[I. OPENING STATEMENT]
[00:00:03]
OKAY. IT IS. THE ZONING BOARD IS INTENTION O MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD. MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP, SOMERSET COUNTY, NEW JERSEY. IT'S A REGULAR MEETING JULY 22ND, 2025. IT IS 705 7:04 P.M. IT IS THE ZONING BOARD'S INTENTION TO CONCLUDE THIS MEETING NO LATER THAN 10 P.M.
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT. NOTICE OF THE TIME AND PLACE OF THIS MEETING HAS BEEN POSTED AND SENT TO THE OFFICIALLY DESIGNATED NEWSPAPERS. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL LOGIT ROSENTHAL HERE ABU SAVI BRZOZOWSKI HERE. BRONZE WALLMARK WOOD HERE. URBANSKI HERE. SHAW.
META. DELANTY HERE. DURRELL HERE. RODRIGUEZ HERE. BARTOLONE HERE. AND DARGIE. PRESENT. THANK YOU. PLEASE STAND FOR THE SALUTE. MY. PLEDGE. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. NOW WE'RE GOING TO OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA, SUBJECT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO LIMIT COMMENTS AND OR Q&A TO THREE MINUTES WHEN PROVIDING COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA OR FOR AN APPLICATION, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL THE LAST NAME FOR THE RECORD. IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE ROOM THAT'S HERE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? NOT ON THE RECORD, NOT
[V. APPLICATIONS ]
ON THE AGENDA. SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE APPLICATIONS. WE HAVE ONE APPLICATION TODAY. IT IS CASE BA DASH ZERO THREE, DASH 24. THE APPLICANT IS A G HOME BUILDERS LLC BLOCKED FOR 009 LOT ONE. IT IS AT 323 BELLEMEADE ROAD IN BELLEMEADE. IT IS A BULK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON AN UNDERSIZED LOT. THE EXPIRATION DATE IS 924 2025. THE AFFIDAVIT OF NOTIFICATION AND PUBLICATION IS REQUIRED AND WE'LL HEAR THE PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. DUNN. YES, IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. IT'S AN APPLICATION FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A 1.5 ACRE PARCEL. THERE'S FOUR VARIANCES THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR REGARDING LOT AREAS, LOT FRONTAGE, LOT WIDTH AND LOT DEPTH. I HAVE TWO ACTUALLY TWO PEOPLE HERE. I HAVE THE APPLICANT'S PRINCIPAL HERE. WHO I DON'T INTEND ON CALLING HIM AS A WITNESS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OR SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED, HE IS HERE. I ALSO HAVE MR. FORD, WHO YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH FROM VAN CLEEF ENGINEERING, WHO WILL PROVIDE A TESTIMONY, ENGINEERING TESTIMONY REGARDING THE SITE PLAN AND THE PROOFS. AS FAR AS THE BULK VARIANCES THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, JUST AS A PRELIMINARY NOTE, THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR WITH THE FOR A DEVELOPMENT ON UNDERSIZED LOT. AS THIS BOARD IS VERY FAMILIAR, THERE ARE CERTAIN TIMES REQUIREMENTS OF APPLICANTS WHEN THEY'RE WHEN THEY'RE COMING IN FOR AN APPLICATION ON UNDERSIZED LOT. THE LEGAL WORLD OF THAT IS A CASE CALLED DALLMEYER VERSUS LACEY TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. IT SAYS ESSENTIALLY THAT IF YOU HAVE AN UNDERSIZED LOT, YOU'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE BOARD THAT YOU MAKE CONTACT WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO SEE IF YOU COULD BUY SOME OF THEIR LAND. AS WITH APPLICANTS, I THINK I WAS BEFORE YOU GUYS LAST MONTH ON A SIMILAR KIND OF APPLICATION. YOU HAVE TO JUST SORT OF SHOW THAT YOU DID WHAT YOU COULD TO TRY TO MAKE A SIZE, A CONFORMING SIZE. THIS CASE, WE DON'T HAVE THAT POSSIBILITY BECAUSE THE LAND SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE TOWNSHIP. THERE ARE SOME PAPER STREETS OUT THERE AS A RESULT OF A DEVELOPMENT PROSPECT MANY, MANY YEARS AGO. BUT THE LAND IS OWNED BY THE TOWNSHIP. AND SO THOSE THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT REALLY THEY'RE NOT NECESSARY FOR US TO MEET. MY LEGAL OPINION IS THAT I AGREE WITH THAT, THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR AN OFFER TO PURCHASE OR AN OFFER TO SELL BECAUSE IT'S NOT PRIVATE LAND ABUTTING IT. IT'S MUNICIPAL LAND ABUTTING IT. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. THIS LOT WAS SUBJECT OF A NEARLY IDENTICAL APPLICATION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS BOARD IN 2019. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I BROUGHT THAT APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF A PRIOR OWNER OF THIS LOT, AND MR. FORD WAS THE ONE WHO PREPARED AND TESTIFIED ON BEHALF OF THE SITE PLAN THAT AT THAT TIME, THIS BOARD DID GRANT THE APPLICATION FOR ALMOST ESSENTIALLY THE SAME VARIANCES UNTIL TONIGHT. AGAIN, THERE IS NO REAL PRECEDENTIAL VALUE, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT I DID WANT[00:05:04]
TO MENTION. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VENTRESCA. THAT'S RESOLUTION NUMBER OH SIX 2019. THAT'S CORRECT. AND THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT DURING THAT APPLICATION THAT THE LOT BECAUSE IT'S THERE ARE A BUNCH OF TINY LITTLE LOTS THAT ARE ON THIS THAT WERE PART OF THIS PARCEL, WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED IN MONTGOMERY IN THAT CORNER OF MONTGOMERY SINCE THE EARLY 1900S. THAT CONSOLIDATION DID TAKE PLACE BY A SUBSEQUENT OWNER. AND I HAD I DID OBTAIN A COPY OF THAT DEED JUST TO CONFIRM THAT, IN FACT, THAT IT HAD HAPPENED. BUT THEN THAT OWNER DID SELL THE PROPERTY. SO THE LOTS WERE CONSOLIDATED, BUT THEY DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR APPLICATION. SO WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ADO, WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS CALL MR. FORD AND LET HIM DESCRIBE FOR YOU WHAT I HAD SAID. YEAH. CAN I JUST GET MR. FORD AND ALL THE BOARD EXPERTS SWORN? SO CAN ALL FOUR OF YOU STAND UP, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, AND DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE IN THIS MATTER IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH? NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. YES, YES YES YES. OKAY. IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. YES. MICHAEL FORD F O R D LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND PLANNER IN THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY WITH VAN CLEEF ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LLC, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. MR. FORD, YOU'VE TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD MANY TIMES, AND I WOULD. IT'S UP TO YOU. ADD TWO MINUTES TO QUALIFY THEM AND THEN MAKE IF THERE'S AN APPROVAL, IT WILL HELP MAKE A BULLETPROOF.OKAY. THANK YOU. SO, MR. FORD, WOULD YOU JUST VERY QUICKLY RUN THROUGH YOUR QUALIFICATIONS AS A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER? YES. A GRADUATE OF RUTGERS UNIVERSITY IN 1985. BEEN A LICENSED ENGINEER FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS, AS WELL AS A PLANNER. I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN WITH VAN CLEEF ENGINEERING SINCE 1991, APPEARED BEFORE THIS BOARD, THE PLANNING BOARD AND SEVERAL OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU THINK, OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS YOU'VE APPEARED BEFORE THIS BOARD OR THE PLANNING BOARD? I HUNDREDS, PROBABLY. YEAH. AND MY I'M GETTING MY NEWEST QUALIFICATION IS I BECAME A GRANDFATHER FOR THE THIRD TIME AT 430 THIS AFTERNOON. CONGRATULATION. CONGRATULATIONS. SO I'M A LITTLE DISTRACTED. MY DAUGHTER HAD A BABY IN DOYLESTOWN AT 430 THIS AFTERNOON. HER FIRST. VERY NICE.
YOU ACCEPT HIM? I DO OUR LABOR. WHAT? I DO ACCEPT YOU AS AN EXPERT WITNESS. OH, YOU ALSO ACCEPT YOU AS AN EXPERT, GRANDFATHER? OH. THANK YOU. YES, THAT'S THE BEST EXCEPTION. OKAY, MAKE SURE THAT MAKES THE MEETING MINUTES VERY. RIGHT. SO THE RECORD DOES INDICATE THAT THE BOARD ACCEPTED. MR. FOR MR. FORD'S CREDENTIALS AS AN EXPERT, HE DID, I JUST DID I WOULD. ALL RIGHT. YOU WERE STILL FOCUSING ON THE GRANDFATHER THING. I'M GOING TO HAVE TROUBLE WITH THAT TOO. YEAH. RIGHT. SO MR. FORD, YOU ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, YOU PREPARED A SITE PLAN FOR THIS APPLICATION, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. WOULD YOU PLEASE PRESENT THE DETAILS OF THAT APPLICATION TO THE BOARD? I SEE THAT IT'S ON YOUR COMPUTER BEFORE YOU OR ON THE SCREEN UP ABOVE. YES. THE PLAN, ENTITLED VARIANCE PLAN, WAS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION. THAT'S WHAT'S ON YOUR SCREEN PLAN. IT ILLUSTRATES THE PROPOSED DWELLING, THE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, THE PROPERTY, AS MR. FIDONE INDICATED, WAS FORMERLY 13 INDIVIDUAL LOTS, WHICH ARE ALL CONSOLIDATED INTO ONE ESSENTIALLY 1.6 ACRE LOT. IT FRONTS ON ROUTE 601, BELLEMEADE ROAD. IT'S JUST SOUTH OF THE SHARP TURN IN 601, WHERE CARRIER CLINIC IS LOCATED. SO WE APPEARED BEFORE THE BOARD A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO SEEKING RELIEF FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS WHICH ARE NOT BEING EXACERBATED OR CHANGED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION. THAT IS RELIEF FOR LOT AREA, LOT FRONTAGE, LOT WIDTH AND LOT DEPTH. I'LL ALSO STATE FOR THE RECORD, WHEN WE APPEARED BEFORE THE BOARD WITH THE LAST APPLICATION, THERE WAS ONE ADDITIONAL RELIEF AND THAT WAS FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK TO A PAPER STREET, NOT ROUTE 601, BUT JUST SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY YOU'LL SEE ON THE EXHIBIT IS A PAPER STREET IN IDENTIFIED AS ROOSEVELT AVENUE. AND IT
[00:10:01]
ESSENTIALLY IS LIKE A SIDE PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE THE FRONTAGE OF THE SITE, IT FACES ROUTE 601 AND BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH OR TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, IF YOU WILL, ARE SIDES OF THE PROPERTY. AND THAT'S LANDS THAT ARE OWNED BY MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP. BUT AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION, WE LOCATED THE PROPOSED DWELLING SUCH THAT IT MEETS THAT OFFICIAL FORMAL FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM ROOSEVELT AVENUE. SO IT'S JUST THE EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES THAT WE'RE SEEKING RELIEF FOR. AND IT'S IN REGARDS TO VARIANCES AND IT'S ALL REGARDING THE LOT.THERE'S NO VARIANCES REGARDING THE SETBACK OR THE HEIGHT OF THE DWELLING. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND WE COMPLY WITH IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE AND SO ON. THE PROPERTY WILL BE SERVICED BY PUBLIC WATER. THERE'S PUBLIC WATER ON ROUTE 601 AND AN ON SITE SEPTIC SYSTEM. WE HAVE GAINED, I'LL SAY, CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SEPTIC SYSTEM, WHICH I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT ONE OTHER CHANGE THAT'S HAPPENED OVER THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS WITH THIS APPLICATION IS WE'VE IMPLEMENTED THE USE OF AN ADVANCED TREATMENT SYSTEM, WHICH ARE BECOMING MORE AND MORE POPULAR TO PROVIDE MORE EFFICIENT, HIGHER LEVEL TREATMENT OF WASTEWATER. IT ALSO, IF ANY OF YOU HAVE SEPTIC SYSTEMS IN TOWN AND SEE THE A LOT OF TIMES WITH THE DESIGN IN ORDER TO ADDRESS GROUNDWATER TABLES OR SHALLOW DEPTH TO MASSIVE ROCK, IT'S A MOUNDED SEPTIC SYSTEM. FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT THAT THAT ADDRESSES THAT'S ONE OF THE TOOLS TO ADDRESS THOSE CONDITIONS. AND WITH THE ADVANCED TREATMENT SYSTEMS, BECAUSE OF THE ADVANCED TREATMENT OF THE EFFLUENT, THE MOUND DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AS HIGH. SO THAT'S ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE APPLICATION THAT'S BEEN IMPLEMENTED. YOU ALSO SEE ON THE EXISTING ON THE PLAN, THAT'S YOUR YOU KNOW, ON THE SCREEN THERE IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, WE BELIEVE AN OLD SHACK OR MAYBE SUMMER COTTAGE THAT WILL BE REMOVED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION, AS WELL AS ANY REMNANTS OF AN OLD, I'LL SAY CESSPOOL OR SEPTIC. THAT'S PART OF THAT. CAN YOU POINT THAT OUT? CAN YOU POINT IT OUT? ARE THOSE MARKED TO BE REMOVED ON THIS PLAN RIGHT HERE? FRAME STRUCTURE RUINS. IT'S IN THE REAR RIGHT HAND CORNER OR THE SOUTHEAST. IS THERE A NOTE THAT SAYS TO BE REMOVED? I'M LOOKING FOR IT ON THIS. OR SHOULD THE BOARD IMPOSE A CONDITION IF IT APPROVES THIS TO ADD A NOTE TO BE REMOVED? OH YEAH. YEAH. ABSOLUTELY. YES. THAT WAS PART OF OUR CONDITION OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPROVAL TO FOR THE SEPTIC. YEAH. AND ON THAT THERE'S A MEMO TO THE BOARD DATED JULY 3RD FROM KRISTEN SERGEANT, THE MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP HEALTH DEPARTMENT. HAVE YOU SEEN THAT? YES. CAN YOU IT SAYS THE PROPERTY HAS AN ACTIVE SEPTIC SYSTEM. APPROVAL VALID THROUGH SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2027. IS THAT THE SEPTIC APPROVAL THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? YES. AND THEN IT SAYS, HOWEVER, THE VARIANCE PLAN DOES NOT INCLUDE A NOTATION OF THE REQUIRED ABANDONMENT OF THE EXISTING WELL AND SEPTIC SYSTEM SERVING THE FRAME STRUCTURE. SO THAT'S THIS IS THE FRAME STRUCTURE THAT THAT'S REFERRING TO. THAT'S CORRECT OKAY. SO THE CONDITION IS GOING TO BE ADD NOTE TO REMOVE THE FRAME STRUCTURE AND ABANDON THE EXISTING. WELL YES.
AND WHERE IS THAT EXISTING. WELL SHOWN. WE BELIEVE IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE WITHIN THE STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT. OKAY. NOW ARE YOU PUTTING IN A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. YES. THAT'S WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED WITH THE ADVANCE. SHOULD ALSO BE A CONDITION. REMOVE THE OLD SEPTIC SYSTEM.
CORRECT. RIGHT. IN THIS CASE, WE BELIEVE IT MIGHT JUST BE AN OLD CESSPOOL LIKE A PIT. BUT YES.
RIGHT. BUT IF WE SAY REMOVE EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM, WHATEVER IT IS, THAT WOULD COVER IT.
YEAH. IT WOULD BE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF YOUR HEALTH DEPARTMENT. AND WE WOULD COMPLY WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT'S GUIDANCE AND REQUIREMENTS WITH REGARDS TO THOSE ITEMS. SO WE CAN SAY ALL THAT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. CORRECT. GOT IT. SO THE PERHAPS MOVE AHEAD WITH REGARDS TO WAIVERS. THERE ARE AND THESE ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE BOARD'S PROFESSIONALS REVIEWS. THERE ARE A FEW WAIVERS THAT WILL BE SEEKING. THAT IS THE
[00:15:06]
REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE SIDEWALK ALONG THE FRONTAGE. YOU'RE TALKING I KNOW YOU CALL IT A WAIVER BUT THOSE ARE EXCEPTIONS CORRECT. SO FOR EACH EXCEPTION THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DISCUSS, CAN YOU GIVE THE REASONS THAT THOSE ORDINANCE PROVISIONS SHOULD NOT BE ENFORCED? CERTAINLY. OKAY. THE FIRST EXCEPTION IS FOR THE SIDEWALK, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDINANCE. RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. IN THIS CASE IT'S A IT'S A RURAL AREA. IT'S ON A COUNTY ROAD.THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS NORTH AND SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY. AND TO INSTALL SIDEWALKS ALONG THE FRONTAGE WOULD REQUIRE DISTURBANCE OF NATURAL FEATURES THAT WE'D RATHER MAINTAIN. THAT IS, THE EXISTING VEGETATION AND NATURAL FEATURES ALONG THE FRONTAGE. OTHER THAN WHERE WE'RE COMING OUT WITH THE DRIVEWAY. AND IN THAT SAME VEIN, NEXT WAIVER IS WITH WITH WITH REGARDS TO STREET TREES, THE TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE REQUIRES THE PLANTING OF STREET TREES ALONG THE FRONTAGE. THERE'S EXISTING TREES OUT THERE NOW. WE'RE MAINTAINING THEM TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE, OTHER THAN WHERE WE HAVE TO CONNECT TO THE COUNTY ROAD WITH OUR DRIVEWAY. AND IN THIS SITUATION, IT'S NOT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD. SO IT DOESN'T REALLY LEND ITSELF EITHER TO THAT SOLDIER, IF YOU WILL, ENGINEERED 40 FOOT ON CENTER TREE PLACEMENT AND THERE'S EXISTING TREES THERE. NOW THAT REALLY SUIT THE NEEDS OF VEGETATION ALONG THE ROAD. SO WE'RE SEEKING THAT RELIEF WITH REGARDS TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, THE NEW ORDINANCE THAT THE TOWN HAS ADOPTED, THIS IS A MINOR PROJECT, NOT A MAJOR PROJECT. SO IT DOESN'T ELEVATE TO THE LEVEL WHERE IT REQUIRES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEP STANDARDS, OR IN THIS CASE, ONE OF OUR OUTSIDE AGENCIES IS THE DELAWARE RARITAN CANAL COMMISSION. AND WE RECEIVED AN EXEMPTION LETTER FROM THEM DATED DECEMBER 12TH, 2024. SO WE'RE SUCH A SMALL PROJECT, IF YOU WILL. IT DOESN'T WARRANT OR ELEVATE TO THE POINT WHERE THE DELAWARE AND RARITAN CANAL COMMISSION TAKES JURISDICTION AND REVIEWS IT. BUT WE DO HAVE STORMWATER MITIGATION IMPLEMENTED AS PART OF THE PROJECT, WHICH AGAIN, I'LL SAY WASN'T PART OF THE 19. BUT DOES DO YOUR STORMWATER 19, 2019. BUT WE ARE PROVIDING STORMWATER. DOES IT COMPLY WITH THE LOCAL ORDINANCE OR DO YOU NEED EXCEPTIONS TO EXCEPTIONS WITH REGARDS TO THE LOCATION OF THE STORMWATER? WE'VE PLACED IT UNDER THE DRIVEWAY, AND IT'S INCLUDES POROUS PAVEMENT AS PART OF THE DRIVEWAY. THE TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE. ONCE POROUS PAVEMENT OR UNDERGROUND STONE OR RECHARGE BEDS UNDER POROUS PAVEMENT TO BE A MINIMUM OF TEN FEET FROM THE GARAGE. AND WE'RE CARRYING THE POROUS PAVEMENT RIGHT UP TO THE EDGE OF THE GARAGE. AND THEN WITH THAT SAME ASPECT OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, THERE'S A 25 FOOT REQUIRED SETBACK FROM THE DWELLING. WE'RE PROPOSING TEN FEET, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY OBJECTION. WE'LL, YOU KNOW, DEAL WITH ALL THE OTHER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT COMMENTS THAT ARE IN THE BOARD ENGINEER'S REVIEW MEMORANDUM TO THEIR SATISFACTION. AND TECHNICALLY, THESE TWO ASPECTS OF THE SETBACKS TO THE DWELLING ARE RELIEF THAT WE WOULD REQUIRE. OKAY, I TAKE IT THAT THESE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS WEREN'T EVEN IN EXISTENCE BACK IN 2019 WHEN YOU GOT THE OTHER APPROVAL, CORRECT.
AND WHY CAN'T THIS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OR WHATEVER STRUCTURE, WHATEVER IT IS, BE LOCATED 25FT? WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE LOCATED TEN FEET FROM THE DWELLING? WELL, THE. STRUCTURE ITSELF NEEDS TO BE ABOVE THE GROUNDWATER TABLE. IN ORDER TO BE ABOVE THE GROUNDWATER TABLE.
THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME FILLING OF THE SITE AND THE FIXED LOCATION OF WHERE WE'RE CONNECTING THE DRIVEWAY TO THE ROAD PREVENTS US FROM FILLING CLOSER TO THE ROAD OR FURTHER AWAY FROM THE DWELLING, AND THE FILL IS BEING PLACED ALL AROUND THE DWELLING. SO THIS IS. THE MOST SUITABLE SITE FOR THAT LOCATION, AND WE CAN PROVIDE FOR PROTECTION BETWEEN THE DWELLING
[00:20:02]
AND THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BY VIRTUE OF WE'VE OFTEN USED THE IMPERMEABLE LINER ON THAT ONE SIDE OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. AND THEN WITH REGARDS TO THE POROUS PAVEMENT, THE DRIVEWAY IS MADE OUT OF POROUS PAVEMENT. THE DRIVEWAY HAS TO GO UP TO THE GARAGE DOOR.AND WE'RE UTILIZING POROUS PAVEMENT TO PROVIDE FOR THAT WATER QUALITY ASPECT THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE NEW STORMWATER RULES. OKAY. DO THE PLANS SHOW THIS PROTECTION BETWEEN THE STORMWATER STRUCTURE AND THE DWELLING, OR YOU'RE SAYING THE BOARD CAN IMPOSE THAT AS A CONDITION? I BELIEVE IT DOES. BUT WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO MAKING A. YEAH. CAN YOU JUST CHECK BECAUSE YOU ALSO SUBMITTED BESIDES THE VARIANCE PLAN, YOU SUBMITTED A. EXISTING IT'S AN EXISTING DRAINAGE AREA MAP. I WAS I THOUGHT IT WOULD I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THE STRUCTURE ON THERE OR NOT. CAN YOU CHECK. YEAH THERE'S A THERE'S A CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEET THAT INCLUDES THE UNDERGROUND SYSTEM. THERE'S MANY NOTES ON IT. I, I DON'T SEE A NOTES POINTING TO THE SIDEWALL OF THE BASIN SAYING IMPERMEABLE MEMBRANE. AND WITHOUT READING EVERY NOTE, I'D SO BUT WE HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THAT. I CAN SAY, IF NOT ALREADY NOTED ON THE PLANS AND A NOTE THAT THEY HAVE TO INSTALL PROTECTION BETWEEN THE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE AND THE DWELLING. NO OBJECTION. WITH REGARDS I MENTIONED THE DELAWARE RIVER AND CANAL COMMISSION. WE HAVE AN APPLICATION PENDING WITH THE COUNTY. I HAVE HAD COMMUNICATION WITH THE COUNTY AND A DISCUSSION EARLIER TODAY WITH MR. BARTOLONE REGARDING THE LANDSCAPING. THE COUNTY WANTS US TO REMOVE ONE MORE TREE CLOSE TO THE DRIVEWAY TO PROVIDE FOR THAT LINE OF SIGHT. BUT WE FULLY EXPECT COUNTY APPROVAL JUST AS WE RECEIVED BACK IN 2019 FOR THIS APPLICATION. AND THEN WITH REGARDS TO OTHER OUTSIDE AGENCIES, WE DO HAVE THE SOMERSET UNION SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT APPROVAL, BOTH DATED DECEMBER 5TH, 2024, AND THEN A RECERTIFICATION OF THE MINOR CHANGES WE'VE MADE TO THE PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD FILE. I DON'T HAVE THEM. NO. SO CAN YOU IF THE BOARD WERE TO APPROVE THIS AND IF IT IMPOSES CONDITIONS THAT YOU HAVE TO GET THOSE APPROVALS EVEN THOUGH YOU ALREADY HAVE THEM, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE THEM, YOU COULD SUBMIT THEM THEN AND SATISFY THE CONDITIONS, CORRECT? YES, YES. OKAY. THAT'LL BE THE EASIEST WAY TO DO IT. YEAH. THE DECEMBER 5TH, 2024 SOMERSET UNION SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT APPROVAL DOES SAY THAT IT COPIED THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, THE MUNICIPAL PLANNING BOARD AND THE MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP CONSTRUCTION OFFICIAL RIGHT, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. BUT MAYBE THE PAPER DIDN'T MAKE IT TO THE RIGHT DESK. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT ADDRESSING. THAT'S ACTUALLY ONE OF THE COMMENTS IN THE BOARD ENGINEER'S REVIEW MEMORANDUM THAT WE WOULD AGREE TO ADDRESS TO THEIR SATISFACTION, INCLUDING ALL THE OTHER COMMENTS WITHIN THE BOARD ENGINEER'S REVIEW, AND THAT IS DATED. JULY 16TH, JULY 16TH, 2025. YEP. AND THE COUNTY ENGINEER APPROVAL IS THAT OF THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS OR WHAT IS WHAT COUNTY ENGINEERING APPROVAL IS REQUIRED. IT'S A COUNTY ROAD. SO THEY HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE ACCESS AN ACCESS PERMIT ON THE. YEAH OKAY. OR ROAD OPENING PERMIT EITHER WAY. SAME. AND PERHAPS WHY THAT REALLY SUMS THE PRESENTATION. AND IF PERHAPS WHY WE'RE SPEAKING TO THE BOARD ENGINEER'S REVIEW COMMENTS. I'VE ALREADY STATED ON THE RECORD THAT WE DID ADDRESS EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE COMMENTS IN THE JULY 16TH, 2025 MEMORANDUM TO THEIR SATISFACTION. IF THERE'S ANY ITEMS IN THAT REPORT THAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE ME TO ADDRESS SPECIFICALLY OR DISCUSS NOW, I CAN, BUT BUT THAT'S OUR I JUST HAVE ONE MORE CLARIFICATION QUESTION FOR MYSELF. SO I UNDERSTAND NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. SO WATER IS THROUGH A CONNECTION TO PUBLIC WATER CORRECT. WHAT YOU'RE ASKING A PROFESSIONAL OKAY. SO YEAH, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE PROFESSIONALS TO ASK ABOUT I'M GOING TO GO FIRST ON THE
[00:25:03]
SIDEWALKS. I DON'T THINK THAT WE BASICALLY SAID THAT THERE'S I DIDN'T WE HAVE A APPLICANT ON THE SAME ROAD A LITTLE BIT DOWN THE STREET. I CAN, CAN WE FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A SIDEWALK REQUIRED ON THAT ONE A FEW YEARS BACK? I KNOW THERE WAS ONE WHERE A SIDEWALK WAS REQUIRED BECAUSE THERE WAS ONE NEAR IT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS THE STREET. THERE WAS ONE WHERE THE BOARD GRANTED AN EXCEPTION BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A SIDEWALK TO NOWHERE, AND IT WOULD HAVE DISTURBED NATURAL AREAS. JUST LIKE HE SAID. I'M NOT TAKING THIS UP TO THE BOARD.I JUST WANT TO REMEMBER, BECAUSE I KNOW I THINK WE DID EXCEPTION. I JUST WANTED TO REMEMBER THAT IF THAT WAS, I RECALL BEING ON THIS ROAD, BUT BUT WE DID HAVE ONE ON THIS ROAD. I KNOW WE DID. THERE'S IF I COULD THERE'S AS YOU HEAD SOUTH FROM HERE, YOU GO UP OVER THE RAILROAD TRACKS. IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET, RIGHT. AND THERE'S A NEW HOUSE THAT WAS JUST BUILT THERE, AND THE SIDEWALK WAS WAIVED ON THAT PROJECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. IS THAT RIGHT, MR. GEORGE? YEAH. OKAY. SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE OTHER TIMES I WAS HERE. DOES ANYBODY. THANK YOU. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS? OKAY. SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE STREET. TREES. MR. I TAKE THAT MEANING SORRY. THE BOARD IS IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THE EXCEPTION SIDEWALK. DO YOU WANT TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THAT? OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. SO IS THE BOARD IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THE EXCEPTION FOR THE SOUTH? OKAY. SO WE WE'RE GOING TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE SIDEWALKS AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE STREET TREES. SO MR. BARTOLOME, DO YOU WANT TO CLARIFY WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT NOT HAVING STREET TREES IN THAT AREA FOR NOT REQUIRING THE TRADITIONAL STREET TREES? THE FIRST 100FT FROM THE SOUTH, HEADING NORTH IS A WETLAND BUFFER AREA, SO WE'RE NOT WANTING TO DISTURB THAT ANYWAY, CERTAINLY A NATURAL AREA. SO THERE IS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PLANTING BEING PROPOSED ALONG THE STREET. I BELIEVE IT'S ADEQUATE REPLACEMENT FOR STREET TREES.
THANK YOU. SO IN YOUR OPINION, THE EXISTING TREES THAT ARE THERE SERVE THE PURPOSE THAT PLANTING STREET TREES WOULD HAVE SERVED. YES. AND THEY ALSO ADDING ADDITIONAL TREES IN THE NONTRADITIONAL MANNER TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE LOT. OKAY. SO DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT STREET TREES AND WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT NOT HAVING THEM IN THERE? NO, NO. NOT TALKING ABOUT THE VEGETATION ON THE PROPERTY. NOT YET. NO. OKAY. OKAY. SO ARE WE OKAY WITH MOVING FORWARD ALLOWING THE EXCEPTION FOR THE STREET TREES? YES, YES. THANK YOU. THE NEXT ONE IS THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. SO, MR. DARGIS, YOUR TURN. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT ABOUT THE NEW PROPOSAL FOR HAVING TEN FEET INSTEAD OF 25FT? YEAH. I DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION. AND JUST TO ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON MR. FORD'S REASONING, IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO ATTEMPT TO COMPLY WITH THE WITH WITH THE ORDINANCE REQUIRED SEPARATION DISTANCES, IT WOULD ACTUALLY NECESSITATE MOVING THE DWELLING AND THE SUBSURFACE SYSTEM FURTHER OUT, WHICH WOULD ALSO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF CLEARING AND TREE REMOVAL THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY. SO I THINK THE IDEA OF PROVIDING SOME SORT OF ENHANCED WATERPROOFING, WHICH IS WHAT MR. MR. FORD HAD PROPOSED, IS A GOOD MITIGATION MEASURE TO, TO PERMIT THAT REDUCED DISTANCE. OKAY. SO DOES ANYONE ON THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ADDRESSING OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONCERNS IN THIS NEW PROPOSAL? IS THERE I THOUGHT THERE WERE TWO EXCEPTIONS. ONE IS THE TEN FEET RATHER THAN 25FT. WHAT'S THE OTHER ONE LOCATING UNDER A DRIVEWAY? IT'S REALLY IT'S SORT OF LIKE TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN. ONE IS THE TEN FOOT DISTANCE FROM A GARAGE, AND THE OTHER IS A 25 FOOT DISTANCE FROM A BASEMENT. SO IN THIS CASE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DRAWING ON YOUR SCREEN, THAT, THAT RECTANGLE, THAT'S, THAT'S SORT OF THAT'S THERE AND TUCKED INTO THAT L ELBOW OF THE HOUSE, IT'S, IT'S LESS THAN TEN FEET FROM THE GARAGE, WHICH IS THE PART OF THE HOUSE THAT STICKS OUT. AND IT'S ABOUT TEN FEET TO THE BASEMENT, WHICH IS WHERE THE, LET'S SAY THE FRONT WALL OF THE HOUSE IS. CAN SOMEONE JUST WHAT'S THE ORDINANCE SECTION THAT SAYS IT'S GOT TO BE 25FT FROM THE DWELLING? AND WHAT'S THE OTHER ORDINANCE SECTION THAT YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT? GIVE ME ONE SECOND. IT IS SAME. SECTION 16 DASH 55.2 I 15.16 16 DASH 5.2.2 I, I. AND THAT SECTION PROVIDES DATA TABLES FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TOWNSHIP. TABLE SEVEN REQUIRES A DISTANCE BETWEEN POROUS PAVEMENT SLASH UNDERGROUND BASIN AND THE GARAGE, OR A BUILDING WITH A SLAB OF TEN FEET AND SAME THING.
IT REQUIRES A DISTANCE BETWEEN A DRIVEWAY SLASH UNDERGROUND BASIN AND THE DWELLING OR BUILDING WITH A BASEMENT OF 25FT. SO IN THIS CASE, THE GARAGE IS THE PORTION OF THE HOUSE THAT HAS A SLAB. THAT REQUIREMENT WOULD BE TEN FEET, AND THE PORTION OF THE HOUSE THAT HAS A BASEMENT, THAT REQUIREMENT IS 25FT. THE APPLICANT MEETS NEITHER OF THOSE. GOT IT. SO IS EVERYONE
[00:30:04]
OKAY WITH THAT? ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO, NO OKAY. SO WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW FOR THE EXCEPTION OF HAVING BOTH OF THOSE SETBACKS FOR THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. SO SHOULD WE MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION ABOUT THE. VARIANCES. WELL DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER ANY OTHER ANY ISSUES ON THE ON THE PLAN. YEAH I GUESS WHAT MY CONCERN IS I'M TRYING TO THERE'S ONE DRAWING THAT SHOWS THE RED AREAS WHERE THE WET THE WETLANDS ARE AND HOW WHERE IS THE HOUSE POSITIONED VIS A VIS THAT. OR DOES THIS DRAWING THAT'S UP THERE? YEAH. CAN YOU TALK ME THROUGH THAT? THE TWO RED TRIANGLES. YEAH. THE I THINK THE TWO RED TRIANGLES YOU'RE REFERRING TO ARE IN EXHIBIT. CAN YOU PUT THE DRAWING UP THERE THAT HAS THE RED TRIANGLE. SO THAT WAS ACTUALLY A REVIEW REPORT FROM THE OPEN SPACE COORDINATOR. AND OKAY. LAND STEWART. OH YES YES, YES. SO WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS PAGE FIVE OF LAUREN VASILEVSKY'S JULY 9TH, 2020 2025 REPORT. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE. YES. REFERRING TO RIGHT. YES. THAT'S THE ONE. SO DOES THAT SHOW THE HOUSE? YES. YES. THERE'S THE HOUSE. OKAY. SO WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS THAT IT SEEMS THAT THE HOUSE IS VERY CLOSE TO THOSE WETLANDS AND IS, IS THAT I'M RAISING THE QUESTION WITH THE PLANNERS AND I REGARDING, YOU KNOW, IS THAT IS THAT LET ME ASK YOU THIS. DOES THE HOUSE ENCROACH INTO THE WETLANDS AREAS? NO. DOES THE HOUSE ENCROACH INTO ANY WETLAND BUFFER AREAS? NO. SO YOU'RE NOT YOU DON'T NEED TO SEEK ANY RELIEF FROM THE NJDEP TO ENCROACH INTO ANY WETLANDS OR ANY WETLAND BUFFERS. CORRECT. AND THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY SHRUBBERY OR ANY LANDSCAPING THAT COULD CAUSE ECOLOGICAL ISSUES THERE. NO, THE PLAN DOESN'T SHOW ANY ANY KIND OF DISTURBANCE WITHIN THE WETLAND OR WETLAND BUFFER AREAS. THE ONLY THING WE ASKED FOR TESTIMONY, MIKE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF MR. FORD COVERED THIS WAS ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO ANY ADVERSE IMPACT. OR DO YOU FORESEE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT FROM THE DISCHARGE OF THAT STORMWATER IN THAT GENERAL DIRECTION? NO. YEAH. AND I WOULD CONCUR WITH THAT. THE GENERAL DRAINAGE PATTERNS ON THE SITE ARE THAT THAT EVERYTHING SORT OF FLOWS TOWARDS THE WETLAND, THEN EVENTUALLY TO A OFFSITE ROADWAY CULVERT AND ACROSS. THE ROAD.AND IN GENERAL, THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING, AND IT'S AN OVERFLOW. SO I DON'T ANTICIPATE AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF RUNOFF FROM THAT PIPE. BUT THERE IS ACCORDING TO THIS, THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. ACCORDING ACCORDING TO LAUREN'S JULY 9TH, 2025 OPEN SPACE MEMO.
RIGHT. PAGE THREE, NUMBER E THREE A RECOMMENDATION FOR A CONSERVATION DEED RESTRICTION ON THE WETLAND AND BUFFER AREA. SO FIRST LET'S ASK MR. FORD, IS WHAT THE MEMO ASKED FOR IS A DEED RESTRICTION OVER THOSE RED TRIANGLES ON PAGE FIVE. IS THAT WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT? YES, I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO ASK THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY IF THERE'S AN OBJECTION. YEAH. IS THERE A REQUIRING OBJECTION? YES. IS THAT WE ABSOLUTELY WOULD OBJECT TO THE IMPOSITION OF A DEED RESTRICTION FOR A VERY LOGICAL REASON. FIRST OF ALL, LET ME BACK UP THE TOWNSHIP CODE 14 DASH 3.12 F DOES DISCUSS THIS, AND IT ALLOWS FOR DISCRETION ON THE BOARD'S PART AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO ASK US TO HAVE A CONSERVATION. WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, UNLIKE THE SIDEWALK, IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT. THIS AUTHORIZES THE BOARD. IF THEY WANT TO ASK FOR IT, THEY CAN ASK FOR IT. AND IF THEY WANTED TO IMPOSE IT, THEY COULD IMPOSE IT.
BUT IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT. SO YOU DON'T NEED AN EXCEPTION FROM IT. CORRECT. SO MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT FOR WHY THE BOARD SHOULDN'T IMPOSE IT IN ITS DISCRETION AS A, AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, OKAY. BECAUSE FROM A VERY PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE, IT BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE TO DEAL WITH IT MOVING INTO THE FUTURE. RIGHT NOW, WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU'VE GOT THIS WETLAND AREA THAT'S CONTROLLED AND REGULATED BY THE DEP, AND THAT WETLAND AREA CAN CHANGE, OR IT CAN BE RECONSIDERED BY THE DEP AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE. AND BUT IF YOU IMPOSE A DEED RESTRICTION, YOU'RE KIND OF LOCKED INTO THAT AREA AND YOU'VE RESTRICTED IT BY CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THAT AREA IN PERPETUITY. IF YOU DON'T IMPOSE THAT CONSERVATION EASEMENT HERE, THE APPLICANT AND
[00:35:09]
ANY ANY RESIDENT IN AT THE SITE STILL HAS TO COMPLY WITH ANYTHING THAT'S REQUIRED BY DEP.BUT THAT DEP IS THE ONE WHO'S CONTROLLING WHAT SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE DONE ON THAT, ON THAT PARTICULAR IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA, AS OPPOSED TO A CONSERVATION EASEMENT, YENOU KN, WRITTEN IN STONE AND FILED WITH THE COUNTY COURT? WELL, I'M SURE THAT IF THERE WAS SOME LEGITIMATE REASON THAT THINGS CHANGED, THAT THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE A CHANGE IN A DEED RESTRICTION. YOU CAN HAVE A PROVISION IN THERE SAYING THAT IF THEY CAME BACK TO THE BOARD, THE BOARD COULD GRANT RELIEF FROM IT. YOU COULD YOU YES, YOU COULD DO THAT. BUT I WILL TELL YOU MY EXPERIENCE WITH BOARDS IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE IS THAT THEY HOLD THESE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS TO BE SO SACROSANCT THAT THERE'S NEVER ANY GIVE AND TAKE AS FAR AS THAT'S CONCERNED.
THE GIVE AND TAKE THAT'S REALLY NECESSARY IS THE GIVE AND TAKE THAT'S ALREADY PROVIDED BY THE DEP IN THAT REGARD, SO THAT THERE IS SOME REASON TO IMPOSE UPON OR OR TO IMPOSE UPON THAT AREA. YOU GO TO THE DEP AND YOU SAY, THIS IS WHAT I NEED TO DO. THEY HAVE THE PEOPLE THEY HAVE WITH THE EXPERTISE AND THE KNOWLEDGE TO BE ABLE TO SAY, YES, THAT'S A GOOD IDEA OR NO, THAT'S A BAD IDEA. AS FAR AS ASKING FOR THAT EXCEPTION, IF YOU HAVE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT IN PLACE, YOU'VE GOT THIS MUCH HIGHER LEVEL TO DEAL WITH, AND IT'S OUT OF THE HANDS AND OUT OF THE CONTROL OF THE PEOPLE THAT REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING WHEN IT COMES TO REGULATING THAT AREA. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHY. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M MAKING AN ARGUMENT, BUT IT'S A VERY, VERY PRACTICAL AND TRUE ARGUMENT IN THAT REGARD. WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN CONTROL, WE'RE GOING TO PUT REGULATION OF THIS AREA IN CONTROL OF THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING. AS FAR AS THESE WETLANDS ARE CONCERNED, OR THESE WETLAND BUFFERS ARE CONCERNED AS AND THAT'S WHERE IT SHOULD BE. WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO OWNS A PARCEL OF LAND LIKE THIS THAT NEEDS TO MAKE SOME IMPOSITION INTO THIS, IT HAS TO GO NOT JUST THE DEP WHO KNOW TO TALK ABOUT THIS, BUT TO A BOARD. I MY EXPERIENCE WITH THESE BOARDS IN GENERAL IS, OH, IT'S CONSERVATION EASEMENT. WE DON'T DARE TOUCH THAT. AND SO THAT THAT LEAVES THE PERSON HAMSTRUNG WHEN THEY MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING THAT RECOGNIZED BY THE DEP TO BE A TERRIFIC IDEA OR A LEGITIMATE EXCEPTION. HOW CAN ANYONE COMMENT ON HOW MANY TIMES THE STATE WOULD CHANGE PARAMETERS OF WETLANDS? HOW FREQUENTLY DOES THAT HAPPEN? SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY HOW MANY TIMES THE STATE CHANGES THE PARAMETERS FOR WETLANDS. WHAT HAPPENS IS THE ACTUAL THERE MIGHT BE PHYSICAL CHANGES THAT HAPPEN IN THE AREA. LIKE THERE MAY BE CHANGES TO THE TO THE WATERSHED OR TO THE WHATEVER'S FEEDING THAT WETLAND. AND SOMETIMES WETLANDS CAN THE WETLANDS COULD EXPAND, WETLANDS COULD EXPAND, WETLANDS COULD COULD SHRINK IN SOME CASES AS WELL. BECAUSE IF, LET'S SAY, WHATEVER'S FEEDING THAT WETLAND DRIES UP, THAT'S THE REASON WHY WHEN WE DESIGN LARGER DEVELOPMENTS, NOT THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, WHEN WE DESIGN LARGER DEVELOPMENTS, WE TRY TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS SO THAT WE'RE NOT CUTTING OFF WATER THAT MAY BE FLOWING TO A WETLAND. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, THAT TOUCH ON HOW MUCH? I'M SORRY I MISSED WHAT YOU SAID, HOW MUCH AREA, HOW CLOSE? IT'S ABOUT 9000. IT'S HOW CLOSE IS THE HOUSE TO THE WETLANDS ON EACH SIDE? THE HOUSE ITSELF IS.
AND GIVE ME. GIVE ME TWO SECONDS WHILE I MEASURE THAT. MAYBE WE CAN ALSO ASK MR. FORD TO. GIVE A MEASUREMENT. I ASSUME ONE OF YOU TWO ENGINEERS HAS A SCALE. I HAVE A COMPUTER. BECAUSE I DIDN'T GRADUATE IN 1986. YEAH. 85. SORRY. THAT'S COOL. TEN YEARS LATER. I STILL USE THE SCALE. I CAN USE THE SCALE. DON'T GET ME WRONG. I WILL MEASURE THIS DISTANCE. ALL RIGHT. THE DISTANCE FROM THE ACTUAL HOUSE TO THE WETLAND BUFFER IS 100FT, WHICH MEANS IT'S ABOUT 150FT TO THE WETLAND. I AGREE. OKAY, SO HOW HOW MANY FEET? 100FT. AND THEN THE DISTANCE FROM THE DISTURBANCE, MAJORITY OF THE DISTURBANCE THERE'S A AND YOU'LL SEE ON THE PLAN YOU SEE WHERE WHERE THE GRADING IS. SHE DOESN'T SHE'S NOT ASKING ABOUT THE DISTURBANCE. SHE WANTS TO KNOW HOW MANY FEET ARE IS THE HOUSE AWAY FROM EACH OF THE TRIANGLES.
SO THE TRIANGLE IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER AND THE TRIANGLE IN THE LOWER LEFT HAND CORNER. SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO TRIANGLES BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE LAUREN'S LETTER IN FRONT OF ME.
I'M MEASURING TO THE WETLANDS AND WETLANDS BUFFER THAT ARE ON THE PLAN, WHICH I IMAGINE IS THE ACTUAL DELINEATED WETLAND. AND THOSE ARE 100FT TO THE BUFFER AND 150FT, 100FT TO WHICH BUFFER
[00:40:04]
TO THE WETLAND, BUFFER TO THE WETLANDS BUFFER. THE LAUREN HAS TWO WETLAND. CAN I ASK YOU LAUREN'S LETTER? YEAH, YEAH. THE LAUREN'S LETTER. THE FRONT RIGHT HAND CORNER OR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY IS WHERE THE WETLANDS ARE AT, SO I APOLOGIZE. I DIDN'T KNOW I MISS RODRIGUEZ IS SHOWING ME LAUREN'S LETTER. SO THE TRIANGLE THAT LAUREN HAS DRAWN ON THE LOWER LEFT IS APPROXIMATELY CONTAINING THE WETLAND BUFFER AND EVEN SOME UPLAND. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHY NOT? THAT DISTANCE IS ABOUT 100FT, 100FT FROM THE HOUSE. AND WHAT IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE HOUSE FROM THE RED TRIANGLE IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER, AND WHAT DISTANCE IS WITHIN THAT UPPER RIGHT HAND TRIANGLE? I'M NOT SURE WHY YOU WOULD HAVE THAT. THERE'S NO WETLAND UP THERE THAT THAT'S DELINEATED FOR. DO YOU KNOW WHY THAT THERE'S A TRIANGLE IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER? I BELIEVE SHE WHERE I'M NOT IDENTIFYING TO DISTURB IT AT ALL. I THINK THERE'S JUST AN EFFORT MAYBE TO PERMANENTLY PRESERVE IT, IF YOU WILL. SO, MR. DREW, I BELIEVE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE LOCATION OF THE LONG EARED BAT, THE BAT, THE BAT LOCATION, THE BAT. YES. THAT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IN OUR MEMO. OKAY. YEAH. THERE'S BEEN A SUGGESTION THAT WE COMPLY WITH THE RESTRICTION OF TREE REMOVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EPA REQUIREMENTS. NO TREE REMOVAL FROM, I BELIEVE IT'S APRIL 1ST TO CORRECT, BUT CAN WE AGREE TO THAT? RIGHT. BUT LET'S GO TO THE ORDINANCE THAT SHE'S CITING THE ORDINANCE SECTION. OKAY. SHE HAS A THE UPPER RIGHT HAND RED TRIANGLE. IT SAYS ORDINANCE SECTION 16 DASH 4.2 D. B C FOOTNOTE. CAN SOMEONE JUST GO TO THAT ORDINANCE AND SEE WHAT THAT ONE SAYS? I KNOW THAT THE OTHER ORDINANCE THAT SHE CITES IN HER MEMO, 14 3.1 F, THAT'S THE ONE THAT MR. FIDONE HAS CORRECTLY NOTED DOESN'T REQUIRE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT BUT ALLOWS THE BOARD TO DO IT. BUT THIS IS A DIFFERENT ORDINANCE SECTION SHE'S CITING IN THAT UPPER RIGHT HAND TRIANGLE. YOU GUYS SEE HER NOTATION ON THE MEMO THERE? YEAH, YEAH. OKAY. YOU GUYS. YEAH. ARE YOU TALKING ON HER EXHIBIT AND THE UPPER FOOTNOTE THAT WITH AN ARROW POINTING TO IT. YES. THAT'S ACTUALLY ON OUR PLAN. AND THAT CODE SECTION IS WITH REGARDS TO THE 200 FOOT CIRCLE OR NON-CRITICAL AREAS THAT'S REQUIRED ON ANY LOT. THAT'S NOT A NOTATION THAT I THINK SHE'S USED TO IDENTIFY THAT RED THAT'S ON THE UNDERLYING PLAN. THAT IS. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A SPECIFIC. REQUIREMENT OTHER THAN IDENTIFYING THE NJDEP GEOWEB LANDSCAPE PROJECT, WHICH IDENTIFIES THAT UPPER RIGHT RED TRIANGLE IS AN AREA OF THE POTENTIAL. THAT SPECIES AND PART OF MR. DARGIE'S REVIEW THAT WE'VE AGREED TO COMPLY WITH IS A RESTRICTION ON WHEN WE WOULD DO ANY EXISTING TREE REMOVAL, WHICH WOULD BE THE ONLY RESTRICTION THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, NEED TO BE PLACED TO PROTECT THE BAT. SO READING HER MEMO, SECTION E TWO, IT QUOTES CODE SECTION 14 3.12 F. NOW THAT'S ON PAGE 14, COLON 24. AND THAT SAYS CONSERVATION EASEMENTS ONE FOR THE PROTECTION AND ENJOYMENT OF NATURAL FEATURES. CRITICAL AREAS, BUFFERS AND BUFFER SCREENING, CONSERVATION EASEMENTS OR CONSERVATION DEED RESTRICTED AREAS AND OR BUFFER EASEMENTS OR BUFFER DEED RESTRICTION AREAS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND RECORDED BY DEED IF REQUIRED BY THE BOARD. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, THE ONLY THING THAT COULD APPLY TO IS THE LOWER LEFT HAND TRIANGLE, CORRECT? SO IN YOUR OPINION, DO THE BOARD EXPERTS AGREE THAT LAUREN'S MEMO IS NOT EVEN THOUGH SHE'S SHOWING TWO TRIANGLES, THE ORDINANCE SECTION THAT SHE CITES, IF SHE[00:45:04]
RECOMMENDS, SHE SAYS, A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON WETLAND AND BUFFER AREA WITH THE RECOMMENDED BOUNDARY SKETCHED ON PAGE FIVE. YOU GUYS, EVERYONE BELIEVES THAT THE ONLY EVEN THOUGH THERE'S TWO RED TRIANGLES SKETCHED, THE ONLY ONE THAT WOULD FIT WITHIN HER RECOMMENDATION IS THE LOWER LEFT HAND RED TRIANGLE. YES. SO I MEAN, I'M I'M ISABEL AND I ARE LOOKING UP THE ORDINANCE WORDING REAL QUICK IF I CAN LOOK AT IT. BUT TAKE THIS ARE. THE YELLOW PAD. TAGGED BY OUR INTERN WHO'S SITTING IN THE FRONT ROW, OUR SUMMER INTERN. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NICE NIGHT OUT. I TOLD HER. HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE DRIVING HOME WHEN IT'S STILL DAYLIGHT. YEAH. ALL FINDING SUCCESS IN 1664. DID YOU READ THAT? I GOT THAT TOO. YEAH.THERE YOU GO. THOSE ARE TAGGED ALSO. RIGHT THERE. I COULD FIND IT. I DIDN'T EXACTLY KNOW WHAT IT MEANT. OKAY, SO THE RESTRICTIONS THAT SHE'S ASKING FOR ARE BASICALLY NOT JUST THE WETLANDS BUT IT REGARD IT INVOLVES STEEP SLOPES AND STREAM CORRIDORS AND WETLANDS. OKAY.
YEAH. BECAUSE SHE SAYS RIGHT. SHE SAYS IN ITEM E FOR THE NJ GEOWEB MAPPER INDICATES AN AREA IN THE NORTHEAST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS HABITAT FOR FEDERALLY LISTED NORTHERN MYOSITIS. ARE THOSE BACKS. THOSE MUST BE BATS INTO THE BATS, AS WELL AS STATE ENDANGERED LITTLE BROWN MYOTIS WHICH MUST BE LITTLE BATS. THEY'RE LITTLE BATS. I LOOKED US ALL UP WHEN I READ HER MEMO. I THINK THAT THAT'S THE KIND OF THING THIS IS. WHAT THEY. WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO GO LOUDER BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A MICROPHONE. THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE FRESHWATER WETLANDS, FLOOD HAZARD AREAS AND SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS. THE CRITICAL AREAS WOULD INCLUDE STEEP SLOPES AND CRITICAL AREAS THAT INCLUDE STREAM CORRIDORS, TRANSITION AREAS AND LANDS EXHIBITING CERTAIN SOIL TYPES. AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT CRITICAL AREAS WOULD BE. SO I THINK IN THIS CASE, LAUREN'S REASONING FOR THAT TOP RIGHT IS THAT IT'S A POTENTIAL AREA FOR HABITAT FOR THE LONG EARED BAT. SO THE BOARD HAS TO DECIDE. SO THESE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS OR CONSERVATION DEED RESTRICTIONS I WANT TO STRESS THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE. IT'S NOT LIKE THE SIDEWALK RIGHT. SIDEWALKS REQUIRED. IF THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THE SIDEWALK, THEY NEED TO APPLY FOR AN EXCEPTION. THIS ONE'S NOT REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE. THE ORDINANCE AUTHORIZES THE BOARD. IF YOU WANT TO, YOU CAN REQUIRE IT. BUT AS MR. FIDONE SAID, IT'S IN YOUR DISCRETION. SO YOU GUYS HAVE TO DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO EXERCISE YOUR DISCRETION AND IMPOSE IT. MR. FIDONE HAS EXPLAINED WHY THEY DO NOT WANT TO HAVE IT IMPOSED. SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT WE DISCUSS ONE AT A TIME. SO LET'S DO THE BATS FIRST, IF I MAY, JUST TO INFORM YOU. INFORM YOUR DISCUSSION, MADAM CHAIR, THE PRIOR APPROVAL HAD A RESTRICTIONS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE. THE LONG EARED BAT THAT LIMITED THE CLEARING WHEN THE ACTUAL WORK ON SITE CAN TAKE PLACE. SO IT DIDN'T. IT DIDN'T NECESSARILY REQUIRE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT, BUT IT DID LIMIT THE TIMING, WHICH IS WHAT THE DEP USUALLY IMPOSES WHEN YOU HAVE A LIKE LET'S SAY, IF THE APPLICANT REQUIRED A DEP PERMIT FOR THIS APPROVAL, THEY WOULD GO TO DEP. AND ONE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT THE DEP WOULD IMPOSE IS A TIMING RESTRICTION ON WHEN THEY CAN ACTUALLY CLEAR THE LAND AND DO DO LAND DISTURBANCE ACTIVITY, THAT TIMING RESTRICTION IN PLACE, THAT TIMING RESTRICTION WAS WAS REQUIRED AS PART OF THE PRIOR APPROVAL. AND OUR OUR MEMO RECOMMENDS THAT THAT TIME AND HE ALREADY ACCEPTED YOUR MEMO. SO THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED FOR THE TIMING. YES. WE HAVE NO ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH THAT WHATSOEVER. SO WHAT WAS REQUIRED LAST TIME WAS NOT NECESSARILY A CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR THE BATS. IT WAS BASICALLY TO PUT THE TIME RESTRICTION ON IT. AND WE ARE ALLOWING FOR THAT TIME RESTRICTION. SO NOW THE QUESTION TO THE REST OF THE BOARD IS DO WE HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT ALLOWING THAT, YOU KNOW, NOT HAVING THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR THE BEST? I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION RELATED TO THAT. BEFORE WE DO THAT, I JUST WANT TO CATCH UP HERE WITH MY NOTES. WHERE IN YOUR MEMO. COMMENT NUMBER 17 ON PAGE FIVE, A NOTE SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE PLAN TO RESTRICTING CLEARING ACTIVITY IN THE HABITAT AREA WHERE THE BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP. GOT IT. AND THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. AND WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH THAT WHATSOEVER. OKAY. SO THAT'S THE
[00:50:02]
UPPER RIGHT HAND TRIANGLE. THAT'S WHAT HOW THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT RESOLVED.SO WHY DON'T YOU TALK ABOUT THAT ONE FIRST. BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE THE EASIER ONE. RIGHT. SO ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THAT OR ANY MORE QUESTIONS. IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN ARE WE THE BATS. THE BATS THE BATS IS CONDITION IS COMMENT NUMBER 17. IN THE ENGINEER'S MEMO SUFFICIENT FOR PROTECTING THAT AREA SO THAT A DEED RESTRICTION SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR THAT UPPER RIGHT HAND TRIANGLE. THAT'S THE QUESTION. I BELIEVE THAT'S SUFFICIENT. THE BATS OKAY. THE BATS ARE THERE. I KNOW ONE OF THE MEMOS TALKED ABOUT LIGHTING ALSO THAT CAN AFFECT THOSE AREAS. SO AND THAT DEFINITELY WOULD AFFECT BATS. SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING FOR US TO ALSO ALSO PONDER. AND THEN WHAT ELSE. WHAT OTHER. LANDSCAPING PATIOS POOLS COULD BE PUT IN THAT AREA THAT WOULD PROVIDE A DISTURBANCE. WOULD ANY KIND OF CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY.
SO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS THE WETLANDS. CAN I KNOW THAT THEY CAN'T PUT STRUCTURE IN THE WETLANDS, THE LOWER LEFT HAND. CORRECT. CORRECT. QUESTION IS RESTRICTED ON ON THAT. CAN YOU PUT A STRUCTURE, A PATIO, A GAZEBO IN THE BAT AREA? AS LONG AS YOU DO IT IN THE TIMES OF THE YEAR THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO IT, CAUSE A DISTURBANCE ALL THE TIME. ONCE IT'S THERE, I. AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I BELIEVE THAT THE RESTRICTION IS NOT CUTTING DOWN TREES DURING THAT TIME PERIOD BECAUSE YOU MIGHT KILL THE BATS. THAT MIGHT BE THEIR MATING SEASON. THAT'S THEIR MATING SEASON. SO IF THERE'S NOT A BAD EXPERT, BUT I'VE HEARD ENOUGH, AS I UNDERSTAND, YOU'RE DOING REALLY WELL. YOU'RE DOING REALLY WELL. I AM NO EXPERT, BUT AS I UNDERSTAND THE POSITION TAKEN BY MISS WASOWSKI IS AT THAT TIME, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE CUTTING DOWN TREES BECAUSE THAT'S THE MATING SEASON FOR THE BATS. YOU KNOW, IN THAT AREA. SAME ISSUE WE HAD. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS BOARD RECALLS WHEN WE WERE MAKING THE APPLICATION FOR THE FIRE COMPANY. IT WAS THE SAME PROBLEM. I THINK IT WAS THE SAME BATS AND THE SAME MATING TIME AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND THE FIRE COMPANY WAS ALL IT WAS TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF SAYING, LOOK, WHEN THAT WHEN THAT TIME PERIOD IS THAT SIX MONTHS OCCURS, WE HAVE NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER IN CUTTING THAT TREES. AND WE'RE SAYING THE SAME THING HERE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY PLANS TO ANYHOW. YOU KNOW. SO IT'S NOT IT'S LET ME JUST ASK MY QUESTION AND GET AN ANSWER.
HER QUESTION IS IF YOU IN IF YOU CONSTRUCTED DID SOME CLEARING AND PUT A GAZEBO IN THE UPPER RIGHT HAND TRIANGLE AREA, WHEN YOU'RE ALLOWED TO CLEAR TREES. IS THERE ANY PROBLEM WITH USING THE GAZEBO DURING BAT MATING SEASON? OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT YOU MIGHT HEAR A LOT OF NOISE? SO I'LL I'LL ANSWER IT THE WAY THAT THAT I THINK BEST I CAN BEST ANSWER IT, WHICH IS MY EXPERIENCE WITH, WITH DEP HAS BEEN THE RESTRICTIONS THAT THEY USUALLY THAT THEY PLACE ON THESE KIND OF THINGS IS WHEN THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS TAKING PLACE, WHEN THE HABITAT IS POSSIBLY BEING REMOVED. AND I THINK THE, THE, THE GENERAL UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAVE IS THAT IF THOSE, IF THAT AREA OR THAT PORTION OF THE HABITAT IS REMOVED, THAT SMALL PORTION OF THE HABITAT IS REMOVED IN THAT TIME, THEN WHEN, WHEN IT, WHEN IT BECOMES THAT TIME OF YEAR AGAIN, THE SPECIES ADJUSTS THEIR, THEIR LOCATION. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PROHIBITION ON HAVING A GAZEBO IN THERE? THE ONLY PROHIBITION IS WHEN YOU CAN CLEAR THE TREES, WHEN YOU BUILD IT RIGHT, WHEN YOU WHEN YOU CLEAR IT TO DO IT. THAT'S THAT'S MY EXPERIENCE WITH DEP. OKAY. WE'RE DONE WITH THE. I'M OKAY. YOU'RE DONE WITH THE BATS. NO.
QUIT WHILE YOU'RE AHEAD. SHE'S DONE WITH THE BATS. OKAY. WE'RE DONE WITH BATS. YEAH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONSERVATION EASEMENTS IN GENERAL. AND, YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT ONLY IN THE LOWER LEFT HAND TRIANGLE BECAUSE SHE'S DONE WITH THE BATS. IS EVERYBODY DONE WITH THE BATS? YOU'RE HAPPY. YES. EVERYONE'S DONE WITH THE BATS.
YOU'RE YOU'RE HAPPY WITH THE BATS. YES, WE'RE HAPPY WITH THE BATS. WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW NO CONSERVATION NEEDED IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER. OKAY. AS THE DEP REQUIRED ANY INSTALLATION OF BAT BOXES AFTER THE CLEARING OF THE HABITAT ON THE PROPERTY IN THAT UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER TRIANGLE. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW. SO AS THE DEP RECOMMENDED THAT. SO YOU'RE YOU'RE YOU'RE YOU'RE TAKING OUT THE HABITAT. RIGHT. IF YOU DO CLEAR IN A BAD AREA, BUT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME OF YEAR, DOES THE DEP REQUIRE YOU TO PUT IN BAT BOXES? NO, OKAY.
DOES NOT REQUIRE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT BECAUSE WE'VE WE'VE RUN INTO THOSE SITUATIONS BEFORE WHERE IF YOU'RE GOING TO REMOVE THE HABITAT, THERE'S INSTALLATION OF BAT BOXES TO BASICALLY REPLACE THE HABITAT THAT YOU HAVE REMOVED UNDER THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE STATE DEP. YES. OKAY. YEAH. THAT'S THAT. I'M SATISFIED. NOW, IF I MAY BE
[00:55:01]
HEARD ON THE OTHER ISSUE OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON THE BOTTOM, THE LOWER LEFT OF THE DRAWING. WELL, AND I'M SAYING THIS CAREFULLY BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A LONG PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS, BUT WE'RE HERE ASKING FOR VARIANCES AS FAR AS LOT SIZE, AS FAR AS SETBACK, AS FAR AS THINGS OF THAT NATURE THAT REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS.NOW, THIS BOARD CAN IMPOSE. LET ME FINISH, PLEASE MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT, BUT I'M GOING TO MAKE A COUNTER ARGUMENT TO YOU, OKAY. ON THAT. OKAY. THIS BOARD DOES. AND THE BOARD CAN ASK US FOR ALL KINDS OF THINGS LIKE THIS, LIKE THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT. BUT IF THIS LOT WERE CONFORMING, THE BOARD COULDN'T DO THAT. CORRECT. THAT'S MY POINT. IT'S NOT CONFORMING. IT'S SMALLER THAN USUAL, BUT THE HOUSE IS A REGULAR SIZED HOUSE. SO YOU HAVE LESS AREA, WHICH MEANS THAT IT'S MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY POTENTIALLY HARMFUL. THAT MY OPINION IS THAT'S A BASIS. IF THE BOARD WANTED TO IMPOSE THE CONDITION, THEY COULD. I'M NOT SAYING THEY SHOULD, BUT I'M SAYING THAT THAT'S A BASIS OF MINE. MR. JILL, WHAT IT DOES ALSO IT MY ARGUMENT SAYS IT RUNS TO WHAT EXTENT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THESE KINDS OF CONTROLS. I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONSERVATION EASEMENT IS WE'RE HITTING AN ANT WITH AN ANVIL, BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY ARE CONTROLS THAT ARE IN PLACE BY THE DEP, THAT THAT LANDOWNER IN PERPETUITY HAS TO DEAL WITH. BUT THE CONTROLS OF THE DEP ARE FLUID CONTROLS. THINGS CHANGE. AND THE, YOU KNOW, YOUR WETLANDS WHEN YOU GET AN LOI, WHEN YOU GET A WETLANDS DETERMINATION, IT'S ONLY GOOD FOR FIVE YEARS. THAT'S NOT BECAUSE THE INK'S GOING TO WEAR OUT. IT'S BECAUSE THINGS CHANGE IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME AND YOU'VE GOT TO COME BACK AGAIN. ANYBODY WHO'S LIVING IN THIS HOUSE HAS GOT TO COME. IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO ANYTHING WITH IN THAT AREA THAT'S PROTECTED BY THE DEP, THEY'VE GOT TO DEAL WITH THAT. BUT THEY'RE DEALING WITH THE ENTITY THAT'S BEST DESIGNED TO, TO MAINTAIN THOSE CONTROLS AND RECOGNIZE THE FLUIDITY OF WHAT'S HAPPENING. WHAT YOU'RE REALLY SAYING HERE, IF YOU PUT THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT IS, IS, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY IS LIVING IN THIS HOUSE, THE THEY NOT ONLY HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE DEP AND THE PROPER MECHANISMS TO PROTECT THE WETLANDS, THEY'VE GOT TO COME BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD AND SAY, OH, BY THE WAY, WE WANT TO WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING IN OUR CONSERVATION EASEMENT. AND I WILL TELL YOU, AS A PRACTITIONER OF THIS TYPE OF IN THIS, IN THIS AREA, BOARDS ARE VERY RELUCTANT FOR A CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THAT'S AS IMPORTANT AS THE SISTINE CHAPEL. DON'T TOUCH IT.
RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHAT THAT'S THE RESPONSE THAT YOU ALWAYS GET FROM WHEN YOU'RE REPRESENTING A HOMEOWNER THAT SIMPLY WANTS TO DO SOMETHING THAT THE DEP HAS THE HAS THE POWER, THE EQUITY AND THE AND THE AND THE KNOWLEDGE TO CONTROL. THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING IT'S HITTING AN ANT WITH AN ANVIL AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. THANK YOU. WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHTS? IT REALLY IS A BOARD DECISION, RIGHT. IT'S MORE OF A POLICY THING THAN ANYTHING ELSE. I CAN CERTAINLY ADVISE YOU ON, ON ON THE BUFFERS AND EVERYTHING AND I, AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT MR. FIDONE SAYING. THAT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE AS WELL. I MEAN, THE DEP DECIDES ON THESE THINGS. THE OTHER THING THAT THAT HAPPENS IS SOMETIMES IT GOES THE OTHER WAY, LIKE WETLANDS EXPAND, OR IF THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT 50 FOOT BUFFER TO NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN BE 150 FOOT BUFFER, THEN THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING DEP IMPOSES. IF THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, HAS TO DO ANYTHING ELSE IN THAT AREA. SO LET'S JUST SAY IF THEY WANTED TO EXPAND THEIR HOUSE OR, OR BUILD SOME SORT OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO AT THAT TIME GO DEP AND DEAL WITH WHATEVER THE DEP REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ARE IN PLACE AT THAT TIME. AND MY EXPERIENCE WITH DEP AND EVERYONE'S EXPERIENCE IS THAT THEIR REQUIREMENTS DON'T GET. LESS ONEROUS. ABSOLUTELY. SO I MORE OF A POLICY DECISION THAT THE BOARD HAS TO MAKE ON WHETHER YOU'RE REQUIRING MY RECOMMENDATION ON CONSERVATION EASEMENTS IS USUALLY WHEN YOU HAVE LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT AND YOU HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR, FOR, FOR DAMAGE TO HAPPEN TO AREAS. AND YOU WANT THAT ADDITIONAL ASSURANCE. I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. YOU KNOW, WE'VE DONE LARGE SUBDIVISIONS WHERE YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, 100, 200 HOMES AND A LARGE SWATH OF, LET'S SAY, 20 HOMES BACK UP TO A WETLAND COMPLEX. AND WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT AREA IS HARD SOMETIMES TO, TO REGULATE. SO SOMETIMES BOARDS WILL SAY, WE WANT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ON TOP OF WHATEVER RESTRICTIONS DEP HAS. WE WANT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT ALONG THE WETLANDS, OR EVEN SOMETIMES A FEW FEET OFF OF THE WETLANDS TO KEEP FOLKS FROM ENCROACHING INTO THAT AREA. AND THAT'S A REASONABLE REQUIREMENT FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. AGAIN, THE BOARD HAS TO DECIDE WHETHER THAT KIND OF PROTECTION IS NECESSARY. AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, I SPOKE WITH THE PLANNER'S OFFICE. MY OFFICE DOESN'T TAKE A POSITION ON IT. I GAVE YOU LEGAL ADVICE. A LEGAL ADVICE IS ORDINANCE ALLOWS IT. YOU HAVE AUTHORITY. I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A REASONABLE CONNECTION IF YOU WANTED TO IMPOSE IT. BUT WE'RE NOT TAKING. WE HAVE NO OPINION WHETHER YOU SHOULD OR NOT. IT'S
[01:00:03]
YOUR DISCRETION. PLANNER THINKS THE SAME WAY. ENGINEER THINKS THE SAME WAY. THIS IS TOTALLY, AND I ASSUME THAT MR. BARTOLONE ALSO THINKS THE SAME WAY. TOTAL DISCRETION OF THE BOARD. CAN YOU ADVISE US? I WANT TO HEAR, MR. BARTLETT. AS LONG AS THEY KEEP THE LAWNMOWERS OUT OF THE WETLANDS. I'M HAPPY. OUT OF THE WETLANDS? YEAH, RIGHT. SO WITH THIS KNOWING, KNOWING THAT THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT RESTRICTS ANY TYPE OF BUILDING BEING DONE WITHIN THE EASEMENT, WHAT OTHER RESTRICTIONS DOES IT HAVE FOR THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO UTILIZE THAT AREA? I'LL ANSWER THAT. LEGALLY, THE RESTRICTIONS, WHETHER IT'S FROM A RESTRICTION IMPOSED BY THE BOARD OR WHETHER IT'S DEP REGULATIONS, THE RESTRICTIONS, THE SAME. THE DIFFERENCE IS WHO CAN ENFORCE.IF THE BOARD HAS A POLICY MATTER, WANTS THE TOWNSHIP TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE. YOU NEED THE RESTRICTION BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE DEP IS THE ONLY ENTITY TO ENFORCE. IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO A POLICY DECISION ON DO YOU WANT TO GIVE THE TOWNSHIP ENFORCEMENT POWER OVER THAT AREA, IN MY OPINION? AND WHAT THE WHAT DEPARTMENT IN THE TOWNSHIP WOULD HAVE THAT ENFORCEMENT ZONING OFFICER IF IT'S A IF IT'S A CONDITION OF THE APPROVAL AND IT'S A RESTRICTION, THE ZONING OFFICER COULD GIVE THEM A NOTICE OF VIOLATION IF THEY WERE VIOLATING IT. OTHERWISE, YOU CALL UP THE DEP RIGHT AND THE DEP WOULD HAVE TO ENFORCE IT. SO IF ANY, IF THEY WANTED TO DO ANY DEVELOPMENT OF THAT AREA ON THE LOWER CORNER RIGHT NOW, LEGALLY THEY CAN'T. YEAH, OKAY. BECAUSE THEY CAN'T WHETHER YOU WHETHER WHETHER YOU IMPOSE A RESTRICTION OR NOT, THEY CAN'T BECAUSE THERE'S A DEP REGULATION THAT SAYS SO. THE ONLY QUESTION IS IF THEY DID SOMETHING IN THERE.
RIGHT. IF THERE'S NO RESTRICTION IMPOSED BY THE BOARD, YOU CALL THE DEP. IF THERE IS A RESTRICTION IMPOSED BY THE BOARD, YOU COULD ALSO CALL THE ZONING OFFICER LEGALLY AND PRACTICALLY. THAT'S WHAT THIS THING COMES DOWN TO IN MY OPINION. THE ONLY THING I'LL ADD IS THERE ARE CERTAIN ACTIVITIES THAT ARE PERMITTED BY DEP WITHIN THAT AREA THAT IF YOU PUT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR CONSERVATION RESTRICTION THAT THEY MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM DOING, YOU COULD WRITE THE CONSERVATION RESTRICTION TO FOLLOW THE DEP. ABSOLUTELY. BUT RIGHT. SO AGAIN, THE WHOLE THING WOULD COME DOWN TO WHO CAN ENFORCE AND NOT WHAT YOU CAN AND CANNOT DO. RIGHT. ABSOLUTELY. WELL, YEAH. THERE'S A POLICY I THINK YOU SHOULD GO UP AND DOWN AND JUST TAKE A STRAW POLL ON WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT, OKAY. MARILYN. SO THE D SO YOU'RE SAYING THE DEP ALREADY HAS REGULATIONS IN PLACE THAT BASICALLY I KNOW WITHIN THIS WHAT CAN BE DONE AND HOW CLOSE TO THE WETLANDS WE WOULD BE JUST SECONDING THAT AND SAYING, HEY, YOU KNOW, YOU NEED TO FOLLOW THE DEP STANDARDS. HOWEVER, IN THAT SITUATION, THIS WILL BE ENFORCEABLE AND BASICALLY MONITORED BY THE DEP AND NOT US IF YOU DON'T DO THE CONSERVATION. BUT EVEN IF WE DO, THERE'LL BE TWO ENTITIES THEN. YEAH. YEP. THEN THE TOWNSHIP WOULD HAVE RESPONSIBILITY IF YOU DO A CONSERVATION RESTRICTION OF SOME KIND THERE, IT'S A YOU'RE BASICALLY PUTTING TWO LAYERS OF. SAY DO WE NEED TWO LAYERS. RESTRICTION ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS AND NOT JUST THE DEP. THAT'S WHAT I THINK THE THING COMES DOWN TO 1 OR 2 ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS. CORRECT. I GUESS I WOULD THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT, FIRST OF ALL, DEP IS NOT GOING TO COME OUT AND START LOOKING AT INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY DO. SO IF SOMETHING WAS DONE ON THAT PROPERTY, IT COULD IT COULD BE THERE. WHAT MY CONCERN IS, IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE SEEING WEATHER CHANGING. YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE MORE LONGER TERM EFFECTS. WE'VE GOT A 601 ROAD THERE. WE'VE GOT PLANS ON 601. COULD CHANGES TO THAT PROPERTY THERE IMPACT THAT ROAD ON 601. WHAT COULD IT BE. YOU'RE SAYING COULD IT FLOOD. THAT'S I DON'T KNOW ISN'T YOU KNOW. BUT THEN WE START THINKING ABOUT THE FLOODPLAINS, YOU KNOW, WETLANDS AND THEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT. SO THE, THE PROPERTY AROUND IT IS OWNED BY THE TOWNSHIP. I DON'T KNOW WHAT PLANS THEY HAVE GOING FORWARD. AND WOULD THAT BE AFFECT? I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT THE TOWNSHIP PLANS AFFECT THIS PROPERTY THOUGH. NO. BUT THE PROPERTY AROUND IT IS ALL OWNED BY THE TOWN. IS THAT IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING? YEAH. TAKE A LOOK ON THE MAP. YEAH.
LOT BLOCK 411, LOT ONE, MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP, BLOCK 409, LOT 14, MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP UP NORTH, MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP. MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP OWNS ALL THE PROPERTY AROUND IT, BUT THERE ARE PLANNER AND OUR ENGINEER, AND THEY HAVEN'T EXPRESSED IT. AND THEY REPRESENT. NO, THEY REPRESENT THE ZONING BOARD, NOT MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP. BUT I'M NOT SURE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT HAS TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT I'M LOOKING OUT 20 YEARS. I'M NOT. OH, WE GOT I THINK WE
[01:05:07]
HAVE TO CONSIDER NOW, THOUGH, THE EFFECT THAT COULD HAPPEN AND WOULD A DEED RESTRICTION PREVENT ISSUES DOWN DOWN THE ROAD THAT THAT'S MY CONCERN IN MY OPINION. IF THE DEED IF THERE WAS A CONSERVATION RESTRICTION PLACED ON THE LOWER LEFT HAND TRIANGLE AND THE CONSERVATION RESTRICTION SPECIFICALLY ADOPTED BY REFERENCE, THE DEP RESTRICTIONS, AGAIN, I THINK THIS WHOLE THING COMES DOWN TO WHO DOES THE ENFORCING. I DON'T THINK IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE TOWNSHIP'S LAND SURROUNDING IT. IT JUST COMES DOWN TO IF THERE'S A VIOLATION, CAN THE ZONING OFFICER I, I AGREE WITH THAT POINT. I THINK THE DEP SHOULD BE THE ONE THAT MONITORS THE PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, THE ONES THAT THE ARE THE EXPERTS HERE IN MONITORING THAT SPACE. UNLESS WE PUT A SECOND LAYER OF ON THAT AND WE JUST CREATE MORE WORK FOR US TO DO, WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE CHECKING IN, THE DEP IS DOING IT ALREADY. YEAH. I CAN JUST ADD ON TO THAT REAL QUICK. WITH REGARD TO MISS BLAZAWSKI HAD SOME CONCERNS REGARDING WELL, DEP DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, CHECK THE STUFF. AND YOU'RE RIGHT, DP DOESN'T REGULARLY COME OUT AND SPOT CHECK. YOU KNOW A LOT IN MONTGOMERY. BUT WHAT DOES HAPPEN OFTEN IS IF THERE'S CONCERNS BY EITHER THE TOWNSHIP OR RESIDENTS, THE DEP HAS AN ENFORCEMENT HOTLINE THAT GETS CALLED OFTEN BECAUSE AS THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEER IN A LOT OF TOWNS, I GET THE CALL FROM THE TOWNSHIP CLERK OR THE DEP DIRECTLY REGARDING A CONCERN THAT SOMEONE MAY HAVE RAISED ABOUT DISTURBANCE OR SOME ENCROACHMENT, AND THEN USUALLY DEP WORKS WITH THE TOWNSHIP ON ON THAT KIND OF ENFORCEMENT THING THEY HAVE. THE TOWNSHIP DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO ANYTHING, BUT THEY'LL USUALLY ASK THE TOWNSHIP JUST TO FOR SOME SORT OF LIKE SORT OF GUIDANCE ON WHAT'S GOING ON IN THAT AREA. SO I HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE WITH DEP'S ENFORCEMENT FOLKS ACTUALLY COMING AND BEING CALLED IN. AND SOMETIMES I'LL SAY I'VE ACTUALLY I'VE ACTUALLY HAD TO CALL DEP'S ENFORCEMENT FOLKS WHEN THERE IS SOME SORT OF ENCROACHMENT ACTIVITIES, I, I WON'T MENTION NAMES, BUT THERE WAS A GOLF COURSE IN ONE OF THE TOWNS THAT I WAS WORKING IN THAT GOLF COURSES ARE NOTORIOUSLY JUST THEY JUST DO WHATEVER THE HECK THEY WANT TO DO. AND, YOU KNOW, SOME IT WAS OBSERVED WHILE WHILE, YOU KNOW, THE TOWNSHIP ZONING OFFICER WAS OUT DOING SOME WORK. AND THEN THEY NOTIFIED US AND WE CONTACTED DEP AND THERE WAS AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION. SO THERE IS A MECHANISM IN PLACE. YES. AND IF THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD ANYTHING, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME BEFORE ZONING BOARD. ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY. ZONING BOARDS WOULD BE MAKING THAT DECISION. I WOULD SAY. THEN I WOULD AGREE TO LET IT STAND. IF EVERYONE ELSE ON THE BOARD FEELS THE SAME WAY, WHY DON'T WE JUST. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO. I AGREE. I MEAN, I RECALL OTHER APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE HAD WETLANDS. I DON'T RECALL TALKING ABOUT PUTTING ON A EASEMENT FOR THOSE, EVEN THOUGH IN THIS CASE WE CAN DO IT. I DON'T SEE A IT LOOKS ADDITIONALLY BURDENSOME. OKAY, OKAY. RIGHT. YEAH. I DON'T IT SEEMS LIKE A TOO MUCH OF AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN. OKAY. I'VE ALREADY VOICED MY CONCERNS. I THINK THIS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE MONITORED BY THE DEP. HAVING HAD DIRECT CONTACT WITH THEM BEFORE AND OTHER TOWNSHIPS ON BUILDING RESTRICTIONS AND ZONING PERMITS AND OTHER THINGS. THEY ARE EXTREMELY VIGILANT IN STOPPING PROJECTS IN THEIR TRACKS. IF THEY COME WITHIN THE ALLOWED RULES THAT THEY'VE SET FOR THEIR PROPERTIES, NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE, NO MATTER WHAT TOWNSHIP, AS LONG AS THEY'RE WITHIN THE BORDERS, THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY. SO IT'S ALSO MY OPINION THAT WE SHOULD NOT REQUIRE THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT. SO IF IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S UNANIMOUS, WE CAN PUT PUT THAT TO REST. OKAY. IS THE ONLY THING. IS THERE ANY LANDSCAPE ISSUES LEFT ON THE WHOLE PROJECT OR NOT? I BELIEVE THEY'VE AGREED TO ALL OF MY RECOMMENDATIONS. CORRECT? CORRECT. WONDERFUL. THE ONLY THING REMAINING ARE THE FOUR C1 HARDSHIP VARIANCES, ALL RELATED TO THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE LOT. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. SO THE ONLY THING I'M GOING TO SAY ABOUT THAT IS IF YOU DON'T GRANT THOSE VARIANCES, I'LL MOVE. WELL, IT'S NOT THAT IT'S ALL MOVED. THERE'S NO USE OF THAT LIE. AND THIS MIGHT BE ONE OF THESE RARE INSTANCES WHERE THE BOARD HAS TO GRANT THOSE FOUR VARIANCES, OR IT WOULD CONSTITUTE A TAKING OF THE PROPERTY. AND I BELIEVE ME, YOU KNOW, I NORMALLY DON'T SAY ANYTHING LIKE THAT, ESPECIALLY ON THE RECORD. OKAY. BUT ON THIS ONE, A GRANDFATHER AND THIS IN THE SAME DAY. MIKE, DON'T COUNT YOUR CHICKENS BEFORE THEY HATCH.SETTLE DOWN. POP UP. LET'S NOT GO TOO FAR HERE. FIND OUT WHERE IT IS BECAUSE THEY SAY THAT
[01:10:01]
THEY'VE AGREED TO EVERYTHING IN MR. BARTOLO'S MEMO. YEAH, THAT WAS, I THOUGHT, IN THE ENGINEERING. BOTH OF THEM. THEY AGREED TO EVERYTHING IN BOTH. RIGHT. CORRECT. EVERYTHING IN BOTH MR. BARNES AND MR. DARGIE'S MEMOS. IT WAS REGARDING THE NEIGHBORS AND CONSULTING WITH THE NEIGHBORS BEFORE THEY TRIMMED AND REMOVED CAN I? WHAT ITEM IS THAT, PLEASE? AND THEY'VE AGREED TO WHAT ITEM? I'M SORRY. TWO PEOPLE WERE TALKING ONCE. I APOLOGIZE IN THE ENGINEERING. YEAH. ITEM NUMBER. I APOLOGIZE. WHERE DID THAT GO? THE ENGINEERING REPORT. I THOUGHT IT WAS NUMBER THREE. NO, IT'S NOT NUMBER THREE. WELL, OKAY, IT'S UNDER GENERAL COMMENTS. YES. GENERAL COMMENTS. NUMBER NUMBER TEN. TEN. OKAY. SO WE'RE GOOD ON THAT. THE COORDINATE REMOVAL AND TRIMMING OF VEGETATION ON ADJACENT LOTS WITH LOT OWNERS PRIOR TO WORK BEING DONE IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS CONDITION OF APPROVAL. THEY SAID YES. YEAH THEY'RE OKAY WITH THAT. I JUST WANTED ONE MORE TIME. YEAH. EVERY SINGLE RECOMMENDATION IN MR. DARCY'S REPORT DATED JULY 16TH, 2025, YOU AGREE TO MAKE A CONDITION, CORRECT? YES. EVERY SINGLE COMMENT IN MR. BARTOLO'S MEMO DATED JULY 17TH, 2025. DO YOU AGREE TO MAKE A CONDITION? CORRECT? YES. ANY COMMENTS THAT ARE STILL OUTSTANDING IN MISS RODRIGUEZ'S AND MR. SULLIVAN'S REPORT DATED JULY 16TH, 2025? YOU AGREE TO MAKE A CONDITION, CORRECT? YES. THE ONLY COMMENTS THAT YOU DON'T AGREE TO MAKE CONDITIONS ARE IN THE OPEN SPACE MEMO DATED JULY 9TH, 2025. BUT LET'S JUST GO OVER THAT. WE KNOW WE'RE KNOCKING OUT THE ENTIRE SECTION E, BUT ARE THERE ANY OTHER SECTIONS IN THAT REPORT OR ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT SHOULD NOT BE MADE? CONDITIONS IN YOUR OPINION? IN YOUR OPINION, IN YOUR. WHAT'S THE APPLICANT'S POSITION? GRANTED, THE SIDEWALK WAIVER. SO IT TAKES THAT OUT. TREE PLANTING SHADE TREES TAKES THAT OUT. THAT'S D. SO C WAS THE SIDEWALKS, D WAS THE TREE PLANTING. E'S COMING OUT. IS THERE ANYTHING LEFT IN THAT MEMO? LIGHTING. WELL THE LIGHTING, I TAKE IT AS TO BE SUGGESTIONS. AND AS OPPOSED TO CONDITIONS, ANYTHING IT MIGHT SAY SUGGEST. UNLESS YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT, IT'S GOING TO BE A CONDITION. THAT'S HOW I OPERATE. SO YOU HAD YOU HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LIGHTING IT WAS IN. YEAH, IT WAS IN THE OPEN SPACE REPORT. IT SAYS F1. THERE ARE NO DETAILS PROVIDED FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING. THIS OFFICE ENCOURAGES THE APPLICANT TO MINIMIZE LIGHTING DIRECTED DOWNWARD AND SHIELDED TO THE GREAT EXTENT, GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE, TO MINIMIZE SPILLOVER INTO SURROUNDING AREAS. IS THERE A PROBLEM MAKING THAT A CONDITION? NO. GREAT. EXCELLENT.OKAY, HOW ABOUT ITEM TWO? THIS WHOLE THING WITH COLOR TEMPERATURES. I KNOW THAT THE PLANNER'S OFFICE. WHAT IS YOUR POSITION NOW ON THIS ON HOW MANY KELVIN. TAKE A LOOK AT PAGE SIX OF THE OPEN SPACE REPORT. I KNOW MIKE STARTED WITH SAYING 2500. THEN HE WENT TO 3000. 2700 IS USUALLY THE RECOMMENDED. OKAY. SO THAT'S THE WARMER COLOR. WILL YOU ACCEPT AS A CONDITION. SHE'S SUGGESTING NO GREATER THAN 2700. AND THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT THE PLANNER'S OFFICE ALSO RECOMMENDS. YES OKAY. ITEM THREE IN MY OPINION IS COMMENTARY I AGREE. AND ITEMS G ONE TAKE A LOOK AT G1 AND G2 AND SEE IF THE APPLICANT WILL AGREE TO MAKE THOSE CONDITIONS. I GUESS I'D CLARIFICATION IS YOU OFFER OFFICE RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT'S SURVEYOR ENGINEER MARK THAT PROPERTY LINE WHICH STAYS THE FLAGS SO AS TO PREVENT ENCROACHMENT. I'M SUGGESTING THAT THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY FOR FROM HERE ON FOREVER HAS STATES OR FLAGS.
YOU'RE GOING TO MARK IT OUT WHEN YOU'RE DOING THE CONSTRUCTION. CONSTRUCTION? OH YEAH. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT WHATSOEVER. YEAH. NO. SO YES. YEAH. JUST SO YOU KNOW, IN RARITAN TOWNSHIP NEXT TO A MUNICIPAL PROPERTY, YOU WANT TO TELL THEM I'M NOT I DON'T WANT TO BE A WITNESS. YOU WANT TO TELL THEM WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE CLEARING THE TREES? WELL, THAT I'M TRYING. WHICH ONE WAS. WHAT WERE WE TALKING ABOUT? PIONEER. OH, WELL, THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY. YEAH, WE.
IF YOU DON'T LISTEN, IF YOU DON'T MARK IT OUT. PIONEER. THEY WENT TO DO THEIR TREE CLEARING.
WENT RIGHT OVER THE PROPERTY LINE RIGHT INTO TOWNSHIP PROPERTY. HOW MANY TREES DID THEY TAKE OUT? I DON'T REMEMBER THE NUMBER, BUT I KNOW THEY WENT 20FT INTO THE TOWNSHIP PROPERTY.
YEAH. SO WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF DOING THAT, RIGHT? THEY HAD NO INTENTION OF DOING IT EITHER. SO
[01:15:02]
MARKING THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE A REQUIREMENT. YES. SO ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IN OUR IN OUR MEMO, AND I KNOW WE AGREE TO EVERY CONDITION WAS TO DELINEATE THE FIELD SURVEY FIELDS, TAKE OUT THE ACTUAL LIMITS OF THE DISTURBANCE OKAY. AND LASTLY G TWO NO ACCESS SHOULD BE GRANTED.NO ACCESS IS PERMITTED OR SHALL BE GRANTED THROUGH THE TOWNSHIP PROPERTIES. PROBLEM WITH THAT.
NO OKAY. SO IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH RESPECT TO THE. THE VARIANCES I IN ORDER FOR NOT TO KNOCK EVERYTHING OUT, AS WE SAID, I JUST WANT TO HAVE ASK IF ANYONE HAS ANY ISSUES WITH DOES ANYONE NOT WANT TO GRANT ONE OF THOSE FOR C-1 HARDSHIP VARIANCES. NO. OKAY, GOOD. SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. I'D LIKE SOMEONE TO MAKE. OOPS, SORRY. ONE LAST THING. OUR COMMENT ON 3.3 THE FUTURE BATHROOM IN THE UNFINISHED BASEMENT. CAN YOU JUST CONFIRM EITHER THAT THAT WILL BE PROPOSED OR FULLY REMOVED FROM THE PLANS? COMMENT NUMBER? IS THAT 3.3? IT'S ON PAGE SIX OF OUR LETTER. I CAN SPEAK TO THAT WITH REGARDS TO THE SEPTIC SIZING IMPACTS OF THAT. THAT WOULD BE IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. AND RIGHT NOW, THE WAY WE HAVE THE PROJECT SET UP AND DESIGNED, WE BELIEVE WE CAN ACHIEVE GRAVITY FLOW FROM THE FACILITY IN THE BASEMENT, WHICH WOULDN'T REQUIRE AN EJECTOR PUMP. SO WHAT WE WOULD DO IS HAVE THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AMENDED TO REFLECT THAT.
OKAY, SO TELL ME THE CONDITION IS GOING TO BE WHAT REVISE ARCHITECT'S PLAN TO DO WHAT? TO NOT SHOW THE EJECTOR PUMP. SO REVISED ARCHITECTURAL PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE EJECTOR PUMP.
CORRECT. AND THERE'S A NOTE THAT SAYS THE BATHROOM WILL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED AT THIS TIME. BUT AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE ZONING OFFICER, HE RECOMMENDS YOU EITHER SHOW IT OR YOU DON'T. SO IF YOU CAN, IF YOU'RE GOING TO PROPOSE IT, JUST TAKE THAT NOTE OUT. I THINK WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE OPTION OF BEING ABLE TO PUT A BATHROOM IN THE BASEMENT. SO AND WE CAN WE CAN ADD A BATHROOM TO THE PLAN AND SAY, YOU KNOW, MAYBE CONSTRUCTED AT A FUTURE DATE, BUT BUT HAVE IT ON THE PLAN IF THEY WANT THE ADD OPTION. OKAY. BECAUSE I'M GOING TO MAKE THAT A CONDITION.
ADD. AND I HAVE ONE THING THAT I DON'T THINK IS IN ANYBODY'S MEMO. BUT FOR THE RESERVE AREA, THEY HAVE TO FILE A SEPTIC RESERVATION RESTRICTION. ON THAT. SAY THAT AGAIN, SHARON.
FOR THE RESERVE SEPTIC AREA, THEY WILL HAVE TO FILE A SEPTIC RESERVATION RESTRICTION. I'M SORRY, WHAT IS THE RESERVE SEPTIC PROVISION? NO, IT RESERVES THAT PLAN, RESERVES IT FOR A SECOND. IN CASE THE PRIMARY FAILS. THERE'S ANOTHER AREA TO DO A SEPTIC CAPACITY, A CAPACITY ISSUE. NO, NO, IT'S TURKISH FOR DISPOSAL. REMEMBER THEY'RE DOING SEPTIC. WHAT IF THE FIELD FAILS OR SOMETHING. SO THEY'VE RESERVED ONE ON THEIR PLAN. AND WHAT SHERRY IS SAYING IS SHE WANTS A FILED RESERVE SEPTIC. WHAT IS IT CALLED? SEPTIC RESERVATION RESTRICTION.
SEPTIC RESERVATION RESTRICTION. AND YOU AGREE TO THAT? YOU'RE TOTALLY FINE WITH THAT. YEAH.
AND THEN JUST THE REMAINDER OF THE THINGS WE ASK IN THE IN OUR MEMO, DO YOU AGREE TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES AS NECESSARY. IT WOULD BE 2.8, 2.9 AND 2.10. AS WELL AS THE PLAN CORRECTIONS UNDER 4.2.
YES. GIVE ME THOSE. GIVE ME THOSE NUMBERS. AGAIN. IT WOULD BE 2.9, 2.10, 2.8 JUST TO SHOW THE SETBACK TO THE REAR YARD. I'LL PUT IT THIS WAY. I ASKED THEM IF ALL THE COMMENTS IN YOUR REPORT COULD BE MADE. CONDITIONS? THEY SAID YES. OH, PERFECT. EVERY SINGLE COMMENT IN YOUR REPORT IS GOING TO BE A CONDITION. OKAY, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE INDIVIDUAL ONES BECAUSE MR. FIDONE ALREADY AGREED TO ALL OF THEM. CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO, MR. RODRIGUEZ, YOU'RE SATISFIED? YEAH. JUST CHECKING. OKAY, SO CAN I, CAN I JUST ONE MORE ONE? SORRY. ONE OF THE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IN BOTH THE PLANNER AND ENGINEER'S REPORT IS THE TOWNSHIP'S RESTRICTION ON THE IMPORT AND EXPORT OF SOIL, PART OF THE LAST APPLICATION, APPROVAL IN 2019 INCLUDED AN ABILITY TO IMPORT FILL. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FILL. WE'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT AS PART OF THIS APPROVAL AS WELL, SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR AN IMPORT FILL OF APPROVAL. AND WE ESTIMATE ABOUT 350YD■!T F MATERIAL WOULD BE THE REQUIRED IMPORT. I KNOW WE'VE DONE THIS BEFORE, BUT I ALWAYS FORGET THERE'S AN ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT
[01:20:02]
THAT SAYS WHAT AND WHAT DOES THE BOARD WHAT'S THE BOARD BEING REQUESTED TO DO? AND WHAT ARE YOU RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD DO. YEAH. SO THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT IS THAT ANYTHING IN EXCESS OF 2020, WHAT IS THE ORDINANCE SECTION? I DON'T HAVE THE ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF ME.LET ME JUST FORWARD WHAT IS THE ORDINANCE SECTION. THE PLANNERS MEMO IDENTIFIES ITEM. IT'S ON PAGE EIGHT OF 12. 5.3. I. PURSUANT TO SECTION 14, DASH 4.3 B. SO THAT'S WHAT THEY SAY IS PURSUANT TO SECTION 16 DASH 5.6 B, YOU GOT IT RIGHT. OIL DISTURBANCE SOIL HAULING SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 14, OH ONE AND 14 DASH FOUR. WHAT DOES 1401 AND 14 FOUR SAY? SO LET ME GET THAT. YEAH, IT'S ACTUALLY 14. DASH FOUR IS SOIL HAULING. AND THEN 14 DASH.
TO THE CITATION AND 14 DASH 416 DASH 4.4 IS SOIL HAULING. BUT I'M LOOKING TO SEE WHICH ONE.
I MEAN, I CAN LOOK BACK AT ONE OF THE PRIOR RESOLUTIONS THAT THE BOARD ADOPTED LAST YEAR WHERE THIS ISSUE WAS, AND THEY PUT A MAXIMUM OF X NUMBER OF CUBIC YARDS, AND YOU HAD TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE. YEAH. YOU'RE THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THIS IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN 20YD■!T, WHICH IS BASICALLY ONE TRUCK. AND WE'RE SUGGESTING THE UPPER LIMIT FOR THIS PROJECT BE 350YD■!T. OKAY. AND HOW MANY TRUCKS IS 350YD■!T LESS THAN 30. OKAY. SO WHAT IS THE ASK OF THE BOARD. WHAT DO YOU WANT IN THE RESOLUTION? WHAT DO YOU WANT THEM TO DO THAT WE BE PERMITTED TO DO THAT PURSUANT TO THAT SECTION WITHOUT HAVING TO MAKE ANOTHER VISIT BACK TO THE BOARD.
IT'S AN ACTION THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE THIS EVENING. RIGHT. AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE ON A COUNTY ROAD. OUR OUR HAULING IS ON ROUTE 601. AND THIS IS PHIL. CORRECT? CORRECT. AND IN THE PAST WE'VE BASICALLY MADE THAT WHEN THE BOARD HAS GRANTED THIS RELIEF, WHETHER EITHER BOARD, THEY MADE THAT SUBJECT TO THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEER'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL. OKAY. AND THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE MARK. OKAY. AS LONG AS I CAN READ MY NOTES, WE'LL BE IN GOOD SHAPE. OKAY.
SO, MR. FARDON, ARE WE IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO PRESENT? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. SO I'M GOING TO ASK THE BOARD IF THERE'S ANY MORE DISCUSSION. NO, NO. SO, MISS, MISS, I WOULD THINK THE EASIEST MOTION TO MAKE HERE IS A MOTION TO GRANT THE APPLICATION WITHOUT READING BACK. ALL OF THE ALL THE RELIEF THAT CAME TO EVERYTHING THAT WAS SAID, WITH ALL THE RELIEF THAT THEY REQUESTED, INCLUDING BEING PERMITTED TO HAVE UP TO 350YD■!T OF FILL, SUBJECT TO THE TOWNSHIP ENGINEER'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL, AND SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED ON THE RECORD AND THE BOARD'S REGULAR CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH IN ITS RULES, AND SOMEONE COULD JUST SAY SO MOVED. IF SOMEONE CAN MAKE THAT SO MOVED. SO MOVED. SECOND. THE SECOND. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE A ROLL CALL. SORRY. THANK YOU. YOU GOT IT. ROZOVSKY. OH, YES. WOULD. YES. URBANSKI. YES. DULANTY.
YES. AND. ROSENTHAL. YES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. CONGRATULATIONS TO THE APPLICANTS AND MR. CONGRATULATIONS AND CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR GRANDDAUGHTER OKAY OKAY. SO
[VI. MINUTES ]
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PART OF THE AGENDA, WHICH IS THE MINUTES THE JUNE 24TH, 2025 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. I NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE. MOTION TO APPROVE A SECOND, SECOND ROLL CALL. WOULD. YES. AND DELONTE. YES. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO WE HAVE FUTURE MEETINGS JULY 24TH, 2025.THE ZONING BOARD WILL MEET AT 7 P.M. IF THERE'S ANYTHING ON THE AGENDA, YOU CAN CANCEL. YOU CAN CANCEL THAT. WE'RE CANCELING THAT MEETING. EXCELLENT. THAT IS THIS THURSDAY, CANCELED AUGUST 26TH, 2025 IS THE NEXT MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD THEN, WHICH WILL BE 7 P.M. AUGUST 28TH, 2025 IS THE NEXT. IS THE MEETING AFTER THAT AT ALSO AT 7 P.M. I'D LIKE SOMEONE TO PLEASE MAKE A
[01:25:05]
MOTION TO ADJOURN. MOTION TO ADJOURN. AND THE SECOND SECOND. AND THE TIME NOW* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.