##VIDEO ID:DXLh36_RCP0## e e e e e e e e e 4 2024 call the order please stand and salute the flag United States of America to the Republic for which it stands Nation indivis all in accordance with the open public meetings act it is hereby announced and shall be entered into the minutes of this meeting the adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by the following posted on the Bolton Board of the office of the Township Clerk posted on the Bolton boards within the municipal complex printed in the home News Tribune and cranberry press on December 29 2020 3 posted on the Monroe Township website and set to those individuals who have requested personal notice please take roll Mr Rothman here miss bratsky here Mr Patel here miss damiani Mr slavich here Mr weiner here Dr Kenzie councilman vanzora here mayor's representative Mr Patel chairman Gaffrey here okay Laura circulated the minutes to everybody and hope you have had a chance to review is there a motion to accept the minutes don't move is there a second second okay any discussion on the minutes okay all in favor of accepting the minutes all opposed any extensions exension okay minutes are accepted okay this evening we just have uh one application 12622 for green vest LLC good evening um my name is Jen Johnson I am from the law firm flaster Greenberg I'm here tonight representing my client greenvest LLC uh we are here tonight for a minor subdivision uh which in actuality is a lot line adjustment um we my client greenvest I have a representative from greenvest here and they own a large uh parcel of land next to two small next to several smaller Parcels but specifically two smaller residential parcels and they would like to deed over a small sliver of property from the large parcel to each of these two Residential Properties because of existing encroachments on the land that have been there for a number of years greenvest just recently purchased the property and they now would like to they have already deed um the entire property um a conservation easement in perpetuity but for these small slivers and they would like to Carry On unencumbered by these encroachments so that's why we're here tonight um I have with me a representative uh Brian Kramer do would you like to swear him in yes you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth we got I do state your full name for our record Brian Kramer CME I'm with greenvest LLC I'm a vice president here and my office is 35a Kennedy Road in Tranquility New Jersey proceed Council thank you um as I said the larger parcel is a little over 39 Acres the larger parcel has no improvements on it and will remain a conservation easement in perpetuity the two Residential Properties to which we are looking to adjust the lot line to include a little bit more coverage to them each has um an accessory structure on it which is why they're encroaching onto onto green vest land and we're looking to move the lot line nothing is changing these are all existing for a long time pre-existing non-conform ities and we're not proposing any changes we're not proposing anything new on any of the properties everything is as is it is simply just looking to correct a lot line so everything is in Conformity one one thing I'd like to add to there is um the entirety of the 39 acre parcel has not been conserved less the slivers we're talking about conveying over and there's an existing access easement through the middle that has not been conserved correct um thank you um and there are an a few uh pre-existing non-conformities on those other uh Parcels like I said um we have those owners consent to be here tonight to do this lot line adjustment um if any waivers or variances are needed for those we graciously asked the board for those um and we can spell out the reasons why but in terms of the subject parcel there um that's there's no Varian is needed um Brian can you please tell a little bit about green vest who they are what you do with they do yes um so greenvest we're we're habitat conservation company all we do is purchase properties for the sole purpose of habitat conservation or Wetland mitigation riparian Zone mitigation some may be familiar with it this property was Wetland mitigation for one of our clients we purchased it primarily to preserve it we did do some minor restoration enhancement activities basically tree planting on the property so that's been completed and the entire property L the easement and these areas that we're proposing to adjust on the lot lines has been conserved with a standard njd conservation easement um we have the reviewed letters from your professionals um and there are a few typos and omissions on our plan that were pointed out and of course we agree to um revise all of those um and that will all be of course a condition of any approval we were to get tonight would you like us to go through the review letters or did you want to ask questions um how do you like to do this um Mark do you have any questions or sure I'll jump right in into the review letter um my review letter is dated November 11 2024 and just right off the bat I'll ask if you're agreeable to all the comments and if not uh which which comments and we can discuss that um we are agreeable to almost all of the comments um we would request a waiver of G um any concrete curve or sidewalk improvements um since we're not proposing any improvements anywhere everything's staying as is um and I believe we already provided the conservation easement I mean we can do that again and we have yeah the county county approval or exemption um that that's fine uh that is it okay um so with regard to G it's uh for requires insulation of curb and sidewalk Improvement as the applicant indicated they're not proposing any construction as uh on this site I think it's U I think a waiver would be in order for that um um we also have a contribution towards the improvements of curb and sidewalk I I would say uh a waiver would apply to that as well again there's there's no construction on here uh we would typically take the contribution if they were constructing something and not installing the cbon sidewalk but in this case they're putting it into a conservation eement um so I would say the waiver uh would be in order for that um and and and just if you can explain a little more you know what you do again as far as the conservation eement like you're you're essentially buying land and you're just going to preserve it so so we we did preserve how does that work a client of ours uh received a permit to impact wetlands and riparian Zone and other areas of the Watershed um so we they hired us to find Parcels that could would D would accept as mitigation so if you fill an acre of wetlands here you have to give them back Wetland somewhere else in the same Watershed so this was one of three track tracks of land in Middle sex County that we purchased for this client to do mitigation so most of it's really good forest habitat so most of it was preserved there was one small two or three acre area that was devoid of trees it was probably an old field had a lot of invasive uh vegetative species in there we got rid of the invasive species and planted trees in that area so the whole property other than what we talked about has been conserved underneath it's been recorded thank you thank you for uh you know explaining that a little further appreciate it um chairman I have nothing for you does our planner have anything to add uh no all com previous comments have been satisfied okay thank you I'll open up the board any any questions sure um good evening how you doing so you're GNA give some land to the properties ajacent to you correct and the properties that are adjacent to you are they also conservation or are they're like separate uh they're existing single family residential and we specifically when we did my conservation plan for my property I excluded these areas and didn't put a deed restriction on because we knew we were going to convey them to these owners eventually so um what's the size of the property that they have and how will your contribution change those exact I don't need well um uh the subject lot is a little over 39 Acres um lot 605 we are proposing to deed 8,800 feet and lot 602 we're looking to deed over 10 10,600 feet but the existing Lots themselves I don't know if I have that might be in the planner's letter actually oh it would be on it would be on the zoning chart um what what I'm getting at the real question is by you giving them more land is that going to change their ability to develop further beyond the I understand there's existing structures on each property um but will your uh exchange of property allow each of those owners to theoretically build something bigger or different well no I I'm I can see here uh 602 is um 1.15 acre and 605 is 69 an acre and we are changing no uh it's 62 is 0.9 and we're making it 1.15 and and 6.05 is currently 69 and we would be turning it into 089 it is still existing non-conforming so no the answer is no still an undersized lot even with the share engineer noing an agreement all stuff just throw a lot of numbers out there but the answer is no right hard to disg grasp from looking at the pictures and everything and I wanted to make sure that by you doing what you're doing we're not going to have like major construction on the adjoining Lots not we're worried about yours understood but I I think that's pretty clearly understood that's not the case in all all developable area that was that there was some developable area outside of wetlands and transition areas on the larger lot have been conserved so there's no development that any other Witnesses I don't okay anybody any other questions or does anybody else wish to be heard on this how many of you are I have to SAR in so it's on your record you I can't hear you sir I can't hear you do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so H be God yes I do okay we State your full name and spell your last name for us my full name is Edward John keski and the last name is spelled k r CZ Ki thank you okay you can proceed you want to read your statement um hello and thank you for giving me the opportunity to read my statement I'm Edward keski and I owned a farm at 16 Federal Road in partnership with my brother Sergeant John keski a retired 33-year veteran of the Monroe Township Police Department we own the historic Bailey Davidson cranberry Farm on the opposite side of the tracks since 1984 I am a disabled veteran three-time cancer survivor and have been a tree farmer here with my brother for the last 40 years we have a historic access and water rights through three of the properties impacted by this application we object to the approval of this application at this time we have a 10- foot historic access easement and water writes from 1908 as referenced in D book 425 page 370 on these properties both green vest and the owners of 81 Hoffman Road had a responsibility to keep the portion of the easement to the Northwest of the railroad tracks free and clear both have ignored my written requests to remove obstructions and respect my historic rights green vest has gone even further by obstructing the Access Lane with a gate last summer these property owners who are both now clearly working together on this subdivision application continue to ignore and deny my rights additionally regarding the setup of a conservation Zone in this area I would like to directly ask this applicant greenvest and the township environmental Planning and Zoning Board what they knew and when about this project I have a deed in my hand filed by this applicant and a part of this application packet before the board book 18282 page 1651 named permanent access easement I would like to point your attention to page 10 of 10 of that deed it includes a site mark on the top right corner with my property Mark cranberry bog clearly within its bounds should I add coincidentally at the same timing when several issues began to crop up against my farm in 2020 by multiple parties including the township and Conrail is this project tied to F future plans that I seem to be the only one not aware of adding insult to injury on Thursday March 2nd 2023 Brian Kramer the VP of greenvest met with my son at the fum to discuss these access rights and had the nerve to hand him three more surveys with my property in the mitigation site Mark that's a total of four separate surveys where my property is my property ising green vest project mitigation s Mark he additionally said in the near future they would be looking for more land I would like to ask Calvin with whom did greenest determine the mitigation site bounds for the hofman road Wetland and Rian Zone mitigation Bank why am I only finding out about this mitigation bank now by reviewing this application before the board even though it appears that this applicant has made assumptions about it bounds which may which include my property that I still own in light of these facts in my interest to leverage my historic water and access rights on these properties I ask this board to delay the approval of this application further I would ask that an inquiry as to how all of this could have happened without my knowledge or a direct involvement could have occurred thank um council do you have any response to that our only response is there is an easement clearly marked and that has not been part of the conservation easement and I will add to that that uh I met with Mr kesy son we did walk the the old roadway that is the subject to the easement um the old easement didn't even describe an easement it just said access and we actually went a step further and describe that access easen did meet some bounds and filed an easement there's also an existing easan I think it's on lot it shows on our survey lot 6.05 right that's that's 81 Hof rad we don't own that property there is there is an easement on that property so it's our opinion that we are providing the access that Mr keski legally has any questions comments from the board of professionals um my only question would be to our engineer and planner uh were you aware of these issues coming into tonight's meeting um Mr chairman I'm not sure what the issue is um the plans clearly show um the access easement um the applicant has indicated that it it's clear or you walked it um and it's I should add that it's not our requirement was a copy of that deed provided to this board that easement deed the deed that the easement that the the recent one was that was reported I'm not sure if Mr KES deed that's double check that one so other than the access easement um I mean the uh the resident indicated something about water right I'm not not sure where that is or what that has to do with this property or if there's a separate easement for that um I don't know if the resident has has a copy of that easement or can elaborate as to what that is or unless the applicant knows what he's referring to about water rights yeah um what the what the engineer is asking is do you have a copy of the easement that you referred to in your statement yeah we have copies of everything from the uh 1800s on a deed right of way for access to our farm we have all that information and now they want to take the uh where we come out to uh Hoffman Road and it's all it's all identified on the paperwork we can provide anything that you need have you provided that to the applicant they have it I'm sure sure they have it because it's been deed it's a deed access Ro for the operation that was back there to get access to the cranberry farm and they uh put a gate up and stopped us from from accessing our property maybe two years ago on the railroad crossing there's a deeded railroad crossing and it's identified in the paperwork a a railwood crossing that's been upkept since the 1800s when it was put in it was replaced three or four different times and uh we were using it constantly until they came in and they blocked our access they dumped garbage and well he dumped dirt on it and then we we couldn't get access to the property is that it still exist or is that b yeah it's still there we've been trying to get access to it and we have no cooperation from the land owner we and now they want to put they want to go the last couple of hundred feet coming up to Hoffman Road because you can see on maps it's a it's a gentle Circle coming up now they want to go over behind the house and then come back up through there which is going to it's going to hamper our access to our property if we ever get that road cleaned up again right now we can't use it for nothing and then they put a gate in there to hinder our our access on top of it all which we don't think is right that property we've owned it since 1984 we've run it as a a Christmas we've run it as trees uh the whole nine yards with uh logs and we sell wood we try to grow some trees and do that and we like the access we're not trying to hurt nobody we just want to have our farm access left there and to continue using continued existing usage of the Farms I I'd like to just about the gate it's not even locked it's to keep ATV used because people ATVs up and down the railroad tracks are on our property so that was the only reason gate was put up not to curtail Mr kest's ass access the piles of dirt I'm not sure what you're talking about they're not on our property that roadway is clear all the way up through there um it was always clear to M can't hear you can you talking to the mic sorry we hear you wa you're not under unless he's sworn in he can't all right I'll start over the gate that was put in there was to not let ATVs on our property that were using the old Access Road there it's not locked it wasn't it wasn't put up to curtail Mr kesy access the roadway on the property that greenvest own is free and clear there may be some tree limbs on it um it is not our responsibility to maintain that road it's our responsibility to give access which we're doing um I'm not sure where the piles of dirt are that you're referencing they're not on our property um they could be on uh lot 6.05 I guess uh again that's property that we don't own the easement the access legal access easements are there so it's my opinion that access is being provided just a question Mr KFI um when you received notice of this application did you voice your concern to the township was our concerns with the township did you voice your concern did you raise your concerns yeah we did and I have the responses from the township and that's what we're doing here everything doesn't seem to be going in the right direction okay who they trying to go around houses now take away our our access the last 150 ft that's been deeded that road's been deeded that access road has been deeded since the 1800s since the 1800s it's been utilized and now all of a sudden they want to go around the back of these houses and come up the other side and then take away our last I understand that but my my my question really is um when you received notice of this application that we're here for tonight yeah did you did you contacted Township we had requests from the uh Township and then did you we're addressing it right now no did you raise your concern prior to tonight yeah we've spoken to people numerous times in the township right do you have that we spoken with many people fact that we were in contact with Ron apple beer years ago okay maintain the opening and and it was maintained but please understand sir we're here for a not a noticed application and um it's an issue which is really to us something we hadn't received notice of as a board and my question is who did you contact with the town do you have that contact in writing can I before you speak up swear swear me you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I hope you got yes I do say your full name and spell your last name please name is Christopher kesy k r CZ edes now you need the mic so the property that's being changed here is part of of the application where the historic right of way goes through goes through we have been negotiating and litigating with the town over several issues on my father's property for for years the township is well aware that we've been having challenges with access and other things and we even asked for support from the axis I directly supported my father to do that and we were ignored including additional letters which I have and I'll be happy to produce copies of where we have been trying to resolve issues on this what's more important to me here is why does this applicant have a sight mark on multiple Deeds that our property is in and what does that say about future plans and people's involvement here and what we don't know I get that the application is about these sub the subdivision and this property but why is this applicant making assumptions about our property in the future for a mitigation bank I have three surveys that he handed me here that our property is clearly within the Sark on what is going on here with this applicant and why are they making assumptions that our property is part of this mitigation Bank there is there is no assum your your project is not part of this when I met with you we discussed potentially adding your property to this we never came to Legal agreements on that so we never added it in 2020 these surveys were produced and on the top right corner does it not say there's three you handed me that's our property that's in that can't this is a survey that shows the access this is top corner it's in the deed in the application they're talking about the um Regional location there's a permanent access easement application deed in this application packet that our property is in the cyle your property is not in it that that's a location map that shows the location of our property in the vicinity of this area the town site there's a circle and our cranberry bog is in it okay that's the mitigation but that's not part of thec yes it is it's in this application I kind of a fundamental question for either councel or or experts if someone were to have an easement of property first of all when someone conveys property they can only convey whatever interest they have in that property so if one was to convey interest from uh the applicant to the party next to them the easements and whatever restrictions with that property go with it do it not so the only difference being that instead of the easements being held against the applicant they would continue to be in existence but just against the other property owner it should not change any rights that Mr keski should have he should still have the same rights that he's always had unless I'm missing something and I you know I'll leave it to my experts to tell me otherwise but nobody I don't see anything in the application that is asking for doing away with easements or or taking away something from from this gentleman you know it I I would think he would have the same rights maybe instead of the rights going against these people it goes against the other people and if there's a dispute as to them not properly allowing him to assert his rights then he certainly has legal remedies that he could pursue to uh to force that and uh I I don't you know don't I'm not going to say I know enough to say who's right or wrong but but I you certainly if you have an easement you have an easement yes ask but I don't think that changes what what they're risking to do here calm down back down at this point if you want us to pursue legal we've been pursuing plenty of legal options over the years and it's been very difficult no one wants to take on city hall there's a plan here for a mitigation Bank our property clearly seems to be a part of it someone's not being transparent that's my position on this go ahead and approve this this is perfectly fine but we will continue to pursue legal options calm down say it in a way like you know but I I I don't know that this this is something that that's really affected that Mr weiner yeah I just want to I have a question for the applicant to clarify for the record as well as commentary regarding you know the the issues raised by the uh gentlemen from the uh public I'll start in the reverse is I don't want to miss I don't want to speak for one or the other board members but I think I have a uh a grasp of what the issue is here and what's trying to be expressed is the planning board as a board we only have a certain legal amount of authority of what's called jurisdiction enforcement of other issues is not something that the board can do there's no power so it's I think that's what I was trying to gather what Mr councilman venzor was trying to say not in a antagonistic way of if you have rights go get them it's this board doesn't have enforcement rights we can't say hey this person or that person you're doing something wrong we don't have the authority legally to do enforcement actions and I think that's where he was coming from to say this may not be the proper Forum but under all means if you feel you may have right and remedies available to you no one is telling you you shouldn't consider pursuing them I think that's kind of where that went it wasn't meant to be in any type of antagonistic way it was just even if it was obvious and 100% what you're saying and the board hypothetically agreed with you they can't don't have the power to do that that that's not what the board is here for and I understand that completely but you are altering the property well well that that that that takes me to my my next question which was for the applicant was the gentleman here has indicated that a portion of the property he believes may be within your plan that's your part of your application is that accurate or not can you delineate for sure or is there any taking of any property or property rights easement rights of any kind that's being taken from these folks here that are part of your application we not no we're only working on property that we own and the we're respect in the easements that are um deeded to the keski so I'm not we're not doing easement is not a part of the little slivers that we're okay so basically anything that they may be concerned about as far as being included in any survey or drawing that's not part of your the parcels are that are part of this application and if they're showing anywhere in any existing things that would be more for informational purposes of a larger scope of of the general area as opposed to it's not part of your application showing adjacent properties I'm just I want to get it clarified from you folks to the councilman's point the easement still on the bird the burden still on green vest and is not that's not changing okay to to your point of it running with the land you're right it would if we sold it it would go to the new owner but that's not can I say something yeah microphone what they're trying to do is take away away our our last 150 ft of access from the 1800s to Hoffman Road they're stopping us that the deedon access was like that and it's been in the fact since the 1800s now they want to change it and go across the back of a couple of lots and then go up that way which denies us access to our property okay but I think what the point is and I think Mr weiner said it very very articulate is we're looking at the application here right and with regard to the two separate Parcels that they're deeding over and is your concern part of those two Parcels that they're deeding over correct may I say something I say something please let me just add a little color here my understanding from Dan Kish who's part of this subdivision application and who's also gaining property from this subdivision was that as long as they allowed him to utilize his driveway and his property to cut through the back part of the subdivision they wouldn't challenge him that part of his barn was on their property so they are doing quidd Pro Crow on some of this and it includes some of the subdivisions which are part of this application that's how they're skirting the ability to get past the last 10 ft on the pie at 81 Hoffman Road that's what I was told anyone have anything to add is there anyone else that wants to be heard on this that's enough thank you okay and as I understand what the applicant is requesting is a waiver to subsection G yes um does anyone want to make a motion I would make a motion to approve second is there a second any any discussion guess my what I'm hearing is that their issue is not directly affected by this application for us um I'd ask the engineer do we need to investigate this further or that is to totally a separate issue it's totally a separate issue that they're raising well Mr chairman I I'll I'll start with that what they presented doesn't propose any changes to the existing easements that I see unless I'm missing something can you just testify to that yes there the easements were surveyed per the deeds and are shown on the maps we're not proposing any changes to those e so this does not affect any access that they would have to the road to hofman road that they mentioned it does not affect their access is that correct we're not doing anything the access is there uh on I'm not sure what when he says we were talking to someone else about changing it that's not discussion to me I don't know if that's discussions with 81 Hoffman Road because our easeman on lot 6.02 ends and has shown the map there's another easement on lot 6.05 I believe um so you mean 6.06 6.06 um and then 6.05 so the are not aart the thead the roadway is there's an existing roadway that runs on that 10ft easement through 6.06 and then 6.05 is basically someone's lawn so the the road was was there you're not going to suddenly have to go around two properties in order to access the road yeah I'm not sure what that references to so so Mr chairman the the two homeowners um Al along our Frontage of our property chairman the two homeowners uh up front on lot 605 and 602 they both signed the application um the easement the access easement um is a filed easement through the the one property for where the homeowner is um that that appears to be unchanged cor it's on the other side it's on the what Westerly side of that property is so both those both those homeowners sign this application so for this to move forward I don't see any changes to what's there as far as if there if the existing access to Mr uh ky's property is U has trees in it or something like that is there is there something in that easement that indicates who who addresses that if a tree falls down across his access easen is that his responsibility is that your responsibility it's it's is not just just have access has to be provided but not maintenance of the easement so the maintenance would be up to the easement owner correct you know it's they're not changing it what on the plan please come up and speak before Chris keski I'll be happy to produce the Deeds which clearly State the conditions of the deals I've looked at all the Deeds back to the 1800s it says everything on that side of the tracks is this property owner's responsibility to maintain it's our responsibility on the south side of the tracks I can produce those deeds I'm happy to produce them okay we don't agree with that but be that as it may if that's true that then that's true but that is nothing you do with the application if I may I just Mr venzor said it earlier and the way I'm seeing this is any issues about burdens and benefits of easements are not being altered by this application if there are other possible conflicts or disputes related to those issues as to existing easements and burdens and benefits of them and who's responsible for what that doesn't seem to be part of this application and therefore myself as a member of the board I have to look at the application that's presented to me not at things that are tangential at best or unrelated uh as to these burdens or or issues about burdens and benefits and who's responsible for what um it doesn't appear that any of those responsibilities obligations under the existing easements are being altered by the application the the landowner of the where the easement is on is still going to carry the burdens and the other folks who need access are still going to get the benefits and I don't correct me if I'm wrong I'll ask the applicant is that not being changed is that correct that is correct that's not being changed chairman Mr marer brings up an excellent point I mean uh you know we got a couple of lawyers on this board but um you know their rights Mr KES rights as they exist today if if the easan is being blocked I mean there there's another forum for him to be at through the courts um you know to to open at easement up for his access um this is only a lot line adjustment to to shift the lot lines it's not changing ement I agree with Mr weer on that um and uh and and this is not the forum for that if if the easement is being blocked or this applicant's in violation of that easement then then there is another uh Court to to to hear that y as you know okay any other comments okay a motion in a second Mr Rothman yes Miss brosky yes Mr Patel yes Mr slavich yes Mr weiner yes councilman vanzora yes chairman Gaffrey yes thank you very much thank you thank you FKS yeah okay uh next on the agenda we do have a memorialization and that's for the uh pb1 12522 Federal business centers Inc um is there a motion to accept so moves that would be to accept the memorialization correct you vote vote Yes if you agree with the memorialization as opposed to okay is there a second um second with a a quick question clarification the motion we are making uh to deny mentions both safety and also that the applicant themselves were not sure whether they had one client or two clients so it was inappropriate to be even without knowing who was even going to be there and the level of traffic and the safety concerns that would be raised um that it would even be known to be able to honestly vote on so if both I just want to make sure it's both safety and a lack of mentioning one client or two and who they were well you I believe you you wrote those things up at the meeting they're on the record they're not specifically mentioned in the do do we need that in the uh memorialization or is it just based on what was said at the meeting I I don't think there needs to be an amendment I think the memorialization accurately reflects okay thank you any other discussion nope Mr Rothman yes Miss brosky yes Mr Patel yes Mr slavich yes councilman vanzora yes chairman Gaffrey yes okay uh next is the public portion is there any member of the public that wish to be heard tonight on any topic hearing none is there a motion to close the public portion so move a second okay all in favor I opposed abstain okay we're closing the public portion are there any discussion items tonight yes one comment I want to wish everyone here and the people in the public a Merry Christmas a happy Hanukkah and also a happy New Year thank you anything else uh any course respondence or none okay move to adjourn second for