnl easements that go to the existing facility and then there's a couple of County easements which I'll describe in a little bit as well that are remaining and were designed around u i mean if you can go to the proposed conditions um rendering I'm sorry I keep saying I leave that's right I'm sorry about that okay so now what we're proposing so the bill building in brown there is the proposed structure it's 11,710 sare ft and it's on the new lot 1.02 that area 11 12,710 is the footprint of the building within the building we're proposing a total of 9,38 squ Ft of office space to be proposed within the mezzanines on the west side of the building which is plan left we're proposing a loading dock area to get support 41 loading docks at the East End of at each end of the building northeast corner southwest corner we're proposing building entrances that have to to the office space and to the warehouse so how did we get to a building of this size in terms of its depth and length it's driven by setbacks and it's driven by the width of the property and providing a um an acceptable circulation area so the length here north to south is driven by setbacks and um Mr Jackson had mentioned the change from what we thought was going to be a minor subdivision to Major the big there was a big change that resulted Ed from that and I think it is a positive for the township when you're a major subdivision your setbacks are not measured to the right of way anymore they're measured to the buffer limit so here we have 60 foot front yard setbacks we also are providing a 50ft buffer so in effect our front setbacks on each County Road is 110 ft plus so that's that's how the length of that building was driven um additionally on the North side for Adelphia Farmingdale we are proposing a 7 foot rway dedication to meet their master plan for adequate halfwidth if uh those in the board recall squankum yellowbrook was actually um rerouted by the county within the last 20 years it is as currently uh existing has an adequate full width right of way in accordance with their master plan so they're not seeking any further uh dedication on that southern and western part of the property um another unusual thing with the county here is because it was rerouted some within the last 20 years way before that there's actually a future RightWay widening easement on that south side of the property here um we had been in discussions with the county for over a year about that easement and how to go about potentially having that extinguished a lot of process to get that done rather than try to go through those motions and and try to gain more real estate to develop um we are actually measuring on the South Side our buffer and our setback from the edge of that easement it's it's over 20 feet wide so effectively that South setback is front yard setback becomes upwards of 130 fet where 60 feet is the ordinance requirement um for Building height this this image actually has a building height compliance diagram our site plan sheet does as well John that was that passed out the building height diagram I just want to clarify this because there was um discrepancies between the engineer and planner report it's our position that we're not seeking a building height variance even though it was noted in the planner review letter um ordinance requires that to be measured from the average grade to the highest point of a building if it's a flat roof in this case we provided on our plans an average grade calculation and we provided on the plans what the actual top of parit is and that is less than 45 ft so it's our position that that does comply um I'll get into the topography and how that affects that calculation as I when I get into the storm water management discussion but simply put the north side of the property sits about 19 fet higher than the South Side so this building is going to be built into this gentle Hill on the North side the building's going to appear pretty short because there's a back there's back fill against the the wall actually the grade is 7 feet higher than the finished floor on the south side the grade will meet the finished floor so um average grade here is taken across the entire SWA of the building and in our opinion we meet that 45 ft we we would agree that you meet the uh Building height requirement thank you Miss B um mechanical equipment will be uh located on the roof there are par pits um they will shield that visually from any surrounding user new driveways are proposed on both frontages as you can see so what we're proposing here rather than your classic circulation around a building the benefit of having the two frontages means less pavement and a direct connection between the two streets to provide that adequate circulation we do have conditional approval from MTH County planning board for the project and what does that include that includes the entrances their sizes um their turn directions you know any other modifications to the county right away which in this case we happen to have require none um site distan is included in that and storm water management design which I'll touch upon later so the county has approved all those items the conditions are payment of bond and inspection escros and there's a couple minor notation um comments as well that are that are remaining um the driveways here are designed to support turning movements for emergency vehicles and up to tractor trailers our plan provides a couple sheets that show the vehicles that the site will experience and all movements which was a a comment by not only the County but the board professionals to show any wi movement that this each driveway can experience left in left out right in right out for all the vehicles uh the driveways are 40 feet wide which exceeds the ordinance requirement for this type of use industrial use requires 30 ft there are two passenger vehicle parking space or parking lots proposed one on this north side and one on the South Side these are to support the required 85 off street parking spaces which for this type of building is required because these areas will only experience passenger vehicles no trucks we have drive aisles at 25 ft wide which is the industry standard for parking lots meant for your uses with where you only see passenger vehicles I bring that up because the ordinance requires 30 foot minimum um but really that's for industrial commercial uses where trucks will access those dyve vials in my opinion the site will be fenced around its perimeter with a 6ot white vinyl fence now that's a different from what the plans showed plans showed 8ot chain link it was a change really as a result of the second technical review meeting that we had with the board professionals to come up to propose something a little more aesthetically pleasing six foot white vinyl is um was suggested with more support than the 8ft chain chain link fence so that's what we're proposing um Gates will Pro be provided at each veh vehicular entrance with adequate off Street uh space for the vehicle to enter and get off the road engage the gate to open and then enter the facility one minor adjustment um that happened within the last 24 hours was uh we met with the environmental commission last night um they had comments uh of course We snuck that meeting in just before tonight because I didn't have access to those letters until recently but we were able they were gracious enough to put us on their October 9th agenda I attended the meeting with them and we had an open dialogue about their review comments which we weren't ignoring I just um didn't have a chance to get them so we met we went through everything one of the big things that was discussed that's really uh impactful to the site well I don't say impactful to the site but site related was a comment about how the property today Acts or has the potential to act as a wildlife access Corridor going from north to south um there are bodies of water not just off the property but you know with some distance north and south so that was a concern that the environmental commission raised we had an open discussion and one of the suggestions I had made and I think it was received um kindly we had this perimeter fence going all the way around all the way to the the fio property line the East what we want to do now is provide that fence 25 ft to the west of that property line what that does is it allows for open space to direct Wildlife or person could walk right through there person would be be trespassing Wildlife would not but to walk directly between the roads um we are also putting those fences on an angle at each end so that there's you know encourages direction for wildlife if there is wildlife crossing that's why I bring up the word potential because the rendering that you have there that shows the fence as you propose it to the enviral you can see it you can see the angle right there at the corner and you can see it just by the septic system so where where that uh buffering is the trees that we're planting so that's where the wildlife will go through correct so and I'll get to Landscaping in a little in a moment but we are proposing a series of trees I believe there's upwards of 20 plus trees in that area they're all proposed to be deciduous one of the comments from Miss speo early on was are you having this all as maintained lawn sod lawn everywhere the answer is no we have a seed plan in our PL set that shows that a vast majority of the area on property except immediately around the building is going to be planted with Meadow GR it's a metrass seed mix low maintenance allowed to grow we're not going to have people running in it or whatever so that is also included on the rear of the building in my opinion with the addition of the trees where right now there are no trees it's just kind of that scrub overgrowth um we're putting in new what we think will be healthy trees um as you can see there space not in a beautiful nice orderly row that I would have picked our landscape architect has some natural clustering and staggering of them again that's how to try to restore that to a natural state with the with that being said I think it is a uh good solution and I hope the environmental commission agreed to provide this Corridor um a perimeter buffer now that is provided around the entire Frontage of the track so that's not only just the new site development here and here but it's also around the entire corner so right now if you recall the existing aial there's not much in the way of anything around the site there's some Street trees um which were put in I believe when the road was redone so what we're proposing to do is work around those Street trees and then provide the six- foot BM and the buffer that you see get compare that with our neighbor what you can see in the uh sure and I'll get into the Landscaping in a little bit I don't want to explain every species but I'll explain the mix you could see the Fazio site and this is their perimeter buffer right um I think the the ordinance rule for the perimeter buffer has uh been unchanged in terms of what's required for plantings they have a very simple staggered row and I'll get into this more we have a more robust um it's not just a simple stagger it is more of a natural look and there's a mix of deciduous and Evergreen in there and and a variety of species as well but I'll get into the Landscaping uh shortly in terms of utilities the facility will be served by public water Gas and Electric for sanitary even though there sanitary sewer reement on the property we do not have the benefit to connect into that due to sewer service area so we are proposing a new septic system at the south end and I'll explain why in a moment that'll be subject to Mammoth County Board of Health review and approval so storm order management and a lot of the site design is based on topography and storm order management so today at the highest point of the property the elevation is 91 and at the lowest point really where we're putting in that driveway is at 72 um when you drive by the property you don't really get this you don't really feel the 20 foot drop but um the topography says that what it is and we have to work through that with not only the building design but also for storm water and then the septic so the septic is located on the low part of the building that's because uh we have to make the run for sanitary sewer connection to that septic system all the way down um it's at the low point so gravity um does its thing and helps us in terms of storm motor runoff everything does head to the South there's a series of County inlets that head up coincidentally to the Northwest to the intersection and then they U ultimately discharge into yellow Brook so we have to maintain those flow patterns in accordance with the rules uh for storm water management that the township has that reflect the D rules so to accomodate the new improvements and meeting the latest green infrastructure standards in the township storm water management ordinance and in accordance with the BMP manual we're proposing several storm waterer Management Systems so we have four surface infiltration basins there's one here that's going to handle the runoff from this parking lot we actually have two here um and the reason is because of Maximum drainage area uh limitations and then we have another one right at the southeast corner there because of just the nature of the disturbance we actually have to even though it's already green there we have to reduce from what's existing so we have to attenuate and infiltrate some of that water even though there's not more coming off um in that Southeast corner so those are our four infiltration basins um the three that are in the more in the site will ultimately their emergency overflows they're all connected and we'll be connecting into a county Inlet right about there um as I said that County Inlet system goes all the way up to the Northwest and into yellow Brook uh the county has reviewed more than once the our storm waterer management design we've worked with them hand inand to make sure that their are their requirements were met and also with the township requirements hey Patrick can I just interrupt you for a minute sure um per our conversation yesterday because it's going to come up right um at the environmental commission about the basins could you inform the board because uh Mr Greenfield knows better than anybody about the and you know about the basins in town and maintenance and everything like that mention what you discussed at the board about potential uh the township taking some initiative I guess so yeah it's um and and I might want to defer this to the board professionals as well but in my experience and this is more of a recent thing the state of New Jersey is pushing more give I guess maybe empowering might be the right word the municipalities to enforce the maintenance of the systems so historically that's always been a Bugaboo right um you put them in day one and you don't really take care of them especially these these basins they do need to be maintained to M make sure they infiltrate properly so we've had circum es where municipalities and I'm not speaking to how specifically but other municipalities where their their Municipal engineer is enforcing you know we say a townhouse Community well why aren't you inspecting this every year and there's actually an enforcement mechanism so they'll actually take them to to court they'll site them um and so that kind of Spurs that to happen so they'll have to hire someone to inspect and if the inspection yields hey you know this needs to be maintained there's your mechanism to maintain it rather than just you know home uh the owner the property just kind of ignoring it and putting their head in the sand yeah figuratively so no thanks for sharing that yeah so I think that's it's trending that way I don't know how much teeth you know the municipalities can have besides taking them to you know issuing a citation I know he doesn't want to deal with it anymore and levying fines I think so yeah okay right no it's a great point I mean we have a maintenance manual that the county reviewed at nauseum and then the township also will have on file you know again how far can that go with making someone do something is tough but it's on record at least then there is some something to lean on from the township side like you have to follow this right than yeah no I appreciate that right it will be recorded yeah so it is it's it's a deed notice as well yeah absolutely um so the storm water management design meets Township and County requirements for runoff quantity reduction water quality and groundwater recharge and again mom county has reviewed this and their connection as well to their infrastructure in terms of refuse and recycling um we're proposing uh two refu and recycling enclosed compactors on the west side of the building there's one here and there's one here um rather than your classic trash enclosure um this will work with the site and with the the way the building is arranged and is not uncommon for buildings with loading docks on a certain side um in terms of lighting we're proposing a series of lighting throughout the site as is required there is a series of building mounted lights on the west facade the parking areas and driveways will be illuminated with pole mounted lights there are no sight lights proposed on the North side the south side or the east side of the building all of our lighting fixtures are LED and dark sky compliant and um you will note that in the review letters we do not meet the strict requirements of the lighting ordinance um which is typically a challenge in my opinion um we do however meet the minimum point3 foot candles required in all the pavement areas which I think is the most important one that's a big safety thing um we do not meet the average foot candle measurement of 0.5 foot candles we have an average of 1.5 so really where that comes into play is the geometry the improvements and the desire to provide safe and adequate lighting and also minimize the number of fixtures so we could propose a lot more poles maybe at a shorter height leading to more lights um potential for maybe more glare we are trying to minimize the number of fixtures not really a cost item more just from an impact standpoint but still provide that safety security that's needed on a site like this or a commercial site in terms of landscaping we provide a land Woodlands management plan showing the extended tree removal and the required replacement our goal is to preserve the existing trees along the squankum yellow Brook Frontage while supplementing supplementing them with our perimeter buffer plantings the perimeter buffer will include the required bming fencing and the variety of plantings buffer will have a mix of evergreen trees and deciduous trees intended to ultimately provide a full screen on site and shade we are proposing Landscaping as you can see throughout the site we're proposing Landscaping to separate aesthetically the two buildings we're proposing your typical parking lot Landscaping we have the islands will be landscaped the entrances will be landscape some of the headlights will be screened we have perimeter trees around the parking lot to provide some shade we do have some Foundation plantings at the building entrances um we also provide some screening at each end of the uh loading dock area um in terms of the woodlands management calculation we actually exceed the required replacement by about a factor of 10 um so we don't have to contribute to the tree fund we're actually putting way more trees on than what exists today which is usually the opposite sometimes we see way more trees going than less coming um new deciduous trees are proposed on the east side of the building as I mentioned spaced in a natural manner that will supplement that Wildlife access Corridor that we discussed with the mental commission last night um and as typical we're happy to continue to work with the board's tree expert to finalize Landscaping finalize tree save particularly around that perimeter as much as possible one other note that was mentioned in the review letter was uh Landscaping at the base of the signs um that was something that wasn't provided adequately in accordance with the ordinance we're happy to agree to not requ request any relief for that we'll landscape the bases of the signs to uh Mr spau satisfaction uh as a condition of approval if the board so willing we are proposing two freestanding ground signs one at each entrance North and South these are intended as really Road Way finding signage so we feel two is appropriate here with the two frontages there will be no building facade signage the signs are intended to comply fully with the ordinance including in terms of area and setback so we're not here seeking any setback relief know that was noted in the letters for the signage um we'll work with the board professionals to make make sure we meet that minimum 20 ft wherever that 20 ft is measured from um but there is no no uh desire to request assigned setback variants so John that's that's my um all right so the engineering chairman with your permission if I could just go through the review letters with the uh engineer and I'll try to expedite that uh yeah to yeah go ahead John sorry thank you uh have you had an opportunity to look at the August 20th uh 2024 letter from the planner yes and are is is there anything in that that you cannot comply with um no we talked about the building height um and we talked about the buffers and the signage as well so the and one other thing that was noted and it actually was correctly noted uh was we do show a stretch of curb in the buffer on this south parking lot that's a more an error we're not seeking to put a curb it's only the curb we're not seeking to put the curb or any other items associated with that parking lot in the buffer we do have room to shift that out of the 50ft buffer so just just to confirm though you do need relief for from the buffer requirements you're not compling correct for the storm water management at the South driveway and also the uh the one side the East yes but otherwise nothing associated with that parking lot I just want to be clear that was a that was just an error we had the curb in the in the uh buffer but no otherwise John um we don't have any other issues with the the you m okay thank you so I don't know if there's anything uh specifically you want us to address the positive and negative weighing will be handled by Miss nazaro Kone as it relates to the the buffers and the variance relief we need okay I'll Brian and and Christine floor is yours similar to uh if you could uh at least put on record that that you could comply with our August 22nd 2024 review letter the technical review comments yeah so I had the chance to look through your technical review uh comment comments um we have no issue complying as a condition of recable with your review comments okay no issue I'll just um you know State for the board um typically this board how Township uh generally um do not provide uh variant relief from the buffer requirements um that is something they do need on the east side um and the storm water management um South by the driveway okay so um that is you know just for your knowledge I guess got and and we will address that with our planning as I did in my opening as well the unique circumstances affecting that Joe you have a question I have a question uh is there a donation to the sidewalk fund yes so that we're not seeking to yeah we're seeking a waiver from providing a sidewalk um we will'll provide the The Pedestrian safety fund uh contribution as needed as calculated is this all going to be operated as one business or is this some going to be take coming in and using those warehouses other than Stone quest to take that one yeah I'll double check that with my client I believe the operation's moving to the new and then you'll lease the others the existing one you're going to use all three you're going to use okay they're using the entire site so even though this um the warehouse building is um broken down to two tenant spaces it'll all be utilized by the one user Mr Jackson's gonna talk to the uh owner yes they they will be on two different sites but we expect to my client expects to use the entire parcel so the ex the existing piece right now is that going to will you have access to the to the to the new piece from the existing piece that's uh Mr question it's cut off yeah there's no there's no there's no circulation for vehicles in between I mean the driveways are right next to each other um but no there's no internal circulation between it doesn't it doesn't quite work with the existing facility because they don't really have access all the way around the building to manufa material put in the Ware yeah and they have their their fabrication right now is in the building on the left so what in my discussions with the applicant they would they would store the raw call it the raw in the warehouse if they W if they had an order to fabricate they'd pull it from there in their one of their box trucks yes they' they'd go out into the M the county right of way and then pull in and then bring it to the appropriate door on the west which leads me to my next question so you're taking the five and you're breaking it at two but why not just make it one giant parcel I believe um you know I don't know this off the top of my head I don't know if we're permitted more than one principal structure in that in that zone so it would be a use variance if to have two buildings on one property like in this particular Zone it would be a use variance so we wouldn't be in front of this board it would be a that would be a a d variance and you know this is what my client's hopes are to use this for the as one site that's what their plan is however they would be on separate parcels and we would not preclude having a separate User it's set up that way but right now it really can't be utilized as one site if you have to exit to go back in right right well one one owner operator but so my question is then what you know your the existing driveway that that that goes to Stone to Stone Quest right now off of uh Delphia far rude I know you guys want to keep it separate right okay but you I think it would be better for the intersection if you know maybe if that well not if you're not going to connect the not if you're not going to connect anything then we can't you I just don't understand why you would have two driveways on on one on one roadway you know you have the two you have the exit and an entrance on on one roadway you know I understand what you're doing with the cut through why not eliminate that other the other driveway but you're saying it's not going to that's not going to work because you're not the buildings are going to be used kind of separate but same right so just so I'm clear a stipulation of approval would be that this new building will be occupied by Stone Quest only yes okay I have one question are you anticipating a a large increase of truck traffic due to the large amount of loading Ducks you guys are going to build well they're hopeful that the business will grow and our but our traffic expert Mr Ray the traffic counts are based on the square footage of the building Etc and he will address that so that the board can be satisfied that regardless of what the um you know the operation is and what the promises are the building itself how it meets the I standards uh based upon the the square footage of the building you know so no matter what it it's all a derivative up the square footage of the building essentially Mr Ray will explain that better than I can and he's going to be our next witness if you've um agreed that only Stone Quest will occupy the site um why are there two tenant spaces in the warehouse like I said that's set up that way as a means of for the future you're making an investment like this and if it business doesn't work out you know you know you know no business stays in business Forever Mr morek is um you know not going to live forever none of us are if it it's a more valuable building when it's set up uh for two potential users then that changes that changes traffic so whatever testimony you're going to give today for traffic Mr Ray will address that it will have a minimal impact on the traffic because it's still the same square footage in the warehouse that's my understanding but the traffic engineer will address that right and if you've agreed that it'll only the entire site will only be occupied by one user if you chose to have another tenant you would need to come back to we could agree to that condition so that the board could analyze it and assess it in the context of whoever that new user was so that you could be satisfied the board particular property to be occupied and operated by the same person forever so right but but stud invited different uh tenants it could change parking requirements it could yes it could that's why we'd have to come back for further review and Mr Ray will address that already built anyway so any any improvements to the existing driveway stest right now no uh and the county was able was analyze that as well because they they took jurisdiction at the subdivision as well um so no they they didn't require any any changes to it okay no no curbing nothing no that was I was hoping they wouldn't ask for curb around the entire thing and they didn't no I me just oh at the driveway no they didn't ask specifically for that Pat I don't know if you can answer this or if it's for the architect are there any proposed floor drains other than restrooms in the warehouse I I don't think I can answer that I don't know so um Brian if you could pull up our sheet 402 and then zoom in a little bit I think it's also important for the board to see what kind of if they if if you seek fit to grant that the buffer encroachment for that uh yeah one more down please and if you could zoom in on that driveway you can kind of see so it's it's a it's a curb is going to collect water it's going to go to a water quality system which is required that's all at grade it's going to look like it's all Stone and there's a grate in the middle and then it's piped to that underground system the box so to your point it's outside of the county Eastman yeah yeah and and and yeah that was something that they brought up too so yeah so uh Pat the county had no issue with that MTD and that location no yeah they they didn't um we went back and forth about trying to get rid of that easement uh County planning board had really nothing to do with it it was going to be the commissioner so um no they didn't they didn't have issue with that they didn't even ask for a hold harmless um not to say they won't because we don't have final final but at this point in time no issue okay so one another question as far as the septics concerned right now it's fitted for one one user St Stone Quest so same thing if in the future if this was to get a second user third user fourth user whatever this is something could to be able to handle the the gallons per per minute yeah and I think this this ties in with the traffic discussion too I think the traffic analysis and even like a septic system design is not designed for stone quest in particular which actually would be probably lower usage even even for septic um the septic system is designed for square footage is and the type of space so this building can't as it is currently we can't expand the office space in it any more than what's currently proposed what we're proposing is in effect a full buildout um because there's a gallons per day requirement and if you go over a certain amount you need a treatment works approval and extensive soil testing and you you get to really complicated stuff um we're trying to keep it at the local Health Department so you have a limitation on size of the square foot of office and then the number of employees in the warehouse so we just there's a warehouse we had done in Howell that's finally getting to the point of the finale where the health department did approve it for that threshold and you know the question's been asked me about 16 times can we add more office space and the answer is no because your limitation is actually at the County Board of Health surprisingly rather than like the planning board the planning board approved more I think up to 10% office space on a building that size we have to actually limit to about half of that so we're going to do the same limitation and that's what that'll limit the occupancy as well you I guess there would have to be a limitation on the number of employees then to meet that okay so it would be x square feet plus X number of Warehouse employees I guess because it's got an under on this these two properties and then next door potentially in the future thater well no so um a buffer is required on all uh major subdivisions and all site plan approvals um for anything buffering a residential property or a residential Zone and because all of the surrounding properties are in a residential Zone the buffer is requ re ired um and they're not meeting that buffer requirement that's only between us and the fio building and then on the the storm water that you can see right there that's actually under the driveway anybody else all right Mr Jackson thank you with your permission if I could call Mr John Ray our traffic consultant sure thank you guys thanks P um and I I did not go through all the other letters I'm sorry yes me uh you know we have environmental which uh Mr Ward addressed uh Etc so if the board's satisfied that the testimony covers that and we can abide by all those I do John Ray Rea a principal with MCD and Ray Associates Traffic Engineers 1431 Lakewood Road manisan New Jersey Mr Ray you've been here before as a traffic consultant engineer I have uh do you accept them based on this sure do John thank you Mr Ray uh you typically give your testimony a narrative for if you would please proceed sure and I heard some of the comments from the board members regarding uh the traffic and what the impact will be we did do what I believe is a full traffic impact analysis for the project uh we counted the intersection of 524 and 524a during morning and afternoon peak hours uh we estimated how much traffic would be generated by the warehouse and office space based upon Institute of Transportation Engineers rates and I can tell you that to the extent that stone Quest is going to use either the whole building or half of the building I probably overestimated the traffic a little bit the county requires me to use the it rates in order for them to determine what the impacts are going to be to the county roads and just to give you some numbers based on the square footage of the warehouse and the office and based on the it rates we're projecting for the morning peak hour 47 inbound movements 11 outbound movements for a total of 58 driveway movements of those 58 driveway movements approximately 68 movements will be trucks similar numbers for the afternoon peak hour and that will be the impact that is just during the highest peak hour of traffic flow in the morning and highest peak hour of traffic flow in the afternoon and again the county requires me to use the it rates it's essentially looking at a a worst case scenario in a case like this because as we've testified to Stone Quest is going to take if not the entire building at least half of the building and given the fact they're already on the site adjacent to the West they're operating uh this probably represents a little bit of an overestimate of the traffic that will be generated we projected the traffic volumes to design year of 2027 we looked at the NJ Do's background traffic growth rate data for the area both uh Route 524 and 524a are anticipated to have traffic growth of 2.5% per year we added that to the 2027 design year traffic volumes and we calculated the level of service for the driveways to Route 524 to 524a and to the offsite signalized intersection where the two County Roads meet all the movements during the 2027 design year for both the morning peak hour and afternoon peak hour will operate at level of service B which is uh well within accepted traffic engineering parameters uh with respect to the site plan itself I know uh Pat has gone over it in detail we meet and exceed the Township's uh parking requirement for the property uh two separate parking lots of been proposed both of them are close to the doors that go into the building so that the uh employees have quick and easy access into the building and I believe the site plan has been prepared in accordance with proper traffic engineering principles so on balance from a traffic perspective uh this project will operate compatibly with future traffic conditions in the area the levels of service at the site driveways will be good and the impact to the offsite inter ction to the traffic signal uh there'll be an impact for sure but it won't be significant and it will still operate at a very good B level of service during peak hours did you uh take into consideration or estimate even um the amount of trips back and forth uh between the two sites since um both are operated by Stone Quest you know going from the one site to the other I I I what I did not separate and break that out separately but looking at the numbers that I've uh analyzed with respect to the it rates they're probably again a little bit higher than actually is going to be generated because I'm looking at a complete brand new user on this property that generates their own traffic without consideration of stone Quest moving back and forth but I I listen to the comment I understand that and I the only thing I can say is based on the traffic volumes on these two count County roads in this area I think the trucks can get out and get back and forth they would use 524 because that's where we have the access to the other property in order to move back and forth and the county apparently did not have an issue with that but I I yes I'm aware there's going to be movement between the two properties how is the proposed 11 trff compar the ex facili we didn't it's more than the existing facility I can tell you from our site visits and and looking at the number of cars that were parked at the existing facility they're generating less traffic than what I've projected for the new building I can say that we did not do a separate count at their driveway on 524 but I can tell you from driving through the facility and looking at the number of employees I think our applicant is here he could probably mention how many employees are on the site now it's generating less traffic that I've projected for the new building uh significantly less what's the what's the largest vehicle that's going to access uh a tractor trailer a WB uh 50 50 that would be the normal yeah I wouldn't expect you'd get the over the road you know the Walmart and Costco trailers here it but it will I think he operates some flat beds too that carry the slabs which would be a little bit less of uh a lesser wheel based in a wp50 and there'll be no overnight parking with these trucks that I'm not qualified to answer if we uh if the board imposes that as a condition we can abide by that or we will abide by that the um you know sometimes with deliveries if a trucker coming from across the country and they get there at 3 in the morning um well you don't have the C that you don't have obviously the truck backs into the bay right okay it's backed in right but you don't have the circulation there to you to leave it out the the in the driveway so that's what I mean so that would be more for John Ray than for me I is there any issues with the tractor trailer um from the Ingress egress standpoint of turning out onto the roadways coming into oncoming traffic that's for uh Patrick I know there are turning templates you want to stand up and address that yeah we we went over that with the county and I you know Pat can answer it but the County's approved it yeah how many lanes are on 524 two lane so there's no slow lane go ahead P we have uh turning templates in our plan set that it's for we have emergency vehicles and then we have the trucks that you'll see uh believe CME has asked for more in the past that we provided to them of truck turning left in left out right in right out for for both driveways um the driveway geometry is wide enough as you can kind of see it really widens up at the curve line to not not uh allow or have any uh Crossing of lanes so uh squankum yellow BRS great and that has a nice shoulder so that was about I would say a little bit easier Delphia Fula is a little tight but again that driveway as you can kind of see on this area really stretches out and that right turnout is really a gentle curve that's to keep everything out of the the uh we'll call it the westbound Lane so no there and the county wouldn't have approved it without and CME has brought that up in the past and we addressed it oh so they can't make a left on Adelphia Farmingdale out of that no they can no that's fine that that's also I was talking about the right out oh gota and just crossing any uh yellow lines well you're saying left in you're com from town you make a left in there well I'm saying makeing a left out onto Adelphia Farmingdale a left in coming from Farmingdale right you know you're crossing over link that's the way it is that movement is permitted under vehicle and traffic laws and also the county doesn't have an issue with that I would want to point out though that trucks that are coming from the interstate from 195 would more than likely use a 524a because they don't want to go through the borrow of Farmingdale where you got a 25 mph speed limit and curves and what have you they're going to come up squankum yellowbrook Road and make a right turn in okay anybody else any questions I don't think we really have anybody from the public so I'll open it up to that other well I was going to do it all at the end you could do it all at the end I have a question for him yeah of course oh for that oh well I I'll just do it all at the end because I think uh oh Patrick Ward yeah but we're going to get him later I'm sorry we're going to get him later open to the public yeah John we're just going to do the questions and comments and everything at the end so uh Ryan Christine you guys okay okay good thank you thanks John I don't know if you want to hear from the architect we think the architecturals are pretty self-explanatory they were covered by the Civil I could just go straight to the Planner yeah I don't I don't think we need to hear from the architect I actually I do have um a question architectural yeah yeah yeah then John you know what yeah and I can just I mean um Antonio scales is a licensed registered architect why don't you uh yeah we'll swear them in well do abbreviated qualification you're a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey yes and you've testified in front of planning boards and Boards of adjustment throughout the state including this one and I am the chairman of my own planning board in West LA Branch thank you sure s c a l i s e really my question for the architect kind of goes to the buffer requirements um I'm having a hard time understanding uh you know the uh testimony that uh we've heard tonight is that the entire site will be operated by one user but then we're also hearing that you know they want the potential to have um two tenants in the future so to me those are very different business operations um and I'm just wondering uh if it was contemplated you know that the building could be smaller to meet the buffer requirements and you know why it was why it's the size it is I I think that answer would be for the engineer we kind of we started with the engineering as far as where the size of the building would be okay and I know that I could tell you that the client probably needs more square footage and we we we did start with a larger building and we did reduce it so I would say that I think our client is looking for more square footage for their operation but I know that the building got smaller so I don't know if I'm answering your question but no that's so basically the building isn't large enough for what they need but you're trying to meet the requirements correct yeah exactly we're trying to uh you know handle both at the same time and and just uh through the history of this you've changed the architectural you've added more detail more uh relief more elevations to make the building aesthetically pleasing as we went through this process correct yeah and we're familiar with the design guidelines when we understand the intent and we really tried to make a good effort of breaking down the scale and providing a lot of pushpull we have very um I know there was one comment about you really want peaked rofes versus flat roofs but if I read in the design guidelines and if I interpret it correctly we are our parapets do have variation in them as well yeah we have no issue with the uh design of the I was just um you know curious as to how you landed on the size you did I it well it was a bigger building and then you know talking with the client um well obviously trying to meet the buffer requirements it got smaller but I think for us it's more about you know what's the biggest we can get so to speak for their operation but also following the guidelines thank you strictly out of curiosity Antonio was it ever discussed just to put an addition on the building the existing building that's a good question um I don't remember if we ever really talked about it that way you know like starting there I think it was always cleaner for it to be a new building so to be honest I didn't do any evaluations of the existing structure to tell you that what I can tell you is that obviously a new building is a lot cleaner sure right and and we can comply with modern technology versus trying to not that we couldn't tie into the existing building of course we could um but I don't know that we ever looked at it I think it was more meant to be separate okay um you know and just cleaner that way understood but it's a it's a great question we also this is a large investment and it's a new site set up I mean there's a reason why it's set up this way on different lots for potential future if things don't work out you don't you want to build something with value and this is allowed in the zone as the phone will uh address so well you know another question I have is is the 39 loading docks correct you know early in the testimony you said that you know s foot sections orli us and height right move the slabs around right on how they they um they fabricate everything it's just you know why 39 loading B if you've been to the site You' see there's a lot of stuff it's heavy stuff to get it in and out and load it as opposed to moving it all the way around and shuffling everything around these are big bulky heavy items and you want to have no I I I would like to point point out and I think it was stated already the idea of the building was for flexibility right the the truth is our client wants to operate in this facility but I think we showed you like a a vanilla box version to for flexibility for our client in the future I don't think they're going to need all those Bays for their operation to be honest they don't see now we're going back on testimony first it was the single user himself existing and then we asked you about potential other users in the future so now we're going now we're now we're getting wishy-washy with with testimony on are we going to be a single user or is it going to go to a multiple user and if it goes to multiple user then that's going to change the traffic flow what are the multiple users going to be okay that that's the issue you know I'm not trying to you understand where I'm going yeah so we we have never hidden from that I'm not trying to undermine you know I'm just saying we here the other applicants have come in front of us and done the same thing and it's always the same answer they can't answer the question all right we're going to use it or maybe we're not going to use it or maybe we're going to rent some or we're not going to rent some well if you are going to rent some we have 39 loading days does that mean you're going to chop it up 135,000 foot into 25 20,000 foot pieces and then that does that mean how many more employees and and that's why I asked you about the septic that's where I'm going with this I think you're talking about a different different intensity at that point and that you can't operate it that way why not I don't think septic would allow describe there's limitations based on the occupancy loads we've heard limitations in the past too and then these places you know take advantage of of what was in the resolutions and go beyond the limitations I'm just trying to cover us up here and our professionals on what this place is really going to be you know it's I want us I want you guys to be honest with one user two users possibly 20 users you know it's I understand we could put it all in a resolution and it would have to come back to us and have to get redone but it's you're asking for you know the you know relief on the setbacks and you know as far as I'm concerned and the reliefs shouldn't be given and the building should be made smaller and the and and the setback should go to what they should be just in case fio say in the future fio sells that place and it is going to be res over there and it does need the two what is it 200 ft is buffer you know what I mean so why should we Grant a 50ft buffer when it could potentially in the future be a residential behind there and it's then it needs the 200 it's a lot of information John um no I we've been doing this long enough to ask these questions not trying to beat up Sir yeah and and and we respect that and we've never hidden from the fact that set up is three it's on two lots there's one building on W there's another building on another lot that has a division down the middle it's in the plans we've never hidden from that it's in the zone that permits that the traffic counts are based on the the size the overall size so we're not underd designing it and the office layout inside Etc it all works I mean the the the planner is going to testify that what we have we have a specific Zone it's only for these two sites we have two commercial buildings right there uh this planning board when it did its master plan review and when the governing body adopted the ordinance determined this is the right place in Hal Township for this use and we we think that the buffer you know can the fio building be be knocked down Ser you know what what are the what is the likelihood that that's going to occur in any of our lifetimes that's a brand new beautiful building and well this overlay was done back what 2013 yeah so that's a lifetime ago and it stood the test of time since then as far as it's still what the rules are as far as the over was done a lot has changing since 20 13 to so I um just one question Antony are there floor drains I asked that before yeah that no there are none none Ware I talk to the other than restrooms if you want to do that exactly other than that there would be no floor drains correct anybody else have any questions for Antonio all right thank you sirk you appreciate it Mr Jackson just uh Christine cfone yes okay I'm right here you're right here can we have a five you want take five minutes yeah yeah we're going to take 5minute recess the board will now take a five minute recess will now reconvene thank you Mr chairman with your permission I've had an opportunity to consult with our team here and based on the board's comments about having an interconnectivity between the sites which would reduce outside circulation you know if they had to move materials um we we think that's feasible and we think we could come up with a a a you know a an easement between the two properties that would allow for that and that that would help our application it's also 10 I want you to hear uh from our client in terms of you know their vision and the type of thing they do for the single user Etc so if we can have uh some latitude to uh revise make a a small revision or a plan and come back to the next hearing sure we would request that look at the BMS too BMS we we could look at BMS buffering the buffering buffer the buffering we think we have a good case for Relief on the buffering because it's commercial to commercial it's in an overlay um you know we we're we're not and you know so we're going to make our case for the buffer and Christine will testify to that that um I think if you're um looking at the site overall and the circulation it might make sense to also look at how you could better comply with the buffering requirements yeah know we're we're hopeful that the board will accept the testimony that between two commercial uses that you know it's an appropriate case for a C1 variant on the but we'll take that into uh under advisement and we'll address that I would take that under advisement than um so e what are we looking at so we have one in November right we only have one meeting in November and there's three applications John how you how is your schedule with your team um what and how much time do you need I time December we have one in November and two December de December would be better all right December 5th has one application scheduled December 19th right now has nothing so you're either the first week of December or the third week of December take your Christmas shopping into account December 5th December 5th I don't haveth December 5th December 5th Mr chairman ien December 5th okay BR open to public yes yes so everybody can come back if there is anybody from the public has questions for for everybody um thank you and we requested to have an announcement so that we don't need to Ren notice yeah can we do that yes right we're going to announce but Mr chair can I ask the uh Mr Ward Patrick Mr Ward something yeah sure we heard May statement about items outside and using uh having the stone outside if they want to move that stuff inside so is there uh is there going to be any outdoor storage anymore or are we eliminating that and by the way is that permitted outdoor storage I think it has to be completely screened okay got uh no we're not proposing any outdoor storage we with where the any of the new improvements are there's no there's no room for outdoor storage materials so so that's okay to have that as a condition of approval that all everything be moved inside no fabrication outside they got storage right now I just want to make sure we'll we'll address that stipulation when we come back I just want to make sure make a note and we'll cover it at the next yeah we we'll we'll address that when we come back okay as a geologist by trade you got to take care of that stuff you know that's some some precious Rock so but uh okay thank you Mr Jackson thank you make an announcement that yes could you make an announcement counselor yeah thanks so for any member of the public I don't think there is for any member of the public announ that will be carried with no further notice will be on December 5 2024 starting at 700 at same location will be back at that time for question great thank you um Christine do you have any master plan updates or anything no master plan updates okay thank you no reason to go into executive session right so I will entertain a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn a second thank you thank you have a good night you too thanks I