##VIDEO ID:xNWjBI0K6M8## stands na indivisible andice for all here here here Mr Ben here Mr here Mr wooder here Mr here here Mr pH here here he had it here you go counselor your appearance please and evening good evening good evening everybody Frank poo SS Comon gross and I'm here on behalf of the applicant P loock Acquisitions LLC it's nice to see all of you again I was not here uh in the July meeting and I understand I was able substituted in for of my colleague here Josh cudre it's nice to know that if anything happens to me he could always come in at a lower rate which my which my clients really like um this meeting was carried from the July from the July 22nd 2024 meeting to the August 26 2024 meeting for scheduling purposes it's been carried from August 26 to this evening without the need for additional notice uh before I int uh introduce our first and only witness this evening uh I just wanted to go over a couple matters that have occurred since the last meeting on August 26th we did submit Mr toia written outline of testimony uh that the board had requested on uh August 30th we submitted a written summary of phase one and Phase 2 site assessments prepared by h2m Associates and those reports were filed should have been on file uh with the board at least 10 days in advance I also wanted to um address with the board that um we did request uh objectors Council to provide a copy of his storm order experts report and his planner report um Mr mcbrier on November 27th 2023 uh we do have the transcript site did agree to provide uh a storm order management report we have not received that report U we also have not received a copy of the planner's report and it's unfortunate because the reason we wanted those reports is to not have a situation like we do this evening where he's going to put on his testimony that we've never seen before so it's very likely that we may need un un fortunately uh another meeting depending upon how detailed that testimony is what areas he goes into Etc because it will be the first time we're ever seeing it so words res right to have a transcript of this testimon you can provide anyal necessary yes Mr chairman and and we'll if if the chairman would allow take a break after their affirmative testimony so we could discuss internally on how you know we'd like to handle that yeah okay thank you board um we are ready to proceed this evening our first and only witness is Mr Michael toia he is our professional planner you raise your right hand Michael do you solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God yes I do and your full name for the record please oh it's Michael toia T o b i a I'm the applican planning consultant thank thank you all right Mr toia can you please give the board the benefit of your educational background and qualifications so um sure I I've been um um practicing for over 40 years now I hold the bachelor's degree and a master's degree in the field of city and Regional planning as you know I've made many appearances before this board in the past as well as appearances before over 200 other planning boards zoning boards governing bodies um in in the state of New Jersey we would ask that Mr Toby be qualified as a expert in professional planning and your license is current license is current yes sir and Mr toia before you begin um you've been attendance at the prior four hearings and you reviewed the transcripts if you were not in attendance no I've been to every meeting and heard all the testimony great great okay so let's go on we're going to start first of all good evening everyone um I wish the chairman had called for this meeting to be held outside uh the weather we're having now but we'll settle on being inside we are going to start with exhibit a11 which was uh identified on July 22nd by Mr shelmer that's what's up on the monitor now and we're going to go through um what I hope is about 20 minutes of testimony um we're going to brush off uh the basic plan um as you know we're asking for is subdivision approval site plan approval and use variance approval more on that later the idea is springborg Country Club has approximately 4.74 acres of land they have deemed Surplus and unneeded they look to subdivide it off from their overall campus which covers about 160 acres of land uh property is known as nine Spring Brook Road um and also block 5801 lot one uh the intended piece that's up on a11 now has about 600 feet of Frontage on Spring Brook R nothing going on out there right now other than a gravel parking lot that you see and the main identifier when you go out in the field is the fire department building and our voting um booths um on Election Day which is right across the street from the parking lot rest of the s is undeveloped um and um historically this parking lot has been used for truck parking utility truck parking um I saw some landscaper trucks out there recently most of the time it's just a gravel surface parking lot um okay so on a11 let me uh click in give us a little Zoom here um this is our final uh plan um that Mr Sher did uh explained twice now second time being on July 22nd it's now down to 13 Lots if you follow my pointer um what he designed was a widened Road um 22 feet wide now that culminates in a roundabout um at the end of the road for easy turnarounds um this was reduced in density by three units as you may recall from the prior plant it now shows 10 visitor parking stalls it now shows a uh little community area with some benches um and a mailbox and some green space uh this works out to a density of about one home for every 15,800 square feet of lot area the uh plan has been described by our architect John James as having two basic housing types of around 2900 to 3600 Square fet in size U we've um explained to you uh this is a unique product most important thing I think in the whole hearings all the hearings so far has been what Mr Phillip shared with us a few meetings ago when he said this is a different animal okay normally we see Apartments normally we see tow houses we see a lot of single family cases before this board this is a single family home first one that I know of in Mars in Mars T and um something that you don't see in the area very much it's designed to be the age appropriate alternative to a large lot large houses um in the town it's designed for basically the um empty nester um who's looking for smaller space and still not be in the multif family housing arrangement um there are sidewalks on both sides of uh the street now shown on a11 the vast majority of trees along Spring Brook Road will be saved Mr schmer has present presented you with a landscape plan that shows nearly 200 new trees and Evergreens being added to the site in full compliance with your tree replacement ordinance um this is a subdivision so we're trying to create this parcel that you see 4.74 Acres out of the existing Country Club landh holding on this side of Spring Brook Road there's also Fairway 13 Fairway 14 Fairway 15 which basically form a u around the proposed development more on that in a moment I'll show you an area of that although on this exhibit you'll see Fairway 13 to the lower right of a11 um okay zoning um we're in the OSG Zone um OSG stands for um open space government use um it's pretty self-explanatory as to intent and purpose uh the Zone permits um a number of public land uses including Parks playing fields reservoirs country clubs um uh government offices pools emergency squads fire stations um even museums uh that could all be built on this site it permits colleges such as st e on the east side of town importantly it permits single family homes so what's being proposed here are 13 single family homes that's a permitted use in the OSG Zone okay so we're not asking for our classic use variant which is a use not permitted in the zone um aside from that um um The Zone permits places of Warship U and schools those are permitted as conditional uses in the zone uh the zone at least in one section of the ordinance does not permit CL cler development we struggled early on in this case to describe this use to ourselves it's really not a cluster development we're asking for a variance even if it was deemed that um this is the idea of putting all these homes clustered on one lot rather than subdivided onto 13 individual Lots that's what we call a conventional subdivision aside from that we are asking for a density variance um and let me back up a second in OSG uh single family homes are permitted as I said but they're permitted pursuant to ra a130 zoning standards ra 130 zoning is basically on the far west side of town at Washington Valley um permits homes on three acre lots you'll hear from me in a bit that three acre zoning in this section of Spring Brook makes no planning sense whatsoever uh so we're asking for a density variance because we can't meet the 3 Acre minimum um and we're going to go with a density that reflects the surrounding area which is all R15 the exact numbers are technically under ra 130 zoning we'd only be be be able to build one58 units on this site which would round down you can only build one house on 5 inrees that would make sense in Washington Valley okay ra 130 zones are basically located up against mendum Township um in this area the dominant zoning district is already 15 that's 15,000 square foot lot size we've seen a lot of apps in that zone it's a big Zone in town um so we are petitioning for 13 homes whereas um under current zoning only one is permitted there's another section of the ordinance 95-38 says you can only have one building on a lot okay when we build single family homes we put one house on one lot you don't put two houses on a lot you don't put three on a lot and that goes for every land use in town except if you drive through town as you know and you look at some of our townhouse sites there are many townhouse buildings on one property apartment buildings such as uh jamest Street commin has I think three buildings on one piece of property uh the ordinance says you can only have one we're asking for a variance because this type of land use that you see on a11 will be precisely what's going on at every townhouse development in town and most of your apartment complexes multiple buildings on on one lot but uh under one management one Homeowner Association one maintenance plant and so on um the ordinance even has a carve out that says um in certain instances um multiple buildings on a lot are permitted this is exactly what they're talking about big selling point of this for empty nesters and anyone else who wants to buy in here is the homeowner association that will will allow all exterior site maintenance snow removal Landscaping sidewalk maintenance road maintenance and all repairs to be done by the HOA after they've collected fees from all the individual homeowners so this is a lifestyle Housing Opportunity for those of us who have been pushing lawnmowers and breaking leaves all our uh lives adult lives as a a single family homeown um there are several um ra1 130 bulk standards that are not met by this applicant we've ruled previously Mr Phillips agrees with me they are subsumed into our request makes no sense to apply 3 Acre bulk standards to uh small Lots like this small home like this I should say Okay so let's go um Frank we're gonna ID another exhibit a new exhibit um this is A2 has not been marked yet right um it's an aial photo it has a date of um May 16th okay we showed you this exhibit sorry let me get uh we showed you this exhibit when we were still proposing um 16 Lots we never got around to showing it to you with 14 Lots it's a aerial photo of the neighborhood upper left is our concept plan okay I think you all can see that up and I'll go back to the zoom on this in a second um the golf course runs on both sides of springfi Road there are uh 15 holes to the north they extend all the way into moristown incidentally Clubhouse is more or less dead center on this exhibit Armstrong Pond the big water body you see just slightly left of center is in front of the clubhouse then you cross Spring Brook Road on the other side is the parcel we are talking about it has Fairways if you let me zoom in a little bit here U it has Fairways 13 which runs south and east of the subject property Fairway 14 which returns Eastward behind hipson Pond and then whole 15 Fairway 15 which then goes north heads back to where you cross the street get back over to the clubhouse subject property um is in the uh upper Center of this exhibit it's basically flag by Armstrong's Pond to the North hipson Pond to the South the land uses in the area are almost entirely single family homes uh many of them are on H Spring Brook Road Armstrong Road Alo road to the east and south we find a long stretch as you all know of Residential Properties along mount kemell in this exhibit mount kemble's at the top of the uh the slide I think I counted 90 homes 90 residential lots on now kemell Avenue about 70 in the Spring Brook neighborhood all are a 15 zoning if you went across the street um across Mount Kimbell to Skyline Drive that's all zoned ra15 to huge subdivision not really of of influence on this site but this is a big ra15 neighborhood note please if we moved Southward across old harder Road it's at the far um southernly extreme of the property there is a small ra 35 Zone nice houses on it old harder Road harder Road and a couple of other streets really no influence on this particular piece of property but I wanted you to know there is some other zoning in the area all of Mount kemell Avenue is owned ra15 with the except exception of now at least three multif family developments along that Road Mountain Shadow Spring Brook tow houses and the Redevelopment uh building um Redevelopment site up near moristown which I guess you all are calling L health so the street is basically all ra15 or scattered multi family [Music] housing um let's go for a second because this is really good stuff um okay let me Zoom yes I can um this is from your 2017 master plan um I I cut out a couple of sections um to explain what what what we're up to with this unique application uh first one page 39 the second one page 45 I'm only going to read to you what I've highlighted um in the text uh page 39 the median age of Mars Township residence has increased from 40.9 in 2000 to 44.5 in the year 2015 an aging population may have an impact on housing preferences for example residents whose children have left home but would like to remain in Mars Township may wish to downsize to smaller single family detached homes or seek other types of housing such as town homes and apartment living that's what this whole case is about okay diversifying the housing stock recognizing that although we've built a heck of a lot of town houses and departments in the area in recent years um there's still another way to go which is non-attached single family homing uh single family housing under an HOA management let's go to page 45 same master plan um just going to read highlighted stuff remember there's more here that that you can read if you like in recent years housing preference among two large demographic groups the baby Boomers and the millennial generation has trended away from traditional large lot single family housing you go to the bottom of this excerpt highlighted although the planning board anticipates that the township will remain a predominantly single family detached home Community it must still be cognizant of these changing housing preferences as such it should look for opportunities to promote University in the Township's housing stock or appropriate it's R you get master plan language so directly on point with a particular application but that's basically what we're up to here okay um let's Mr chairman we'd like to mark this excerpt for these two experts as a13 it's my outline it's yeah I just was going to point that out it's um on page eight of uh Mr toia outline why don't we just Mark the outline I mean we have it it's part of the application now so um let's mark the entire outline all right is a13 great yeah okay so I'm G to go back to our plan so we're going to go back to a 11 so we're on A1 again um and now I want to talk to you about the justification for the variances pretty quickly single family housing is a permitted use in the zone okay permitted use in the zone we're not arguing that this was a townhouse application we'd have to argue town houses if it was an apartment app we'd have to argue why apartments are suitable we don't have to do that here we have to argue density and why this um if you look at my outline um we get guidance in the planning and legal Community from the grubs case Mr 289 NJ super 377 um deals exclusively with density cases says a couple important things um the proposed increase in density um must promote uh purposes of the municipal land use Lo okay um and um overall the detal detrimental effect on the neighborhood should be compared between the density that's permitted and the density that's proposed here what we're proposing while higher than what's permitted is entirely consistent with the neighborhood okay um importantly as I said before when this site was in OSG as a country club use it deserved to be in the country club in the OSG Zone once it's been removed and the applicant has deemed it or or the country club has deemed it unnecessary and no longer needed oscu really doesn't make any sense anymore it's no longer an open space use it's no longer governmental use it's no longer Country Club use our design challenge going back over a year now was to say what would work if we're going to bag OSG and the answer was very simple we're surrounded by ra15 Lots ra15 became The Guiding Light for the zone for the site this is not a resoning it's a request to focus on this tiny parcel in the context of the overall OSG Zone and build a site that complements the neighborhood uh that's what the applicants proposing the density permitted is still higher than what would be permitted by ra15 15,000 square feet is what's permitted 15884 is what's proposed so we're a little bit higher um importantly we address a goal of the master plan um that say well-being of persons neighborhoods communities and regions and preservation of the environment should be promoted we think this is blending in perfectly with the neighborhood and consequently promoting a good safe um appropriate development for the Spring Brook neighborhood um importantly as I just explained to you by targeting um EMP neers what we call the Boomers these days even Millennials um people basically without kids they don't need big houses Big Lots Big yards we're addressing a very specific master plan directive that says diversify your housing stock this promotes the general welfare which is another goal of land use on goal a um let's talk about residential cluster for a second um back in the day um residential cluster meant subdivision application looking to build say 15,000 foot Lots would be allowed to reduce that 15,000 foot threshold in this town down to about 11,000 square feet that 4,000 sqare foot lot Delta when combined over all the lots of the subdivision would in theory and in practice be switched together on one side of the site and be used to create an open space parcel playground of the park whatever so the tradeoff was smaller Lots get you more open space um we are clustering here we're not clustering the way it's intended in the ornaments there will be no individual lot lines the open space here will be basically everything on the site other than the housing and the parking and the drivers so and remember it's permitted in ra15 there are even sections of this code that say it is permitted in the oscu zone some conflict there but again it's permitted in every residential Zone in the town in one way or another including our neighbor neighboring R5 Zone um for the reason stated um we promote goals a c e g i and m I like to point out you repeat that please yes sir gos a c e g i and m I've discussed a couple of them I want to share goal e with you I always start with a and go right through so a because members of the public can follow okay um he says promote Municipal action to guide the appropriate use for development of lands in the state in a manner that will promote heal safety morals and general welfare remember what I just said guide promote action to guide the appropriate use doesn't say the least dense use doesn't say the most popular use it says the most appropriate use and when we look at uh the dominant land use in the area ra15 um single family homes we easily meet go go see Mr chairman I'm G talk about a little bit later but it says provide adequate air and light U and open space I'll show you why we do that in the moment goal e really important once again it says promote the establishment of appropriate population densities says appropriate population density not the lowest possible density not the most popular po population density the appropriate one we feel that's what we've done here with our uh 13 homes po G basically says what the master plan says provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of residential uses call I um says promot a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good Civic design and Arrangement indeed when we had our architect here Mr John James um he did testimony that um address section 57871 of your plan development ordinance that's the building design ordinance you adopted maybe I don't know three years ago now um I'm not the architect but everything he described was about traditional architectural product uh shutters porches side entry gares pitch Roes double hung Windows panel doors and if you went through that section of your Land Development ordinance you would see the architectural product is doing um what we would call a desirable visual environment says promote the most the mo the most more efficient use of land um this site right now is not being used the way it's being used when it is used is for commercial parking doesn't look so hard commercial parking probably belongs up on rale Avenue um it's not an efficient use of land uh the way we've uh laid it out uh consistent with neighborhood trans and density makes it vastly more efficient than what's out in the site now um so those are those goals Mr chairman um few other things going on here that I wanted to pull your cails to um one there will be um a major contri contribution made by our our applicants to your housing trust fund dollar amount still being worked out between our people and your staff um this is rable Heaven for the town uh we estimate each home to probably be paying $220,000 a year or more in taxes every typically uh every Municipal service such as snow removal um sidewalk maintenance and so on will be taken care of by the HOA Town DPW doesn't have to come to the site at all we also know right now um we have a waiting list for these homes six people around on it six households I should say um consistent with what we expected they're all empty nesters and not one would be sending a kid to the local school system okay um that's what happens when you make houses smaller smaller Lots you know basically small deck no swimming pools and so on most importantly not a neighborhood that um would have kids among its homes we expect there to be nearly no public school age kids coming into to project note um I know a board member maybe three meetings ago said how many school kids are coming to this job and so in the outline that I gave you um I use some standard uh demographic multipliers that we use for regular old single family homes and I predicted eight kids would come that's a full-on worst case scenario last I checked your school district had 5,000 kids in it 5200 something like that um even if all eight kids showed up it would be a microscopic impact on the school system let me continue as I wrap up um you're going to hear there's environmental cleanup going on on the site that's um a good special reason um Mr Scher explained a waterline Loop will now be added to Springbrook to bring better pressure and redundancy to the public Supply connecting from M kemell to entrance so all of springb road now at this applicant's expense we'll have a water line that will give you a water coming in both ways into the neighborhood um we've uh represented we would work with the neighborhood on a welcome to Springbrook uh sign or signs ornamental um signs that we were Place strategically in the area maybe one maybe two um at this applicant's expense um to help beautify the uh neighborhood Okay so so we're going to wrap up with a couple minutes on negative criteria um as all board members know um no variance can be granted if you're going to show a substantial detriment to the public good or substantial impairment to your Zone plan uh what we have here um when you look at it first of all is an isolated site let me go back for a second to A2 site is shown upper Center of a12 when you go out in the field and you investigate this proposed development in the context of um crowding okay are we getting too close to Area Homes U I made some measurements our easterly most unit that's unit one is 700 ft from the home uh due east at the intersection of Armstrong Spring Brook Road I think that's three Spring Brook Road I'm talking about 700 feet away to see it from any home in that area of Armstrong Road you have to look across two Fairways two tree stands and 7even 00 ft before you saw unit one or unit two if you moved Southward a little bit and from unit two I measured going south and east to the intersection of spring BR road and alard road trying to give you a pointer here that's roughly to the house at 11 Spring Brook it's 900 ft same remarks acoss two Fairways two trees stands to get to the nearest home there is no visual impact um from uh these distances I also looked out of curiosity how we would affect old harder road which runs south of the site um so from the southerly edge of the site uh measuring just to the edge of the property line of this parcel it's 400 feet house to house from the nearest uh proposed house on our site to the nearest Home on Old Harter road is 700 feet lot of Elbow Room here normally we analyze setbacks 10 feet 20 feet 30 feet maybe 50 feet here we're measuring area separation in the hundreds back to a11 we also investigated the same thing with how we would affect people on Mount kemell Mount kemell in this slide is shown on the far left of the slide North is up going to toward Marist toown U and you see our development Spring Brook runs across the top of this exhibit there are only two homes that AB the proposed development site one is about 110 ft away from the nearest Home proposed on um on our site that being unit8 the other's 160 feet away that being Unit Nine we strike that unit seven um a lot of room there if you look at um ra2 ra15 which which only requires 25 ft of re yard SB uh Mr Sher explained I won't get into it in detail but dense Evergreen plantings around the entire perimeter of the site um saving virtually every tree along Spring Brook Road which has a really nice canopy right now only a few trees near the proposed site driveway are being removed um so all in all when you look at um area separation area impact uh what's proposed here will have a very modest impact on uh life in the neighborhood we're well below the well below the ra15 requirement for coverage 45% is uh permitted 31% is what's proposed uh we're well below building coverage 20% from committed 14.9% proposed uh this this application will meet the height requirement of 35 ft for every home U I'd also say we we um estimate right now our base price on these units is a million and a half dollars a unit when you look at visual impact there's you know there's with this type of architecture there's very little that's harmful about looking at a well-designed million and a half dollar home we don't see that as a detriment um at all I've explained school kid impacts to you um I wanted to close with a remark and I think Mr Beno sorry if I'm wrong three meetings ago is this Suburban spraw I don't know if you remember it you do it's not okay we're in a neighborhood where this is the ex the existing development pattern we're right up against the state highway we got a public water line already in the street public Shoreline already in the street we even have a fire department across the street okay suburban sprawl would be if you took this out to Washington Valley okay to a lot where you have to extend a road a couple hundred feet into the woods to an area where you didn't have water and you had to extend a sore line a water line maybe hydrants um and build it out of context with the three acre zoning that's out there um here we think this is a compact design and a compact uh neighborhood that just makes a lot of sense U for for everybody uh and I'll stop right there for now Mr oler I will tell you you we've been taking notes we have a list of proposed conditions um we're going to continue to take notes after the dialogue tonight and if you're so inclined on approval we'll be presenting you with a number of stipulations we've already uh offered at prior hearings yeah I I uh have a pretty long list as well compare notes any questions I do um Mr toia you did um you talked about the relative density of this project generally but um do you have any specific comparisons that you could tell the board about with respect to the density of this project as compared to maybe others in the vicinity um so and you're talking about actual density or Zone density actual density um so I would tell you what what's proposed here is basically 2.9 um you know breaker a little bit more than 15,000 square feet per rooftop um homes on Mount kemell probably less than that you see a relatively High degree of lots less than 15,000 square feet Spring Brook neighborhood you should know has um 15,000 foot lots for sure and many other Lots in Spring Brook and Armstrong that have larger Lots it's a fact you go up now Kim and you get to a place like the Spring Brook tow houses they're about 7.2 units per acre sorry folks um and Tow houses uh generally go six seven eight units per acre um condo flats or rental Flats get to the Double Digit densities Jam Street Commons I think comes in at 12.9 units the acre this is a very typical medium density for a Suburban sub okay yeah and Mr toia I um as as the board recalls and as you you recall we we had a reset I'll call it in this application where we came back and proposed certain material changes to this project um those changes were described among other places in a letter that we submitted to the board dated May 9th it was from Mr Scher I'm going to just let you look at this letter again um just I want to get on the record as a professional planner um the changes that we made um would you would you say those changes were beneficial to this development and if if so how were they beneficial so umh I don't know 16 unit concept we're going to show you an old exhibit we did four meetings ago is this A1 um we started out with 16 units we had one long hearing um and basically what happened is um we did a lot of stuff okay mostly in reaction to what the board so what's up on the monitor now just so you can see is um um A2 which is the 16 unit plan I'm going to go to the the 13 unit plan in the second we went from 16 to 13 units we had this pocket park you all remember up against Mount Kemble we gave up on those lots we had tension on how to park for them how to walk to them how to build sidewalks up there to those two lots that was eliminated you all remember we had a kind of a culdesac in the middle of the layout Mr chairman this was your baby didn't make sense in the middle we shoved it all the way to the end we added visitor stalls um we added a pulloff for Amazon UPS FedEx deliveries we added an amenity area u in this plan A2 sidewalks are only on one side of the street we went to both sides of the street um we did side entry garages through around this is one of your preferences in your building design guidelines I think we only had a couple side entries before all 13 now our side entry with a big back out behind it um we lowered lock coverage we lowered building coverage we lowered density of course and we widen the roadway width the width of this road now let's go to a 11 okay and so look at this I do that that's 16 units A2 and this is 13 units on a um so we were very responsive um to suggestions from the board concerns from the board the roadway width was widen to two feet it is now in excess of the state requirement which is only 20 feet so we're at 22 um moreover Mr Scher deepened the parking stalls to 22 feet even though they're only required to be 18 feet that gives you a little bit more negotiating room and allows PS to pedestrians to walk behind the parking spaces uh so all those changes have been incorporated into this uh among others and you would agree then Mr Toby that by incorporating these changes based on the feedback from the board the public as a planner you would say that this is a better planned Community than than it was before absolutely okay I don't have any more questions for Mr toia board members any questions I I'll take a couple questions Mr chair sure um Mr Toby you said that I I get the narrative that it's going to be for downsizes individual right right and am I still correct that the units are roughly 3500 square feet the number given by architect was a range from 2900 I think I said up to 3600 so your numberers at the high end of the range 29 and 3600 so one-bedroom apartment is usually about 700 sare feet there so we're looking at 61 bed apartment for somebody that's downsized um it's great question um I know because I do a lot of work in marown there are people downsizing to 700 for for departments you're absolutely right um there are also people if you go out to the west side of this town aring mendum all the large larger larger lot communities people downsizing from homes a whole lot bigger than 3,500 feet um and uh so this is like I said diversifying the housing stock trying something different is the angle here so now I I get the narrative so if that if we were pushing for downsize you know folks to move into wouldn't we go ahead and get the uh certification for a 55 plus Community if we were truly if that was where our Focus was right see applicant strong preference not to do that we think it's going to self-regulate that way anyway that's why I call it age appropriate more than what you would say is age restricted okay meaning had a house old would have to be 55 years of age to walk in the door we're going try not to put that restriction on the project uh because we think it's going to self-regulate anyway okay I'm I'm curious I got a couple more questions the OSG Zone and when it was Zone that way was there were there any concessions any abatements do you know that and I'm talking to the professionals here I don't know if there were any concessions given when it was originally zon OSG Zone if it was if you can only put a church a school or something I'm just trying to figure out why we be making changes but no real impact and it's not a hardship I'm trying to figure out I'm trying to rationalize it in my head if any you know I wasn't around at the time this wasg but I can I'll give you I'll speculate give you my best professional judgments it's actually I think quite simple is that you know OSU is a zone that includes clubs such as this with the golf course and all other lands including bars County golf club for example placed in OSU which made logical sense there are other Parklands and so forth that placed in OSU uh I would suspect that as part of the original placing it within that District simply it was the lands that were owned and controlled by the golf course were placed within that district and that includes these lands which the applicant is sort of characterizing as Surplus acreage that are not needed for the functioning golf course thank you and Mr Williams I totally agree with that let me let me tell you what OS really is okay quickly St Eliz Mars County golf club Normandy School uh Twin Oaks Mo beard fre heising arum men uh the county all those County Land Holdings on East Handover Avenue that's all OSG gu stands for government use uh all the county Parkland in near the menum border off of menum road is in stre jocky Hollow Lewis Mars Park there's a little uh a gorab children's park off of cadina this building is in OA police station's in OA um lanica the Armory down on Western Avenue remember National Armory that's what OSU is about and I think Mr Phillips is Right whenever the original zoning was created for OSU knew it was in Country Club landh Holdings we put it in OSU I have a question on the um topic of OSG in your testimony I believe you had um alluded to the fact that everything except the driveways the housing um the roads was going to remain in OSU and what was what was the point of that was that just a sort of you know to me when I look at obviously there's space that's still available other than the elements I just mentioned which is the roadway the housing the driveways right is what else the all that space around the periphery or what was the sort of point of that testimony I don't I'm not remembering what I said or what you think I said okay um this subdivision is requested okay to carve this out of the entirety of the golf course Holdings to create a lot just under five acres in land everything on the exhibit you see um is will be subject to that approval if you all are inclined to approve that that doesn't just mean sidewalks and roads but all the open space all the plant material the fencing the everything on here will be subject to the approval gotcha I got you right okay just have one question yes as an HOA these are people purchasing into I guess they're they're buying the individual home which is part of an HOA do they have their own yards they do not they don't have a backyard this is ex exactly now there will be bylaws okay first of all their deck shown on Mr strummer's plan if I zoom in here let me see if I can show you one quickly okay so Unit 10 see that little striped area in the back it's a deck they all will have standard decks obviously they will be for private use of individual homeowners all the green grass all the trees and everything will be part of a common area from practical standpoint bylaws are going to be written Maybe by uh Mr rola's office you know that they're going to say you can't stand five feet behind your neighbor's house and look in the window because it's common open space but and remember it's not what the cluster subdivision ordinance really conjured up really hard to place this into the ordinance because it's such a new use unexpected um in fact Master plans written in 2017 this thing didn't even go into contract until 2021 Mr Phillips had no idea the golf course was going to sell off this piece so we couldn't have done anything at the master plan time to address this um anyway that's what's gonna happen the whole point of the thing is to do away with individual lot lines and individual lot responsibilities thank you okay any other board member for questions just another question related to that so therefore there will be no intent to put fencing up between the different units to delineate it's all kind of be Blended property with different structures on one large property um yeah Amen to that we really don't like that and so we'll make that a condition if you want but they're going to be bylaws matter of fact I don't know Mr Aller we could do draft you could review that kind of thing I have a couple of questions when we I when board's done about your uh potential setup yeah but the answer is yes okay thank you yeah I would assume that the um any of the bylaws would be consistent with any conditions we put on the property well that would be a couple things and and you know if the board were to vote in favor of the application you know we'll run down conditions there were several things that came up during the course of the hearings um that would be part of the bylaws and and the restrictions that are put in a master deed for any condominium um you know uh the word condominium brings to most people's mind a uh you know a townhouse style unit you know like multif family living and that's not what it is a condominium is simply a form of ownership it has nothing to do with the style or the look of the building um it could be just a block of air right so one of my questions to you would be is is that well let's just back up a little bit as to how the association's going to function here okay will the because you said in your testimony that all of the exterior maintenance would be handled by the Association so I just want to confirm that the exterior of the buildings would be common elements and maintained by the Association okay so I'm glad you asked that um all exterior maintenance um will be the HOA responsibility shoveling snow cleaning up driveways cleaning up driveway pads the exterior shell of the house will be the individual homeowners responsibility okay that's what I would have expected wait David my client just explained it outside wall in right is for the homeowner to take care of okay including the deck so we were talking about decks before that's going to be part of the you know be a call it a limited common El however you designated in your master D but that's 100% on the on the unit owner right right and I would expect that the um decks would have restrictions as to size and location well they're going to be they're on the plan right but I mean if somebody replaces a deck if it's going to be the homeowner's responsibility they're still going to be bound by that foot this what Happ happens Mr hler can tell you this but you're GNA have to go before the HOA and say you know I want to rebuild my deck usually what happens with these jobs is all the decks get replaced at once or all the roofing gets replaced at once right but that won't happen here because you're putting that on the individual unit owner uh homeowner right so you know like unit one is for whatever reason a direction of the you know the facing of the house towards the Sun particular direction is roof you know maybe where's out sooner who knows right but but that person can replace his roof without going to the board right he's I'm seeing a no from the client here to this board you're saying no not to our board to the HOA board right he's gonna be able to replace his roof because he needs a new roof that's not going to the association I'm just trying to under I mean I think I understand what you want to do I just want to be sure the board is clear because they have a few questions the operation it's not something that that you typically see you know the single family condominium so you know I've done them where I create a box you know literally an air boox and you put everything in the box and that's yours you know you own it so where are just a little more explanation for the board to how they're maintaining the buildings say the homeowner wants to replace his roof got to go to the board not this board the HOA board right um it's going to be a strong HOA um which will probably have Architectural Review component on it um so that that's what listen you know this Mr Aller this becomes another form of govern you know yeah and not my favorite form to be honest say it again and not my favorite form so you know it's just you know I I look the type of ownership is really up to the applicant how they want to designate what's a unit or not um I'm just trying to explain to the board what your thoughts are so they have a good understanding of who's going to maintain the exterior of the house we get the grass and the streets um and maybe the driveways you know the the sidewalk leading up to the front door but when the front door is you know 20 years old and it has to be replaced it's on the unit owner typically right so so does that unit owner have have to go to the board to say I want to replace my door I guess that's what you're hearing right usually what happens also is the door is specified as to what door can be replaced there so yeah with with or you know sometimes there's color restrictions right that type of thing listen I've heard HOA say no American flags can be hung outside the door yeah but that was in 1980 you know it was all kind of new then right so so but since then there's actually a law that says you can't restrict the flying of the American flag so right other flags maybe not but the American flag you can't restrict so I'm just for the board's sake just Michael just in a few words just who's maintaining the exterior of the building and do they have to go to the HOA to get approval homeowners maintaining it yes they have to go to ho okay yeah I was just going to say um in your typical neighborhood of single family homes of of course everybody does their own thing they have their own colors I mean there are so many regulations as you know in these HOA documents they do it is a way to police consistency in your neighborhood so everyone's going to have you know they're going to abide by the rules and and neighbors fortunately are unfortunately police whether or not neighbors are following the rules so you will I you know particularly in a development where we expect over 55 um you know people are going to want some consistency and they're not going to be going crazy wanting to paint their house a different color Etc so uh I think it works for us in this in this kind of neighborhood to have an association with okay pretty can we go back to the welcome sign where you said something about a welcome sign that says welcome the Spring Brook where would that be and who would have maintenance responsibility for that so I can address we we we are going to um and the testimony from the prior meetings were that we would work with the neighborhood to locate the sign or where they deem best most appropriate um who that is in the neighborhood if you guys would like to um make the engineer the planner um that person U because there is no neighborhood leader we're certainly inable of that we'll work with whoever uh you know knows the most or has responsibility for that neighborhood maybe it's the council person whomever you guys wondering whose property will be on you know there's Zing restrictions you may end up back here to get a and we're we're gonna have we're gonna we're going to take on the effort and the cost to do that so um is it anticipated that the association would maintain that sign and replace it I think we're happy to do that yeah we're happy to do that all right so that would be uh you know a condition right that corre and that would be in your um restrictions in your master feed right yes I didn't have any other yeah I'm just thinking like yes probably would I don't well set back line where we can put signs in there without coming back here getting County approval if it's along a County Road CH the county road yes so they have get County so it could be a whole because you have to put either on somebody's property so get approval or so Mr chairman I think the way we would do this is as a condition of approval we would present an analysis of the lands around this property um and to identify any spots where a sign is feasible or and then you guys can whoever you assign can work with us to place it where you think it's best um but we we would do the leg work so we'll look to see you know what kind of restrictions on the lands around the property exist so Paul and Dave you think that would go to TCC initially to I'm just thinking there might be some zoning restrictions right yeah yeah size you know yeah I know for sure I mean you do see these signs around I mean they're certainly around so yeah most of neighborhoods all have like some areas an entrance way where there somehow they been put in right uh I know our our neighborhood sheet has the two signs but you know that would they've been in there for a long long time yes um so I just want to make sure it doesn't impinge on any other person of course TR of course okay uh any other board members with questions professionals any questions I do yes please so Michael to your knowledge uh are there any other uh excess lands that currently exist as part of the Spring Brook Country Club that could or would potentially be available for development or is this it and by that I mean sort of uh perimeter buffer lands that are not needed either for golf holes or the protections from stray balls and all that um the answer Paul is I don't know okay I was brought into this after this site was identified by the country club um I did know facilities planing with the rest of the country club okay Paul if this goes another night we'll get an answer that for you okay and the other thing I just want to make sure and I read your outline and heard your testimony and I think it's clear that that in your opinion this application involves both a D1 and a D5 varas correct correct and my understanding correct me the D1 relates to the fact that what's being proposed is not a product for lack of a better word that's allowed in any Zone in Mars Township meaning multiple single family dwellings on a single lot there's provision for multiple multifam dwellings as you point out in your outline but I don't believe that it's allowed for single family I just want to make sure you concur I concur exactly okay having said that do you believe that the applicant needs to address the requirements under medich for the D1 and by that I mean both the particular suitability test and the reconciliation test and let me just follow that up and you can answer um if you believe the ANS is yes then uh and I think you touched on on both of these to some extent but in light of my first question about whether there are any other excess lands uh I think it would be helpful if you could butress the testimony as to why these lands are so particularly suitable for this use so to advance the public welfare consistent with medich and also under the reconciliation test recognizing that this Zone only fores either continued Golf Course use or you know one unit on three acres you know how do you reconcile that with the legislative intent I think you started to get into this what do it change circumstances uniqueness here right okay that's a lot Paul that's a lot um first of all particular suitability is easy to meet okay because we're surrounded by this massive ra15 Zone um it is a microscopic portion of the OSG Zone I calculated this site incidentally to be slightly more than one10 of 1% of your OSG Zone okay this is why we have a board of adjustment okay was 10% of the OSG gu Zone Phillips would have a heck of master plan study to do and you know to study the whole Golf Course variances are designed for special situations we have that here I don't think Paul we have to reconcile this Omission um with the ordinance this is a single family use in a single family Zone and what medich was focused on was just that wasn't focused on a density variance wasn't focused on multiple hous is on one lot it was focused on what I'd call Ali and land uses right some of them proposing a gas station and a residential Zone this is a much less much lower burden of proof I feel than a a totally totally non-permitted use in his own so just I understand you don't feel you need to put in any proofs on reconciliation in terms of change circumstances or what the plan may have overlooked in the designation of this property for Golf Course let me let me go through a couple that I said anyway okay you did the master plan for the planning board 2017 piece goes under contract four years later you didn't know it was coming we didn't know it was coming so it was impossible for the master plan to contemplate anything with the country club country club by the way in the master plan it's virtually s on the springb country club no policy recommendations no Z silent because I think the expectation then was the country club was going to keep on trucking just where it was um so this came out of left field I loved what you said a couple of meetings ago um and this relates to the reconciliation test also this is a different animal as housing types go we never saw it coming this is why you have the use variance mechanism what Michi says um in that Supreme Court decision is perhaps the use was not known or not anticipated at the time the last master plan was prepared that's what we're talking about here so I think that addresses your your your question and the the medich decision that's and just for the record for your edification which is why asked the first question about whether there are any other excess lands here which to me goes to both the potential to demonstrate particular suitability as well as to do the reconciliation test with regard to change circumstances or something someone may not have normally been aware of such as that these land were excess at the time that's just for purposes the board's edification as well that's all I had Mr I have a question if I recall correctly the D also says that a board of adjustment is not supposed to create zones uh is that correct plainly correct we're not supposed to do rezonings here right re I mean for instance when uh there was a a shortlived proposal before this board concerning development of a um uh over by uh Madison Hotel uh one of our concerns was what are the standards we apply so my question is what are the standards that we should apply to this type of uh development and how do we reconcile that with the med that we're not supposed to uh create zones well I I think your planner just asked me those same basic questions thing over near the hotel I was on it was a you know really big building um um on a a very complicated piece of property I think the resistance we had to that early on was um should we examine that whole neighborhood all those Office Buildings over there the hotel and so on and it veered off into the subject of whether that should be considered for resoning here I'll repeat this is a really small piece of property um in the context of the country club and in the context of your overall OSG use or OSG Zone um this is why we have a board of adjustment special situations change circumstances unanticipated land uses any other board members of questions any other questions from board professionals Mr rer any more questions I have no questions right should we take are you okay you're good um members of the public any questions can we take a can we take a couple minute break sure sure that's I okay I appreciate it thank you okay thank you appreciate it thank you uh Mr chair that your um Mr chair I have two things um the first thing I did I wanted to say is um based on Mr Williams question on um 55 and older I did discuss with the client and you know it is really a distinction without a difference so we will agree to a 55 older designation on the on the development so thank you for that suggestion um and then the second thing I wanted to say is that um we did have a representative from the golf club here and they are not looking we can confirm they're not looking to sell off um sell off or subdivide any other portions of the golf course so I wanted to make those two things clear and then before we start the cross Mr chair I did have one follow-up for our witness can I ask sure yeah so um I just wanted to um Mr toia um you had testified on Direct about your analysis under the Michi test uh particular suitability and then you got a question from the planner uh Mr Phillips and um in and going over my notes I was a little bit um just a little bit confused so if you would could you just one more time take the board through the particular suitability test in the context of this cluster type development with multiple buildings if you would sure okay um the cluster thing remember is permitted in every residential Zone in the town aside from rgu okay um when I talk particular suitability I'm impressed that it's permitted in ra15 um that is the cluster it's permitted in ra 35 to the South now nearly as influential on this site but it's permitted every place we're the hole in the donut okay it's permitted across now kemell Avenue Skyline Drive can't happen in a lot of these neighborhoods now because they're fully developed but cluster um is permitted in the most influential Zone in the area ra15 why is it also uh um useful um and particularly suited Master PL says it wants diversification of housing clustering is one way we diversify housing I won't go through the master plan slide again but that's one way we do it if you look at the overall site the individual site and how it relates to clustering as well as to the multiple house multiple buildings on one lot it's a great piece of property you've heard in prior testimony we have no flood planes we have no uh wetlands it's basically a flat site minimal grade change as you move through this site east to west and north to south were supplied by utilities were supplied by A Great Road Spring Brook Road State highways nearby um and we are unique perhaps in the whole town with the amount of open space buffering that surrounds us and protects any possible impacts from what clustering would do to the neighborhood uh another thing um that comes up in medich let's go through this a little bit more um variances can be granted under medich if we demonstrate the community has changed variances can be granted if we can demonstrate that the use is new or is not anticipated the time of the last master plan both apply here Community has changed as your master plan points out by the steadying Aging of uh Township population and area population aging speaks to what's being built here especially now with a age restriction proposed um the use is new could not have been anticipated a few years ago nor could the sale of the property have been um anticipated a few years ago these are all changeed circumstances under medich okay thank you Mr toan got it okay thank you Mr chairman looking at this the 18,000 looking at this exhibit up there board and Tre along the property line um remain for spring country are they going to maintain those trees and keep them there as part of the buffer to protect anybody that might be in the backyard so everything you see on this exhibit Mr chairman is on our property including the uh like four or five uh trees that are outside the property line tell me uh north south east or west I'm sorry Mr top bottom the South the bottom those those right there that's all okay so the heavy line you see here Mr chairman is the property line right and they're all on the other side of the property so there oh I see what you're saying there were White Pines on the other side of that line 40 50 feet high you're correct those would be a country club responsibility right they're on their property not ours right but they they G I'm worried about people sitting in the backyard and getting cled by a golf GL you asked um you know one thing we um I don't know where I so uh we we've heard about that Mr chairman and U so the way it was explained call some yeah so the the representative from the golf club is in the back but he just did Ray to us that they're going to keep those trees and maintain them yeah sure okay any other questions we can start uh thank you Mr chairman members of the board uh professionals and staff uh as you know my name is Robert mcbrier I'm an attorney with the law for Miss gank price Smith and King uh and we represent a group of concerned citizens uh who oppose uh the Penning application Mr Toby you're welcome um I have a few follow questions uh before I think we uh or I anticipate there'll be no other experts on the applicant side we do have two experts uh in attendance on the uh opposition side but before we get to uh them Mr toia sticking with the precise language of the OSU Zone uh you you testified that cluster residential development uh is expressly prohibited in the zone correct yes and uh you also testified that land developed for single family residential use in the OSG OSG U Zone uh must comply with the ra a130 uh Zone requirements correct correct uh and there are no Provisions in the OSG section that authorize substituting the requirements of the ra15 zone for those set forth in the ra 130 zone is that correct that's why we need the various have you performed any analysis or investigation into how the uh OSU uh Z is currently used I know you you had a pretty in-depth list of of properties uh that I assume comprise the OSU Zone um can you tell us a little bit more about the analysis that you performed in that regard so sure I um you know down the hall you can get a printed zoning map um from the planning office I got one I went through every OSG District on that map identified them all either from memory or looking them up and that's how I came up with that long list I shared with you before and um in a memo there was a memo that's available on the the um municipality's website uh and it's a memo uh to the township planning board um from the town planner dated February 23rd 2021 and that was a memo regarding the OSG zone are you familiar with that memo what's interesting to note in that Meo memo is that it was observed it's uh yes of course I would also like to see it Mr chair it is available online um on the my computer doesn't have Services you're GNA have to give it I don't have an extra copy but I do have a copy um I'm just going to reference uh some data in that Mr chairman and then I'll give it to uh Council to review yeah and just back up again who's the memo from this is It's the moris township planning board uh from Mr Phillips dat of February 23rd 2021 uh it's regarding proposed zoning amendments OSG open space government use zoning District I'm sorry in the date again February 23rd 2021 oh you have Frank when you're done I'm going to mark that uh you can Mark at o 01 no it's going to be an O uh on page two of the memo this is a this is a like 15-page document I I don't this certainly wasn't issued in connection with this application I mean I haven't had a chance to look I'll give it to you but I gotta read it it has tables and details I don't know what he's gonna [Music] right so 05 is a pretty lengthy memo consists of pages aren't all numbered but um 15 16 page document right dated February 23 2021 memo to the planning board from fa Phillips M planner and you have a question to Mr toia based on that document that yeah there's data contained in that report that I think Bears directly on uh tonight's testimony all right we'll we'll object to this document uh you look I do depositions my whole life if you put a document in front of a witness that's 20 pages long you got to give them time to look at it I mean you can't pluck a quote out of a document and say what do you think about this that's prejudicial and he's got to have a chance to look at it's not in the record I I agree it's now on the record for the first time right so you know we can't look at it either right now so I mean you can ask a question if if he can answer he may not be able to answer answer it then we're have to move on okay I I have a continuing objection to even asking the question about it I mean we could put the Bible into the record and they can ask about one Psalm in it so I mean you you got to give someone a chance to review the document well let's given the documents if we can answer the question presented by reviewing a portion of the document or if we need more time if not uh we'll have to hopefully get done with Mr to tonight let's let's move it along let ask this question and we'll see where it goes understand Mr chairman it's just a point to question Based on data that was produced uh by the the the the planner uh in that data on page two um where you at Mr the um thank you the the table on the bottom of page two um that table is described as land area within the OSG Zone I just wanted to uh draw your attention to that table because uh the the board planner had noted that 74% of the land in the OSU Zone uh is used for public property uh and on the other end of the spectrum only 3% of the land in that zone is used for uh approved residential uh do you believe that that speaks to the OSU Zone uh its attent to to limit residential development in the zone objection continuing objection to use of this document you can answer if you know you ask for as to what Mr Phil was saying yeah was that sign it's significant that only 3% of the entire OSG Zone which comprises uh approximately 2300 acres is uh allocated to approved uh residential use let me Mr chair it's okay let me say this I'll look this over I'm coming back right you're coming back try and give you a better answer next time um fact of the matter is SGU permits presidential um I know you said 3% I don't know what the number is but it permits it and that's what we're proposing did you perform any studies or analysis regarding the proximity of the subject site to building sites or districts having any historical significance no are you aware that the neighborhood across Mount Kimble AB is identified in the master plan as the prud Town historic district yes and are you aware that this district is on the state and National Registry of historic places was that an element you think would be beneficial for the public or the board to to know uh in connection with its review of this application no it's a nice to start District I'm familiar with it because of a prior app Mr M um this site so isolated it's so well buffered um and by the way I didn't mention but thank you um you know we're roughly 20t below the grade of mount kemell comes way down um Mount kemell drivers and people living up there kind of basically be looking over this site um we're not doing anything to compromise historic Integrity up on that K uh and similarly to the South there's a Morris County noted dist District known as Springbrook historic district uh do you have any analysis or commentary on that District I've seen on the map this are there any immediately surrounding neighborhoods that are also Incorporated uh in the HOA form of ownership multi families and is called Shadow south of us by on Mount kemell I'm just guessing Okay maybe a mile south U Spring Brook town houses to the north by 2100 ft um North head toward Mar uh and just to confirm uh the development is private correct not open to any members of the public right all right I have nothing further this time thank you can I just Mr Cher ask Mr MCB question um if he has an updated list of his members that I could see it's on f with sanago so it hasn't changed no okay so the one we have it was July 12 2024 it was Mark 04 okay so hasn't been no changes since then no any any other members of the public with questions on hearing those the public portion Mr chairman we would Reserve our closing argument um following their case oh obviously yes okay Mr chair uh we intend to uh introduce and qualify two witnesses the first Stephen Duda professional engineer uh at princ and hydro yeah why don't we SE him there Michael if you're don't mind you can vacate that spot you can go over estate thank you sir than okay would you before you get too comfortable would you stand and raise your right hand please do you solemly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God yes I do and your full name please stepen Andrew dudo and spell your last name dud thank you Mr Duda Mr M if it's easier you can sit right next to your WI uh Mr Judi can you give the board uh the benefit of describing your professional qualifications and educational experience yes I graduated uh with a bachelor's of Science in civil engineering uh from Ron University in 2013 uh I have a professional CI civil engineers license with uh New Jersey Pennsylvania Delaware and New York uh I received my first license in 2022 uh prior to uh being licensed I worked at a Land Development firm as an EIT where I work uh engineer and training I'm sorry EIT uh worked under uh multiple pees under their supervision uh I designed multiple residential and Commercial Land Development applications uh they were in egerer Township eger City Galloway epin uh I also assisted in the reviews of Land Development applications and the capacity of a a Township engineer um it was also under the PE um those were performed in Hamilton Township Atlantic County uh hamton Mars River Township Brigantine and there was a few others um while with Princeton Hydro I've uh designed storm water bmps for multiple Grant projects notably rington townships rington Township and I've also completed expert witness reviews in Hamilton Township Mercer County White Township Robinsville and Logan Township this spring I also taught a continuing education class with through ruers for uh Engineers to get their annual credits uh on infiltration storm water management techniques and have you been accepted as an expert in uh before any other County planning boards yes I was accepted as an expert with a Mercer County planning board Mr chairman if there's no objection uh we'd ask that Mr D to be accepted and recognized as an expert in field of professional engineering objection I do have one question V your question is that is that appropriate um you listed off a lot of projects um most of them down to short um you said you've been a licensed engineer for two years correct okay so how many projects have you done in those two years as a licensed engineer we are not a Land Development firm so we do not do land developments okay so you've done no projects as a licensed engineer uh I've performed Grant uh calculations for storm water bmps for Grant projects right but you haven't done any of the projects you described before those were all prior to you being a licensed engineer correct so none of those were done while you were a licensed engineer which you got in 2022 correct correct okay thank you Mr Judah have you reviewed the most recent set of plans and reports uh submitted by the applicant uh yes my review was focused on the site plan and the storm water calculations and in your review what are your thoughts regarding existing inlets within the Spring Brook Road area uh the the inlets and streets have pipes that extend into the property uh the plans don't make it clear whether those pipes come they convey water from the property to the street or if it conveys water from the street into the property um so in the most recent plan revision there was actually a note that was added that states uh the Great pipes were not survey located another note States the location is to be verified and realigned as uh needed and also I attended a previous meeting and there was a note that the plans were to be removed um it's kind of contradictory through plans so um you know I'm not sure exactly what's going to be happening with this place and in your opinion is that problematic yes uh on on what basis so potentially uh you know the the Bas location shown under plans the existing pipes could be they they are proposed or below proposed homes um as stated the the existing PL or pipes are to be realigned this could be an issue because it seems like it's not known what flow Direction uh those pipes have or the capacity or you know the pipes are there for something where does it accept water from where does it convey water to um and this is a design issue that has to be addressed now in the design phase they shouldn't wait till construction and in your opinion has the applicant submitted all the information required for a thorough review of the storm water management plan no in in review of the documents um I don't see any soil tests uh typically when you have a Land Development you have soil profile pits and infiltration testing um the stormw report actually States at one point um that for the purpose of an is a maximum onsite infiltration rate of one inch per hour is used and what what do they mean by an on-site infiltration rate so the for the the peak rate calculations they use the option the for the peak rate to be less at any given time most of the time other applications use the the peak rate reduction that's important because in this model um they're assuming that the storm War Basin has one inch per hour of infiltration so when you have this hole on the ground that a basin is water comes in and is now going into the ground it's going to the ground 1 inch per hour over the whole bottom of the Basin if that can't happen for some reason you're now it's going to affect your Peak rate uh compliance additionally they have uh they they perform what's called a groundwater mounting analysis without the infiltration rate you're not sure how that that that anal can't be performed and uh without soil test you also don't know where the seasonal high water table is um can you expand a little bit more on the uh what is meant by exfiltration rate yes so the exitation rate is the the the rate that's used in a model for how when the the soil accepts the water from the basement um if if that's not uh calculated correctly the peak rate from B and could increase and it would severely impact the site's ability to uh be compliant with Peak rate reductions in your opinion um will the infiltration rate uh seriously impact the size of the groundwater Mound yes if the infiltration rate is slower the mound will be um will be impacted can you describe or elaborate a little bit more on the groundwater Mount so when you have a hor on your Basin you're infiltrating water through the Basin as their model shows underneath your Basin you have the existing groundwater table since you are concentrating the infiltration below that Basin you're actually creating a temporary rise in the water table below the Basin and how does the infiltration rate of a soil impact the ground Mount the slower the rate generally the taller the groundw mount and why is that important in the design of a storm water basin uh basement chapter 12 of the storm water BMP manual if uh if the your groundwater Mound breaks out of the bottom of your Basin as in you have the rise in the groundwater table goes above the bottom of your Basin it severely impacts the ability of the groundwater to infiltrate and did the design engineer perform uh a groundwater mounting analysis yes he did can you elaborate more on that so based on his analysis he used again one inch per hour for the the recharge raate and based on your calculations the the groundwater Mount height varies from 3.6 to 9.6 feet and if the infiltration rate was less than one inch an hour the mound would be higher or lower higher and since soil testing wasn't performed is there any type of a resource you can use to assist with estimating the infiltration rate or the elevation of the seasonal high water table yes chapter 12 of a storm water BMP manual that's the the s soil chapter so soil testing chapter uh it discusses using the USDA nrcs uh web soil survey it's basically a web page you go online select your project and it gives you uh just general soil parameters for where you're at you still have to perform soil tests on the site but it gives you a general idea and did the applicant provide a print out of the web soil survey in their report no they did not uh did you perform an Anis the web soil survey yes it is and what did you find so the Western portion of the site consists of Coes Berry graval Loom some of these names are going to be you know sound weird and the Eastern side consists of whippy silk loom and what were the infiltration rates shown in the web soil survey for the site soils uh both soil types are are supposed to have saturated hydraulic conductivities of 0.06 in per hour to 0 .2 in per hour and what infiltration rate did the design engineer use in his analysis of 1 inch per hour and did the web soil survey also include information for the depth to seasonal high water table yes the uh cber gral Loom um based on web soil survey is supposed to have a depth of seasonal high water table of 0 to 12 in and what is the minimum separation uh between the seasonal high water table and the bottom of the basin uh I forgot to add for the previous question a whippy silt Loom is supposed to have a depth of seasonal on water table of 6 to 18 in and I I'll just repeat my last question what is the minimum separation between the seasonal high water table and the bottom of the Basin so the minimum separation is 24 in and if the depth to the seasonal high water table is less than the 24 in how will they have 24 inches of separation between the bottom of the Basin in the seasonal high water table uh they won't and specifically when you're when you're talking about the mounting calculation that mount is added to the seasonal high water table so they have one of the soils has 0 to 12 in you now have to add the groundwater Mount to that height so it was 3.6 9.6 feet that would be added to the seasonal how work aable in your opinion would the applicant still be required to perform soil testing after the desktop analysis yes chapter 12 is uh very clear it states the amount of soil tests that you need to perform within each BMP it's not in justest on the site you have to the tests have to be be performed within the bottom of each Basin and uh what is your final opinion on the Project's compliance with the storm water ordinance so soil testing is a requirement for the design of any storm War BMP without soil test the applicant has not demonstrated the basins will function additionally a desktop study has determined that the use of 1 inch per hour as an infiltration rate is much faster than what can be expected on its site uh the actual infiltration rate in the site could be as low as 0.06 inches per hour uh if this is the case a groundw mount would be much higher than calculated uh the desktop analysis also showed the depth of seasonal H water table isn't deep enough to maintain the required separation for an infiltration BMP additionally since the 1 inch per hour infiltration was used in the peak rate calculations it is uh very likely the project will not meet the peak rate requirements uh thank you uh Mr J if there are any questions uh from Council or members of the board even if he spoke half as fast I would have no idea what he was talking about so I mean I got to look at a transcript just figure out all that word salad I really do I I I lost them we need time I mean we could take a break and see if we could um huh yeah we so can you give us maybe five or 10 minutes to see if we can cross this Witness because I'm not the engineer so I can't maybe my engineer is like super genius he got all that and can can can ask questions but can I ask one question have you done any site testing yourself on the other site yes I have and what are those tests consist oh on this site on this site no no we we were not permitted on the site so permission get on the I have not I mean that was part of my cross but I mean I need I need I need to ask my civil you know if what he got here and I'm a I apologize but I told you this is what happened so yeah okay coun did ask experts their reports in advance so that my counsel and the board would have a chance to review them I know this means a lot to a lot of people and it's only fair to be done thoroughly so yes you can take your ADV thank you I appreciate it Mr here Mr Jaber here Mr Williams here Simmons here Mr Ben here Mr Kramer here Mr wer here Mr H here Mr finger here Mr PHS here Mr here okay yeah Mr shair so what I did confer with my clients and uh and my experts and we do want want to reserve on cross-examining these Witnesses so we have more time to prepare um we don't have any problem if they want to put on their planner as well so we can get through that testimony but um they did were writing furiously back there there's a lot of facts and figures and we do need some time to check out what uh what what yes the grounds the grounds for his Tes correct data that was correct yes okay I agree with you on that um so does any other member of the public wish to ask any questions at this time of this witness if so come up to the microphone wait wait I'm sorry I'm sorry I just want to make sure that you're not represented by Mr mcbrier you're not on his list people yes she's not she's on she's on it are you okay to go okay does any board member have I should have said any board members have any questions or do you want to wait until uh Council completes his cross all right we're going we'll also Reserve until after your examination great uh our next witness is Michael pesano Mr pesano would you raise your right hand do you solemly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you your full name for the record please Michael J pesano that's P SS o l n o licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey business address 140 Elmwood Avenue Boda New Jersey thank you Mr pesano could you briefly uh describe your qualifications and educational experience for the board yes gladly um I've been practicing uh professional planning at the municipal level exclusively uh for the past 40 plus years originally licensed as a planner in New Jersey in 1984 uh like Mr Phillips I graduated from a Hunter College uh with the master of urban planning degree um but I didn't go to school with Mr just for the record um and uh I have served in many capacities as in-house Municipal planner as Consulting uh professional planner advising U half a dozen Northern uh New Jersey municipality ities as their MP as the planning consultant board planner for a number of those communities as well now in the stage of my career um pretty much uh appearing as an expert planning witness before boards such as this you may recall seeing me um not too long ago on several applications here the board did qualify me uh at that time and I've not done anything wrong that would not qualifying me but I leave that up to you uh my license remains in good standing as we speak thank you uh Michael um if it pleases the board I'd ask that uh Mr PES be accepted and recognized as an expert in the field of professional planning can you please use the microphone thank you um any question yeah I do just Mr pesano who is your client my client is u a group of Neighbors in the surrounding Community around the project site and who is paying your bills sir I can't ask that ask this is goes to his qualifications okay that's fine I'll save it okay we'll accept Mr PES was a expert in professional planning thank you Mr chairman Michael you've uh you reviewed the subject application from a planning perspective I have and can you uh can you uh describe uh the findings in your analysis with respect uh to the application that submitted yes gladly uh I was retained to look at the application uh from a planning perspective which involves uh the usual uh drill for planners to look at the site which I did do in person I studied it extensively from remote resources as well the site in the area um I checked in with the applicable Municipal development regulations master plan materials discussed uh the application with my clients and uh have formulated my opinions about the main question does this application meet the criteria for the grant of the relief request and so with that um I may Mr mcbry I will Dive Right In um the the application was described I'm not going to do that uh to everyone that everyone knows what's uh before the board tonight unless you really want me to um it is obviously a a novel type of application with um multiple single family dwellings on a single piece of property in the gsou Zone on the sorry the OSG Zone the application itself struck me um as a sharp departure I'll say from the intent and purpose of the municipality's view of of this zoning district and what it's intent purpose is and largely the the zone is intended to um track with its name to uh demonstrate through land use uh a characteristic of openness and and open space therefore there are uses that are allowed that would facilitate that type of characterization uh on an ongoing basis today uh the site is part of a golf course that has been long standing on the ground what is proposed is take a chunk of that golf course and convert it to a new residential neighborhood containing 13 single family homes to me um I'll get right to the heart of of you cut to the chase as they say I find that the use is exceptionally possible hle and contrary to the Township's Zone plan and zoning ordinance I would disagree extensively with u Mr toa's assertion that um this is not U an attempt to zone or reone I find just the opposite of we have a large tract of land irrespective of the the size of the OSG Zone in its entirety this is a large tract of land almost 5 Acres 4.74 I believe is the the number on the engineering drawing I recognize this as U basically an attempt to create a new Zone the idea is new there there's no question about that um the idea originates somewhere U with the the property owner to seek this uh U project to be approved but at the end of the day um this board does not have the authority to create a new Zone which I'm sure the board knows uh but what is proposed here is just that um a wholesale rewriting of what the the Zone plan should be for this uh nearly 5 acre tract of land even if the unit count the number number of homes that are proposed is ultimately reduced uh this matter belongs before the governing body for consideration for a zone change not before this board for a variance why do I say that well the OSG zone is a rare category of land use because the township is considered fully developed and there is a history of very careful planning attention to this particular Zone as exhibited as I found in reviewing the master plan materials of the township it's not just vacant Surplus land but rather a key ingredient to the Ambiance and character of this particular area the governing body itself could very well have designated this land for housing but has not done so it has no power to do that the planning board made no such recommendation um to uh do what is proposed here in the master plant reexamination report instead it continues to be included as valuable open space in the Township's Zone plan and on the ground as well the Township's housing element and fair share plan does not consider this land to be available for housing I believe repat that pleas the Township's housing element and fair share plan does not consider this land to be available for housing this particular 4 point 74 acre chunk of land it it is now part of the golf course why would it consider it uh as available for land however Township authorization in my view to carve up this golf course for housing could indeed set a disastrous precedent for future rounds of affordable housing potentially putting other open space uh government use open space on the auction auction block to be replaced with housing even Manhattan with its constant pressures for more housing has left intact its beloved Central Park retaining that open space serves the entire population rather than benefiting a handful of people by converting it to housing retaining this open space that we're talking about in this application in Morris Township would serve the same important function retaining natural land is open space helps keep natural systems serving their multitude of functions again for the benefit of the greater good from a site planning perspective um I've reviewed hundreds of site plans in my career um and I find found quite readily that uh placing homes so close to an active uh golf green is uh foolish and much worse a safety risk the realistic potential for serious use conflicts would exist on a daily basis we almost heard from Mr toia about the the Stray golf balls how they would be handled I didn't hear that testimony I don't believe um he actually delivered it but I believe from my observation uh from work on other Golf Course applications that uh golf balls that stray from the Fairway can become dangerous projectiles posing daily risks for property damage and personal injury maintenance of the golf course will bring noisy equipment to the property boundary between residential and golf uses residents of the township should not knowingly be subject to these sharp land use conflicts uh on a a different uh angle here I looked at the uh the roadway the proposed roadway width of 22 feet and even with the sidewalks on both sides it's very unus ual arrangement to have um perpendicular parking um on a residential street as is proposed and what I foresee being a potential safety Factor here is someone on the sidewalk walking along thinking they're safe from being reached by a car backing up when they may not be there really is no parameter for that backing up vehicle out of that perpendic any of those perpendicular spaces to be on the lookout for pedestrian or come so close that it may involve contact from an aesthetic perspective the open views to largely natural surroundings would be ruined by the placement of housing development in this location it would be visible from the clubhouse and from many parts of the golf course which would constrain the realm of play for users of the golf course in my opinion from a community form and density perspective the subject project SE to convert building free open space to something quite the opposite that is a highly dense much more intensive utilization than permitted for single family use in the OSG Zone the maximum allowed density for residential use here is 33 oneir of a dwelling unit per acre and that's based on the ra 130 minimum lot area of 13,680 square fet the proposed density is 8.3 times greater than that 8.3 times greater I said that correctly at 2.74 dwelling units per acre the current zoning scheme strongly suggests that the pre-existing density of smaller Lots in the ra15 zone was recognized by the planning board and governing body and deliberately contained by virtue of the current Zoning for much larger minimum excuse me minimum residential lot sizes in the OSG Zone this Zone in its current state was derived from a deliberate and ongoing Planning and Zoning process by the two agencies responsible for the establishment of development patterns throughout the entire community that being the planning board and the governing body the current application seeks to completely undermine the Township's land use planning achievements on this spot the Zone plan deliberately seeks to minimize utilization throughout the OSG zone areas of the township that's a matter of policy and stated so uh in the planning uh background materials I review the golf course is use is permitted and appropriate as it involes invokes a clear sense of open space mixed with generous vegetation it contains access by users and service providers to its principal driveway and it provides for a reliable and stable character defining asset in the entire area surrounding the course in sharp contrast to this intentional planning Vision which is a reality on the ground today the applicant seeks to erode the values thus far achieved by virtue of a permanent removal of the open space values spanning 4.74 acres and a new source of daily vehicular traffic especially impactful relative to the intersection of Spring Brook Road and mount kmbo Avenue an intersection characterized by po sight distance an angled intersection and vertical curvature at the point of intersection by my own observation and navigation of that intersection with my if the site is to be maintained and managed by this is another Point uh if the site is to be maintained and managed by uh a man maintained by a management entity or homeowners association that's the the mode that was proposed here both are prone to sudden widespread maintenance failures in which case a large tract of very visible end could become a source of blight quite quickly and for extended period perod the design of the project as a single lot with multiple single family homes is an obvious attempt to disguise multiple non-conformities concerning the legislative development pattern for the Township's OSG Zone to me the what I have stated thus far collectively result in a substantial detriment to the public good should this application be approved to break it down into its uh subcomponents uh let me start with use the proposed use is multif family in my opinion I understand there was a dialogue with Mr Phillips and the applicant planner about what the nature of this should be called but at the end of the day I find no other way to label it other than multiple units on a single piece of property when you have three or more units on any other piece of property you have a multif family use in this case there are 13 proposed units on a single piece of property to me that's by definition uh a multif family use not single family single family is in the mix as a structure type but the use itself the nature of the use itself is multif family 13 detached single family units on one lot is not permitted and substantially inconsistent with the surrounding development pattern the planning testimony outline that I reviewed uh submitted by Mr toia made no mention that D1 variance for multifam use is required and I heard dialogue in this evening's proceedings to validate that belief however I maintain that um that is not the case that this what is proposed is indeed a multif family use the municipal land use Law requires a E1 variance for a use or structure not permitted in the zone either in other words a use or structure not permitted would trigger a D1 variance here we have a use that's not permitted the use not permitted is multi according to my reading of the zoning ordinance and its structure the clear intent for accommodating single family detached dwellings for each such dwelling is for each such dwelling to be placed on its own lot as required by section 95-3305 OSG bulk requirements the D1 use spance is required by the planning testimony of Mr toia however it more spoke to the uh cluster idea I heard that terminology used to describe this project uh even though PR clusters are not permitted specifically in OSU that's how this development uh was characterized the applicants planning rationale uh in my perspective fails to address the Myriad implications of such a sharp departure from the zoning uh plan here but instead asserts that the outcome is compatible with surrounding development on its face if you agree for that this is a multif family use there's no way than it can that it can be called compatible with the adjacent and surrounding single family detached uses Mr toia went to Great Lengths to point out just how populated the surrounding area is with almost exclusively uh single family detached uses so to insert a multif family use on a nearly 5 acre piece of land is a very sharp departure from the The Zone plan and zoning ordinance for the municipality uh the township of moris I mean no disrespect to the applicant or its team uh in saying the following this is just a FL I believe that the applicant has gone to Great Lengths of subterfuge to obscure the true nature of the project by cloaking it with the within the rubric of maintenance-free living the zoning ordinance provides for such housing choice in attached housing developments but very conspicuously ordains that single family detached structures shall be set on individual Lots with definite boundaries you you need only drive around to observe this countless occurrences of this pattern that's is prescribed could you see it everywhere that's what the single family zones are built as detached separate Lots this to me this audacious proposed departure for the prescribed manner for creating single family detached housing other words one lot vers 13 individual Lots appears to be for the purpose of avoiding the many dozens dozens of deficiencies that would apply under the individual lot scenario as I will detail as I go further in my testimony I want to address um Mr toia observation that um in his opinion that U the bulk standards um of the OSG zone are subsumed within the D1 variants I don't dispute that principle that follows the Poo case where you have Zoning for the community and if the community doesn't contemplate a particular use somewhere of course it's not going to have bulk standards specific to that use however that does not make bulk issues not applicable or uh minor in their nature spec particularly with single family detached development bulk standards are everything the the nature of neighborhoods are established on the basis of lot areas frontages lot widths building placement spatial Arrangements between buildings Etc they're not immaterial in this application either we have a proposal for 13 single family detached dwellings in a very compact form which is again a very sharp departure from the intent purpose of how single family residential neighborhood should be created and what they should be as for density uh a density variance um persuant to the statute under Section D5 uh is required for this 4.74 Acre Site again it's uh the density of 13 units here is 8.3 times the permitted density uh Mr toia opined that and I concur that one dwelling unit could be built on this 4.7 acre tract of land under the current OSG um bulk requirements that the applicant chose to create a 4.74 acre lot is is the applicant's choice to create a 4.74 acre lot if it wanted to accommodate development of a greater nature it could have acquired more land but chose not to for me it defines logic how this excessive density can mitigate the total loss and I mean total loss of open space values from the proposed conversion of natural land to overly dense housing density calculations in dwelling units per acre is the standard of measurement of this residential density if anyone has questions I can go over the math with you how I arrived at my numeric conclusions on density but I will move on as to uh the bulk that I touched on a moment ago dimensional requirements the r130 district um is the standard for evaluation of bulk measures not the ra15 Mr Toby acknowledged that under cross-examination of course but I think this is is a key point uh in the evaluation uh by the board of the right fit of this application um in the proposed location there um is a regulation for uh 300 feet of required Frontage for each uh single family detached lot per the ra 130 zoning districts there's Road not enough for even two conforming Lots should there be uh that much land area as to Frontage within the interior of of the proposed 13 lot development uh what is purported is the creation of Frontage via a new road but it fails to assign Frontage on it to each detached dwelling even if it did I believe each dwelling would have substantially less Frontage than the required minimum of 300 ft so um in essence and in concept U just hear me out on this I know this is a debatable point I would add 13 instances of proposed insufficient lot width to the the mix the board should be considering here moving on to lot area minimum is 13,680 square feet or 3 Acres the gross the proposed gross land area per house again because they're not individual Lots I couldn't uh specifically do the math on on that but I took all 13 and compared it to the land area available for it and that's 36 acres per house Zone PL says three acres this project says 36 acres per house the mismatch which is is obvious so 13 area deficiencies are also effectively proposed here additional points for your consideration in the testimony outlined by Mr toia uh it acknowledges that cluster development is specifically prohibited thus requiring a D1 use variance however there is um another section of the ordinance that speaks to clustering in the OSG Zone I believe he characterized that as as a conflict within the ordinance itself but even that if it were to be uh truly implemented says that any clustering in the OSG Zone would need to result in a minimum individual lot area 100,000 square ft so the ordinance itself is not silent on what clustering in the OSG Zone would look like it very much details a much less dense scenario than what is in this application as to the setback front setbacks there are two Realms of this one is facing Spring Book Road and the other is facing the proposed new road a within the development that's proposed the project setback from Spring Road is only one half of the required 100 ft of setback for residential uses in the OSG Zone where structures in this situation where the structures are proposed in an ultra dense Arrangement compared to the 130 ra 130 standards there is a valid B perhaps even an implicit mandate for a front setback equal at least equal to probably should be much greater than 100 ft in my opinion there's no valid justification whatsoever for a setback of less than 100 ft from Springbrook Road for the current proposal under that finding I would add six front setback deficiencies to the mix as for the front setback from internal New Road a the site plan fails to show front setback distances specifically for each individual proposed dwelling however where the site plan shows a composite distance of 76 ft between building fronts and a 22 foot pav internal roadway between these building fronts the math I use the creates an average front setback of opposing build buildings equating to about 27 ft to New Road a this substantially fails to meet the zoning ordinance mandate for 100 ft From Any Road not even one proposed home meets the required front setback of 100 ft from New Road a add 13 front setback deficiencies here significantly the average setback is only 77 ft 7 excuse me 77% of the minimum 35 ft if the project was located in the ra15 zone which it is not this fact greatly undermines in my opinion the already weak planning argument that the project is compatible with ra15 development standards as for side and rear set BS in this situation no dimensions are provided uh from building to building uh but scaling my own scaling indicates no conforming side or rear setbacks side to side spacing between structures ranges from approximately 22 feet to 42 feet that's from building to building these were on their own lots that you should cut that in half so the setbacks would range from 11 to 21 feet and if there were lot lines between these uh dwellings so add 24 bulk variances for individual sidey deficiencies add that to the growing heap of departures from the Morris Township zoning coordinates as with the substantially deficient average front setbacks the project average side setbacks fail to meet even the minimum setbacks of the ra15 district further disproving the claim that the project comports with the surrounding ra15 development the minimum Rail Yard setback in the OSG uh zone is 100 ft there is no proposed home that exhibits an effective rear setback of more than 60 feet by my scaling there are much there's most are much less than 60 feet by my observation most are at about uh 40t so had 13 rear yard deficiencies in essence so the tally so far um total yard deficiencies If This Were a conventional development with individual Lots there would be 56 individual deviations from the r a130 zoning District standards 19 in the front 24 on the sides and 13 in the rear still more um the building coverage uh minimum um excuse me maximum required in the r130 zone is 10% the project proposes 150% of that at 14.9% as to lot coverage the maximum allowed is 25% the project proposes a 31% of lot coverage 24% more coverage than permit there so proposed are 56 yard deviations in effect plus 13 lot width shortfalls plus 13 lot area deficiencies plus two coverage deficiencies of a substantial magnitude plus a substantial density departure plus um three if you count my D1 use variants being needed for the the multif family use total of three radical deviations for use add up to an extremely poor match to the vision for the OSG District in Morris Township all with the end result of per permanently eliminating 4.74 Acres of perfectly good existing open space within the OSG Zone which is expressly intended by longstanding planning policy and regulation to preserve and protect open space it is incons unconscionable to me that this Pro proposal can even approach having sufficient mer Merit to Warrant approval this proposal so completely fails to adhere that the town to the Township's carefully considered and planning and zoning requirements it effectively seeks to create an entirely new set of of development standards which again is illegal in New Jersey only the governing body has the power to Zone the zoning board does not have the authority to set aside in my opinion such a vast set of intentions and requirements in my opinion so my conclusions for uh what this project um constitutes and why it should be rejected are as follows the project fails to depict any semblance of cons consistency with the Zone plan or zoning ordinance as you heard in my remarks it effectively and substantially undermines the basic Planning and Zoning principles of the OSG District that have been carefully considered by the planning board and governing body over many decades and designed for optimal Community benefit by the two agencies that have that specific role up for producing optimal Community benefit this project reports to effectively create a new zoning District of nearly 5 Acres where multiple principal structures could exist on the same same lot with extremely deficient setbacks and at a density that is unconscionable at more than eight times the permitted residential density for the OSG Zone all of this in the absence of the requisite traditional Planning and Zoning process involving the public the planning board and the governing body I heard testimony early that asserted that um the master plan has a mandate to do this I saw no such conclusion in reviewing the 2017 master plan reexamination report which is a different document than a master plan it formulates a a snapshot of where the township is a master plan reexamination report reports on what the issues are and makes recommendations for further action by whomever but usually it goes to the planning board planning board typically initiates uh zoning um policy recommendations to the governing body the governing body turns that into law so none of that has happened here yet what is proposed is something so very very much a departure from what the vision is and what exists on the ground anywhere else in the OSG District the project itself proposes again 100% elimination of the open space preservation values the OSG Zone was created and is sustained uh to uh protect I believe that the applicant has failed to satisfy the required medich uh criteria for the requested du D1 use variances and did not adequately speak to the 97 substantial cited departures in my testimony from the relevant r130 regulations just said they're subsumed I hope you heard me when I said it the bulk is very material to um single family residential development in Suburban communities the basis of the planning proofs rests on the notion that the sharp deviations from The Zone plan and zoning ordinance can be justified because the proposed development is similar in character to surrounding R15 lands the current Zone plan calls for a substantially different development pattern for residential use right up against the r15s Z so to me compatibility with the r-15 standards or what R15 is on the ground is a far less compelling argument than maintenance of the planning status quo here put differently being similar to and compatible with the existing ra15 pattern simply means undermining the intent and purpose of the Zone plan and zoning ordinance as it's currently constituted the project goal is said to be to create an alternative housing option said to be aimed at empty nesters among other potential categories of occupants we now have uh the applicant amending the application to uh tonight to represent that it would be a a restricted age restricted community 55 plus [Music] community in any form uh this is an improper in and insufficient basis for 3D variances that the developer is seeking to um meet a need in in the community that it perceives uh there to be it clearly advances principally uh in my opinion the developers interests the governing body as you know is fully capable of Designing and implementing his own plan modification to expand housing type choices should it find that such choices are in the best interests of the community in this application the developer is seeking to embellish its own welfare whereas the governing body has the needs of the entire community in its purview in its enactment of land use legislation that's a big difference here there's a a microscopic perspective on the World by the applicant as to what suits the applicant's objectives the governing body is truly the agency that should be dealing with what do we do with 4.74 Acres of surplus land at the golf course not an individual uh applicant in my opinion Reliance on the R15 development standards for use variance justification to me is simply an attempt to disregard the primary intent and purpose of the open space uh and government use Zone which is to accommodate land use characterized by generous open areas distinct from a development pattern of small lot development a new entire neighborhood of 13 buildings with no dedicated open space of any value to the community around it is the exact opposite of such intent this proposal unequivocally seeks to Zone by variance in my opinion rather than by legislation as such it fails to meet the second prong of the negative criteria for a D1 use variance which requires substantial proof that the project does not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the master plan and development regulations of the township good timing one by by by virtue of the numerous substantial departures from The osg's Zone regulations the project is clearly in sub stantially inconsistent with the master plan master plan upon which the regulatory scheme is specifically based I respectfully submit that this application should be denied I welcome your questions thank you okay well it's 10 o'clock and I know that you did not have a chance to see hear this or see it or review it uh prior to tonight so I'm sure that you want time to uh review who testimony uh prior to doing your cross examination because we want to be fair to all sides and that's why we asked for it to be submitted in a v um so I think we should defer and it's also 10 o'clock so I think we should defer cross examination until the next hearing that would be to both experts but I want to throw something out uh because it just came to me and uh but uh Mr toia made a point of saying that the 13 and carriage homes are on a partial of 206,000 uh square feet or an aage of 1584 sare ft per home that would also incorporate all the roadway and sidewalk which normally ra5 has not counted as part of the uh square footage per lot so I'd like to know what it would be if that was excluded and I'm sorry I didn't bring that up before I apologize for that just so we have an idea what density we really talking about when we have okay so now I think we have to like decide what we our next me Mr chair yes um just to prepare for next meeting because I and you know we do have an objector so I want to make sure the record is good here um can I just ask this witness two questions about not cross-examination questions but about his report sure and the preparation of it and I I just would like to know sir um you received the outline of our expert report two weeks ago is that correct yes well roughly I don't know exactly okay date and the report that you just gave Sir I was watching you it was all written down is that correct what I said tonight is is embraced in in written words okay and that writing sir how many pages is that eight and when was it finished today okay and did you have a draft that you could have sent us sir I chose not to for why I don't believe it's the objector obligation to do that never I've never so so you thought so you thought it was okay to review our report but you didn't give us your report is that correct that's the way it typically oh great okay let's get this straight I instructed Council two three meetings ago I can't remember what fairness to all parties that we would exchange expert reports so that nobody is blindsided by what's coming in we can have a full and fair hearing on this and they provided theirs and I think it's incumbent upon the obor to do the same Mr chairman with all due respect may I respond to to the issue as to why I chose not to submit you can you can no I think we've already decided this a while ago so um that's why we not having cross examination tonight because everybody wanted to see these things in advance they could prepare questions and get a full comprehension of what we're doing actually doing here the facts we have to consider and those facts challenged by cross examination thank you Mr chair so that's why uh we're going to have to look for a new dat yes sir what we [Music] got open meetings right now I have November 25th the earliest you speci meeting yeah we certainly do it'll be it's not going to be all night I mean it's going to be two hours if that doing we've had babies born in entire life cycles of rodents during this uh during these hearings so we got to finish it up got to wrap it up yes that was good good I apologize for CL for show back for [Music] 30 last M September September 30th it's the fth Monday so I'm probably okay you good yeah I'll be out of town you be out of I don't know I I can give you an answer tomorrow I'm looking right now Frank if you go to a different night you can have a full board I got you no that's fine really I would have to check if the room is available tomorrow and I'll get back to you but right now we will have six members and Mr William will get back to me and you said you if I change I'll I'll see if I can change my plans if I need to so we'll pencil it for the it's Monday right it's a Monday Monday of September Direct Direct TV cut out my ASN 7 so I'm free all Mond no football so we want to announce Frank we want to announce October 30 September I'm sorry September 30 and if it doesn't happen then then you'd have to Ren notice okay so miss Santiago you need to make sure the room's ready tomorrow okay definitely I won't know tomorrow if it's not ready though we'll have to re right I'm going to announce one date so and if I announce September 30 and then we don't have it you're gonna have to Reen notice for the October November or whatever is there a room um should we announce it for just take a chance I could go to the administration office and get the calendar if you want to give me a minute oh yeah that would be great yes thank you [Music] what