[I. ROLL CALL]
[00:00:08]
MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD, MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP, SOMERSET COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, REGULAR MEETING AT ITS NOVEMBER 10TH, 2020 5:07 P.M. OPENING STATEMENT. IT IS THE PLANNING 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. ROLL CALL PLEASE. MORNING. YES.
BATTLE. BLODGET HERE. ROBERTS. SINGH HERE. TAYLOR. TODD HERE. LOCKLEAR. KHAN HERE. CASEY, HERE. OKAY. MISS. MISS ROBERTS IS HERE NOW. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. SO. 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. THANK YOU. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS
[III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA]
NOT ON THE AGENDA, SUBJECT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO LIMIT THEIR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO FIVE MINUTES WHEN PROVIDING COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA OR FOR AN APPLICATION, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL YOUR LAST NAME FOR THE RECORD, IF YOU PREFER NOT TO PROVIDE YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE ADVISE WHICH MUNICIPALITY YOU LIVE IN. GOOD EVENING. I DON'T KNOW IF THESE AREN'T WORKING BECAUSE NOBODY CAN HEAR YOU EITHER. OH, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S ON. YEAH. IS THAT BETTER? OH, NO, IT'S. I'M NOT SURE IF IT IS GOING TO BE RELEVANT OR NOT. AND I CAN COME BACK AND DO IT ANOTHER TIME BECAUSE THIS IS ABOUT THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMISSION. SO I KNOW THAT IT SAYS THE DISMISSAL DUE TO THAT. OR IS THERE GOING TO BE A TIME TO MAKE A COMMENT THERE, OR WOULD IT BE BETTER TO JUST DO A COMMENT NOW? I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER TO MAKE YOUR COMMENT NOW. OKAY. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. SO MY NAME IS DEBORAH KEENAN. K E N A N I'M IN SKILLMAN. I'M HERE ACTUALLY REPRESENTING SAVE MONTGOMERY.SAVE MONTGOMERY ORG IS A GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATION COMPRISED OF MANY RESIDENTS.
AND OUR MISSION IS TO ENSURE RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT THAT RESPECTS THE ENVIRONMENT, MAINTAINS OUR QUALITY OF LIFE, AND GIVES RESIDENTS A VOICE IN SHAPING MONTGOMERY'S FUTURE. IS THIS WORKING AGAIN? OKAY, THE PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT INCLUDES THE SOURLANDS REGION.
THIS PART OF THE STATE IS RECOGNIZED IN THE STATE MASTER PLAN AS ONE OF THE MOST ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE REGIONS OF NEW JERSEY THAT IS STILL LARGELY UNCOMPROMISED BY ENVIRONMENTAL HARM. HARM THE KENVUE PROPERTY, OR I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE CALLED NOW. I DO BELIEVE THEY WERE JUST PURCHASED. IT'S CURRENTLY SPOT ZONED, AND A DEVELOPER NOW SEEKS AN APPROVAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW FOR A 20 YEAR RIGHT OF PROTECTION AGAINST ZONING CHANGES SO HE CAN BUILD MULTIPLE MANUFACTURING PLANTS ON THIS SITE, FREE OF THE RISK OF ANY CHANGES TO THE ZONING CODE. NO REASONABLE OR PROPER BASIS EXISTS FOR THIS APPLICATION. IT WILL NOT PROMOTE THE COMMUNITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL FUTURE OR ITS ZONING NEEDS, AND IS CONTRARY TO THE MASTER PLAN THAT SEEKS TO PROTECT NATURAL AREAS FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HARM. THE ZONING DESIGNATION ALLOWING LIMITED MANUFACTURING FOR THIS PROPERTY IS AN OLDER AND DISFAVORED FORM OF LAND USE. FOR A RURAL AREA OF THIS NATURE, NO REASONABLE GOVERNING BODY OR PLANNING BOARD WOULD TODAY APPROVE MANUFACTURING FOR A PROPERTY ADJOINING THIS SENSITIVE ECOLOGICAL AREA, AND NO REASON EXISTS FOR THE TOWNSHIP TO LOCK IN SUCH FAVORABLE AND ANACHRONISTIC ZONING FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS FOR THIS SITE, BY GRANTING A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT, MODERN PRACTICE WOULD SAY THAT THIS ZONING SHOULD NOT BE LOCKED IN, BUT SHOULD BE CHANGED TO ELIMINATE MANUFACTURING OR OTHER INTENSIVE USES IN THIS SENSITIVE ECOLOGICAL AREA, LOCKING IN SUCH ZONING FOR THE NEXT TWO DECADES VIOLATES ALL MODERN LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICES. IN SHORT, THERE IS NO BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY AND NO IMPROVEMENT TO THE CURRENT ZONE PLAN BY LOCKING IN MANUFACTURING USE FOR THIS SITE AND THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOULD BE REJECTED AND DENIED IF IT COMES IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD. THANK YOU. AND GO
[IV. JURISDICTIONAL DISMISSAL]
AHEAD. OKAY, BOARD MEMBERS, THE NEXT THING YOU HAVE ON YOUR AGENDA IS A WHAT HAS BEEN LABELED A JURISDICTIONAL DISMISSAL. AND YOU'LL SEE IN YOUR PACKAGE THERE WAS A LETTER[00:05:02]
FROM THE STAFF TO THE APPLICANT. THAT LETTER WAS DATED OCTOBER 29TH, 2025, ADVISING THE APPLICANT THAT DUE TO THE LACK OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ORDINANCE IN MONTGOMERY, THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL. AND THAT'S NOT ONLY MY ADVICE, BUT THE STAFF ALSO CONSULTED THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY AND I THINK ALSO GOT INPUT FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTORNEY THAT WITHOUT AN ORDINANCE, THE BOARD WOULD NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. JUST BY WAY OF A LITTLE EXPLANATION, THE THE MUNICIPAL LAND USE LAW, UNDER MY READING OF IT, AS WELL AS THE DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS FOR THE TOWN, ALLOWS A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO BE APPROVED IF THE MUNICIPALITY HAS AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE IT.GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. IT. SOME COURTS HAVE KIND OF. DESCRIBED IT AS A CONCEPTUAL PLAN, BUT REALLY, I THINK A BETTER EXPLANATION IS THAT IT'S INTENDED TO BE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR DEVELOPING A SITE. IT'S TRUE THAT A DEVELOPER WOULD STILL NEED SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, BUT A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN WOULD PROVIDE A VARIOUS PIECES OF INFORMATION CIRCULATION, OPEN SPACE, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY. IF THERE'S GOING TO BE HOUSING B HOUSING PLAN, INCLUDING A SCHEDULE OF HOW THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO DEVELOP THE SITE, THE 20 YEAR PROTECTION FROM ZONING CHANGES THAT WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THE MUNICIPAL LAND USE LAW. AND AGAIN, YOUR ALL MUNICIPAL COUNCIL INTERPRET THE MOU TO REQUIRE THAT ORDINANCE. AND HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES. WHY, ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT IN THE MOU. ORDINANCES ARE REFERENCED IN THESE SECTIONS OF THE MOU THAT REQUIRE OR THAT PERMIT A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ORDINANCE, INITIAL THINGS LIKE IS THE APPLICATION COMPLETE? WITHOUT AN ORDINANCE, WE CAN'T DETERMINE THAT. WHAT WOULD BE THE PERIOD OF PROTECTIVE APPROVAL? 20 YEARS IS THE MAX WITHOUT AN ORDINANCE, WHAT WOULD THE BOARD BASE ITS DECISION ON? COUNSEL FOR THE DEVELOPER HAS PROVIDED THEIR LEGAL POSITION IN A LETTER TO YOU, WHICH WAS ALSO DISTRIBUTED.
THAT LETTER IS DATED NOVEMBER 7TH, 2025, AND THAT WILL BE PART OF THE RECORD OF THE HEARING, THE ARGUMENT THE APPLICANT MAKES IS THAT THE MOU, WHEN IT COMES TO OTHER DEVELOPMENT ASPECTS SUCH AS SITE, PLAN OR SUBDIVISION, THEY FEEL THAT THE MOU MAKES CLEAR THAT YOU NEED AN ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO GIVE THESE APPROVALS. I, I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT INTERPRETATION. IT IS TRUE THAT THERE IS IT'S DIFFICULT TO FIND CASE LAW THAT GIVES YOU ANY GUIDANCE ON THIS TOPIC. BUT. THE POSITION OF ALL YOUR COUNSEL IS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ORDINANCE, YOU DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR IT. SO THAT IS WHAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE HEARING ABOUT THE ELEMENTS OF THEIR PLAN OR THE PHASING OR ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE OF THE LEGAL ADVICE YOU RECEIVED. SO FOR YOU TONIGHT, YOU NEED TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU ACCEPT THAT ADVICE AND WHETHER YOU WOULD VOTE TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION. SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE APPLICANT'S POSITION OR MOU OR ANY ASPECTS OF WHAT I'VE EXPLAINED. IF WE DON'T IF WE DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION, WHO DOES? AND NOBODY, NOBODY DOES.
SO THERE'S THERE'S NOTHING. SO THE CONCEPT OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOESN'T EXIST
[00:10:06]
IN MONTGOMERY. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? SO WE JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH SUCH A APPLICATION. CORRECT. SO I MEAN, THE APPLICANT, COULD THEY CHALLENGE THIS IN COURT? OF COURSE THEY COULD DO THAT. AND I'M I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY APPLICATIONS THAT THE TOWNSHIP HAS EVER GIVEN GDP APPROVAL TO. I THINK EXCEPT ONE. AND THAT WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE IN LITIGATION. AND I THINK THERE WAS A COURT SETTLEMENT ORDER THAT REQUIRED THAT. SO IT WAS NOT A SITUATION IN WHICH. IT WAS IT WAS NOT IT WAS A LITIGATION SITUATION, NOT A NORMAL APPLICATION ENVIRONMENT. SO. NO, NO ONE HAS JURISDICTION. SARAH, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I THINK SO, YES. SARAH DOES HAVE A QUESTION. I BECAUSE OF I GUESS, I GUESS BECAUSE OF THE ACOUSTICS IN THIS HALL, I REALLY CAN'T HEAR WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. OKAY. SORRY. NO PROBLEM. CAN YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? MOSTLY, YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO. SARAH, WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THE BOARD TONIGHT IS A DISMISSAL OF A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION, WHICH WAS FILED BY THE ECON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. YOU KNOW, THEY ARE THE CONTRACT PURCHASER FOR THE KENVUE SITE, RIGHT? RIGHT. GOT THAT? SO THE TOWNSHIP DOES NOT HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD AUTHORIZE A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS FILED, THE MUNICIPAL STAFF LOOKED AT IT. THEY CONSULTED ME, THEY CONSULTED THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY.AND I THINK THEY ALSO GOT INPUT FROM THE ZONING BOARD ATTORNEY. AND THE CONSENSUS OF ALL COUNSEL WAS, WITHOUT AN ORDINANCE, YOU CAN'T HEAR THE APPLICATION. SO THAT'S WHY THE STAFF SENT THE LETTER, WHICH WAS IN YOUR PACKAGE, IN WHICH THEY ADVISED THE APPLICANT, WE DON'T HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT AUTHORIZES THIS. SO EITHER YOU, THE APPLICANT CAN WITHDRAW IT OR THE PLANNING BOARD IS GOING TO BE ASKED TO DISMISS IT BECAUSE IT HAS NO JURISDICTION.
THE APPLICANT CHOSE NOT TO WITHDRAW IT. THEIR POSITION IS THE BOARD DOES HAVE JURISDICTION. THEIR LAWYER DID A LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 7TH. HIS ARGUMENT IS BASICALLY THAT.
IF THE LEGISLATURE WANTED THE MOU TO REQUIRE AN ORDINANCE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR AND THAT. THE ONE SECTION THAT THEY WOULD BE FILING UNDER, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY REFERENCE TO ORDINANCE. BUT THERE ARE OTHER SECTIONS IN THE MOU DEALING WITH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND REFERENCES ARE MADE. THE ORDINANCE MAY PROVIDE THIS. THE ORDINANCE SHALL SAY THIS. SO IN THIS INSTANCE WITHOUT AN ORDINANCE. WE HAVE NO STANDARD. THEN FOR COMPLETENESS, WE HAVE NO STANDARD FOR HOW LONG A PROTECTION PERIOD, BECAUSE THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN GIVES THE DEVELOPER PROTECTION FROM A CHANGE IN ZONING. THEY STILL HAVE TO COME IN FOR SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION. BUT THE MOU WELL CONTEMPLATES THEY COULD HAVE UP TO 20 YEARS OF PROTECTION. BUT AGAIN, MY READING IS THAT'S FOR THE ORDINANCE TO SAY THE TOWN, IF THEY HAD AN ORDINANCE, MIGHT SAY NO, NOT 20 YEARS OR FIVE YEARS, YOU COULD DO FIVE YEARS. SO WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT IS YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR THE APPLICATION. YOU'RE NOT SEEING THE PLANS. IT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT TO DISMISS IT BECAUSE THE BOARD AGREES YOU DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO HEAR IT. THANK YOU. FOR WHAT DO YOU NEED? SO WHAT WE NEED IS A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DISMISS THE GDP PLAN OR APPLICATION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. I VOTE. YEAH. SECOND THAT'S A MOVE IN A SECOND. OKAY. ARE YOU VOTING?
[00:15:03]
I'LL CHECK IT. DORA, COULD YOU TAKE A ROLL CALL? VOTE, PLEASE. BLODGETT, THE MOTION IS TO IS TO DISMISS DUE TO LACK OF JURISDICTION. YES, YES. MONEY. YES. ROBERTS. YES. THING. YES.YES AND YES. OKAY. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA NUMBER FOUR EXTENSION REQUEST CASE PB DASH
[V. EXTENSION REQUEST]
ZERO SEVEN DASH TO THE MIC. OH, SORRY. YEAH. CAN YOU HEAR ME? NOW WE HAVE TO START AGAIN.OKAY. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? YES. OKAY. EXTENSION REQUEST CASE PB DASH ZERO SEVEN, DASH 20.
APPLICANT IS THE HAVEN AT PRINCETON, LLC. BLOCK 37 003, LOT 7-4 60 RIVER ROAD, THAT IS COUNTY ROAD 605. EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL MAJOR SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO NOVEMBER 1ST, 2026. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION.
RICHARD SCHATZMAN, ATTORNEY I'M HERE TONIGHT FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE HAVEN. JOB DEVELOPMENT UNDER 40 NJSA 40, COLUMN 55 D 52 D, WHICH PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART THAT IF A. PLAN LAND USE PLAN IS HELD UP BECAUSE OF ANOTHER GOVERNMENTAL DELAY IN APPROVING IT, THEN WE'RE ENTITLED TO GET A YEAR'S EXTENSION. IT ALSO PROVIDES THAT IF WE GOT EXTENSIONS UNDER 4055 D 52 A, WHICH IS WHAT WE GOT. THIS IS AN ADDITION TO THAT. YOU RECALL THAT THIS IS A TOWNHOUSE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT THAT'S PART OF YOUR THIRD ROUND OBLIGATIONS FOR COA. AND THE REASON WE'RE HERE IS THAT THE DEP. I'LL BACK I'LL BACK A LITTLE BIT. THE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT ONLY COVERED PART OF LOT. 730 703, WHICH IS THE LOT ON WHICH THE DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED. THE STAGE TWO PLAN FOR SANITARY SEWER HAS THE CAPACITY. BUT SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER, WHEN THEY DID THE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, WHICH IS A PLAN THAT DESIGNATES WHICH LOTS AND WHICH LAND GO INTO THE PLANT, DIDN'T COVER THE WHOLE LOT. IT COVERED A LOT OF THE LOT, BUT NOT ALL OF IT. WE GOT APPROVAL ON NOVEMBER 1ST, 2021. AND THAT IS FINAL SITE PLAN, FINAL SUBDIVISION DESIGN WAIVERS AND. S AND THAT'S AND VARIANCES C VARIANCES. AND WE GOT EXTENDED UNDER SUBSECTION A BY RESOLUTION OF MEMORIALIZATION ON OCTOBER 29TH 2023. AND ON NOVEMBER 25TH, 2024. SO WE'RE VESTED RIGHTS ARE UP. WE'RE UP ON NOVEMBER 1ST, 2025 STATUTE PROVIDES AS LONG AS WE APPLIED BEFORE THAT TIME, WHICH WE DID. WE APPLIED ON SEPTEMBER 26TH BECAUSE WE GOT APPROVAL FROM THE DEP FOR THE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT ON SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2025I ASKED JIM COSGROVE, WHO IS YOUR. CONSULTANT AS WELL FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT, TO GIVE US A HISTORY OF HOW LONG IT TOOK. MY CLIENT HIRED ALSO A LOBBYIST TO MOVE THINGS ALONG, AND HE WROTE A MEMORANDUM WHICH I'LL INTRODUCE INTO EVIDENCE DATED SEPTEMBER 24TH. IT SAYS, RICHARD, AS YOU REQUESTED, I HAVE PREPARED THE CHRONOLOGY BELOW TO SUMMARIZE OUR EXTENDED WORK ON THE HAVEN WASTEWATER
[00:20:03]
MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT. MAY 1ST MAY 4TH, 2023. AUTHORIZED BY MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP TO AMEND THE MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP ROCKY HILL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN TO INCORPORATE THE ENTIRE PROPOSED HAVEN DEVELOPMENT AREA INTO THE STAGE TWO SEWER AREA. JUNE 20TH JUNE 203 2ND JUNE 2023 THROUGH FEBRUARY 2ND 024. WORK WITH THE NJDEP MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP DEVELOPERS, ENGINEER AND DEVELOPERS ECOLOGISTS TO ADDRESS THE MISSION REQUIREMENTS, SITE PLAN REVISIONS, AND THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ISSUES. MARCH 8TH, 2024 SUBMITTED DRAFT OF THE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP FOR REVIEW.MARCH 26TH SUBMITTED FORMAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO NJDEP.
SUBMITTED FORMAL NOTIFICATION OF AMENDMENT SUBMISSION TO SOMERSET COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND JDP AS DESIGNATED PLANNING AGENCY AND ROCKY HILL BOROUGH, MARCH 27TH, 2024. SUBMITTED FORMAT FORMAL NOTIFICATION OF AMENDMENT SUBMISSION TO MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP APRIL 8TH 2024 RECEIVED NJ AND DEP CONFIRMATION OF APPLICATION SUBMISSION MAY 2ND 024 TO SEPTEMBER 2ND 025. WORK WITH NJDEP TO ADDRESS COMMENTS AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON T, E SPECIES AND CONSERVATION RESTRICTIONS. SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2025 RECEIVED FORMAL APPLICATION NOTICE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FROM THE NJDEP. BASED UPON THE ABOVE CHRONOLOGY, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT TOOK APPROXIMATELY 16 MONTHS FOR NJDEP TO ADOPT A VERY SIMPLE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FROM THE TIME IT WAS SUBMITTED, AND I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT MEMORANDUM FROM JIM COSGROVE AGAIN, YOUR.
CONSULTANT. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND. A LOT A LOT OF THINGS WERE HELD UP BECAUSE THE NJDEP GAVE US AN ORAL APPROVAL FOR OUR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. BUT THEY ARE WORKING ON FINALIZING THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. ALL THE OTHER THINGS FOR NJDEP THAT WERE HELD UP UNTIL SEPTEMBER OF THIS YEAR. WHAT HAVE WE DONE SINCE THE TIME WE GOT APPROVAL? WE GOT THE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AGREEMENT WORKED OUT, SIGNED BY THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE AND THE APPLICANT. WE GOT THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WORKED OUT. YOUR TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY DECIDED THAT THEY THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE WON'T EXECUTE IT UNTIL THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IS FORMED. WE GOT A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT RE THE GREENWAY AREA, WHICH IS THE MIDDLE THAT MARK HERMAN WANTED TO HAVE SOME RESTRICTIONS ON FOR WHATEVER THE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT APPURTENANCES WERE IN THAT, AND WE GOT THAT APPROVED AND SIGNED BY THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MAYOR.
AND WE WE TURNED AROUND AND GOT THAT RECORDED IN THE SOMERSET COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. WE RELOCATED THE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT THAT WAS DONE YEARS AND YEARS AGO WHEN HARVEY MOORE WAS THE TOWNSHIP ATTORNEY. THAT IS BECAUSE WE FOUND OUT IN DOING OUR SURVEYING WORK. THE OLD EASEMENT, AS I AS I SAID, WHICH WAS DONE YEARS AND YEARS AGO, WAS IN THE WRONG PLACE. SO WE GOT THAT STRAIGHTENED OUT. WE GOT THAT APPROVED, GOT IT SIGNED BY THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE, AND WE GOT IT RECORDED IN THE SOMERSET COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. WE GOT THE DEED OF DEDICATION FOR ALL SAULSBURY ROAD APPROVED, BUT THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL WE GET OFF THE MAINTENANCE BOND, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO CONSTRUCT IT AND HAVE A MAINTENANCE BOND TWO YEARS AFTER WE GET OFF THE PERFORMANCE BOND. AND THAT'S BUT WE GOT THE APPROVAL OF THE FORM APPROVED BY MARK HERMAN. WE GOT A DEED OF DEDICATION FOR THAT PART OF THE SANITARY SEWER THAT MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP WILL OWN. AND WE GOT THAT APPROVED, BUT THAT WON'T BE RECORDED UNTIL AFTER THE MAINTENANCE BOND IS OFF AND MONTGOMERY TAKES IT OVER. WE GOT THE COA DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT AND BY THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE. WE GOT THE
[00:25:04]
COA RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR THE APARTMENT FOR THE 30 YEARS APPROVED AND RECORDED IN THE SOMERSET COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. WE'RE WORKING NOW ON THE EASEMENTS TO FINALIZE THE EASEMENTS, BECAUSE WE'RE WORKING ON FINALIZING THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP. ALTHOUGH WE DID GET. THE EASEMENT FOR THE WALKWAY ALONG THE BAND, HORNBROOK APPROVED, AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE BEFORE THE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE THERE THIS WEEK OR THE NEXT TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING. AGAIN, I SAY WE GOT THE ORAL FOR THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AND WE'VE SUBMITTED. RAKESH DAGES COMMENTS. WE HAD TO HOLD THAT UP BECAUSE OF THE DEP. AND AS FAR AS THE PLANNER'S COMMENTS, WE TOOK CARE OF MOST OF THAT. THOSE WHEN WE HAD THE HEARING, BECAUSE WE HAD FOUR HEARINGS ON THIS AND WE KEPT ON AMENDING THE PLANS, BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE THE FINAL SIGN OFF ON THAT AS WELL AS. RICH BARTOLOMES COMMENTS. WE DID A WE'RE DOING, ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT WAS NOT IN THE RESOLUTION. MARK HERMAN WANTED A BUFFERING EASEMENT. WE WERE PREPARING ON THAT AGAIN. WE GOT THE WALKING PASS EASEMENT ALONG VAN HORNBROOK.THE OTHER WALKING PASS WITHIN THE WOODED AREAS. YOU RECALL THAT THIS IS A 75 ACRES WHICH THE 50 ACRES, SORRY, 25 AND AND 25 ON EITHER SIDE ON THE WOODED PART AND 25 IN THE MIDDLE IS WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT TAKES PLACE. BECAUSE OF THE DEP'S REQUIREMENT FOR GETTING THE APPROVAL FOR THE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALL THAT NOW IS ON A CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
BUT THEY DIDN'T ALLOW THE WALKING PATHS THAT LOREN MASLOWSKI WANTED BECAUSE THEY ALL THEY ALL WE GOT WAS THE PATHWAY ALONG RIVER ROAD, A SIDEWALK. AND THAT'S GOING TO MEANDER, IF YOU RECALL, AND THE WALKING PATH, WHICH I SAID BEFORE ALONG VAN HORN BROOK, WHICH WAS APPROVED AND WE RECORDED THAT WE HAVE TO STILL DO THE BOND AND INSPECTION FEES.
WE SUBMITTED OUR APPROVAL TO THE COUNTY WHERE THE WE'RE WAITING FOR THEIR COMMENTS.
NORA FEKETE, WHO'S ASSIGNED THE PLANNING FOR MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP, TOLD ME THE LAST TIME I SPOKE WITH HER AND A COUPLE OF THE OTHER APPLICATIONS I HAVE THAT THEY'RE SHORTHANDED.
THEY'RE WORKING ON AS FAST AS THEY CAN. THE DRC, WE GOT SOME COMMENTS FROM THEM BACK IN AUGUST. WE'RE FINALIZING THAT. AND. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT WE THAT DEP HELD US UP ON THE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, WE GOT THE FOLLOWING FROM THE DEP PERMITS THE WETLAND TRANSITION TRANSITION WAIVER. WE GOT THAT THE STORMWATER MANAGER REVIEW TRIGGERED BY THE TRANSITION WAIVER REQUEST. AND WE POINT OUT THAT THERE WAS NO ACTIVITY IN THE FLOOD HAZARD AREA. WE GOT A SANITARY SEWER CROSSING. GENERAL PERMIT TWO. WE GOT A GENERAL PERMIT, SIX STATE OPEN WATERS AND A GP TEN A SALISBURY ROAD INTERSECTION CROSSING. AND OF COURSE THE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT. SO ADDITIONALLY, WE SUBMITTED LAST WEEK A TRANS TO APPROVAL FOR THE SEWER LINE AND WE GOT SOME COMMENT BACK FROM MARK HERMAN. WE DID ONE OF THE COMMENTS. HE WANTED A SEWER REPORT. WE'RE WORKING ON THAT. WE'RE FINALIZING THAT THIS WEEK.
SO WE'RE PRETTY WE DIDN'T DO ANY. WE WE HAD A LOT OF ACTIVITY BETWEEN THE TIME WE GOT APPROVAL AND THE TIME NOW THAT WE ON SEPTEMBER 23RD, WHEN WE FINALLY GOT DEP APPROVAL FOR THE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT. AND IF YOU RECALL ON THIS ONE, THE DEP REQUIRED US
[00:30:01]
TO DO A ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY. BS NEAR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OF ROCKY HILL, MOUNT MONTGOMERY TOWNSHIP. AND SO WE DID THAT, AND WE FOUND THAT THERE WAS A ONE LITTLE SMALL SLIVER THAT HAD AMERICAN INDIAN ARTIFACT IN IT. SO WE FILED AN EASEMENT WITH THE DEP ON THE SMALL PIECE THAT WE CAN'T TOUCH. IT'S WITHIN THE AREA THAT'S ALSO ENCUMBERED BY THE SUBSEQUENT EASEMENT. CONSERVATION EASEMENT THAT I TALKED ABOUT FOR THE WOODED AREA. SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. SO WE'RE 95% THERE. IT TOOK 16 MONTHS FOR US. AS JIM COSGROVE POINTED OUT, TO GET A SIMPLE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT. HOWEVER, THE STATUTE ONLY ALLOWS FOR ONE YEAR. SO THAT'S WHAT WE NEED. AND ONE YEAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTE. ANY QUESTIONS? SO IF IF I MAY ASK THE BOARD RESPECTFULLY TO TO MAKE A RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE VESTED RIGHTS UNDER 40, 55 D 50 2DA YEAR FROM DECEMBER, I'M SORRY, NOVEMBER 1ST, 2025 TO NOVEMBER 1ST, 2026. AND WE SHOULD BE READY THIS SUMMER TO HAVE EVERYTHING DONE AND START CONSTRUCTION FOR YOUR THIRD ROUND. OBLIGATION, OBLIGATION. PROFESSIONAL COMMENTS, NO QUESTIONS. COMMENTS. ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS. PARDON? NO, NO NOT YOU FOR THE PUBLIC. ANY COMMENTS OKAY. OKAY OKAY. MOTION TO CLOSE. PUBLIC COMMENT. SO MOVE SECOND. I, I OKAY. ANY NAMES OKAY. ANY ANY OBSERVATIONS FROM YOUR POINT. NO. ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE BOARD I'LL SAY IT'S JUSTIFIABLE TO EXTEND. YEAH. YEAH. MOTION TO APPROVE I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. SECOND. OKAY. ROLL CALL PLEASE. ROGER. YES. MONEY. YES. ROBERTS. YES. YES, YES. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. FUTURE MEETINGS NOVEMBER 24TH PLANNING BOARD MEETING AT 7 P.M. IF WE HAVE ANY APPLICATIONS. NO, NOT. NOT AT THIS POINT, BUT IT'LL BE PEOPLE WILL BE NOTIFIED AS APPROPRIATE. DECEMBER 2ND, 2025. SITE PLAN OR SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING AT 8:30 A.M. NOTHING YET. AND DECEMBER 8TH, 2025.PLANNING BOARD MEETING AT 7 P.M. OKAY, MOTION TO ADJOURN. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN SECOND. TIME IS 733. OKAY.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.