coming oh here here here's Kevin as you okay so the chairman has asked me until we formally appoint our acting secretary I'm going to do this like we'd be at a reorg meeting so I'm going to announce that this is the rid and Township Board of adjustment regular meeting of June 16 2022 the meeting will be conducted in person at the municipal building with an option to participate virtually and then there's instructions on the agenda how to attend virtually which makes no sense for me to read them because if someone would have had to read them beforehand to participate virtually so I'm going to call the meeting to order and I'm going to read the notice requirements of the open public meetings act have been satisfied by placing of a notice of this meeting on the bulletin board at the municipal building filing same with the Township Clerk and transmitting same to the hunter County Democrat The Courier News Star Ledger and the Trenton Times and I am going to call the role board member Kevin Co Kevin even P Kevin yes board member Cynthia schaer here board member Randy block here board member Steve fario anyone hear from Steve so for now he's absent if someone contact Steve you could always give him an excused absence at the next meeting for this meeting but right now we have no request for an excuse join he just joined I'm admitting him now y ah great while Steve's coming in how about chairman Roger aens yes here Jim Ferraro here Brad Perry here miss bill cumins here and rasul dami here okay I am here Tony haar here Jeff Bella here Jessica Caldwell okay so can you please can you spell your last name slowly okay and you're from Jessica's office okay John Thomas Charlie hect is excused Jay Troutman excused excused and our board stenographer Jackie [Music] clap ah and there we go look at that Steve board member Steve fario are you here I am here wonderful thing okay do we have any comments nope do we have any announcements do we have any distribution and correspondence other than on a pending application no Okay so the board has an appointment as everyone's aware Amy our board secretary has uh left for greener pastur and we have a proposed resolution can I see the resolution please want to read the resolution into the record and ask if there's a motion a resolution appointing an acting board secretary for 2022 whereas there exists a need for secretarial services for the board and the municipal land use law specifically njsa 40 call 50 55 d-69 and 71b provides that the board may elect a secretary who need not be a member of the board and employ such staff as it shall deem necessary that was a side comment to Tony whereas the board determined that Lisa is fa should be appointed as acting secretary for the board now therefore be it resolved by the rid and Township Board of adjustment on June 16 2022 as follows number one Lisa fa is hereby appointed as acting secretary for the board for the year 2022 for the purpose of providing secretarial services to the board during all board meetings which Services include but are not limited to providing for the verbatim recording of all public portions of board meetings by audio tape means signing true copies of all resolutions adopted by the board and all site plans and subdivision plots approved by the board once all conditions of approval have been satisfied number two the board secretary shall be the it will be the board acting secretary I'm going to mark this up and give it to you guys shall be compensated in accordance with arrangements to be made between her and the township and then number three a notice of this resolution shall be published in an official newspaper of the Township in accordance with the local public contracts law someone want to make a motion to adopt this resolution second I'll second who made the motion our chairman Roger aens made the motion and Mr Ferraro seconded it it so I'm going to do a roll call Seven we have seven regular members cool yes schaer yes block yes fario yes yes correct yes okay I thought he said here aens yes feraro yes Perry yes okay I'm now going to hand the meeting over to our new acting secretary Lisa B okay hello okay all right uh next item on the agenda is uh minutes and the we have the minutes of the May 19th meeting um I have uh couple of just uh quick correction uh it says page two of five page three of five page four of five it actually should be two of four three of four four of four and then uh we have um are there any other Corrections or additions to the minutes can I have a motion to accept I'll make motion to accept the minutes of May 19 2022 my second Randy block Lisa Mr chairman Roger arens yes Vice chair Mr Kevin Cole yes chair protemp Miss Cynthia Schaefer yes Mr Steve fario yes Mr Randy block yes Mr James Ferrero yes Mr Bradford Perry yes okay we also have the minutes of the June 2nd meeting and I note one minor correction on that on page five of six down in the um third paragraph from the bottom about the middle of the paragraph it reads the property is in the B2 Zone it should be the O2 Zone and then further down it says uh the structure was built prior to the O2 Zone that is correct so with that change can I have a motion I'll make a motion to approve the meeting minutes of June 2nd 2022 I second it Randy PL thank you chairman Mr Roger arens yes Vice chairman Mr Kevin Co yes chair protm Miss Cynthia schaer yes Mr Steve fario yes Mr Randy block yes Mr James Ferrero yes Mr Bradford Perry yes okay we have no resolutions tonight so I'm going to call our first application which is BOA case 35-22 the applicant is James rigan the location is block 76 Lot 5.01 21 Forest Drive the application is for C variance structure within the preservation of Natural Resources buffer uh natural features buffer excuse me Mr rigan I understand you're recommended or you're represented by council tonight good friend and uh can you ENT your appearance on the record please yes Kenneth Glenn for applicant can you spell your last name g Okay so where we left off this hearing was opened and we got most of the way through the date was I believe April 21st is that what your records reflect yes sir okay and you were sworn at that time and you gave testimony yes um and I believe the only remaining issue in Tony and Jeff's report this is their report dated March 31 2022 was your application was for an apartment in the basement correct correct but it was a D3 variance it wasn't a D1 use variance because in the zone it allows accessory apartments and the only there was a a b a bunch of back and forth on the size but the board eventually decided that yeah you complied with the size and the only remaining issue was the item five which was the ordinance says adequate Provisions shall be made for water supply and disposal of sewage I'm reading from his item five in their memo actually it's item one number five the on-site sewage disposal plan and wellwater sufficiency and portability must be approved by the county health department and or the RT mua now as I understand it you have apply to the hunter County Health Department and in fact you have an approval and I'm looking at the approval which was received you signed it on April 11 2022 Monday okay you signed it on April 11 2022 it was approved on June 9 2022 and it was then that day sent in to the planning department on June 9 2022 my understanding and I'm going to ask Tony I'm just setting this thing up so you understand at least my view of the situation you applied on the form that you signed you said that the proposed renovations to my home you're supposed to Circle one will will not I we assume you meant to Circle will not even though you didn't Circle one so I'm going to assume it's will not result in an expansion of the potential number of bedrooms in my home my house currently has and you wrote In four corre bedrooms at the completion of the proposed construction the house will have four bedrooms should have been well and the way you got it down to four bedrooms was you submitted a plan which removed one of the bedrooms on the second floor and indicated that it's a storage room it's more it's an office storage room combination it's it's there's a step down it's got he it's not it says on the plan storage yes sir okay and so the position that you're taking is you have four bedrooms because you eliminated what would have been the fourth bedroom in the house by calling it storage but you have this apartment in the basement t the township engineer and board engineering expert's position is that that apartment in the basement is not a bedroom it's an apartment because of that you don't have approv by the county health department for septic for that so I want Tony to explain he's done a calculation I asked him to when he first told this to me quite frankly I couldn't understand what he was talking about is if you take out a bedroom and call a storage and then you have something in the basement I looked at it as like oh you had four and the accessory apartment was five you took out one three plus 1 is four but it's it's not because it's not a bedroom and I believe he's correct but explain Tony please okay so the number of bedroom is what you're reading from what I'm reading for NJ ac799 a d7.4 okay so that if it's if it's njac C7 that's an njde regulation that's correct and if it's in 9A that's for septic yes and so what's the title of volume of sanitary Serv okay what does it say it says the daily volume for each bedroom with rolling unit shall be volume for the first bedroom is 200 volume the volume 200 what 200 gallons per day okay for the for for the first first bedroom okay volume each additional bed bedroom is 150 gallons per okay so the position you're taking is that first bedroom is 200 so bedroom 2 and three are 150 each for a total of 300 is that correct that's correct and then total will be 500 for that dwelling okay and then and then uh it talks about minimum volume for dwelling unit is 350 and also mentions minimum volume for apartment is 350 okay so your position is that you take the 500 and you don't simply add 150 to it you have to add 350 to it because that's what the reg says and so instead of being at 650 gallons per day he's at 850 gallons per day and his approval is only for four bedrooms not for three bedrooms in an apartment that's correct so you can say let's hear your position but it sounds like to me that he's got a to qualify in other words if you qualify we told him he doesn't need a D3 three variants for that apartment if he can qualify with this last requirement right now if he doesn't qualify he's going to have to explain to the board why they should Grant the D3 variance when all he'd have to do is go back there and presumably get them to up the gallonage by 150 gallons so well by 200 so go ahead yes I'm obviously new to the situation but I did spend you sorry you got to go right close to that mic I'm sorry there you go you can remove it it's good I'm okay so I I'm obviously new to this situation but I did spend three hours today uh part of the time on the phone with Jim Hill part of the time reviewing a submission by uh Mr Hill to the Board of Health and going through the files and meeting with my client and if I can phrase the issue a little differently I believe what what the engineer is saying is that hold on hold on where's the engineer I'm sorry oh well Tony I thought you meant Jim Hill no no no oh okay okay uh you believe may I may I refer to Tony Tony okay so I I think uh that the part of the uh information that that you should have is that this this house was built as a single family four-bedroom home in 1987 at that time they didn't measure by gallons per day they did calculations for a septic in a field and they Define the field by the length of uh pipes in the field for drainage and under today's standards they go by gallons per day and so there has to be a conversion uh from what do you mean it has to be a conversion why wouldn't the current regulations apply since he's now applying for apartment yes but if you accept those I have two or three different arguments the first one is to start with the premise that if you accept those right then uh when you look at the gallonage you have to calculate how many feet of field would accommodate that so the the question becomes where is it say that in the RS that you calculate how much feet in the field accommodated the the old system has based that's between you and the Board of Health that's not that's not their issue they're not going to make a decision on whether there's sufficient capacity what the ordinance says is get them an approval you get the approv from the Board of Health boom you're in if you don't get the approval you need relief from them okay but okay I'll I'll approach it differently the the the issue of determining the total gallonage by um adding the numbers the way it was done by Tony uh comes up with a very um dis you know disproportionate number um the I didn't write down the exact numbers just now but if you have 300 uh for I can tell you what it is sure if he had four bedrooms right and not three bedrooms in an apartment then the calculation would be 200 GPD for the first bedroom 150 for the next three bedrooms so that would be 450 plus the 200 would be 650 gallons per day and that's what I interpret the Board of Health approval for but he doesn't have four bedrooms he has three bedrooms plus an apartment y the way the calculation would go is 200 gallons per day for the first bedroom 150 gallons per day for the next two bedrooms which is 300 that is 500 gallons per day plus for that apartment under the RS it's 350 so it's 850 gallons per day so so because of the way those RS are written from the D he needs 850 gallons per day not 650 gallons per day if he wants to meet the requirement of that conditional use ordinance for the accessory apartment that's it's a very simple calculation for the the board in fact they don't have to calculate anything all they have to do is say go to the Board of Health resubmit the application instead of four bedrooms three bedrooms plus an apartment submit the approv appr if you submit that approval boom he's in he doesn't need any relief for the accessory apartment all he needs is the relief for the deck which I believe they also kind of worked out because he got a zoning permit a long time ago basically they're gonna say you know what are we going to do make him move the deck he got a zoning permit for it right so he is like on the one yard line well okay what I what I have I don't know what what what the board can do for you what I have the benefit of that guty started maybe in the wrong direction with everyone because the rest of you haven't seen this yet is that Jim Hill today what you said is what you have the benefit of yes what I have the benefit of is calculations that Jim Hill did today to convert the gallonage into theage and I won't go over those numbers again but his conclusion in the letter to the Board of Health today was that Jim rigan system as it sits today takes will handle the gallonage that's required for an apartment guess what I guarantee the board hopes this board hopes that the Board of Health agrees because then it takes this issue away from them right right okay but that's between what what my advice and opinion is that's between Mr rakan and the Board of Health not Mr rakan and the board of adjustment okay so the you pointed out correctly that the only issue remaining is this issue and if you would go back in time uh to uh the time the house was was built it was built as a four family a four-bedroom single family back in that time life was simple a single family was a mother and a father and children right and if you have the mother and father in one bedroom and you're buying a four-bedroom house you have perhaps three or four or five children so this house was built for on average say six people and back then it was required to be whacked up by 50% above the calculated capacity for that kind of household today uh Mr rigan has the one of the four original bedrooms designated as storage yeah by the way just to give you a heads up about that they're going to want a deed restriction that that room is going to be deed restricted to storage otherwise no deed restriction well okay so just just if you if you want them to give a zoning permit right for the conditional use accessory apartment you not only need to think from the board ofth but he's going to have you're going to have to present the deed restriction if that room has to be it cannot be a bedroom that's the better way to say it thank you yeah yeah Jim uh you're right the first time you said it I was going to say I disagree it shouldn't be limited to storage but the deed has to say it can't be a bedroom correct so so back to my point it was a four bedroom then it's a four-bedroom now it's not a four bedom Now by calcul it's a three-bedroom in an apartment it's not a full bedroom if you start with it the basement is an apartment I understand and that's what the application starts with but if you look at what we're asking the board to do we're we're saying it's less than an apartment it's an inw what do you want the board to do we want the board to restrict us to an in-law suite with only one occupant with with uh that occupant being a family member and and if if you want the board to do something tonight that means you're still seeking the D3 conditional use variants because you don't comply with the septic thing at this time yes so what's your argument to the board to grant that D3 variance tonight yes the argument the argument is simple that we're talking about Mr rigan's father if he wasn't uh living in the basement he'd be living in the what is now the storage room and what will be designated as a non- bedroom room he's going to use the same amount of water whether he uses the first floor of the basement sink he's going to use the same have the same toilet usage whether he's on the second floor the first floor special reason under the statute that they should Grant relief when all you'd have to do is go to the Board of Health and get them to acknowledge that his septic can accommodate the three bedrooms in the apartment which you say Jim Hill says can be done what's the special reason that they're supposed to find to Grant a D3 variant rather than have you comply because well I'm not Jim Hill I can't testify that's unfortunate and someone may very well uh disagree with him and I think there might be a difference of interpretation of how you add up the gallonage so I'm trying to play it safe I came in in the middle of this process and I'm I would like to see Mr rigan and he would like to get the variance tonight if possible again what's the special reason they can't just grant variances because they like Mr the special reason is that he has an 88-year-old father and we want severe restrictions on and he's living there right now in the in the no one from the township is asking to evict him right that's correct okay so explain why would they want to Grant a D3 variance when his father's in the apartment no one's asking him to leave and all and you just stated that your own engineer says that you can get to the Board of Health and show them that the system will accommodate it what possible reason then would you give them to Grant the D3 variant tonight with those facts that you just put on the record I mean I expediency that's not a special reason because my understanding is that he he should have the choice and he can he a choice of what of of going back and satisfying the Board of Health or asking for this variant tonight tell you what you want to vote on the D3 variants tonight well I'd like to be heard first I'm okay why don't you make the argument if he wants to vote in the D3 variants then you guys can deliberate and votee on whether he's proved the relief for D3 variants can you go ahead yeah okay thank you I'm sorry uh so so the the situation is that that Mr rigan has a father who lives in the house we're looking for very severe restrictions on this grant we're not asking for a variance for an apartment per se an apartment per se would involve perhaps you're not asking for an apartment per se because you didn't apply for that that would be a D1 variance the application is for an accessory apartment that's what the application's for yes we want to have an accessory apartment approved with some pretty severe limitations and the the the result will be that although it'll still be called an accessory apartment because of the limitations limitations what limitations do you want to put on it that it be restricted to a single person and that person has to be a family member okay let me ask you something if this board restricted it to a single person without you offering up do you think that would be a legal condition in other words if the board said we'd like to restrict it to a single person he can't be married and he can't have you know a partner or anything in there and you guys didn't propose that they thought of that and they said that's the only way we're granting you the variance and you said you went to court and said to the prerogative Rich judge that conditions illegal what do you think the Judge would say that's a hypothetical that doesn't apply we're the ones we're asking for an illegal condition but you're proposing to have it restricted to a single person yes where they normally wouldn't be able to do that otherwise and you're going to have and he's going to stipulate on the record that he forfeits his right to appeal from the imposition of that condition and that's going to be a deed restriction in perpetuity he'd agree to that that's my understanding from discussions today is that okay if go sell the property that's not an accessory department down there it's restricted to a single person and what are the other restrictions maybe you have some maybe he's going to come up with a special reason but let's see I don't know if you're going to if your client's going to like it but what are your other restrictions that it be a family member okay what else those are the restrictions okay and that no one is that he's not allowed to accept rent either money or in kind services from anyone we don't do that now I understand but when you go to sell the property right the person who's going to buy is going to want to know these going to be deed restrictions when you go to sell the property this variance if you really want them to vot on it assuming that they want to Grant it I don't know they might deny it right they deny it I'll simply do what you said correct but if they Grant it with these restrictions that are going to be deed restrictions then they're going to be on and then if you go sell the property and someone's and you Market it as hey I got three bedrooms plus I got an apartment in the basement and they're going to find out the only person that could be be in that apartment in the basement is a single person a family member and you and the owner can't get any rent in money or in kind Services that's what you're that's the Restriction that might impact your marketability I'm the saying go in with your eyes open well you're you're analyzing it well I i' I'd be curious what the alter you see as the alternative is I know the alternative it's so easy go to the Board of Health read bedrooms accessory apartment you don't need their approval then you as long as we we as as long as we um uh we qualify yeah but your attorney just said he spoke to Jim Hill and Jim Hill said they're you're gonna qualify I haven't finished the Dan um on a regular basis and I think they came up with the right figures but I don't know that because he couldn't do it in time tonight yeah I mean councelor you're making it sound like it's horrible but if someone bought this house they couldn't have an apartment rent out anyway it's not allowed okay but they could do it to someone they could have someone who was not a single person in there right if they need to if they want to do that they have to come back here for a variance I guess no no no the deed restriction these guys can't Grant relief from a deed restriction they can only Grant relief from an ordinance okay so may I continue yeah yeah okay so with my in my conversation with Jim Hill today U he made these calculations that sounded correct and they were based on linear footage of the the field he calculated that you need 351 ft to comply with the statute uh the rules and we have 360 ft after hearing to what Tony said today it sounds like the numbers are different and we may end up not getting uh approval because of the differences of our engineer versus your engineer in terms of how that's calculated on top of that stop for one second do you does the Board of Health are you the Board of Health engineer yeah who's the Board of Health engineer I don't think they okay did they ever ask you your opinion on something like this no so if Jim and Tony don't agree if you go to the Board of Health it's irrelevant what his opinion is not to right not to you know we're here today in this conundrum with Jim Hill from what I understand because Tony raised this issue and what's the what's the conundrum that that what you're creating now that Tony has nothing to do with the Board of Health and yet the Board of Health is where you're saying we have to go back to right and the Board of Health is what Jim Hill says he has to satisfy because of the issue that Tony raised this week correct so if I need to go to the hunter County Health Department yeah it's not the Board of Health I'm sorry it's the Hunter and County Health Department because Health Department I'm sorry they approved for four bedrooms right what t p in my opinion is is that he does not have a four bedroom he has a three-bedroom with an apartment that is our so that's our opinion to the board right see I thought it was a Reb room with an accommodation for a family member in the basement let me just finish and you can tell me no who would be upstairs using B the kitchen same things he's using downstairs only I mean upstairs is there a bathroom in the basement yes okay listen Okay your application asks for an accessory apartment in the basement well I don't know why I thought it was just an accommodation but you're saying it's that's what it said that's what your own application said that you filed with this board yes let me so may I so we have this situation where I feel that based on what I heard tonight and what I saw this afternoon that there may well be differences between the two now here's the special situation that arises because of the the property and the way it's set up and the way the size the slope where the septic system is I was told uh by uh Jim Hill today that if we have to extend this field we won't be able to do it so we we need this experience for that reason and we're willing to go with these restrictions and put a deed restriction in so we would ask you to vote on this and but with the understanding that even though legally and technically it is an apartment with these restrictions it's not going to put any additional load on the systems in other words a septic pipes don't care whether his dad's water comes from the second floor of the first floor or the basement it's the same one person doing the same thing he's doing whether he does it on the first floor second floor or basement can I ask you this that's what we're just saying does he need an apartment can't he live on the on the main floor he can't do the steps up there he would have to be on the second floor there's no way he can do those steps he's 88 years old the way I have it set up in the back when he gets out he has these long planes so so you need an accessory apartment it's you don't you in other words he can't use the bathroom upstairs was he can't get up the stairs well no he can use the bathroom but he'd have to stay upstairs indefinitely I understand but okay listen finish making your argument the pitch is that if you granted the D3 variants correct me if I'm wrong you could get some restrictions that if you tried it yourself like it's restricted to a single person yes I would be telling you okay okay but so that's something you get now the only other issue you have is that it's when you I mean that's a factor you could consider but you also have the negative Criterion to consider and what's the purpose you're going to have to think what's the purpose of this ordinance provision if the purpose is to make sure that there's going to be adequate sewage disposal and now the the attorney is now adding another before he said Jim Hill said it's not going to be a problem now he's saying it might be a problem and if he's got to expand his Lee field that he's not going to be able to do it so now that's a negative Criterion thing that I don't even want to talk about but yes but what but what we are saying is that it's it was filed as a as an accessory apartment application and you can call it that because that's what it is legally but de facto in real it it's a oneperson situation where he would be entitled to do the same thing upstairs but for his age and his in incapacity and but for the land restrictions on the property being unable to extend the field our path of least resistance would ask the board to approve this variance and in the process understand that we're not adding any capacity in reality can can I say something I got one more question for you did you have you considered you could do some sort of handicap elevator I mean a lot of people well yeah but then we wouldn't have autonomy you know I love my my my stepdad but I don't want him I already got my son there and that's that's bad enough and I love him okay um all right all right say something and I'm not I'm just trying to think of ways to go around it I'm not saying anything about about experts everyone I talk to said talking to that microphone no you just pull that microphone the table mic pull it up to your face you got a table mic see it oh there it is okay I I'll be brief everyone I've talked to and again I'm not saying anything about the experts say there there's basically no difference between an accommodation in the basement for one person and him coming upstairs and using the same uh accommodations not only that but the septic absolutely will will will uh will do well I mean I've had them it's been going on for four years and there's never been a problem that's why I came up with a possible with Ken I came up with a possible uh uh e uh uh um um negotiation um even to the point where since I clean my septic once a year because I don't want to get hit with a $50,000 bill in the future um you may want to have a deed restriction that says oh in this particular house has to clean his septic once a year but they're all telling me either in private off the books or on the books that my septic is very adequate for what I'm asking for that's all I want to say suggestion would you guys propose to them a further restriction deed restriction that says after eventually your stepfather is going to pass away unfortunately everyone does but listen once he passes away right no more accessory apartment in the basement but then what do I do with the stuff down there I I Jeff says oh you got to take out the whole kitchen oh so now I got a what do I have I have it's like being in a fire and and your face is destroyed I mean I really take pride in my house and if you saw it they can tell you it's I take it the answer is you would not be willing to offer up a restriction that seems but with the restrictions he would have to sell the house disclosing these restrictions and the best to a rest that the apartment would only be for his stepdad and after if the stepdad's no longer living there the apartment has to be removed he's not willing to do that you no why should why should the township care whether it's Jim and his father or the next buyer and her mother what difference does it make yeah we don't agree with I've already spent 10 grand coming here and I don't have any approvals and I spent you know money on getting my d uh stepdad in there I had no choice he has Alzheimer's well in any event for these reasons that's why we're asking the board to vote on this and we're asking you to recognize that in reality what goes through those septic pipes will won't change whether we're forced to put the father upstairs or we keep him downstairs based on your approval as an in-law suite so to speak that's restricted to one person family member which could be carried on from deed to deed that's that's the way if it's good now for Jim it should be good later for for the next buyer but we ask you to recognize that there there in reality there is no difference in terms of the flow the septic was designed for five to six people and it was then calculated to be 50% above uh as was done in those days and as is confirmed by the records that I saw today from Jim from 1987 on the septic plan so uh I thank you Tony I have a question uh for the first time I heard mention of the fact that there's a kitchen can you and Jeff um you know you've you've seen this property haven't you yeah yeah there so there is a bathroom and a kitchen that's correct okay A kitchenet a kitchenet all right so full kitchen okay so this is not a bedroom this this has a bathroom and a kitchen in it it is an apartment all right thank you questions we have no questions questions if I may respond to that just a little bit further I I did point out a moment ago whether his father uses the sink in the basement or in the sink on the first floor it's still the same amount of water that he's using uh he's not this is not an apartment where we're bringing in a couple with a baby or strangers or collecting rent or anything like that thank you John I have a question for you are we able to issue a variance D2 of or any kind and violate D regulations I here speak again it came out s question was can the board Grant a D3 variance if the D regulations on their face are not complied with and my answer is that you're not supposed to judge I mean what's good for the goose is good for the gander if I told him the applicant that you're not supposed to judge you know how many gallons Jim Hill calculated because first of all Jim Hill is not here to testify or be cross-examined so you can't consider any of that but the purpose of the D regulations was to explain Tony's and my opinion that the ordinance is not met because what he applied for to the hunteran county health department was four bedrooms not three bedrooms in an apartment so my advice is his argument is that regardless of what the regulations say he has a history that the septic system is not overburdened and his argument for the three Varian is they will offer up especially the restricted to a single person condition and they'll make him deed restrictions and he's waving his right to challenge them so you could get more better restrictions on this thing than you could if you didn't offer it up because I would be advising you you can't do that yeah but wait I think what Jim is saying my question is his application call is for a four bedroom which brings it up to 650 if it is for an accessory and he should have gone for 850 are we approving something that the department the Hound County Department of Health would reject because he doesn't meet the 850 okay well you could do this you could Grant the D3 I'm not suggesting you do or you don't but if now I understand the concern you could say yeah we'll Grant the D3 variance subject to you go to the Hunter and County Health department and you apply for three bedrooms in an apartment okay tell them that thing's an apartment you could do that can I ask a question no no you can't that would get you the the advantage of the additional restriction and that would satisfy because your concern is really is the negative Criterion satisfied and are we allowing some violation of law right and if you put a condition that they had to go to the Hunter and County Health Department refile the appli and it's subject to their approval then you're not violating the law you're you're kicking it to the actually the agency that has jurisdiction to determine that in the first place okay my answer hey John but isn't that what you were recommending to begin with go to them but he wants if he wants a decision tonight I was recommending that they go there in the beginning they wouldn't need your approval he wants the approval tonight to get an approval tonight from you they need this D3 because in Tony's in my opinion they don't comply with number five his argument for you to Grant the variance to let him deviate from number five is we're going to give you a better restriction on the occupant that's right and then what what Jim is and what Jim and Cynthia are saying is but they don't want the board in any way to approve something which would be a violation so You' under this Theory you'd Grant the D3 variant subject to those restrictions and because of those restrictions but you're going to make a subject to him going to the county department of health right and he gets his approval tonight and he still has to go there and you're covered I mean why give things away if the board won't take my heavy duty restrictions I mean they're going to take your heavy duty restrictions I may be confused but how the hell do you get a a relative in into your house is it become this complicated you ready for this and all the other applications that have this complicated quite frankly this has been the most complicated application for an accessory apartment that I've been involved in I've represented the board for 30 years okay I just followed everybody's advice from from the township to the the the engineers to to Dan over at the healthport and and I spent 10 grand and I've done everything everyone said if I had you want to vote tonight or not if I knew this was gon to be like that I would have never fought for this country ever I lost a piece of my body for this country I would never never done that never but that's hey that's just me talking because I got a stepdad I want to see living out the rest of his life happy okay so I think we we we should make a decision we we as volunteers um are spending a lot of time we have a lot of applications I think we're down to 16 um so I would recommend that if that's what the applicant wants that we move forward you want to vote correct yes and if if council is saying that has to be conditioned upon I'm not saying it has to be I'm saying to if they have a concern with the approval violating law the way to get around that concern is to impose that condition I specifically said I am not taking a position whether this application should be granted or deny I'm telling them Mr Ferraro and Miss schaer are concerned that if they Grant it basically they're going to be they're going to allow a violation of the D ranks so I said if that's your concern then Grant it but make it subject to going to the County Board of Health and filing an application not for a four-bedroom for a three-bedroom in an apartment then they've kicked that issue to the agency that has jurisdiction over that and they will decide whether or not and that's the correct agency to make that decision right with one exception that we go back to the the County Board of Health not just for an accessory apartment but an accessory apartment with these restrictions are yeah correct yes and and given that yes that's what we were asking to vote on tonight yeah John I have one more question you said earlier that if they got approval from the Board of Health we didn't have to do anything right why are we why are they insisting we do something with which they're going to have to get the board out the approv anyway because that's their right okay that is their right they file the application they have the right to ask for a vote on their application and you have an obligation once they say we want to vote you have an obligation to decide their application and technically if we vote them down they can go to the Board of Health and get the approval and then they don't come back to us anymore correct but but if you vote it down rest those you don't get those restrictions up if you grant it subject to the Board of Health you get the restrictions okay given Tech hey John I have one more question initially you were talking about special reason special reason for D3 the special reason here would be that you're going to get a restriction you otherwise wouldn't get my opinion that's a special reason gotta okay any more questions if I made the other special reason is the the the lay of the land itself it's impossible to extend the field well that's that's okay that you have with all due respect they cannot consider that you need an engineer you're not qualified to say that what's that based on you're conversation with Jim Hill where's Jim Hill to cross-examine him he's not in the room so also an engineer and it's based on my review but I'm not testifying correct I'm just and and if you wanted to testify I would say you're not competent to testify about that because you're not an engineer you will be based on hearsay but I'm not going to testify thank you br Steve do you have any questions okay if you're an engineer you want to you want to testify as an engineer about it no that's a conflict because I'm here as an attorney okay R Steve any questions stop for one second your PE is still in full no Force okay well you can't testify or you'd be engaged in the unlawful practice of engineering forget the conflict that also be a problem for you no question here Steve no questions uh any more questions otherwise we'll close deliberation Public public sorry is there any from the public that has a question questions or can I suggest questions or comments at this point this is the end of the application yep now just remind me did we take comments last time did I swear you last time yeah Jonathan s who whoa whoa whoa whoa nice and Loud Jonathan soski yeah I just wanted could you spell that for us could you spell that for us s y m o n o s k i and your address 23 forced okay and you are you were sworn last time when you remain under oath correct correct okay so these can be questions to the applicant not to the board or comments to the board oh or both about and Engineers yeah okay my only question was um Jim recently had a survey done and I noticed that his driveway is on my property and he also has the neighbor's fence or he has his fence on the neighbor's property and I want to see if that's going to be addressed those are private in my my opinion those are private property issues right that's not for the board the board like I said before the board is not going to go through calculations right of the septic thing that's for the Board of Health I mean the the Hunter and County uh Department of Health the private property things that's between private property owners and the courts that's not for the board do it have to do with zoning at all nope okay all right that's my only question yep all right comments you have any comments no no good okay okay let's close for deliberation ask any other questions or comments from anybody I don't think there are nope okay who would like to start uh I'll start um after hearing all of this uh Mr rigan assures us that his leech field and his septic system are satisfactory uh and would be approved um uh that's yet to be determined um I'm willing to accept the restrictions that um the attorney has put forward uh that would be put on this apartment but I would insist that uh they go back um and get approval from the Department of Health uh for the septic system which is exactly what John drill had said I think uh we're not in the business of deciding for the Department of Health what's right and what's wrong so uh it's my feeling that uh we should um ask that Mr rig can go back to the Department of Health to make sure that the septic system is adequate you grant the D3 subject to the restrictions that we've discussed plus the additional condition that they have to apply for and obtain Hunter and County Health Department approval for three bedrooms plus the apartment correct after all it is an apartment it has a bathroom and it has a kitchen who's going next I guess I have a question I want with all those restrictions if they go to Department health and they are denied yeah then the approval is no and void thank you and I'll have something in there that says that okay go on Kevin I I'd be in favor of this application based on the uh return to the Board of Health oh by the way this is a deliberation right now only on the accessory apartment you also have to deliberate why you finish this you had to deliberate on that on the deck and Tony will remind you guys it started as a it it morphed we'll we'll remind you what you have to deliberate on that yeah I was already thinking about the accessory apartment right we'll do the deck later but I'm in agreement that I mean the testimony needs to be supported by them Kevin can't hear you the testimony needs to be supported by the board of Health's approval regarding the septic as well I would be in favor of it with the restrictions we've identified including the board of absolutely okay Jim Randy I agree with my colleagues as long as there restrictions and they have to go to the county board I would I I would go with the go with OPP Jim we didn't hear what you say I really didn't have any comments but I'll say this somehow or another is it working yeah it's working okay Som we know that the applicant has to be made to understand that if in when his stepfather whoever the occupant of this U apartment will be passes away the approval if granted goes away with them okay if you want that as a condition then you then you have to say that they they have not offered that up no well I think that's you know what I I I would like to see that in our resolution if it's not in the resolution I assume you're voting no on the application yes okay who else okay may Brad Perry maybe I could just add I you know I understand it's the applicant's right to request the restrictions but I also Envision that if if you were to go to the board of health or the um get the County Department of Health Department of Health get the um their clearance on the septic issue I would also be in favor of not having these restrictions I realize they're being requested but they don't seem required if if the Board of Health Grants what's what they it sounds like they need to be requested to Grant any right but Brad they want to vote tonight they have not agreed just to go to the Board of Health I I understand y y I'm just I'm just putting that to get but to get a v tonight they need to special reasons what's the special reason if the board is not getting additional restrictions what's the special reason to justify the D3 variant y i I understand the situation I'm just putting that that thought on the record Steve no comments no comments okay agree with what you said chair would someone like to make a motion oh sorry well John don't we want to do the D3 variants first hold on hold on hold on hold on okay hold on hold on Jeff raises the issue because it's a conditional use the ordinance requires conditional use of approv so what you're saying is if if they went to the county if they went to the county health department and got the approval to satisfy you're saying that that would then have to go to the planning board for conditional use approval if they Grant the D3 variance they can also Grant conditional use approval so if this board just so if if this board is going to Grant the conditional use variant to allow the deviation from item five put him out of his misery based on the fact that you'll be granting the D3 variance from deviation 5 also Grant conditional use approval tonight which basically says you comply with everything other than the one that you deviated from but we granted you relief from that okay thank you all right do we vote on this or do we talk about the deck so we got to talk about the deck so the deck I think is item seven of Tony's and Jeff's March 31 memo and this was totally hashed out I just want to remind everybody I'm going to read the comment first the comment is the South Branch ridan River tributary is along the Eastern portion of the lot based on the survey prepared by Glenn korski the house and attached deck appear to be within the preservation of natural features encroachment and structure buffer that's ordinance section after Township inspection the side deck was installed without permits and is within the stream buffer area the applicant shall apply for a variance from section 29641 or remove the side deck and then there's a photo in their report I believe I'm not testifying my recollection you know what should of rely on recollection what did Jeff Jeff what did you assertain last time about that deck the existing deck was approved um by a zoning permit so the existing deck was issued a zoning permit in Era zoning and building yeah zoning permit and construction permit so the applicant in my opinion justifiably relied on that so what I said was there's two ways of handling this one way is to just IGN ignore it because no one can ask him to remove it if you grant a variance for it you need a reason what's the reason other than you don't want to put them through the financial cost of removing it because I've told you how many times that finances are not a hardship they can't be considered so my advice on the deck quite frankly is to ignore it because you better hold on to that zoning permit and that construction permit because that will prove sto just for clarification that the the deck the main deck got approval the side deck never got approval said the side deck got approval no the the main deck okay so you're telling me they got an approval from the main deck and he put a side deck in without asking yeah that was not my recollection of this I confused it so you need what's your argument to allow an illegal deck to remain in the vi in violation that area that's now de was like a patio when we got there bad for him you ask me I'm just tell tell us and so what I did is I made it palatable for him to be able to sit on the deck I can tell you another thing in the back is the stream which is first of all the three houses next to me they all get closer to the stream than I do second thing is I left from the stream a 50 by 200t stripy can I ask you something why didn't you fly for permits to run this by anyone at Town Hall I don't know it seemed like a deck wasn't even three foot off the ground it was wood I had the opportunity when they were here I mean it it's it's a little deck it's not even three foot off the ground I thought that this was a non-issue because I thought that they had zoning permit construction permit for can I ask a question yeah Jeff do you mind coming up here for a minute okay I'm looking at um what was sent in with the application okay no no no no time out time out so this is what he put in with the application that's there's no deck you went out that's the deck you're talking about and it's not on the drawing here okay I just want to make sure it's not on the drawing that when they applied when you went out you you took a picture okay thank you uh for the board members um the deck that we're talking about is the deck that is right in the center of the architectural rendering and it's the one that's 62.8 what is that 84t uh um off of the stream bed um and it's the smallest of the two decks but Mr Glenn what is your argument for a C2 variance to allow the illegal deck to remain in its location which deviates from the ordinance to be honest I didn't address that today but I do know that there was a can't hear you to be honest I didn't address that today uh I wasn't aware that it was I was quite frankly I didn't know until just now but I understood from some document or discussion uh the same understanding that you had but I will say that uh there was a concrete deck already in place and he he brought it up off the ground so that his stepdad could manage so that that satisfies maybe the negative Criterion but what's the positive reason what's the so he can sit outside and look at the All The Preserve I didn't it's not it can't be a personal benefit to anyone on the property it's got to be either a zoning benefit listen that's what the law is it's got to be a public benefit or it's got to be a hardship and it can't be financial hardship you can't see the personal side anymore not allowed to I understand because you know what happen if they do that then it gets into what they like you they Grant you approval they don't like you they don't how about liking my 88y old stepdad who needs a walker and he goes out on his and inappropriate that was chipped and broken he would have broken his neck sooner or later all I did was change that concrete all you did without again without checking this this is the biggest lesson I hope you learn through this whole process sure did okay check first ask first don't do and ask for forgiveness absolutely what are you guys gonna I have a question de that does it have access from the basement or is it just from the basement beside that how about the main deck the main deck is from the uh the house and the issue is environmental issue right yes how does he get up how does he get up on this side deck if it's elevated off the ground yeah when you come out when you come out of this apartment you hit the deck and there's walk a walkway and the walkway goes up these wooden in fact Miss F you knows about it the well never mind um yeah don't don't bring her into this please all right so there's there's like a long three or four steps then another long three or four it's a such a gradual uphill that he can handle it with his walk that's it's not steps going up to the first floor it's it's it's like elevations that are am I if I'm explaining I don't know what to tell you on this because you can't Grant a variance for no reason and they haven't given you a reason unless some board member can think of some reason I'm not suggesting you do because the burden's on the applicant I mean it doesn't happen very often but in my 30 years here the board has denied things like this and the applicants had to rip things out that they put in illegally how many square feet is this deck 9 by 13 9 by 13 30 in at its highest point flat from the door going out the back out about 9 foot so it's not off the ground it's flat out going out 9 foot I I literally don't know what to tell you you wanted to Grant this variance someone's going to have to give me a reason to put in the resolution um why don't you deliberate on the side deck Tony what is the uh to be legal what would the correct setback be 75 ft 100t 100 feet to be it's illegal in this in this location you have to put it somewhere else would that would that mean all the three houses Beyond me that all have decks they're illegal too listen this is about your property this is not about who knows maybe they got variances for them when were the decks put on I mean that's that's like if you're speeding on the highway right someone passes you and then the cop pulls you over and you say hey he was going faster than me if you're still exceeding the speed limit you decide the officer not the cop all right so so I need to ask another question it's 100 feet is that true 100r so are we saying that technically his house is in violation yeah that's true back in 19 house is grandfathered 87 okay right this is not a question in my opinion of the negative Criterion because this is a question of the positive Criterion you need some reason either hardship if it's a C1 or a public benefit if it's a C2 not a private benefito Suppose there was a patio there 30 years years ago when they first put that house on why can't you have a patio for your father-in-law that's the why do you need a deck for him why can't it be a father-in the only difference is the material right explain explain what is what was wrong with the patio for him that you had to put a deck up it was shot I would had to redo that it was less expensive but expensive to put the debt up I understand it was less expensive okay that's not a reason for them you had a patio that the guy is it the same footprint as existed sure probably 30 years but of course now everything is uh complicated yeah it sure is no offense to anyone I understand your difficulty on the board let let's start with what's the definition of a deck what constitutes a deck if you have a conrete patio and you cover it with wood uh is that make it a deck what is a deck maybe the answer here is that this is not a deck even if patio if he put a new P if he ripped out the patio and put a new patio in he still need a variant no he covered the patio with a wood floor yeah the patio pre-existed it was in violation it wasn't in violation the patio was grandfathered once you either remove something it loses its grandfather's status or once you add something to it you don't have the right to add to a grandfather you need a variance there the one you can't put you can't put wood on top of without variance correct that's where you draw the line okay I have a question for the he could rep it but you can't put a new one without a variance are are you saying the deck that there's a doorway from the basement to the deck yes ma'am okay and that's what's in this picture that's a doorway that's his doorway so the gentleman the elderly gentleman is able to walk out from his apartment yes straight out onto the deck yes I thought you said he has to go up a slight incline yeah then I Mis explained myself are you saying the way he gets into the apartment is is over this deck it's it's over the deck and onto the walkway up the stairs in front of the house and around he uses a walker okay just answer this question can your stepfather get into the apartment without stepping on this deck no no so you see say that there's the reason yeah so if you see the picture it's Aus being yeah at this point come on up first identify yourself for the record and explain what you want to show yeah I want to show like the uh this is the walkway that identif yourself for the record J Jonathan simosi 23 for strive um the original um survey that they submitted has it says concrete slab see how tiny that is if you look the new survey you can see the deck which is probably about 10 times the size of the concrete slab and you can see there's sidewalk going on the left and right see that yes so there's a big alteration you see what I'm saying that's not just a little that's not a little you know thing you're what you're saying is he's add a sidewalk he said that it was the same size as the patio but in fact it's not it's larger truthful I really I really I I I pause there because what you're referencing is this picture correct which is a higher definition or further away and then you're referring to this picture so I understand what you're saying um I Tony Tony has I don't know if that's true let's ask Tony to scale it and see what the case is the thing is that that patio was there for a long time the question is this you was c m are you sticking with your testimony that the deck is the exact same size as the patio was yes or no I don't know it could be a foot different maybe that's it John can you take a five minute recess we're we're at 8:15 normally we should be moving on to the second application should move on but what happened here was was Tony correct me am I'm wrong when they submitted the application the the servey that they submitted did not show the deck okay they these guys caught it then they told him wait a minute something's wrong here resubmit when he resubmitted lo and behold it shows the deck they asked me if I understand he asked me a question which was when was the survey submitted no what I'm saying is when they asked me about the deck I told them the truth that's why they B it it wasn't because I lied to him I said this was a a crumbling Rock thing here and I changed it to Wood now I don't know who did it I don't know when okay can I ask you something the original thing you submitted with the application didn't show a deck no the original survey you submitted with the application did that show a deck on I don't think so correct they ask you to submit an accurate one to show the deck correct yes I did that I got a survey with that on there I understand may I make an observation yeah most likely that was from times past and my client didn't create that document and this there was no intention to hide anything it's just that someone took a very old plat if you will or drawing and uh rendition and presented it who was the somebody it was 2010 it was him he attached it to the application not somebody it's him 20 well he didn't create that got an after David of no change on that survey in other words but you changed it you put a deck in right when when did you put the deck in what year four years ago four years ago on top of that let me just say I did an affidavit no change on the survey I accepted their survey that didn't mean it didn't have that that concrete there it means I did an AFF davit of no change when I closed on the house to save money on the survey everybody knows with an AFF a David of no change what's that what he's saying is we're all assuming that the deck is grandfathered we don't even know that is what he's saying because the survey showing the deck from 2010 can I make a suggestion at date you normally break you have this other applicant here you guys either have to continue him or you got to vote on this last I think I think we have to go to the second application that's always been our policy that with the we spend the first hour with the first case if we don't get finished then you're going to have to wait until these people are finished if not it'll have to be continued so sit out in the audience hopefully they'll finish I know Ken has to go can we continue it another time or or do you want to wait are you crazy you wanted to vote tonight you want to continue with some other oh there let's let's sit in the audience and wait to see if they finish okay we're gonna take a five minute break he's going if these guys finish they'll come back do whatever they want hey Jeff jaff Jeff up at 3:00 in 5:30 I have nowhere to go start the uh okay thank you good all right we'd like to get started again like to call the um second application for this evening boa case number 10-22 the applicant is Esco Precision Inc the block is 36.029456 you got to get closer to that mic GRE until we wound up on the floor over there with the maps so right we're back and so just for the record this hearing commenced on April 7 2022 it was a little thing before that but the hearing commenced on April 7 2022 and the applicant engineer was told to uh basically tighten up the plans and see what you can do about satisfying um a lot of the comments in the professional report and not that I'm prejudging anything but it looks like at least from looking at the reports that a lot of progress was made yes I believe so and the meeting uh was held with my clients with Mr haar and with uh your attorney to make sure that all the eyes were dotted and te's crossed which gave rise to uh technical memo number five from Tony which uh you have all had a chance to review and uh basically all of the the items in there are now either uh conditions of approval or have been satisfied but Mr Kendall our Engineers here in case there's any lingering questions right so my my only general question is you know our the board's U practice if you don't mention a comment in one of the reports and the comment says make this change and the board decides to approve the application I'm going to interpret that as that's going to be a condition so the only comments you have to address in the reports are ones that you think need clarification not to say we agree if you don't say anything you agree it's if you don't agree with something or you want a clarification of something or you want you know the wording changed a little all right I I believe our engineer was satisfied with the ones that are that are still to be conditions of approval and now I just have to get an additional person sworn and that would be our substitute planner Aron Carden so Aaron can you raise your right hand and do you swear that any testimony you give in this matter will be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth okay let me just see what else I have here okay so we have Adam kandell was sworn last time and testified we have the two applicants Representatives that were sworn and they're still here so if any of the three of you have to testify everyone's been sworn and now all the board experts sitting here have been sworn go ahead very good well if if there's no issues with regard to um technical comment number five we're prepared to move on to uh traffic and Landscaping yeah this your technical review report your review number J 13 what he's saying is they agree with everything in there as a condition now if the board has any questions about any of them fire away but as far as the applicants concerned everything in Tony and jff memo now it's agreed to as a condition if it hasn't been satisfied already okay so whose mem are we doing okay Adam which one do you want to do first hey John John yeah how about item 164 on Tony's okay Tony can you give an explanation so this this is a setback variance the uh it's it's basically an accessory structure accessory use the detention basis for to satisfy the stor water management and in the in that zone no doesn't differentiate doesn't differentiate between principal stru structures and access structur access so the the setback required the 50 the proposing 27 and you would uh recommend we I don't have any objection you don't have any objection because is required because 27 good distance so you're in agreement the way it is you would propose us to Grant variance for that I don't have any objection perfect number item number seven so when you say item number seven item number seven on your June 13th memo that's correct that said applicant agreed of approval yeah I have the the lot number and the address oh okay why you give it to me I thought you were throwing me a curve was1 uh and the address is going to be 11 Royal Road there there is three existing lots to be merged as part of this application that's all you have no problem you did make us nervous made me nervous forget him I was like are you kidding me traffic we can do traffic first okay so this is the April 5 traffic review number two or the more recent one June 14 June 14 June 14 okay yeah J troutman's memo dated June 14 and they handed it out in packets for everyone oh I had okay so um a lot of these are just commentary number 12 number 12 so number 12 says the proposed do not ENT sign at the rear of the building near the northernmost loading dock is facing the wrong direction the sign should be relocated to the north side of the traffic aisle for better visibility partially addressed sign is still in the wrong location and should be relocated to the north side of the traffic aisle near the proposed oneway sign for better visibility but I thought I saw an email late in the day about this that's correct we were going back and forth on emails with uh the traffic problem sorry for the director my name is uh Adam candel k a n d i l and can you describe the last email and the date or the time uh the last the last email from my recollection was uh June 15th and it was do you have the email with you I don't have I don't do me a favor you to show him that you show them what you have you show them what you have let's get the last email see Tony do you know what the issue is yes yes okay is it resolved yes do me a favor Tony forget the emails just what was the issue and how's it been resolved and how what do you need Adam Adam provided us with a revised plan showing the location of the sign and Jay agreed that that's that's the right location the other comment is we're looking for stop for a second okay so that satisfy 12 okay 12 is technically not satisfied because you need the plan revised yes right so yes so can I just leave 12 like it is we you guys know what the change is going to be but I don't have to change 12 you no you can because the plan that he reviewed it's in the wrong location correct and you're going to put it in the right location and apparently you worked out with Tony and him where it's going to go correct we don't have to know that it's been worked out yes yes okay so you don't have to discuss that one what else you got uh 13 13 same okay if I read 13 you're GNA tell me it didn't work out if I read 13 just tell me if I would have to change the language of this in order to be consistent with other truck routing restrictions in the area this office recommends that the truck traffic be restricted from going north on Royal Road between the hours of 10: p.m. and 7:00 a.m. during daytime hours trucks should have the ability to travel North for access to the traffic signal at Route 202 case Boulevard instead of using Church Street so read me the language that you worked out with him because I will put this one in there so that is specific in that email that Tony has which um we're agreeing Tony and uh Jay agreed on the actual sign there so left turn let me read this yeah that's the sign yes okay so the condition would say plans shall be revised to add a new sign that faces into the site where trucks exit and the [Music] sign text shall read colon and then quote in caps you want them in caps yes trucks no left turn 10 P.M to 7 a.m. and you guys agree with that right yes we do um question in the I2 Zone what are the hours of operation what are they limited to 247 247 and the I2 okay thank you that's the traffic memo what do you have left landscape and then address can I ask a question before we jump Tony I'm sorry naive you can't make a left between 10: at night and 7 in the morning but you can make a left all the other time yeah the reason is the multi development complained about truck traffic at night okay okay that's the reason that's fine thank you I thought there was some other reason okay landscape memo what's the date on that okay um should I go should I go by one by one John again if you agree you don't have to mention it it's if you need clarification or if you don't agree you have to mention it so if you're going to tell us that you agree with everything that's all you have to say uh we we do agree with everything this is how these big application should go you work out all the engineering stuff so they're left with the big policy decision on the variant yeah I want to particularly thank both uh Tony and Jeff and the engineer for working all of this out I'm well aware of all of the work that they did the last couple of weeks thank you all is there anything else planning planning now let's look at planning and let's see a lot of these are comments but there's some questions in there and there's some variances that are pointed out so I'm going to suggest that we let the planner go through the memo and bring up things that he wants to hear a testimony about or he wants to have answered and then we'll just make sure that you you had testimony to cover all the variance issues and the exceptions how's that sound we will do that Aaron this is your March no June 15th memo you need a m can you give a microphone okay we're good we're good here okay I think it's probably best to start with the architectural plans and sign details with this uh what page of your memo uh page five E okay uh page five item e uh there were questions with regards to uh the color of the concrete panels on for the front elevation rear elevation uh side elevations north and south and that was that so Arin Arin um what about page four um B uh one little I uh down at the very bottom uh this does not comply the variance pursuant to njsa 40 55 accessory structure variance right okay so let's start with the accessory structure variance uh which is uh so again this is on page four Item B Roman one yes why don't you just read it first okay according to section 29 6 131 A3 no building shall be erected no existing buildings shall be altered enlarged rebuil nor shall any open space surrounding any building be encroached upon or reduced in any manner excepting Conformity with the yard you doing good slug slow down accepting Conformity with the yard lot area and building location regulations here and after Jeff can you get that mic working again no just give it to give it to Jeff very sensitive mic he uh yeah even better this even better designated for the Zone in which such building or open space is located the applicant is proposing and accessory storm order okay sorry uh let's where should I start here I'll start with the applicant is proposing an accessor storm water and utilities Outlet structure consisting of a water quality device electric box Transformer hot water box and a meter pit SL vault in the front yard wherein accessory structures are not permitted in the in front of the principal structures and this does not comply with the ordinance and a variance per to uh C variance would be required here so how how so let's talk about that um so I'll I'll defer the planning testimony to Wayne so he's the planner so ultimately at the end if that's okay if we can table that one for his Tes Wayne write it down okay that's why don't be like my brother up in here that's why I figured I would start with the items that would be addressed first before we get into the testimony so that's why I skipped that I would have come back to that one all the other Varan because there's still a use the the the overall D the overall D1 use variant as well for the what would be the I'll go back into that would be that the proposed will go back into that as well which also will be part of the planning Tes that be all for Wayne that'll be all for Wayne when you provide testimony so go back to page five E architectural plans and sign details so essentially what we're looking for here is we need to we just want to have some testimony with regards to the color of the panels on the front elevation rear elevation and side elevations on both sides just to get an idea as far as how this will look yeah I mean we didn't um decide on that right now but it's going to be neutral colors I mean uh you'll have maybe like black accents but it's all going to be neutral colors as far as like exact colors we don't know for certain oh it's going to be mostly neutral colors so let me just take us some questions yeah does anyone on the board or does Tony or Jeff who are T of employees care what the thing looks like if you do and speak up and let him say what he's going to say if you don't care what it looks like then you can I me valid questions but if you don't care what it looks like it's not going to end up being a condition well time out time out yeah turquoise is not my color Okay okay so I color neutral colors is okay or acceptable to our Township engineer and assistant town no neon colors can't hear you no neon colors so in other words the condition would be neutral colors acceptable to Township engineer that agreeable yeah the board okay okay what's okay let see next Aaron you on page six I'm on I'm on page six right now it seems that the items that were addressed have been complied with at this point the the ground the signage the ground signs which I'm looking through the setbacks comply um as well Tony the size of the sign is 104 square feet limitation is 100 correct am I mistaken the ground sign uh this is the primary ten wallmounted sign this is on page six under signage small Roman numeral I and it's the third paragraph down so for for the wall sign is 5% for of the facade for each tenant okay so I I didn't review it recently so is it compliant right that's compliant okay thank you so let's Aaron Let's uh okay your next thing that doesn't comply is Page 8 H lighting yeah well I'll read out that section according to section 296 7 put this way go to the last sentence in B okay the applicant is proposing a range of foot candles from 0.0 to 4.5 which does not comply a waiver has been requested by the applicant so now give the ordinance requirement the ordinance requirement is that the that that a this type the foot candles illumination the maximum illumination shall not exceed 0.5 horizontal foot candles or 0.5 vertical foot candles it tells you where it's measured from which is oh wait sorry the artificial light wait okay so the maximum liation at 5 ft inside and adjoining residential parcel or public Right of Way Beyond from an artificial light is 0.25 horizontal foot candles and 0.25 vertical foot candles set illumination likewise measured inside and joining commercial or okay said illumination likewise measured inside an or adjoining commercial or industrial parcel or on a public roadway or Beyond shall not exceed 0.5 horizontal foot candle or 0.5 vertical foot no sight line no line of sight to a flaring light source is permitted from 5T or more inside a residential or public right of-way property line by an observer viewing from a position that is level with or higher than the ground below and here's the next nice and loud and slow okay ex this is going to be the form the basis of the question I'm going to ask the engineer okay compliance is achieved with fixture shielding directional control designed into the fixture fixture location fixture height fixture aim or a combination of these factors so the question is can you make it comply if you can't explain why and and why the board should Grant an exception to allow the deviations so by doing those things that Aron just read can you make this thing comply uh yes so we we have taken all the measures uh to try to achieve it by shielding and the direction and the height but unfortunately we cannot make it comply with the maintaining you know life and life safety and um you know safety at night okay so explain why that sounds like it's that's not a hardship it sounds like but this is I have the is this an exception is this a site plan requirement or exception it's an exception so your argument is going to be impracticality because you need it for safety that's what you're saying correct and there uh mod explain why you need it for safety yeah so the the lights we're proposing are modern uh LED energy efficient lights and we have them shielded as best we can and uh especially with regards to the neighbors we have them pointing in towards our structure and shielded on the back uh so cut off shields on the back uh but there are areas where the lights uh because of uh the area adjacent to the neighbors even with shielding there is some spillage that would uh where are the there's no yeah also can I add it's an industrial Zone there's no homes around it either so but you do you do have a hotel neighbors yeah but you have a hotel on the other side of Life Storage right oh I know exactly where it is so as far as the hotel is concerned is there any issue there we're trying to find out where the deviations s yeah on the on the plan and that's what I was looking previously so come on over can Jeff can you get that hand mic work it to the street for the so the only area where we have some spillage is where it comes on the street um but not on any of the neighbors is that Royal Road yes it is that's the street he's talking okay just want to make sure not not the other Road no okay which backs up to only place the only place where there's a deviation is where driveway okay so it's not even a deviation to a commercial neighbor let alone no residential neighbor is that correct that is correct and we also prefer higher elimination the driveway for safety purposes is is pickle ball on the east side or is um or is it the two uh manufacturing facilities C East okay uh just for completeness how much curiosity wise is the spillage can't we can't for completeness how much is the spill supposed to five and what they're proposing is 6 okay but it says the applicant is proposing a range of foot candles from 0.0 to 4.5 right that's not on deviation the site not so someone's going to tell me the deviation is what's give me the number of the deviation and give me the requirements the requirement is 0. five and what's proposed is 6 right the0 five is the max and 6 is proposed and this deviation is at the driveway intersection where you'd want higher illumination right okay Aaron keep on going in your report um go to page nine now does Solid Waste comply or not you're describing what it is does it does it comply it looks like it does look like it does look like it does look like it complies and we're just we're just describing how they're managing uh let's keep on going that's it that's the planers report unless you have something else because they're not it doesn't seem to me that they're proposing any conditions I'm just ask only just asking for test only asking for Testimony with regards to the variances right and that's going to be given by Wayne Ingram we got you there all right we're prepared to call Wayne Ingram our planner to testify why we just see if there's any me of public or any board members who have any John Morgan Thomas uh do you have a report AG to they agre to the thank you y okay are there any questions from anyone in the public the only people online are our two Representatives right there's a new one that just popped up there's a uh he's joining right now Jonathan I don't know if he has any questions uh Jonathan on the uh who's zooming in do you have any questions I just unmuted him okay so okay Mr Watts correct correct me if I'm wrong we've now been to all the reports and all that's left is the planning testimony is that correct anything [Music] further the what fire hydrant okay whose report this is this is March 31 and when you say it's been addressed have you made plan revisions or okay so the Fire Marshall hasn't reviewed it yet yeah right so if if the board approves this and I make these a condition you're going to be able to comply with it 100 100% okay all right like to call Wayne Ingram like to swear Wayne he's been sworn you just have to qualify him has he been qualified too no you have to qualify him I'm not saying he's not qualified but you have to qualify him Mr by who by whom are you presently employed uh engineering and land planning in what capacity I'm the vice president and are you a licensed professional engineer in of New Jersey uh engineer and planner yes and you licensed planner yes plan have you testified before uh that repard of adjus before many times in both capacities correct yes yes and they've accepted you as an expert in both fields of of expertise correct so far my luck hold them up and your licenses are still in full force and effect yes they are you remember to renew it recently Mr okay fantastic we accept Mr Ingram he's well known to the board thank you we'd like to start with the uh D variances that have been uh picked out by the planners that is for the uh Flex use which is not a permitted use yet in that zone and there will also be multiple uses which also call for a variance and let Wayne address those issues all right so um forgive me if I sound redundant from the last application we had a um Pioneer developers last year for a very similar case um but this is a very similar situation um the I2 District uh is a large District in the township uh comprised of many lots and developments uh our subject property is 6 and a half acre and currently contains three lots as you've heard sure um the surrounding properties on Royal Road um generally are two to three acres in size uh some of the surrounding uses include Life Storage Hooper electric and TD Bank uh to the Northwest we have other industrial uses on much larger lot uh which access off of Church Street uh the Zone ALS uh uses in the zone uh are also tend to be broad uh and have those kind of uses you would normally see in an industrial park uh and zones uh warehousing manufacturing Trucking indoor Recreation Etc um what the applicant's proposing is an indoor park uh Flex space um and quite simply what that means is they want to use the property uh for multiple uses uh what would otherwise be permitted in the zone so taking other uses that are already allowed and combining them uh into a space and that's essentially what both of the D variances are related to and I believe during the April 7 hearing session Adam went through and listed those uses in the i1 that they'd want to have here and those uses in the I2 that they would want to have here and then those uses in the i1 that they would agree they wouldn't have here you guys recall that yes ah okay and so without having to repeat that that's that's a suggested condition by the applicant correct correct the same list that we discussed last time would be the same uses were requested yes the same uses that we discussed at the last hearing were the same ones we're requesting tonight so there's no changes or additions or subtractions from that list uh so similarly discussed in in a recent board application for the North and Royal Road uh the term Industrial Park exists in the Township's parking standards but it doesn't actually exist as an approved use anywhere in the township so what this says to me is that there was a clear intention to allow a use like this um because you created a parking demand for it um but again in the broad sense we're talking about allowing uses that are already permitted in the zone just putting them under one one roof uh Industrial Park uh Flex Spas uh is consistent with their Zone uh as well as many other other surrounding properties um i' note that uh many properties on Min eonic Drive were previously approved um in a similar capacity having multiple tenants on the same property uh as well as the the recent Pioneer application but those things were before the board came out with its 100% what what I'm simply saying is this use would be consistent with many of the other properties in the zone and wouldn't be out of character with that zone so it's not a positive Criterion reason it's satisfying the negative crit yes okay uh in in that in that particular Street uh you see contractor trade uses manufacturing storage recreational facilities all existing on the same Lots together uh on River Road there's other developments uh which operate with multiple Tendencies on a single lot and those uses are not necessarily consistent uh as one specific use either uh Our intention here is no different uh I would say as opposed to a single larger Warehouse which would be permitted uh that could potentially generate larger number of trips uh for trucks uh with the same footprint um and the Tendencies here are more akin to smaller local trade businesses than you know the larger single tenant operation uh I think this property is particularly suited uh based upon its location within the Zone again being somewhat centered in the zone not on a perimeter adjacent to other uh other zones and types of properties um the surrounding uses are consistent um and we're we're consistent with those uses um currently as I said we have three lots so each could individually be developed so in the same footprint that you see you could have three individual buildings three individual uses um but that would also come with three sets of U ities resets of driveways all those other things which you know are are somewhat the same in terms of scope of what we're proposing but have more impact um we're simply by combining these into a single building uh creating additional efficiencies uh to our design uh which includes again less um access points to the roadways utility connections uh we're able to create a more efficient imp peria surface and we can combine our our storm water management into one centralized location um you you know uh combined on the site uh this is a lower intensity use uh what we're proposing is 25% of the allowable F uh and at 41.5 feet in height compared to with 60 foot permitted we're not getting anywhere close to what a total mass could be uh if otherwise developed you know for a single tenant who would potentially go taller uh add more office space more F uh things of that nature um so since the uses are all separately permitted uh there's nothing about them that we think would be unsuitable to the lot and in fact one of the uses that the applicant said they would not have here which is permitted is a truck terminal so I assume that what and what you're testifying to is if they had a large truck terminal that would be more intense and a worse use than if they had multiple smaller of the permitted uses correct yes uh so since the industrial park uh use is not identified anywhere as an approved use uh but Itself by itself uh but yet multiple similar facilities exist uh we therefore think it's appropriate uh and suitable to permit a similar facility in the same Zone on a lot which for all intents and purposes uh as you've seen in the plans can accommodate that use um as I said the lot's internally located to the zone and we have no surrounding uses which I believe would see detrimental impacts from this proposal uh there's multiple purposes of zoning that would be through the application slow you got to slow down now uh purpose a promoting the general welfare I think we're providing an opportunity for uh smaller businesses in the township uh that certainly would fill a need um many of the other facilities that are built previously uh are all well occupied whereas some of the larger Tendencies a single use in the township are not um so I think that what that shows is that these smaller uses will find it you know a home uh in a facility like this uh purpose C uh promoting light air and open space uh as you heard we're not getting anywhere near the permitted height or a full F and I think that that's uh certainly serving that purpose of making sure um you know we stayed well below what could otherwise be permitted uh purpose G uh sufficient space for a variety of uses including industrial um I think we've we've hit that multiple times but you know we have a a multiple tency use which is not otherwise permitted for these types of facili um but with that Flex based term um it's a definite need that exists in the area and finally purpose H uh design of uh efficient Transportation routes to promote free flow and limit blight um our location is convenient to highways and I think as I said that having combining these lots and reducing it to the number of access points we have is a more efficient uh access onto the roadway and will uh lessen traffic uh with these smaller uh smaller tendencies uh regarding the negative Criterion I don't see any negative impacts to this application uh the uses are exactly what you could otherwise see in the zone and I think by eliminating the uses that we have um and by seeing how other facilities in the township operate like this um that we can basically show that these will operate harmoniously on the lot um and will not be a detriment to those neighbors um we intend to comply with all the performance standards uh and nuisance standards uh in the in the township um I don't believe that there's any impairment of the town's master plan Zone plan or zoning ordinance um by virtue of the fact that only individual uses approved in the zone are requested slow it slow it slow and in my opinion this use uh represents um more of an unfortunate oversight in including it in a Zone uh than an actual intent to never permit such facilities um in reviewing the master plan I saw nothing contrary uh to what's accomplished by this development um in that it is consistent with the utility and circulation goals uh and did not appear contrary to any others and I further see no impact to the adjacent properties uh which are primarily Industrial in nature um the project is no more developed uh than a conforming use lower height lesser f um stepping over to the C variances yeah before you go to C sure so there's obviously some reason I mean the board of adjustment explained its reasons in the Wawa case for saying that multiple printable uses are not allowed okay so they that there's an explanation for why they're not allowed in the ordinance but in your opinion is there less of a problem with multiple uses in an industrial setting like this rather than retail where if you have multiple retail uses you could get a lot more traffic but if you have multiple industrial uses like you said they were on separate Lots you might even have more traffic if you consolidate it you might have less traffic you have an opinion on that correct I think that goes to my point of you know if they were individually developed as three lots you would have more access points um you know in a retail setting you have more of the public here you that's going to be a much lesser concern um so the uses can tend to be more you know harmonious and less impactful to one another so you would okay I yeah I'm good all right so with regard to the uh the steep slope variance uh the planner's letter outlines um the 20% or greater and the 12 to 19% slope slow slow it uh categories that are exceeded uh that is specifically related to the rear of the property where we have a uh was basically at one point constructed Swale so the sale has steep slopes leading into it uh which we're proposing to remove uh I would say this is under a C2 condition um I think one of the main reasons you try to protect steep slopes is you know because you're concerned about erosion and things of that nature um our proposal will actually be eliminating all of the slopes so uh and I think it's important to note that the the ordinance does not distinguish between uh natural and man-made so you know something that was man-made years ago is now considered a steep slope and whereas we're removing that slope completely providing an alternate drainage scheme that accomplishes our goals such that they're no longer required and by eliminating the steep slope we eliminate the concern of erosion so the fact that we have a compliant storm water plan in my mind effectively mitigates any negative impacts to this uh disturbance question does the storm water plan consider what you just said I can't he can uh is your storm water plan consider exactly what you said about removing the slope yes yes they've designed it to to pick up all of the water such that that is no longer needed corre aren you putting back in because the tril still exist there will be other steep slopes created by the application and I suppose if they were to come back to you in a few years has to disturb them again we'd be asking for the variant again um but again that's it's the problem with that ordinance not distinguishing man-made from from natural conditions yeah are you aware of any ordinance in Hunter and County that distinguishes between man-made and natural I'm not I do see that in in in other municipalities which ones off the top of my head I can't name them I don't know if they're in 100 either none of mine yeah but I I think it's an important distinction um you know obviously what you're trying to protect is natural steep slopes you're saying it goes you're that goes to the negative Criterion that they're uh they're man-made they're not natural and your positive C2 is that your storm water um storm management has improved through the application we have reductions and runoff by allowing us to do this um and I'll I'm going to lump all of the uh accessory structures and the and the setbacks uh into one because they all essentially are the same thing um whether we're talking about uh an electrical Transformer or a water quality structure or a water meter pit these are all structures that I don't consider detrimental um because they're routinely put in a front yard um one of the main reasons is access um you know your your utility Mains are in the street that's what you're connect to so you're not going to locate these things distant or interior to the site for when they need to get service very slowly list those structures that are going to have the setback deviations in the sure front yard uh we have the water quality treatment device coming out of the Basin again that's a basin to a treatment device to a discharge point it kind of has to be in that location uh an electrical box and a Transformer uh again those are the type of utilities you routinely see in a front yard because that's where the utility companies want to maintain them uh a water hot box and the meter pit vault as well uh again for the same reasons it's it's accessibility you know from a public road you don't want it internal to the site um these are also not structures that are going to be highly visible or detracting or or creating any negative impacts they're you know most site plans I would say they're they're routinely put in these these locations um and I guess the the last one which I think we touched on already was uh the the variance for the Basin being 27 ft where 50 FTS required um you already heard from the board's engineer that there is no objection to that um just from a again a practical standpoint we did significant soil testing on the property we found two locations uh that infiltrate a small one and a large one where you see the Basin so you know we're practically constrained because that's the area that we can get the best storm water management uh to meet the current standards in that portion of the lot and there's only so much space we could put it in to accomplish it so is that because you need it for infiltration correct yeah to meet the the you know the recharge and other standards um we need to have an area where we can infiltrate and uh to meet the recharge standards we need to infiltrate and we test it all over the site and the location of the Basin is really the only primary location that will accomplish that goal um but any negative impacts I think are are mitigated with our Landscaping um and again it's it's a basin it's a form feature you know essentially below what'll be the grade um and we're screening it anyway so it won't be a detrimental impact those the same Reas correct yep yeah we have to discharge it you know it's really the only place it could be from a practical standpoint and I think that touches on the the variances which was the one that was in Aaron's report that was the storm water base it was was that that's what he just okay that's what sorry that's what he just addra okay okay um any questions from the board question microphone um I have a question for you how many different businesses can this black space Supply space for okay so why don't you we show Co tell them bring up CO3 uh page CO3 of the site plans delineates uh seven potential tencies now it's not to say that you know somebody couldn't take two of the spaces three of the spaces but that's a maximum breakdown uh of what they're and I believe that you named or spacing on your name Ryan I think Ryan named cerebus to occupy the space all the way to the left which is south and then tenants for one two 3 4 for the other six spes is that correct I'm just curious also for the planner what type of crystal ball are you guys looking into when we look around town we have a number of uh Flex space already approved and we have another one on the board coming up before the board what do you how are you projecting the occupancies it just seems odd to me well I mean I think I mean I think there's a need um you know if you look at the built facilities again on Mini eony you you see you know well occupied structures you know you're a lot of towns are becoming more restrictive into where they want these types of uses so you know especially contractors they're finding it very hard to find places to go so you're you know your small plumber you're electrician he's looking for a space that you can have you know a small shop you know run a few trucks out of um and and you know the trades are busy especially right now you know construction is booming and and these guys need places to for their operations I think you're all being very optimistic about the future growth of the area first of all by way of background Jim was on the board way back when when all those golf facilities came in and got approved then they all got constructed and then is are there any golf facilities that are still in operation in the toy one one so he's asked well I mean again I think what you're hearing here which is a little different than like even the Pioneer application the last one that was approved they're going to be occupying what would be the the largest single tency of the building and you know I think their goal would be over time they would hope that their business would improve and you know could even maybe grow within their own with their own building so you know we know we have at least you know one solid tendency there um so that you know that's going to be supportive of the building um who knows maybe some of this may come down to who's the first person to put a shovel in the ground and you know for building up is is going to get the Tendencies um you know even in that other application they had three buildings um the intention there would be they're not going to construct all three buildings at once they're going to wait to see how things progress maybe they only build one and find you know find it built out I just I'm find it interesting yeah it's an interesting thing to observe happening right now it is I mean it's one of the most popular projects the types that we're working on you know yeah question based on that has the has changed um because I know like Wayne had mentioned uh plumbers snow removal um where Property Owners can only have one commercial truck was that always in place is that is that possibly why some of these might go there because now people who have are plumbers and have commercial vehicles in their house we the ordinance changed to actually allow two truck two trucks it used to be one it changed to allow two okay all right and higher Tage as well used to be five now I believe it's seven okay 14,000 all right thank you the questions are there any questions from the public and the professionals have no questions okay are there any comments from the public the applicant has nothing further okay I think we're probably set for deliberation would someone like to start I'll start I'll start first of all you guys have done a wonderful job into that mic yeah you have done a wonderful job considering where you were a month ago or two months ago so thank you for for that I just second what chairman said uh looking at everything to me there are more positives about this uh I really being a small business owner I understand where you're going with this thing and quite frankly the municipality needs that so very good idea and you have balanced everything as far as reducing traffic uh Environmental Mally it's more sound than what it would be if there were three different tenants so very nicely done nice plan so I would totally support it yeah I'll go um I'm also in favor the application and do want to say I appreciate the effort you gentlemen have put in with our Township Engineers um as I mentioned before as volunteers is greatly appreciated when we can get through something like this we want to we want to support business um I think this is a good location I think this is a good use I agree with what Wayne said that one building versus three uh limited one driveway versus three driveways is very um positive um John because you mentioned a previous um application I feel I have to mention this here go ahead um yes this is multiple uses primary uses but the previous application was not flexible um their business model tried to fit something in a piece of property that I didn't feel comfortable with you mean such as a 10 pound project and a five pound site yes so I do want to I do want to distinguish this to me is a good plan this to me is they worked with our our our professionals were flexible and the other application because it was mentioned I feel I have to state that they were not flexible they had a business model and they wanted to put something on a piece of property that I thought would not fit so I would be in favor of this and again I do appreciate the effort Roger I'll go else Steve um I just wanna I want to Echo what uh Cynthia just said because it's I'm glad she brought that up uh I and I understand why John brought it up too but this is clearly a way better project that fits perfectly into uh where this is supposed to be um and you guys did do a good job in this application I know there were a lot of issues and I know you got through them and I know our professionals appreciated that um I do agree with Jim that I think it's a little optimistic but at the same time you have to be optimistic at some point to try to try to get this uh economy moving and I do think it will at some point and I think that uh Flemington or ran Township has been pretty good so um for all those reasons and for the reasons that have been stated um I am for the project I'll go next uh when I came here in 1988 um Craig Proctor had the vision of building an industrial Zone in the township uh and tried to develop that uh I remember when those lots had vacant for years and nothing happened there um uh based on what I've seen over the last uh few appearances by this group I think they've designed things well um I think this is a good plan um I think their point about the fact that these are smaller units seven units one for themselves and six others is a good point some of the properties on minining that are currently vacant are very large um I think this is a very good use um I think somewhere Craig Proctor is probably saying this is exactly the kind of thing I had envisioned um I would be supportive of this and um I'm very pleased that the applicants work so well with um both of our planners and um I thank them for doing that I just have one more point I I agree with the other points that have been brought up but I think it's a very good um application use of a piece of property that has been vacant for quite a while in a good industrial area where there's a lot of similar industrial use that uh can definitely support the traffic and the township is uh looking for all these uh chances to uh expand economically within the countship which is all good good opportunities and I'd be in favor of it I uh I'll go next I I happen to think this is an excellent use of this property excellent development I'm very impressed with the engineering that it's showing and the planning that went into this only concern I have is if there was any great amount of traffic that gets it's going to be like in a congested area trying to get out of Royal Road onto Church Street to go to 202 or to 31 is either either one is quite a task at times but again I think that that will even itself out it's more in theow shower morning and afternoon and I assume also because they agreed to that condition with the no left turn during those hour hours that that partially satisfies that concern of yours yes yes uh but I I I think it's a great ISS of the prop and I think if I remember correctly we're combining some Lots at the same time three three three lots three lots that's why Wayne was harping on they could have three separate Lots beneficial from what what I can recall combining properties making one bigger property so I'm I'm in favor of the project I agree with my colleagues plus um another factor is I've been in business 47 years and I when I came in there was nothing what it is today um I saw Improvement that the town I'm in Flemington hasn't really done that well but the outside has done phenomenal especially on Royal Road I like everything that everybody has said and I've seen a vast Improvement of what's been done so I'm in favor of the application Brad I have nothing else to add to my colleagues I think it's all been said I am also in favor of this application than you I appreciate you guys made a reasonable project here you didn't try to like John says the 10 pounds and the 5 pound lot and I think it's going to work out well thank I think we can close ready for a vote and somebody like to make a motion I'll make the motion I second it to Grant all the relief subject to all the conditions we've discussed yes plus the usual conditions right in particular the one that says can put anything there that didn't qualify for the Zone correct to begin with I did hear a second who I second Randy block okay thank you Lisa chairman Mr Roger arens yes Vice chairman Mr Kevin Co yes chair protemp Miss Cynthia schaer yes Mr Steve fario yes Mr Randy block yes Mr James Ferrero yes Mr Bradford Perry yes okay thank you can we take a two minute break we're going to take a five minute break okay we're good I'm good so Mr chairman I guess we're back on the record in the um the rakan application boa3 5 -2021 and you started the liberations everyone um deliberated on the D3 and then the issue was the deck and I think that everyone's aware of what the facts are I think you guys just have to deliberate on the deck it's the C variance and you guys have to decide does it is a C1 warranted is C2 warranted or are no variant is warranted I got a qu wait wait okay so as we spoke yeah it's not okay yeah it's not just the deck the other okay why don't we get Tony could you put on the record since exactly what is that issue you had told me during the break that it wasn't just a deck it was a walkway to the deck and there's a connecting think from the small deck to the large deck so let's put out there what structures deviate and what structures need to see variance I'm I'm saying the following structures were installed without permits in the which setback is the 100 75 well in 75 foot and 100 foot setback what are the structures so there's the walk from the driveway to the deck walk from the driveway to the deck to the Lar deck the walk from what do you mean the larger deck okay the walk from the driveway to the larger deck how do we know that that walk from the driveway to the larger deck wasn't included in the uh zoning permit and the construction permits for the larger deck it was not okay but the walk from the driveway to the larger deck what next the walk from the larger deck to the smaller deck lar deck the smaller deck now on that one are they on the same level are they steps as they're a r it looks like Steps there's a couple steps okay next next is from the side deck itself the side deck itself yeah the side deck itself and from the side deck to the existing steps what is it is a walk yes it is a walk walk from side deck to what to the existing ww to the existing W yeah are there any other structures that issue no okay now let me ask Mr rad again what path do your stepfather take from the driveway to get into his apartment get a microphone stepfather takes to get from the driveway into to the apartment that would be in the front of the house then he goes down the steps he goes to the front of the house yep and he walks along an existing concrete walk yes yes and then does he then go from the existing concrete walk to the walk that Tony described that goes from the existing walk to the side deck yes there there okay and then does he go and then what does he do then he gets to the side deck and does what he gets on the deck and then he goes directly into his apartment okay so what is the purpose of the Walk that goes from the smaller deck to the larger deck to give him a second access should he need that second access for instance every Sunday we have family dinner and we have it on the back deck in the summer so he will go from the um the deck to the um those squares you get from Home Depot they the walkway and then he'll go to the steps on the bigger deck so that's once a week he does that and we have Sunday dinner for him okay and what's the purpose of the walkway from the larger deck to the driveway that's this for you guys oh yes right that um that's that was I don't that was all there I guess I guess to go around the gar it actually goes around the garage um right next to the garage that's what that is does your but your stepfather doesn't use that one you guys we use it I I have a related question Mr rigan that was already there well that was there when you when did you buy the house with the house I I think we're uh Jesus you know what um I think we're eight years eight nine years Jeff do we have any record of any permits for the walkway for the walkway from the driveway to the large deck okay so it doesn't it may have been there when you got it but this is the the one that goes around the garage is an expensive little pieces of stone that they put in and it helps because if you don't use the garage to go into the back it my property goes downhill and and you need you need it flattens then it goes down and it flattens and it go it's needed for walking I have a related question for yes yes sir okay um since your father-in-law uses a walker is it possible for him to go down the internal staircase from your first floor down into the basement for him is he able to do that I'm sorry I didn't understand he wants to know can your father-in-law go from the basement to the main level of your of your house without going outside without going outside the interior stair yes he can he there's um um there's steps like regular basement and he can walk up those steps steps to come into our family room upstairs is that what you mean yeah I thought you said he was on a walker he is on a walker what he does then is he uses a cane and he comes up and he's getting to the point now where we're a little bit worried about him goinging up the steps that way so so he does it with difficulty he does it with difficulty we discussed it actually last Sunday and we decided that if he comes up to the during the winter we don't eat outside we eat in the kitchen and instead of coming up those stairs he's just going to go right up the front and and come uh come in the garage because we're getting worried about him going up those steps I actually have to go in front of them when he goes down the steps to the in the interior of the House John John is this a C2 possibly um I mean we're talking about a disabled individual here so put it this way I don't think this is a hardship case if it's anything it's a C2 it's the to the for because for a C2 you need public benefit this can't be individual but let's hypothetically say if the board were inclined to Grant the application and again I am not taking a position whether you should Grant it or deny it that's up to you but if someone wanted to try to find some reason to Grant it I guess you could say in general that if you're granting a variance to help a handicapped person um be taken care of in their home so they don't have to go into you know an institution or be otherwise homeless or something I guess there's a general public benefit if structures were allowed and a variance was granted to allow the to be installed to enable that person to be in home with his with family and not in an institution or not to be homeless that's a general theory that if you were inclined to Grant you could say now if you don't buy that and you say that that's a a personal benefit then you'd say no there's no C2 but if you are of that mindset then you would say yeah at the public benefit to me that the C too are there any further questions for Mr rigan regarding this subject um I have question for Tony and Jeff if I may why is this illegal beside day are you guys men mentioned that earlier right this is illegal and it's the distance from the because in the ordinance you're allow to you have to be greater than 100 ft to put structure next to the top of the bank stream and you cannot disturb within 75 ft of the top of the bank okay so they appear to be you know in violation of that section of the ordinance it doesn't appear they're in violation that section of the ordinance that's the C variance to request it MH okay there's no one here one more oh I'm sorry for the attorney Mr rigan attorney so given that right yes again I just wanted in know because there have been a lot of discussion in like two sentences why should we Grant yeah I didn't say it as eloquently as your council did but he he's right this is about a handicapp person and about making it more livable and workable to accommodate a handicapp person and as such that benefits the public uh benefits everyone in terms of uh having you know the homeowner uh fun accessibility the homeowner have his own handicap stepdad live with him as opposed to being in a public facility and so on so it benefits the public in that respect he said a lot better than I did but for that reason I feel that I'm asking you to please Grant the C2 variance if the board grants C2 variance you agree to a condition that no no further structure will be constructed on site yes you sure about that because of all these illegal things you guys have done yes what he's saying is he learned his lesson the hard way absolutely I I got bruises all over my body now look I have a question um just Clarity on the drawing that you submitted which one the larger the one with the 11 by 17 existing condition septic tank replacement y okay I'm just curious I assume that the little circles all over your property are rocks what is that I don't know I don't either you see the see oh I see I see hold on hold on hold on several areas where you seem to have circles that right and there's this and there's that up there what are what is it that one there CES I put one I put those little outside the large deck what are those um what do you call those little Stones the little blue stones you put one down you put another and then you put the one on top of it the stones yeah little Stones okay what about that outlines the the landscape and if you saw in my house it's Stone yes what about it's this High what about the little circles that go fromr to dve yeah I uh yes yes that's of the kitchen that's Andes same Decorative Stone that a fire no that's that's Decorative Stone and then there's three big trees in there okay thank you I just want to make sure thank you you're welcome okay other questions Brad or Steve no question for me on the deck uh Lisa we have no one else do we from the public no no one is on no is all right and I see no one in the public out there so there's no one in the public out there there was people in the public the neighbor on it the neighbor's no longer all right uh like to close for deliberation you already deliberated on the D3 this is the deliberation on the C variants for those four2 C2 on the four structures that Tony mentioned that need relief from 75 and 100 foot set back from top of the bank of the stream yeah I I'll I'll go first on that I you know um I see this as um a general public goods not not benefiting just one individual but benefiting um uh a handicapped person in general um who probably would wind up in an assisted living facility if it were not for uh the fact that this couple is willing to take in a father-in-law having three relatives who lived with me I can certainly sympathize um so uh I would uh be inclined to Grant the C2 um for this um I don't think I would do it in a lot of other es but in this case I might see that as a possibility and I assume that that's subject to that condition that Tony absolutely no further structure shall be installed absolutely I agree with what Roger said and exactly what you just said that as long as there's no other structures on the property and everything we else talked about with the cing county department of health and so on so forth so I would be in agreement I just have one more point I agree with what's been said it's a it's a it's a a little bit of a rough road that we came down to get here but the care for an elderly parent for relative Mike Hatch off to you guys congratulations and thank you just one point that I guess everything that exists on this site plan is going to be memorialized as not to be changed or is that the funny thing is I took Tony's and he said is that yours he said no I'm stealing yours because this is going to be an exhibit right this will resolution as exist yeah I mean it it provides some good access in case of emergency access to the bottom of the house so there's some there's some good public benefit here point I'm in favor of this relief as well and I'd like to add that it was important for me that there was already a stone patio there um so I think that was important you know we're not we're not talking about impervious coverage issues we're talking about usability of space that was already intended to be used for for walking and sitting and so I I'm in favor of the the C2 any else with what you okay at least I think we can go go ahead Jim sorry I think the mediterian aspect of the situation is overriding a lot of our concern still concerned personally complying with existing state laws that we have no control we can't rewrite the laws to sit fit a specific situation you have that condition making go that condition is in there I think the applic has understand if if he doesn't meet the condition not see that's how zip sometimes people walk out here knowing about conditions and don't know what the consequences are I I have that expence so I'll make a motion uh John could you summarize for us just so we don't have to repeat all of the conditions that we've talked about I want to make sure that we understand everything we've agreed to yes so this will be a motion to Grant both the D3 requires least five affirmative votes and the C2 which is just a majority so that only requires four votes subject to restrictions to a single person living in the apartment John can you change that to one person because when you say single it's you we're saying one person restriction to one person living in the apartment good point restriction to that person being a family member restricted cannot collect rent or inine Services another condition is that they shall clean the septic system at least once per year those were the conditions offered up by the applicant board's regular conditions but the condition that the board's going to impose and the applicant agreed to it the suggestion of Tony is no further structure shall be installed on site and there's going to be an exhibit attached which reflects the permitted structures on the property those are the conditions okay and the that's that's in the relief the right the relief is Department of Health did you mention that no I didn't y hold on let me why didn't I mention that I didn't put an arrow by it now I did okay they have to apply and obtain Department of Health approval for three apart three bedrooms plus one apartment correct now they so the motion Tony is correct the motion is for a D3 variance conditional use approval which is majority vote and the C2 variant majority vote okay now I'll entertain a motion I'll make a motion to approve this applicant application with the resolutions as John has reviewed I second that motion Randy block Lisa chairman Mr Roger arons yes Vice chairman Mr Kevin Cole yes chair protm Miss Cynthia schaer yes Mr Steve fario yes Mr Randy block yes Mr James Ferrero Mr Brad Perry yes okay thank you guys it's been a long road sorry if I uh spoke up a little bit too much my attorney says and I did learn my licon thank you very much welcome thank you motion to adjourn moved second yeah second all in favor I bill good luck sounds like that break weather