[0:37] Excuse me.

[0:46] Call us meeting of the Morristown Township Planning Board, September 3, 2026, to order. Notice

[0:53] that this meeting is provided in accordance with the Open Public Meeting Act by one posting a copy

[0:58] of the agenda on the bulletin board of town hall, filing a copy of the agenda in the office

[1:03] of the Board Secretary of Town Hall, forwarding a copy of the agenda to the Burlington County Times

[1:08] and Courier Post, and lastly forwarding a copy of the agenda to each person who has requested

[1:14] copies of the regular meeting schedule. All of the above postings, filings, and mailing of

[1:21] the agenda have taken place on or before August 24th, 2026. If we all rise now please for a moment

[1:29] Silence and solicit the flag I

[1:39] pledge with the United States of America

[2:00] Paddy are you going to do the roll call?

[2:02] Mr. Averant here Mr. Cara Burns present

[2:08] Mr. Thomas here Mr. McGuire here Mr. Mauryucci here

[2:15] Mr. Maznog, Ms. Petriela, here, Mr. Keating.

[2:21] Present.

[2:23] Mr. Weizelowski, here.

[2:25] Mr. Sparito, here, Mr. Driscoll.

[2:28] Here.

[2:31] OK, on the agenda, we have meeting minutes,

[2:34] but there will be no meeting minutes tonight.

[2:38] Next order of business is the adoption of resolutions.

[2:41] And this is PB number 2026-21, Brian Pierce, 1027, Haynes Mill Road, block 690-11, proposed minor subdivision of a lot 11, 2.33 acres into two single family residential lots.

[3:03] Are there any additions or corrections to this resolution?

[3:07] Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you.

[3:09] A couple spelling corrections, so I'll start with those names.

[3:14] We've got the one page five, paragraph six.

[3:20] Pierce will be changed to Pierce, P-E-A-R-C-E, not the way it's spelled.

[3:25] In addition, we have a spelling change, the Del Rans engineer, page seven, paragraph 14,

[3:32] Ed and we put in his last name, DRM and TOS, we've spelled that properly now as well.

[3:37] In addition, we had requested changes from the applicant side and I'm not necessarily

[3:45] adverse to them.

[3:46] I don't necessarily think they do much, but we're going to throw them in there.

[3:49] Paragraph on page three, paragraph 13, it talks about the applicant agreeing to comply

[3:56] with all outside agency approvals.

[3:57] I'm going to agree to comply with all necessary outside agency approvals.

[4:01] The word necessary being added.

[4:05] Page 5, paragraph 6, when there was a discussion about Mr. Wigmore who's here talking about

[4:12] building a home for himself and also his business partner's family.

[4:16] It's referenced about building a house for the parents of his partner and it's going to

[4:20] be for his business partner.

[4:21] The word business is being added.

[4:23] In addition, paragraph 8 mistakenly referred to Brian Peter, but not always a professional

[4:29] engineer, but also as a planner.

[4:30] He's not a planner, so we've omitted the P.P. and the reference to the word planner.

[4:36] With those changes, eligible members here are Carro Burns, Keating, and Driscoll.

[4:43] From the eligible members, any questions about those changes or this resolution?

[4:49] With no changes, and of those three eligible members, could I get a motion to adopt?

[4:56] Second.

[4:56] It's a motion by our caraburns, second by Keating.

[5:01] Mr. Caraburns?

[5:02] Yes.

[5:03] Mr. Keating?

[5:04] Yes.

[5:06] Mr. Driscoll.

[5:10] Okay.

[5:12] At this time, we'll move on to new business.

[5:14] It's a PB number 2026-18, Elizabeth Trucksis,

[5:20] of the state of genus R-Truxus, 451 Creek Road, block 80000, lots 3, 4, and 5.

[5:30] This is preliminary major subdivision, proposes a 24 residential lot subdivision on 65.47 acres.

[5:39] The subdivision is proposed to conform to the R1 zoning district.

[5:43] The applicant is not requesting any variances.

[5:46] Thank you, Mr. Chair, applicants represented by Bob Barranowski, they've been working diligently with their own team and our team to prepare for this evening, so we thank him and his team for that, and we welcome him here this evening, which keep everyone just reminded everybody to keep your voices up, you're being amplified and recorded, so just party big and bold.

[6:06] Thank you. Thank you for the introduction. Thank you, Mr. Relicco. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening to everyone. This is Bob Barronowski speaking. I am an attorney with Highland live in Shapiro in Merlton representing the applicant. The matter before you this evening, if I may just start off with introducing our team and let you know who's here with us tonight and maybe we can get everybody sworn in to start with and then I'd like to give you a brief overview and then get some testimony on the record

[6:34] for you and show you the plans.

[6:37] I do have, behind me, Ms. Elizabeth Truxis,

[6:39] who goes by the name Tegan.

[6:42] She is the applicant's representative.

[6:45] She is the executive tricks of the estate.

[6:47] Have to my left, Mr. Samuel Renaro, R-E-N-A-U-R-O.

[6:53] The third, he is a professional engineer

[6:55] with SR-3 engineers.

[6:57] He will discuss the subdivision plan with the board.

[7:00] Mr. Mark A. Roth, also a professional engineer of Bowman Traffic, is with us and just just Roth, ROTH.

[7:09] And Mr. Mike Lamanna, L-A-M-A-N-A, he's a certified, certified, forester.

[7:16] He did the tree inventory report, and he is also with us this evening.

[7:20] So if I might ask everybody that they could be sworn in at this time, and then we'll proceed from there.

[7:25] All right, welcome them all. We'll also swear in our board planner Mr. Davis and also Mr. Noel. So everybody that was identified

[7:31] Could you please raise your right hand and do you all swear from the testimony give us even be the truth?

[7:38] Great. Thank you. Welcome. Okay. Thank you, everybody

[7:43] As indicated in the

[7:45] Statement of the summary of the application by the chair as indicated on your

[7:50] agenda for the evening, this is an application for preliminary major subdivision.

[7:56] We're seeking preliminary approval only this evening.

[7:59] The property is located at 4.51 Creek Road.

[8:02] That is block 8,000, last three, four, and five.

[8:06] That is property located in the R1 zoning district.

[8:10] It's approximately 64, 65.47 acres.

[8:14] There is one existing home at this time on a lot, three.

[8:18] and that's proposed to remain.

[8:20] The zone requires a one and a half acre minimum lot size.

[8:24] So we are proposing to maintain the one home on lot three

[8:29] and to create, I'm sorry, it's going to be named as lot 10.

[8:33] That's okay, I encourage you to let me know

[8:36] if I'm getting it right or wrong.

[8:38] Thank you, Tegan for that.

[8:40] So that will be to be located on the newly designated lot 10

[8:44] and by the way, we also have asked the assessor

[8:47] to give the approval for all the proposed lot numbers.

[8:51] So that is pending and we also have proposed requests to approve the street names and so forth.

[8:58] That's also pending.

[9:00] So we are proposing to keep the one home on the lot where it's currently located and

[9:04] to create 23 new single family dwelling lots, all of a conforming lot size.

[9:13] And those vary from about 65,372 square feet to 324,562 square feet.

[9:22] And that Mr. Renaro just take you through the plan in more detail.

[9:25] But as mentioned, again, there are no bulk variances associated with this application.

[9:33] None requested, none required.

[9:35] There are two design waivers that we will be requesting.

[9:40] I think Mr. Renaro will describe this.

[9:43] Mr. Davis did identify more than two design waivers in his review letter,

[9:49] but as Mr. Renaro will tell you, we can modify those requests to eliminate two or

[9:55] three of those other two, yeah, two of the other design waiver requests.

[9:59] And I think the board is very familiar with this, and

[10:02] I'm sure your council can advise you.

[10:04] But design waivers are different than variances.

[10:09] It's variances require kind of a heightened standard in order for the board to determine

[10:13] that relief from your zoning ordinance standards are appropriate.

[10:17] The standard you apply in respect to deciding whether a design waiver is appropriate is

[10:23] reasonableness.

[10:24] Is it reasonable under the circumstances for the design standard to be relaxed?

[10:29] And that's what we're requesting with respect to two issues that Mr. Renaro will talk about.

[10:34] As you can see from we have the exhibit, it's a colorized rendering of the subdivision plan that's up on the screen right now that Mr.

[10:42] Renaro will speak to the plan seeks to preserve as many trees as possible.

[10:51] And with the plan that's proposed, we will agree to conform with your ordinance with respect to any tree removal.

[11:00] We are going to work with your professionals to address a very robust tree replanting plan.

[11:09] Regardless of what happens, we will replace as many trees as possible.

[11:13] We understand there will be a responsibility for whatever trees cannot be planted.

[11:18] There will be a responsibility to comply with the ordinance as to what that would require for

[11:23] any payment and lieu toward the fund.

[11:27] As noted by Mr. Relicco, we have met with your professionals, we've workshoped the application, we thank your professionals for their time and input.

[11:37] The meeting with us, we have their review letters, we have no issues with addressing all the technical requirements and comments in those letters.

[11:47] And if I just may briefly go through the letters we have, and then we'll address any call outs for testimony in those letters.

[11:53] and otherwise we can indicate that we can agree to comply with all the comments.

[12:00] We do have an ERI review letter from August 7th, 2026.

[12:05] That is an engineering letter issued by Mr. Null.

[12:09] We have an HGA letter, dated August 26th.

[12:15] And that is a planning review letter from Mr. Davis.

[12:17] We have a letter review memo from the Department of Public Works.

[12:23] That is dated August 18th, 2026, that's for Mr. Don Lloyd.

[12:28] And we have a letter review memorandum from the Moore Sound Fire Department.

[12:34] That's dated August 19th, 2026, from your Fire Marshal, Mr. Matt or Cine.

[12:40] I do also want to point out for the record that our traffic engineer, Mr.

[12:45] Mr. Roth did also submit a letter responding to traffic comments that were contained within

[12:52] the ERI letter. Mr. Roth's letter was dated September 2nd. Overall, I just also want to mention

[13:01] as we move forward into the testimony as a permitted use, the traffic that is generated to be

[13:08] generated, anticipated to be generated by the proposed development is something that is

[13:13] anticipated by and encompassed by the zoning for the property and this is also along the county road

[13:20] and we do have a conditional county approval already at this time and Mr. Renaro will also I think touch on that as he goes through.

[13:28] So I'm going to have Mr. Renaro start off with testimony, walk you through the plan.

[13:32] Mr. Lamana is available to answer any questions as they may arise with regarding two trees and Mr. Roth

[13:40] Dr. Roth also available to answer any traffic questions can walk you through his report, his response to comments as may be needed.

[13:49] And with that, I think if I may turn it back over to Mr.

[13:52] Renaro and ask him as he starts off to just put his qualifications on the record and

[13:58] I'm asking it except his testimony in the field of professional engineering.

[14:05] Good evening, my name is Sam Renaro with SR3 Engineers.

[14:08] I've been practicing civil engineering for 25 years, and I've testified before many boards, including the Morse Towns Learning Board, and I've testified in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

[14:18] I'm also a licensed planner in New Jersey.

[14:21] Okay, and all of your certifications are current and up to date?

[14:24] Yes.

[14:25] Okay, good stand.

[14:26] Thank you.

[14:26] With the board, accept Mr. Monaro in the fields of engineering and planning.

[14:30] Accept it.

[14:31] Thank you.

[14:32] Okay, please proceed.

[14:34] I'm the Civil Engineer for the project and I wanted to first introduce where we are in

[14:40] the world.

[14:40] I think probably most of you know, but I just repeat it referring to the applicant's exhibit

[14:44] A1.

[14:46] This exhibit is simply the overall site plan we've added color to the plan so it's easier

[14:51] to see from a distance, so it's the same as your sheet number two in your plan set.

[14:56] Is that, I know we got one today.

[15:00] Is that dated August 26, 2026? Yes, yes. Okay.

[15:10] Property is 65 acres as Mr. Barron asked you pointed out. It is located on Northbound Creek Road. I know the Creek Road kind of goes to an easterly, westerly direction, but the county calls it a North South Road. So I'll call it Northbound Creek Road. It's on 65 acres. There are three existing lots. The main lot is lot number three. There are two lots that are kind of in the middle.

[15:33] middle of the Rancookas Creek, the deed for the property does go to the center line of the Rancookas Creek, but obviously that area is environmentally protected.

[15:42] The site is in the R1 zone, and there are wetlands on the property we've received approval from the DEP in the form of a letter of interpretation that approves the location of the wetlands as delineated by our wetlands expert.

[15:56] So those wetlands that you see on the plan are the same as what was approved by the DEP.

[16:02] The application received things for a 24-lot subdivision single-family detached dwellings.

[16:11] The existing lot, as Mr. Boundewski pointed out, will remain on lot 10, and that existing

[16:18] lot has a driveway that accesses Creek Road, that lot will now access from a proposed

[16:24] roadway.

[16:27] The application includes two proposed homes that will gain access to Creek Road via a

[16:32] driveway. The other 22 lots will gain access to Creek Road via what we've called on our

[16:39] plan's road A but it will have an actual name when we proceed. Road A is a cul-de-zac.

[16:45] There's also a second road that we've called a court that is a U-shaped road that will connect

[16:50] to both sides of road A. That is what provides access for all of the lots in the development.

[16:58] This application does not propose any variances.

[17:03] The application meets the ordinance requirements for zoning requirements for dimensions, lot area of 1.5 acres, lot width, setbacks, and so forth.

[17:14] Our plans show the impervious coverage on the lots.

[17:17] However, I think Mr. Davis asked for some additional detail regarding impervious coverage.

[17:23] And our plans show limits on impervious coverage that is not more than the maximum

[17:28] pervious coverage of 25% in the zoning ordinance.

[17:32] Some lots have more flexibility than others, but all of the lots have a minimum allowance

[17:36] of the pervious coverage of an additional 6500 square feet.

[17:41] For patios, hard-scaping sidewalks, what homeowners would need on their property.

[17:46] So it's not just the building footprint in the driveway.

[17:50] That way we do give allowances and flexibility for these lots, for a previous coverage.

[17:55] Our stormwater system does account for that.

[17:58] Now the charge from Ms. Trucksis for this art design was to maximize the preserved wooded

[18:07] area on the property that we wanted to save as many trees as possible.

[18:10] We want this to be a natural looking development that kind of fits into the topography of the

[18:15] neighborhood fits in the topography of the site and fits in with the wooded

[18:19] character of the site. So for that reason we have shown some different methods

[18:27] to save trees. Two of them are the waiver requests that I will discuss later but

[18:33] also our stormwater design is somewhat innovative design where we will be

[18:36] having some underground underneath the roadway underground storage. We also will

[18:42] will be showing pervious gutters and we will be showing pervious driveways that minimizes

[18:51] runoff from these areas. It also addresses water quality, water quantity and recharge.

[19:00] The soils here are excellent so recharge is definitely something that was relatively easy

[19:05] for us to address.

[19:09] Another method we use was trying to arrange the properties in a way

[19:13] such that there are stands of trees between lots.

[19:18] We did this by having septic systems adjacent near each other with two neighbors.

[19:24] And then on the other side, having a stand of trees to remain.

[19:27] We also arranged our grading plan to match existing grades as much as possible,

[19:32] so that we don't have these large embankments.

[19:34] We tried to avoid large embankments to build the roads and

[19:38] houses that would disturb more trees.

[19:42] So with that in mind, you'll see on your plans that we show a simple rectangle for these houses.

[19:47] And the reason for that is that we do not have a builder chosen.

[19:50] This evening, we're only here for preliminary approval.

[19:53] So there isn't a builder on board.

[19:55] We don't have renderings to show you of what these buildings will look like.

[19:59] But I can tell you that first of all, it will comply with the maximum building coverage for

[20:04] the lot, which is 15%.

[20:06] These rectangles that you see here do provide flexibility and they are approximately 9% building coverage

[20:12] We will provide a table as requested by Mr. Davis on the plans for every single lot showing our exact building coverage

[20:24] Regarding basements

[20:25] Mr. Noel asked that we provide some testimony on whether basements are proposed and the answer is yes

[20:30] We will be proposing basements the soil test

[20:33] we did on the site in several locations at more than five locations show ground water at a

[20:40] deep elevation. We will provide a table as requested by Mr. Noel on the plans showing that those

[20:45] basements are feasible.

[20:49] I talked a little bit about the stormwater system and I just wanted to

[20:54] clarify that the stormwater system is a good segue into discussion of governance and responsibility

[21:01] for the summer system.

[21:02] This application is proposing a homer's association and although the details of homer's

[21:09] association, homer's association isn't necessarily my area of expertise, I can tell you that

[21:14] the purpose of this homer's association is mainly to maintain this stormwater system.

[21:19] It's a large system that will need some maintenance.

[21:23] The pervious gutters will require some maintenance and that maintenance responsibility and

[21:28] responsibility for overall system will be the HUA.

[21:32] There will be no common areas as part of the HUA,

[21:34] like you might see where there's large areas of land

[21:39] that is owned by the HUA.

[21:40] We will not be having that situation.

[21:43] We will, however, be proposing our HUA

[21:45] mainly for this purpose.

[21:48] With that in mind, the actual road,

[21:51] we are offering that road for dedication

[21:53] to more town township, excluding maintenance

[21:55] of the basin, of course.

[21:57] That also addresses Mr. Nol's request that I provide testimony regarding trash, recycling,

[22:05] snow removal and other municipal services.

[22:09] Once the development and the road is dedicated, then those services we would request to be provided by Moore's Town Township.

[22:20] This application did appear before the Burlington County.

[22:24] On August 12th, the county issued an approval letter that approval did, of course, have conditions with

[22:29] review letter with review letters we will address those letters and I have no

[22:32] problem saying that testifying that we can address those letters without any

[22:37] problem nothing in those letters posed a feasibility concern for me mailbox

[22:45] locations with the fact that we would be requesting that the road be dedicated to

[22:49] the town we would anticipate that mailboxes would just be in front of each house

[22:54] however that is the jurisdiction and the final say of the postmaster we defer to

[22:59] to the postmaster, I understand Mr. Bernaske's office has contacted the postmaster already.

[23:05] And once we hear from them, we will comply.

[23:07] I don't think we would have much of a choice anyway.

[23:10] So we will provide the mailboxes as required by the post office.

[23:17] Regarding signage, there is no purpose signage proposed as part of this application this evening.

[23:24] Earlier, I discussed waivers, I stressed that this is a variance free application.

[23:30] However, there are two waivers that we are requesting this evening.

[23:33] Mr. Barron asking briefly touched on the fact that Mr.

[23:36] Davis's letter shows four waiver requests on his letter.

[23:41] Two of those waivers specifically street tree number of minimum number of species and

[23:49] street tree maximum number of any one species.

[23:52] We can comply. We will gladly update our plans to meet that requirement as requested as required by the ordinance and also as requested by Mr. Davis, that will not be a problem.

[24:05] A third item related to street trees is street street tree spacing.

[24:11] Now, if you see on applicants exhibit a one we do show street trees along most of the proposed road.

[24:18] You'll also see that the street trees are only provided in areas where it's already

[24:24] cleared.

[24:25] So, for example, in front of a home, that's already going to be cleared.

[24:30] We're showing street trees at 50 foot spacing in those areas.

[24:34] The ordinance also has a requirement that street trees must be 10 feet behind the right

[24:39] of way.

[24:40] So, with that in mind, there are several areas on the property where our proposed edge of

[24:49] woods, the edge of forest, is near the right of way, the proposed right of way of the

[24:56] road as part of this development.

[24:58] For that scenario, in our opinion, it would make sense for us to keep existing trees as much

[25:05] as we can. This goes along with our charge earlier to try to preserve as much forest as

[25:10] we can, save as many trees as we can. I know that it would still be a variance. I'm

[25:15] not arguing that we do not have an variance, but in my opinion, variance, sorry. I know

[25:22] that it would still be a waiver, but in our opinion, keeping existing trees would meet the

[25:28] spirit of the ordinance along that right of way in areas. So, referring to the A1,

[25:35] as

[25:35] As you enter on the right, there's a stand of trees that are going to be adjacent to

[25:38] the right of way.

[25:39] As you turn left onto the court near the back of the property when I say back I mean

[25:44] east referring to exhibit A1, on your left there's a long stand of trees that would remain

[25:51] as part of our proposal the way it's drawn on the plans.

[25:56] If we were to comply with the street tree ordinance specifically and not ask for a partial

[26:01] waiver, we would just need to clear back 15 feet.

[26:04] feasible, of course, but we were clear back at least 15 feet behind the right-of-way line,

[26:09] clear more trees, plant the street trees, and to me that doesn't seem necessarily efficient or desirable.

[26:18] So Mr. Narrow, just to kind of recap that waiver request.

[26:22] The reason for the waiver request, for not meeting the 50-foot spacing requirement is that we are proposing to actually leave trees in those areas.

[26:33] is so there will already be trees rather than remove trees to plant trees, is that accurate?

[26:38] Yes, okay, thank you.

[26:40] You're welcome.

[26:42] The second waiver we're requesting this evening is sidewalk.

[26:47] Now, it is not shown on our plans because these plans were prepared in April.

[26:53] But since that time, we will be proposing sidewalk along Creek Road.

[26:58] That is part of our, it was part of our application to Burlington County in June.

[27:04] I believe, June, and we will proposing sidewalk along Creek Road.

[27:10] This provides connectivity to other developments, perhaps the park to the north.

[27:15] We think that's good planning to show sidewalk along Creek Road.

[27:19] Regarding the internal areas, I don't believe that sidewalk necessarily is developed as

[27:29] best served by adding the increased impervious coverage of the sidewalk on the site, and

[27:36] the increased, possibly the increased clearing that would be necessary to build that sidewalk.

[27:42] If we have sidewalk along the roadways, that would probably be at a higher elevation.

[27:47] It would require a little more clearing along those areas.

[27:51] And it's specifically the areas that I mentioned when I was discussing the street tree waiver.

[27:56] As you turn left on to the court, on the right as you enter from road A, if you're on the court in the front, closer to the front of the property, both sides of that right of way does have trees.

[28:09] If there's sidewalk on both sides of the street, we believe that that would be increased clearing, not to mention the increased stormwater runoff.

[28:20] We believe it matches the character of other developments in the area as well.

[28:25] Again, thank you, Mr. Renard, just to recap that one as well, again, the reason the basis for the waiver request from having internal sidewalks in the development is you feel in your opinion where the development is better served by having less impervious coverage and more trees as a result of not providing internal sidewalks.

[28:45] Is that right?

[28:45] Yes.

[28:46] Okay.

[28:46] Thank you for that.

[28:50] As Mr. Barron asked you pointed out, we did have the pleasure of talking to the Township

[28:55] professionals and the Township staff about the project.

[28:58] They provided some additional input.

[29:00] They provided areas where they need more information.

[29:03] And we are happy to do that.

[29:05] We will be providing in our resubmission a point-by-point response to everything in their letters.

[29:11] And I'm very confident that we can meet the requirements in those letters to their satisfaction.

[29:16] Okay, thank you, Mr. Naro.

[29:19] I think that kind of caps Mr. Renaro's testimony with regard to the subdivision plan overview and design.

[29:27] If the board, it would be your pleasure, we can proceed.

[29:30] If you have no questions for Mr. Renaro.

[29:33] Mr. Chairman, you have a question?

[29:34] Yes.

[29:35] I'm sorry if I missed it, but the drawing on the easel there, was that marked A1?

[29:43] It was pre-marked as Exhibit A1, we haven't called it, that's going to be A1, which is a site plan rendering, and it's dated August 26th, 2026.

[29:53] Okay. Thank you.

[29:54] Thank you.

[29:56] So guys, question about that.

[29:58] I have one here.

[30:00] It's dated April 16th, 2026, but it looks like the same thing. Can you pull that microphone up a little bit closer? I have one here that was given to us during our meeting on August 25th, and it's dated April 16th, 2026. The one I got, I just got by email this afternoon. I think there was a slight modification in the tree line. I'm not sure I haven't identified it. A very slight modification to the tree line to match the plans.

[30:27] That's the we incorrectly showed the wrong tree line on the previous the previous rendering so the the rendering on the board matches the plans so could somebody could somebody just give a copy of that to our professionals on the way

[31:05] up and down.

[31:06] That's the same thing that's up there.

[31:07] And as you're looking at that exhibit you'll notice the dark green on that exhibit is all existing trees to remain.

[31:16] Okay. I'm good. Okay. Yeah.

[31:21] Okay. I have a couple other points here.

[31:28] Mr. Nolz, a letter

[31:30] of August 7th, he suggested testimony be taken on certain points, and a lot of them

[31:39] have already been covered, but maybe at this time we can cover the rest. It said the applicant

[31:47] The applicant should provide testimony regarding whether any phasing of the project is proposed.

[31:52] No phasing.

[31:53] No.

[31:54] Okay.

[31:56] The applicant should provide testimony if there are to be any common areas of land reserved for public use proposed.

[32:04] No.

[32:08] This next one was, I think, half covered.

[32:11] The applicant should provide testimony regarding how trash and recycling will be removed.

[32:16] I think that point was covered, but the rest of that says and stored at the site.

[32:22] It will not be stored at the site, it will be, I guess, individual property owners would

[32:26] probably store their trash in a way that a homeowner would, but then it will be brought

[32:32] to the street and picked up by municipal services.

[32:36] Thank you.

[32:37] You're welcome.

[32:39] Board members, any questions at this point?

[32:48] I have a couple of questions about the storm water management.

[32:52] I do probably be the appropriate witness for that.

[32:56] So I'm taking a look at the storm water and utility plan, sheet 5.

[33:02] And just trying to understand what I was doing is comparing the construction details on sheet 21.

[33:10] So I'm looking at a cross section of the road on sheet 5.

[33:14] And there is the proposed poorest pavement, looking at 21, it refers to a poorest concrete

[33:24] gutter. So is that what's proposed? There's going to be asphalt in the middle,

[33:28] and then poorest concrete?

[33:30] There will be a four foot section of poorest pavement along the gutter.

[33:34] That's correct.

[33:35] You're saying poorest pavement is that poorest concrete, because the detail is poorest concrete.

[33:39] Yes.

[33:40] Okay.

[33:40] I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I use it as a general word, yes, it's concrete, yeah.

[33:45] I usually think of pavement as asphalt, but it can be, yeah, concrete, that is correct.

[33:53] And then what's in the roadway, I'm looking again at the construction details on 21.

[33:59] Can you describe what these basins, how are these constructed?

[34:06] It looks like massive numbers, like 2300 something?

[34:11] there is it is a large storm water system and it is expensive and they will be

[34:18] constructed on the ground these they're called storm tank units we would of

[34:22] course if there's a equivalent we would talk to the contractor but we've

[34:25] specified storm tank units we've worked with this firm in the past on other

[34:30] projects and they are traffic graded I think that's one of the things Mr.

[34:33] Noel asked me to testify about but they are traffic graded for large trucks

[34:36] although we don't anticipate large trucks here to be conservative they are

[34:40] traffic-graded to handle large loads. They will be constructed underneath and those in a flat bed, and

[34:47] those would provide additional stormwater volume almost like a detention basin.

[34:53] But under the roadway. Under the roadway.

[34:55] Looking again at sheet five, the very

[35:04] bottom right corner of this,

[35:06] there's something that goes down to the right and

[35:10] And looking at sheet five, it indicates there's a 24-inch pipe in the ground.

[35:17] So I guess is that overflow?

[35:19] That is the discharge for the system.

[35:22] So, again, so if there's insufficient capacity inside the system, it would go out through that?

[35:28] No, no, during all storms, there will be some discharge at this point.

[35:33] Now, we do show infiltration on the site that meets the requirements for infiltration.

[35:38] And it's only on one or two, I'm sorry, it's two of the five systems will have infiltration

[35:43] component.

[35:44] I mentioned earlier that the soils are excellent here.

[35:46] So we had no problem meeting that.

[35:48] But the other ones are really just detention basins to handle peak flows.

[35:53] So those detention basins will have some flow even during small storms.

[35:57] So this, that pipe you called it outfall?

[36:00] Yes.

[36:03] Is there going to be an easement on that?

[36:04] Who's responsible for that?

[36:06] Is there, I'm sorry, that was a-

[36:08] He's been shown and that he's been,

[36:09] will be the responsibility of H.A.

[36:12] Okay, so it's an easement on the property in favor of the H.O.A.,

[36:15] so the H.O.A. can perform any necessary maintenance on that.

[36:18] Exactly right.

[36:19] Okay, I didn't see that reflected here,

[36:21] but it might be on one of the other sheets.

[36:23] I'll clarify that on the subdivision plan if it's not already on there.

[36:28] Okay, Mr. Everett, we would also make sure to submit all of the H.O.A.

[36:33] a formation paperwork and the declaration of covenants and restrictions to your attorney

[36:39] to have that reviewed and approved so that it could be recorded and that would run with

[36:44] the land in the title of all the properties.

[36:50] In terms of the maintenance, what is involved with the maintenance of those units, the storm

[37:00] tank?

[37:01] There is a, operations and maintenance manual in our, in our stormer report, and that

[37:08] requires they jet, you can jet out those systems using a back truck, using, they can,

[37:14] they jet out those systems, and we would have to contract when I say we, the HOA, would

[37:19] have to contract with a service that provides that.

[37:22] So it is listed in detail in our stormer report.

[37:25] So, we will also include that in any documents that the HOA would have.

[37:32] And again, just to add to that as well, in paragraph 18 under the general comments of Mr.

[37:40] Noles letter, he is recommending that the applicant should provide a point of sale at this closure

[37:46] to inform the potential purchasers of their obligations under the proposed HOA.

[37:52] Okay we would certainly agree to that condition and we agreed during our meeting with the

[37:59] boards professionals to include some other terms and conditions as well in the, in the

[38:05] point of sale disclosure and we would again provide that to your council to be reviewed

[38:10] and approved prior to proceeding.

[38:14] Bill RC.

[38:15] Thank you.

[38:18] I had a question about trees and when I reviewed some of the documents this afternoon

[38:24] I don't remember the numbers, but can you review how many trees are coming down?

[38:29] How many trees are being replaced?

[38:31] I remember the percentage seemed very low in what was being replaced if I'm correct.

[38:37] So can you go over that a little bit?

[38:39] Sure.

[38:40] Yeah.

[38:41] And while Mr. and I was looking for that, I just want to advise the board too.

[38:45] We are really committed to working with Mr. Davis, we've had this discussion to increase

[38:50] That number of tree replacement on site as much as possible since this is a preliminary plan

[38:56] It's you've got some generic features to it, but we're certainly

[39:00] amenable to a more robust

[39:02] Replanting plan to get as much as possible on site for any trees that are taken clear

[39:07] So mr. Rinar you have the information. I do

[39:11] Approximately 19 acres of the 49 acres of

[39:15] Wooded area on the site will be cleared as part of the construction

[39:20] There's 660 trees, I'm sorry,

[39:27] about 900 trees that will be removed in those 19 acres.

[39:33] That results in a replacement tree requirement of 1,203 trees based on the calculation the

[39:40] multipliers and the ordinance.

[39:43] Our current plan only shows 7-1 trees to be replaced, but I think we can be more aggressive

[39:48] of in a few areas after talking to Mr. Lamana about how we can do that.

[39:53] One example would be the existing driveway that serves the existing home on proposed

[40:00] lot 10.

[40:01] I think Mr. Lamana has indicated that we can add some infield trees that are shade, you

[40:07] know, work well and shade again, I'm not a landscape architect but shade tolerant.

[40:12] We also have some other areas where we can add some existing trees, I'm sorry, some proposed trees on the site.

[40:19] In addition, there may be some other areas where we can be more aggressive in saving some more trees and reducing that 1203 number.

[40:27] So as we talked to Mr. Davis and Mr. Nol in our design, I agree with you that it was a low percentage and I think we can increase that number as far as what's actually replaced on site.

[40:38] Part of the problem, the reason for the low percentage you see here, is that I didn't think it made sense to clear more area to have trees planted, double rows of trees planted in the way our attitude was.

[40:56] Let's save as many trees as we can, but still give the homeowner a yard, let's still give an area for us to build our road.

[41:03] And then save trees right up to that so that and then we because there is you know

[41:08] There's a world where you can clear more trees and add double rows of our blue light

[41:11] You're something we didn't think that was necessarily our best path

[41:14] So the reason you see a low number is because the entire site is the entire

[41:19] Development area of the site is wooded right so there wasn't an opportunity like you know in this field here

[41:25] Let's plant some trees. We didn't really have that advantage

[41:27] Okay, and then one other thing you just mentioned homeowners are there going to be any restrictions on homeowners

[41:33] there's taking further trees down once they own their individual lot.

[41:38] The Township Board and it still applies to the homeowner so if they apply for something

[41:43] like that, that would have to go through the code official if they're applying to do that.

[41:49] All right.

[41:50] Thank you.

[41:52] Oh, one last comment.

[41:54] It might be good to get an estimate for that jetting.

[41:56] Oh, Mr. Dristle, can you pull that microphone up closer?

[41:58] Thank you.

[41:59] It might be good to get an estimate for jetting those pipes for the future homeowner's so

[42:04] So they had an idea of the cost.

[42:05] I agree.

[42:05] We can provide that.

[42:07] We are doing that.

[42:09] Yeah, thank you.

[42:11] And good question.

[42:12] She had my question on trees.

[42:13] The other question I had on the design

[42:15] way were for sidewalks.

[42:16] I mean, I guess I'm trying to understand

[42:18] why you wouldn't have a sidewalk internal to the development.

[42:22] I mean, is it just like how wide is the street?

[42:25] Do we expect there to be some street parking as well,

[42:28] or not?

[42:29] It just seems like maybe sidewalk on the internal loop

[42:32] to have internal circulation or something like that on one side.

[42:35] It just seems like no sidewalks.

[42:37] I'm trying to understand why.

[42:40] You said you don't like it.

[42:41] But I like, what's the reason why we should have sidewalks?

[42:48] The road is 20 feet wide.

[42:51] I think a brief discussion about parking

[42:54] since you brought it up is in order.

[42:56] I probably should have had this in my initial testimony.

[43:00] The project does comply with RSI's requirements from a very parking because there will

[43:05] be a two-car garage for each lot.

[43:08] There's also a 20-foot-wide area in front of those lots for parking.

[43:12] RSI's allows you to count that as 3.5 parking spaces.

[43:16] I'm not sure why it's a fraction, but that's the way it's written.

[43:19] That does comply with RSI's, so no additional parking is needed.

[43:23] However, our plans show a 28-foot wide road, a 28-foot wide road does provide flexibility

[43:30] to have parking on one side of the street.

[43:33] That would be for if someone had a party and you had a line of cars, they won't just

[43:38] have to park in the driveway.

[43:40] So to answer your question further about, specifically about sidewalks, we believe that the

[43:46] road is serviceable for someone walking their dog, someone who's doing those kind of activities

[43:53] But as far as on site, we didn't like the trade off of the sidewalk versus removing more trees and the additional storm or

[44:00] management load, the additional runoff. That's the reason that we're proposing the waiver.

[44:08] We're not can't you can't pick you up. I can't pick you up right now. I mean eventually I'll defer to you, but

[44:19] Can I introduce Ms. Trux's? She's been sworn in to give well one further comment as to the sidewalk waiver. Thank you.

[44:27] I just wanted to say that we've been there for what, 40 years or something, so I've seen

[44:32] kind of the developments grow out of the farmland or the trees or whatever that are nearby.

[44:40] And I think all of the developments that have happened on that side of Creek Road do not have sidewalks.

[44:47] They are very natural, they're not like the ones that are closer into town where you

[44:55] I've cleared out everything and then you just have shade trees that it really is a

[45:00] We wanted to be consistent with that entire area, which is, you know, towards Creek Road,

[45:06] Rencoca's, we wanted it to be. So it's consistent, like, with Cove Road, with

[45:11] Cove, and with Kendall's run, and with Miller's court, like, none of them have sidewalks.

[45:17] And it says- And it says- Now that I drove around, and I look to see kind of what is the feel

[45:20] of what, what is that like, and we want to be consistent with that.

[45:24] And it's testimony of 20 feet wide.

[45:27] I guess you're saying that you could have traffic circulation,

[45:30] long as it's not a park car, right?

[45:32] And there's usually not too many park cars

[45:34] that you could have two-way circulation

[45:36] and someone walking the dog with a 20 foot.

[45:40] That's the design that you're proposing.

[45:42] Yes.

[45:43] Okay.

[45:43] And I also, you know, because I have kids

[45:46] and, you know, we would go over to Kendall's run

[45:49] and walk down Kendall's run with my little kids.

[45:52] And so we're like, okay, this is not, I don't feel unsafe in an environment like this.

[45:59] So I felt like that would be a good way to go.

[46:02] Okay, and I appreciate I was like hearing from the applicant more than the professionals.

[46:07] Thank you.

[46:08] No mistake.

[46:10] Could I make a comment on that?

[46:13] So in our letter of comment number 34, 35 talks about the roadway width parking,

[46:20] that right away and the sidewalk.

[46:21] So residential site improvement standards require sidewalk on one side.

[46:25] And I appreciate the desire to save the trees.

[46:29] But if you look at this plan, if you have sidewalk on one side, I think all the trees in that area are already gone.

[46:37] So, and you're point about somebody parked and then you only have 20 feet left to 10 foot aisles and

[46:46] car coming both ways, there's no room.

[46:49] So, and I understand maybe the other developments don't have that.

[46:53] I'm not sure when they were approved.

[46:55] It may have been pre-RSIS, but I recommend that we have sidewalk on the one side.

[47:01] And just to clarify, if you, maybe if you could tell us, Chris, you said that the one side

[47:05] wouldn't, in factories, maybe describe where you would propose sidewalk?

[47:10] I think the internal loop on the inside of the internal loop and from creek road to that

[47:15] point.

[47:16] I don't think we need sidewalks, a sidewalk on one side at the cul-de-sac, that's not necessary,

[47:22] but then an internal loop coming from creek-side, from creek-road rather, and then internal.

[47:28] I think that makes sense.

[47:30] Okay, no, I just want to add to that if I can, I'm totally in agreement, understanding that

[47:36] the existing developments don't have sidewalk is not justification to have a lack of public

[47:40] safety in a development.

[47:42] and I think you've heard Chris's with testimony

[47:44] about the right of way as far as added impervious coverage

[47:48] and tree clearing.

[47:49] I understand that's an aspect of it,

[47:51] but are you outweighing that over public safety

[47:53] for pedestrians?

[47:55] It's, to me, the public safety aspect of the sidewalks

[47:58] is more important.

[48:00] Can I make a comment on sidewalks while we're here

[48:03] and then I'll go back?

[48:05] We have 65 acres out there.

[48:07] I find it hard to believe that we cannot fit sidewalks

[48:09] on both sides of the street when you have 65 acres.

[48:13] Number one, number two, if you look up and down that road,

[48:16] while water's edge, rich view, road, and the southern court

[48:20] are in Delran, they were recently built in the 2000s.

[48:23] They have sidewalks, they're right to the north.

[48:26] Cove road and candles run don't,

[48:28] but they were built in the 80s in the early 90s.

[48:30] And then across the Creek and Laurel Creek,

[48:32] you have late 1990s and they have sidewalks.

[48:36] So I'm not sure exactly when this RSIS was written either, but clearly the movement is towards sidewalks in developments.

[48:45] So I'm not exactly sure why.

[48:47] Earlier you mentioned that you wanted to increase, you didn't want to have sidewalks because you wanted to increase in pervious coverage.

[48:54] Well, that's the case, make the sidewalks pervious.

[48:57] I'm sorry, didn't mean to interrupt you.

[48:59] Not increase in pervious.

[49:00] You did not want to increase the pervious, okay.

[49:02] But make the sidewalks in pervious.

[49:03] And since the RSI standard does reference the one side requirement that would require an RSI

[49:11] exception if we were going to pursue that so we would agree to comply with the RSI requirement

[49:16] to have the sidewalk on one side in the area that's already sort of being cleared.

[49:24] I mean that's from a creek road to the internal loop and then around the internal loop,

[49:28] Mr. Null.

[49:34] Yes, excluding the cul-de-sac, which only serves one house.

[49:42] And we'll do in the same side as the parking. Where are we sure the parking?

[49:46] Yes, yeah, that's fine. I think that's why. We would agree with that.

[49:56] Continuing on with not necessarily sidewalks, but I think in that same point was about parking.

[50:04] Are you agreeing to no parking on one side? Was that a recommendation as well?

[50:10] Yes, that's for RSI S. Okay, so are you we agree on the question about parking on one side just for clarification

[50:20] How is that noted is that street signs on on the coin on the side of the street? It would be street signs

[50:27] You know approximately how far out there spaced on a property like this every few hundred feet

[50:32] I would imagine you have an ordinance standard for the signage. There's a standard for that so they have to meet the standard

[50:38] I don't know exactly what it is, but they'll meet the standard

[50:47] I have questions, but I don't know if it's for an hour later, but I don't know who else is talking.

[50:53] They're going to have some additional witnesses.

[50:56] Are you putting additional witnesses on or are you finished?

[50:58] I know you have witnesses here to answer questions.

[51:00] You have your traffic.

[51:01] In order to answer traffic, you have your arborist or ask trees.

[51:04] Right.

[51:05] Since the traffic is, you know, we're proposing a conforming number of homes on conforming.

[51:13] forming lots, I mean, the traffic is really basically consistent with the nature of the

[51:18] permitted use.

[51:19] But, and there were comments in Mr. Noles' letter with respect to traffic and we've provided

[51:23] a written response.

[51:25] Perhaps if you'd like to hear from your professional, they have any questions for you to

[51:28] transfer.

[51:29] If you're completed, your case in chief, then I'll defer to the board chair to the additional

[51:33] questions that wanted to be asked now or whether you wanted to wait until our professional.

[51:37] So have you finished your case in chief at this point?

[51:38] Understanding you have the ability to call rebuttal witnesses or supplement the records?

[51:42] Okay. Before we do our professionals, let Lisa finish with our questions.

[51:47] Yes.

[51:47] Okay. All right, so we were talking about trees earlier.

[51:52] So according to the numbers here, and I know we've talked about changing them a little

[51:55] bit, there are going to be 1200 trees coming down and 71 replace.

[52:01] So that's less than-

[52:02] I need a five minute recess.

[52:04] Oh.

[52:06] Sorry.

[52:06] Okay.

[52:07] Okay.

[52:08] So according to the HGA report, and maybe the numbers have changed since this number came out,

[52:14] we had to put in, I guess what, the project requires a total of 1,200 compensatory trees

[52:19] after removing 19 acres, but you're only putting in 71 compensatory trees.

[52:25] So that's less than 10%.

[52:27] So I know you've talked about making different changes and so forth and so on.

[52:32] And so what is that?

[52:33] I mean, that's probably not even,

[52:35] what is it, seven percent, six percent?

[52:38] So what are we now coming up to?

[52:41] That is a staggeringly low amount of trees.

[52:45] I mean, we talk about wanting to keep this a natural area,

[52:47] wanting to preserve open space

[52:49] yet you're leaving less than 10 percent.

[52:53] Okay, I would have caught staggeringly low.

[52:56] The reason I said that is because

[52:57] in order to plant replacement trees on the site,

[53:00] we would have to take down existing trees to do so because the entire site is

[53:04] wooded with the exception of some of the driveway and some areas in front. In those areas we have

[53:09] taken advantage of any tree replacements as we can. I mentioned earlier that we're going to be more

[53:13] aggressive to bring up that number but the reason it's so low is because there's no place there's no

[53:19] open fields to plant these trees. We would we would actually prefer to plant trees on say and we are

[53:25] going to plant more but the reason it's staggeringly low is because there's not a place to put these

[53:32] trees and our focus was on saving as many trees as we can. You can see on the plant the dark green

[53:38] area that we've tried to do as much as we can to save these trees but there wasn't a place to put

[53:43] them and so we didn't want to sacrifice removing more trees to plant replacements. That's the reason.

[53:48] So we'll work with Mr. Davis to add more replacement trees. I think it's a it's a fair comment by you

[53:54] that we will add more existing trees,

[53:57] but that's limited by how much room we have to do it

[54:00] without taking down existing.

[54:01] Well, so why do you have to take down

[54:02] so many existing trees on the home lots?

[54:05] Why I'm not asking to take them down and replace them?

[54:07] Why not just leave them there in the first place,

[54:08] just carve out what you need to build your house?

[54:10] Why are you...

[54:11] We've shown what we need to build the house.

[54:13] We have to be able to get no driveway,

[54:15] we have to be able to get contractors

[54:16] around the building.

[54:18] They have to have a little room

[54:19] if they want to build a patio.

[54:21] So we've shown a little bit,

[54:22] that we can be more aggressive in some areas where we can,

[54:25] but we've shown what we think is the bare minimum.

[54:33] Yeah, we're still not gonna get that number up too much higher

[54:37] is what I suppose you know, add wanted a more concrete number,

[54:40] but I'm kind of skeptical about how much number

[54:43] that high that number can come up.

[54:46] Let's talk about the types of trees that you're using.

[54:49] We have red naples and European horned beams.

[54:52] Why are you not repl- why are you not planting

[54:54] native trees on them for property?

[54:57] Sorry, I couldn't hear that.

[54:58] Oh, sorry. You're talking about some of the trees.

[55:02] I don't see the list on them in the notation.

[55:06] So, but in some of the documentation here,

[55:08] you're referencing red maple trees

[55:09] and European horned beams.

[55:11] Why are you not using native trees

[55:13] or species on this property when you're replacing them?

[55:17] One of the comments Mr. Davis had was

[55:18] to add more diversity to our trees.

[55:20] And we've already said we will do that.

[55:22] So I agree with you we will we will revise these plans to add more diversity of trees and use native species

[55:27] I think that's fine. I think it's a fair comment and it's no longer a requested design waiver

[55:34] No longer requested design

[55:36] So that comment on page six of seven reference to those trees. That's no longer a requested waiver

[55:42] But I'm not an expert on trees read made by fault was native but I will check with my team

[55:46] And we only want to plant native trees. I agree with you on that if it's not I apologize

[55:51] guys we will be able to make that revision.

[55:53] That's an excellent point by you.

[55:55] Okay, I'm sorry.

[55:57] I'm sorry, there is a certified forest

[56:00] just sitting behind me.

[56:01] He can speak to that, but he would really,

[56:04] I think he's indicated he would pretty much echo.

[56:06] Mr. Renaro said we will certainly look to utilize

[56:10] the species of preference,

[56:12] NATO species, work at Mr. Davis in that regard.

[56:16] I've written maples at my house,

[56:17] I put them up, they're pretty quick growing

[56:19] and they're pretty robust, but we'll use the trees that are most suitable for the site.

[56:24] Okay. In the stormwater manual, was there a part from maintenance? I'm not sure that

[56:30] I saw a part that talked about how to maintain the systems. Was it in there? I think I also

[56:35] saw a comment in one of your reports that it was missing. I'm not sure.

[56:41] We do have the operations manual. If we haven't provided the Mr. Noel, we will provide that

[56:47] and that's going to be part of the stone report and part of the homeowner's association documents.

[56:52] Okay. All right. So, okay. So then the homeowner's association, okay.

[57:02] So the homeowner's association

[57:03] is going to be mainly responsible for maintaining these stormwater systems. Great. But my concern

[57:11] with homeowner's associations maintaining them is that homeowner's associations might not

[57:16] not maintain them as well as they should be maintained and then the township has to come

[57:19] in and take over how is how is how are you handle that?

[57:24] I'll tell you exactly how that's handled and that's handled with every you know based

[57:28] on maintenance.

[57:30] Deed notice we have to record down to the DEP roles and that is the township will always

[57:34] have the right but not the obligation to do the maintenance.

[57:37] If the township has to step in and do the work the township will be granted the right to

[57:42] assess the cost against the HOA and collect it in the same manner as it would

[57:47] with taxes or improvements. Alright so that's still involving my township and

[57:52] fixing a problem that the HOA didn't manage properly. This is a practice that

[57:58] is implemented uniformly in every town so that's what would happen if it was a

[58:05] big bait. That's what would happen if it was a basin. That's what would happen if

[58:08] These were underground the story just saying why it's my concern understood right so then we look at the roads

[58:15] The um the streets. They're gonna be porous as well

[58:18] Just the guys could I can I just ask for I hate to interrupt this petriola. I apologize

[58:24] Could I just ask for a brief five-minute break? Sure, okay, and nobody should talk to each other about the application

[58:29] Don't talk to me already during research the recess of the board members. Don't deliberate just quick five-minute break

[58:36] Thank you.

[58:37] Thank you.

[59:05] I thought I saw it. I thought I saw it. Sorry.

[1:00:54] Thank you very much. I greatly appreciate it, and Ms. Petrio, I apologize for the interruption.

[1:00:59] So we'll go back on the record. None of the board members have conferred with one another

[1:01:04] about the application. There's been no deliberation off the record.

[1:01:07] Yeah, just another couple of questions. So I'm glad to hear that those roads are not pervious

[1:01:12] because I would not have liked the town having to manage the maintenance of those roads

[1:01:16] going forward so that's a good thing. Okay one other question about stormwater. You have these

[1:01:21] underground basins but you're in a tidal flood area. You have water table possible issues. There's no

[1:01:30] everything's okay there. There's not going to be any conflicts with the system clashing with

[1:01:35] those water featured chairs. That's a good question. We had to do test two in each basin in each

[1:01:41] base in area and the water table was very deep. Surprisingly, to be honest, so these

[1:01:48] will work very well and the rule in the DEP is yet to be two feet above the bottom of

[1:01:53] your base and has to be two feet above seasonal high water and we're well above that.

[1:01:57] Okay, that's good to hear. Okay, I think those were, yeah, that was my questions. Thank you.

[1:02:05] Thank you.

[1:02:07] Okay, board members, we're all good.

[1:02:09] Any more questions?

[1:02:11] At this point?

[1:02:14] Okay.

[1:02:16] I want to call your next witness.

[1:02:17] He's done with his case in chief.

[1:02:19] I think at this time he's good.

[1:02:20] He's reserved the right to call Revital Witnesses.

[1:02:22] He has them there.

[1:02:23] And I think at this time Mr. Chis, we have a good time to go to our board professionals on

[1:02:27] their matters.

[1:02:28] Sounds like a good idea.

[1:02:29] All right.

[1:02:29] Sounds good.

[1:02:31] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[1:02:32] As we heard, the applicant provided testimony regarding related to my August 2026, 2026 review

[1:02:40] letter. All the comments have been addressed. Obviously, we've discussed the two waivers

[1:02:45] that have been eliminated. The sidewalks is going to become a partial waiver now. I appreciate

[1:02:50] the applicant further willing us to put provide sidewalks because I think that's an important

[1:02:54] component. The only thing that remains is, and we discussed this in our pre-application

[1:03:00] meeting but related to the point of sale disclosure for the lots that have wetlands. Essentially wetlands

[1:03:06] buffer lines right up to their rear yard. Is there any testimony you can provide to what that

[1:03:11] disclosure would be to those applicants? Just for the board's sake, there's wetlands lines that extend

[1:03:17] right up to the rear of lot 11 and lot 9 sort of on the right side of the plan and basically an

[1:03:26] an applicant, a homeowner wouldn't be able to build anything in their regard at all.

[1:03:31] So we just felt that that was an important note, potentially a point of sale disclosure.

[1:03:35] Sure.

[1:03:36] Anything without a transition area waiver or other DEP authorization?

[1:03:40] And Mr. Davis's point, we did discuss this in our pre-application meeting.

[1:03:46] We do agree to provide a draft point of sale disclosure to your board's professionals for

[1:03:53] review and approval, advising prospective homeowners of those constraints on the lot.

[1:03:58] I believe Mr. Nol also had suggested signage at the rear of the lots where these are impacted,

[1:04:08] and we agree to that as well. Mr. Nol, I think it's going to provide us with some

[1:04:11] suggested language for the science. So we agree with Mr. Davis' recommendation and Mr. Nol's recommendation

[1:04:17] as well. I think Mr. Relicheco also asked for the point of sale to close.

[1:04:21] Yeah, that be I do I think that's of great value and assistance to the the township after everything's built it right now

[1:04:28] You've identified that as lot nine and line 11 looking at a number and we will just lots over here. We'll just do it on the applicable lots

[1:04:35] Yeah, okay, we'll eventually be able to do it. Well, it's kind of extend around. Okay, that's agreed. Okay. Thank you

[1:04:43] Yeah, and I appreciate that you'll revise the plans for the impervious coverage limits just understanding that they're probably below

[1:04:50] But just that confirmation would be helpful as well and no problem. Thank you. That's all I have Mr. Chairman. Thank you

[1:04:56] Mr. Old

[1:04:57] Thank you, Mr. Chairman

[1:05:00] Most of the comments are August 7th letter have been addressed. I do have a couple of questions or comments

[1:05:06] regarding the the mailboxes if the post office requires a mailbox cluster

[1:05:11] You'll show that appropriate pull off or whatever so people can get out of their cars and get their mail. We will. Okay

[1:05:24] Item 34, we had talked about this during our meeting of August 25th about Burlington County

[1:05:30] required an ultimate 100 foot right of way.

[1:05:33] That is in the Burlington County's traffic engineering review.

[1:05:39] So I just want to make sure you show that as the 100 foot ultimate right away.

[1:05:43] Yes, we will show that.

[1:05:44] Okay.

[1:05:45] Talk about the sidewalk on the one side.

[1:05:49] with the sidewalk on one side are we still calling that a waiver even though it

[1:05:52] complies with RSIS a partial waiver I think you called a partial waiver. I will

[1:05:57] call it a waiver from the Township Ordnance because the Township Ordnance

[1:06:00] requires both sides but maybe RSIS trumps the Township

[1:06:05] Ordnance. I agree so I initially headed down as a waiver and then after all the

[1:06:11] discussion I took it out as a waiver they comply with RSIS you call it a

[1:06:14] the partial, I want to make sure I'm accurate.

[1:06:16] The only partiality would be at the cul-de-sac.

[1:06:20] So you can put that in there just to be on the safe side.

[1:06:23] Okay, so it's a partial waiver because they've agreed

[1:06:25] to do it, RSI as it's just not gonna extend

[1:06:27] to the cul-de-sac.

[1:06:28] Okay, so it's a partial waiver on the sidewalk.

[1:06:31] Peace agreed?

[1:06:32] Agreed.

[1:06:33] Thank you.

[1:06:39] Yes, yes, that's agreed to.

[1:06:44] And we had recommended that the existing dwelling

[1:06:49] be connected to public order. But based on our meeting we had on August 25th. Ms.

[1:06:55] Truffs has stated that her well was sufficient. She had spent some time and money to get

[1:07:00] it operating properly. So we just asked for a water service to be provided in front of

[1:07:06] the house. So in case that well ever does fail or she wants to be on public order, she can

[1:07:10] do so. And that she reviewed comment 51? Yes.

[1:07:19] That's okay. Yes. Okay. On the traffic

[1:07:23] I agree with what's been stated and I did get the letter yesterday from the traffic engineer and I didn't have any issues with his response.

[1:07:33] Traffic will be what you'd expect from a development like this and I didn't see any significant issues pop up.

[1:07:43] We had asked for some vehicle circulation plans, I believe you agreed to do that.

[1:07:47] Yes, okay.

[1:07:52] We asked for a few of it for some more information on stormwater. I won't bore it anybody with that

[1:07:58] but as far as operations and maintenance manual and technical specs on the concrete porous gutters and

[1:08:05] Then we had reviewed their environmental assessment

[1:08:08] plumbery assessment plan report

[1:08:11] They had a number of findings and we had recommend we had agreed to all their findings and there are no significant issues

[1:08:17] They came up as a result of that, and that is all I have, Mr. Chair.

[1:08:24] I think we had one there was, you had the stump that everything's on the loop, except for the one lot.

[1:08:32] I forgot that.

[1:08:33] So in the fire marshals, fire officials letter item two, it talks about no dead end hydrants, unless specifically approved by the Department of Public Works.

[1:08:46] So there's a dead end hydrant at the cul-de-sac, and that's permitted by RSIS and public works director said that was that was fine.

[1:08:57] He didn't have an issue with it.

[1:08:58] In fact, he preferred it because then it's easier to flush out the water main.

[1:09:03] So at that point, I think with that no dead end hydrants that there we have an exception because there's a short dead end to lot number nine.

[1:09:14] Well, to the cul-de-sac to the cul-de-sac.

[1:09:16] So

[1:09:22] to the extent that he agreed to comply with all of the Fire Marshal's comments,

[1:09:26] that's the one exception to the Fire Marshal comments.

[1:09:28] And I believe that's supported by Mr. Null because it is a short dead end to that spot.

[1:09:33] Is that accurate, Mr. Null?

[1:09:36] Yes, it is.

[1:09:38] We agree.

[1:09:41] Board members, any questions of our professionals?

[1:09:44] Mr. Abram?

[1:09:45] Mr. Null, can I direct your attention to comment 66?

[1:09:50] Yes.

[1:09:51] But the

[1:09:54] detention basins proposed underside access roads and forced pavement along gutters may require extensive costly maintenance based on this.

[1:10:01] The township may not want to assume jurisdiction over these roadways, keeping them private with maintenance costs covered by a homeowner's association.

[1:10:10] I understand there's an association.

[1:10:12] I understand the association will be responsible for maintenance of that system and there's been some discussion about that.

[1:10:22] But I guess it perhaps is a question for Mr. Nol or Mr. Belichko, does the township have

[1:10:32] to accept the education of the road?

[1:10:34] I'm just worried about down the line what may be involved with this maintenance and looking

[1:10:44] at this, what if it fails?

[1:10:45] What if they have to dig up the road and redo it, who's going to be responsible for redoing

[1:10:49] road. It just seems like it's going to be a complicated situation. And I'm going to

[1:10:58] also throw out there. This is a request for preliminary approval also. I have not

[1:11:07] had chance to speak to public works about this and understand what their sentiments are

[1:11:13] with regard to this. If this is something that can wait to final, we don't have to belabor

[1:11:19] the point. I can I can represent to you that we had staff meetings and that Mr. Lloyd participated

[1:11:25] in those staff meetings and when we asked the specific question and he's not here and everyone can

[1:11:29] support when we asked the specific question with regard to whether he had any objection and whether

[1:11:34] he was agreeable to the dedication of the township he had no objection to that. If I could just make

[1:11:39] a comment I agree that it could wait till final but I think the Humor Association documents have to

[1:11:45] be very clear and specific and that I think the township's got to be the

[1:11:49] decider of what's improved, what's repaired, what's improved, etc. and that

[1:11:55] goes with either responsible for the home association and the cost in the

[1:12:00] store of water maintenance manual they have to provide costs and they have to

[1:12:03] provide costs for the home association so they're supposed to collect costs as you

[1:12:08] know every year for that so they should if they're operating properly they

[1:12:12] should have the funds there, but it's got to be a very tight document.

[1:12:17] Because the roadway you were getting into the concrete pavement, as I understood it,

[1:12:21] that gutter area, that it's a porous concrete four foot gutter area that abuts the paved

[1:12:31] road.

[1:12:32] Is that accurate?

[1:12:33] Yes.

[1:12:34] And it is that four foot section of concrete porous gutter that would be the obligation

[1:12:42] to maintain of the HOA, so it continues to act in a porous way.

[1:12:47] Was that?

[1:12:48] Sotomayor It's actually more than that.

[1:12:50] Okay.

[1:12:50] The storm tanks are under.

[1:12:51] Well, the storm tanks, I didn't get to the storm tanks.

[1:12:53] I'm going to get to the, so let's just start with what's on top, and then we all,

[1:12:57] we've all talked about it, what's underneath it.

[1:13:00] But in terms of just the roadway, I wanted to address the issue of not the dedication

[1:13:04] of the stormwater system, the question of the dedication of the roadway.

[1:13:08] The dedication of the roadway is not a dedication of the gutters.

[1:13:11] Is that accurate?

[1:13:14] It's dedication of the right of way.

[1:13:16] The right of way.

[1:13:18] And then the HOA is then going to have the obligation to maintain

[1:13:22] eight feet of that right away, four feet on each side,

[1:13:26] which is the poorest concrete.

[1:13:29] Well, I think the details of that we can probably discuss now,

[1:13:33] but I wouldn't say we'd have a dimension like there's a four-foot stripe

[1:13:36] that the HUA maintains, and then it's back to the town, then back to the HUA, I wouldn't describe it that way.

[1:13:42] I would describe that the poorest gutters are the maintenance and the back trucking and the maintenance of those concrete gutters,

[1:13:50] poorest concrete gutters would be the maintenance of the HUA.

[1:13:54] Are there four feet wide?

[1:13:55] Draw, I wouldn't break up the right away into responsibility.

[1:13:59] I actually envision, like when I pictured it, and this is the laypers, I thought they'd actually be different colors.

[1:14:05] that it's going to be the exact same, it's going to be...

[1:14:08] No, it won't be concrete, it won't be asked.

[1:14:10] No, it will be different. It will appear different.

[1:14:13] It will appear different.

[1:14:14] And when I go out there and they say, okay, you have to maintain the porous gutter,

[1:14:20] I know the HOA's contractor will then do whatever you need to do to maintain that area.

[1:14:26] Yes.

[1:14:26] And that area is in the right of way.

[1:14:29] Yes, it is, but it's more global than that.

[1:14:31] the tanks underneath the asphalt, yes, the tank fails, then you have to repair the asphalt so it's whatever's there

[1:14:38] And if the tank fails and it undermines the road and part of the right away and a sidewalk caves in they got to repair that too

[1:14:46] Yeah, or if the water main breaks they got to repair that. All of which I think we can clarify in the HOA

[1:14:54] And as you know that Mr. Relichco behind the discussion public works was you know go with the proposal

[1:15:00] I was okay with it. He was there. It's not here, but I didn't get into a discussion of if there's a complete failure, the entire system in the age of age away is to fund who takes care of it all. I did talk to him. As long as the documents are tight, as Mr. Averine stated. And I think we can maybe by time when we get to final, we could have a sample document so we could talk about it in detail at that time.

[1:15:30] I'm just concerned right now and we don't need to belabor it because if it can wait till final I'm okay deferring

[1:15:38] it to final but I have not discussed it with Mr. Lloyd and I'd really like the opportunity

[1:15:44] to discuss it with him and make sure we're all clear about what that obligation is and just think

[1:15:49] about future things that do happen.

[1:15:51] Can we just talk about the it deferred to final that it is the dedication of the roadway?

[1:15:56] That's correct.

[1:15:57] Thank you.

[1:15:58] Would it be appropriate that when you're having that conversation that during the final that there would be estimates and of the maintenance cost, and I think that because a lot of times what will happen is when those HOA documents you'll usually have an HOA budget they'll go through it all and in the context of that they have a capital improvement plan that capital improvement talks about what you're going to do to replace those storage tanks in 25 years or 30 years.

[1:16:26] There's what you're going to do to replace the impervious gutters in 25 years, and then you're going to have a budget.

[1:16:31] So I would think that when they do get to final and there's this determination that we're going to, the dedication of the roadway to the township will be deferred till final, this could be just a suggestion that the time of final, that that type of material be in place so that it could satisfy some of the concerns of the board.

[1:16:50] I think the applicant would prefer to propose the roadway to be dedicated as we've discussed already with Mr. Lloyd and the Department of Public Works.

[1:17:04] I know you want to discuss it further.

[1:17:05] I think you have to subject to acceptable HOA, thank you.

[1:17:09] We discussed, we were in a staff meeting, he's not here, and we just simply talked about that portion of his

[1:17:18] Yes.

[1:17:22] The strong water O&M manual also has to include this cost and that's one of the conditions

[1:17:29] of our letter.

[1:17:30] What is the cost of, I'm sorry, please.

[1:17:34] What is the cost to install the system?

[1:17:39] I don't have that answer.

[1:17:41] Hundreds of thousands.

[1:17:43] Hundreds of thousands?

[1:17:44] A million dollars?

[1:17:45] No, not a million.

[1:17:46] Okay.

[1:17:47] I'm just saying how many houses are there?

[1:17:50] Twenty-four.

[1:17:50] So if you take that number and divide it by 24, right, and so if it fails, I think what we're trying to understand, because then what happens then will the township do a special assessment?

[1:18:04] And where responsible for it either way and if the stormwater system fails and it needs

[1:18:12] to be replaced.

[1:18:13] Number one, there's a new law in New Jersey that the HOA has to have a capital reserve.

[1:18:18] And you're familiar.

[1:18:18] You're familiar.

[1:18:19] Well, I know.

[1:18:20] So that'll have to happen and that's going to be on the HOA either way.

[1:18:25] What we're talking about here is also instead of having the roadway dedicated as a public

[1:18:31] street, which entails snow plowing, trash pick up, and so forth, then all those other obligations

[1:18:40] that then go on to the HOA. So now, now you're putting more obligations on the HOA.

[1:18:44] Let me ask you this. Is the applicant agreeable to deferring the dedication of the roadway

[1:18:52] to the township? That issue, or are you agreeable to deferring that to the time of final subdivision

[1:18:59] I would propose instead to make the condition that the roadways would be offered for dedication,

[1:19:09] subject to the board professionals review and satisfaction with the HOA documentation and

[1:19:16] the O&M review documentation and the cost estimates being provided.

[1:19:22] If you're not satisfied that the HOA documentation can cover it, then I think that's okay.

[1:19:28] Okay, I think that when we get to the time of a vote, we might have to decide whether

[1:19:31] we'll bifurcate that as you are not bifurcated as you might be, that there's a vote where

[1:19:35] you want it, as you want it, and you're entitled to how do you want it.

[1:19:38] We want it now as a dedication, a subject to review, they can vote on that, and then it could

[1:19:44] be okay, assuming that passes, then we don't have to worry about it, but if it doesn't,

[1:19:49] then it is okay.

[1:19:50] Now, we take a vote with the dedication and the roadway being deferred to final approval.

[1:19:54] If that's a vote that you want, and it could be that then, based on the concerns on

[1:19:58] or what they would be.

[1:19:59] Yeah, and again, I would reiterate the point

[1:20:01] that if the concern is that we're going to have

[1:20:03] too much financial responsibility on the HOA

[1:20:06] that it can't meet by the township

[1:20:08] not accepting dedication to the roadway,

[1:20:11] you're adding more financial obligation onto the HOA.

[1:20:14] This HOA will have to do the maintenance

[1:20:16] of the storm water management system, right?

[1:20:20] That's it's gonna be its sole purpose and obligation.

[1:20:22] If we don't have the roadway accepted

[1:20:25] it as a public street, which entails snow plowing and maintenance and trash pickup.

[1:20:30] Then this HOA, the board is giving the HOA more obligations that it will have to come up.

[1:20:35] That's as it's currently designed.

[1:20:38] No, it's, I mean, it could be, in vision, a scenario where it's designed in a different way.

[1:20:42] And there's not as many houses and there's above ground basins.

[1:20:44] And now it is a system that's not as expensive to put in or maintain or replace if it fails.

[1:20:49] As opposed, if it fails, if a basin fails and it's in the middle of a field, you can go there and

[1:20:54] you can try to do what you need to do.

[1:20:55] If a basin fails and it's under your roadway is more complicated and that ties

[1:20:59] into the dedication issue, I think.

[1:21:04] And I didn't even raise the dedication issue.

[1:21:06] I just responded to the, if the question raised, I understand.

[1:21:09] So, yeah, I think we understand each other's, you know.

[1:21:11] And Mr. Moore, he's concerned, the other board member's concern is that we could put

[1:21:14] anything we want on the HOAs, but we all know that it doesn't, doesn't matter

[1:21:17] what everyone's best intention is, you can assess an HOA, but if an HOA doesn't have

[1:21:21] of the money to take care of itself,

[1:21:23] it's not gonna have the money to pay any assessment,

[1:21:25] and then the township ends up holding the bill.

[1:21:26] It has to have the money by law,

[1:21:28] and the town will have the right to assess,

[1:21:31] oh,

[1:21:33] thank you.

[1:21:35] The township will have the right to assess

[1:21:37] any of those costs against the lots,

[1:21:40] in the same manner as it assesses taxes.

[1:21:43] So this is a voluntary agreement that if this system fails

[1:21:47] and the township has to undertake any work,

[1:21:49] it's going to be able to assess those costs against these lots.

[1:21:52] It will not be out of the township's pocket to accept responsibility under any circumstance

[1:21:58] for the stormwater management system.

[1:22:00] We're only talking really about obligation for maintenance, the roadway and the trash

[1:22:04] pickup.

[1:22:05] And the township would have obligations or trash pickup that we'd have to get into with

[1:22:09] regards to reimbursement agreement or providing the service anyway.

[1:22:12] So I think we're almost have to look at it from both perspectives by not agreeing to accept

[1:22:18] the roadway dedication.

[1:22:19] I think you're exacerbating the concerns that it isn't it isn't not a green.

[1:22:25] It is deferring to a final right, but but we we're looking tonight to make a condition.

[1:22:32] I get it right I respect that in what we'll do right that's that's that's what you're asking that we'll have to satisfy the board's professionals.

[1:22:40] And I think Mr. Abram will have the opportunity to discuss things further with Mr. Lloyd and Mr.

[1:22:45] as to whether the HOA documentation and the OAM documentation is satisfactory and that is a condition that would have to be met in order to proceed to final.

[1:22:57] If not, then when we get to final, the board professionals can indicate the proposal was reviewed, it's not accepted, and therefore everything has to be private, including the road.

[1:23:10] If I can make a comment.

[1:23:13] Go ahead.

[1:23:14] So, when you get preliminary approval,

[1:23:16] you're invested, correct?

[1:23:17] Mm-hmm.

[1:23:18] Okay, so this shows right away,

[1:23:20] and the lots are based on that right away,

[1:23:23] the lot sizes of lot lines.

[1:23:25] If it's private, all that changes.

[1:23:28] So, if you approve it with the private,

[1:23:31] the public road with the right away,

[1:23:33] subject to the conditions as stated by Mr. Barron-Aschi,

[1:23:36] he doesn't meet them,

[1:23:37] and you want to go private,

[1:23:39] then you'll have to come back for amended preliminary because all the

[1:23:43] lightlights are going to change.

[1:23:44] Because now you're going to have a private road.

[1:23:46] Yes.

[1:23:48] And the plans we have show it as right away.

[1:23:55] Right.

[1:23:55] Thank you.

[1:23:56] Mr. Noel, your point is that road is meeting the township and RSI specifications for

[1:24:00] public road, correct?

[1:24:01] But it doesn't preclude you from not finding that it's acceptable and

[1:24:05] haven't come back for amended preliminary.

[1:24:08] I had a question for Chris.

[1:24:09] This is kind of backing off from the road,

[1:24:12] conversation, just the stormwater conversation,

[1:24:14] because this is the second subdivision we've seen recently,

[1:24:18] where the stormwater obligations are higher now

[1:24:20] in New Jersey than they were a few years ago

[1:24:23] for a subdivision.

[1:24:24] Is that true with what they have to do?

[1:24:26] Correct, yes.

[1:24:28] So one thing we're, if it feels like part of this

[1:24:30] is a state of play we're now in

[1:24:32] that we're going to have HOAs

[1:24:35] responsible for stormwater maintenance,

[1:24:38] more strong water maintenance than they did prior to those new rules.

[1:24:41] So it seems like, I know we, you know, I guess the question is I think I know some of the things we can do.

[1:24:48] The HOA needs to have the money, the HOA, I know the maintenance plans need to be filed with the township.

[1:24:55] I think that's one thing, so my question for you is I guess this is just something that is now,

[1:25:01] if you're going to do a major subdivision in New Jersey, you're going to have to at an HOA level put more

[1:25:06] in a stormwater because the state demands it.

[1:25:09] And this town has to get used to that.

[1:25:11] I guess the question would be,

[1:25:12] what can we do in the process?

[1:25:14] Is there anything we can do in our process

[1:25:16] on this application, future applications

[1:25:18] to make sure that we're looking out for the town

[1:25:22] and making sure that these subdivisions are created

[1:25:26] and that the HOAs do what they need to do

[1:25:29] and we don't have issues in the future, especially Ken.

[1:25:32] We're kind of bound by what the state requires

[1:25:35] And then I believe the state requires the HOA document or reviews the HOA documents normally

[1:25:42] but you make them as tight as you can and

[1:25:45] Make sure that your economic analysis is adequate

[1:25:52] conservative and

[1:25:53] Make sure that they collect the money every year

[1:25:55] And maybe monitor the HOA to make sure that they're doing it. Maybe that's what the town can do

[1:26:02] Because otherwise you wouldn't know, right, right?

[1:26:06] Before we open to the public, I couldn't hear no.

[1:26:09] Okay.

[1:26:11] Go ahead, we can do it.

[1:26:14] Yeah, I'm going to, at this time, I'm going to ask for, if I could.

[1:26:17] Again, no more deliberations, just another five minute break, if I could.

[1:26:19] No deliberations by anybody, any board members or discussions at this time.

[1:26:28] Just, just, and then right back down.

[1:26:35] Yeah, but you can't, you can ask when we get it back on the record.

[1:26:38] Yeah, absolutely.

[1:26:39] And

[1:26:50] there was a board down there like that, and two my board members went down, and the

[1:26:55] one board member is, the other board member couldn't figure out, but just like this, like

[1:27:00] the guy next to us said, Frank, back on the record, he said,

[1:27:10] let's try, are you, I'm

[1:27:16] going

[1:27:16] about the application, and make,

[1:27:19] that's what I was expecting, I just want to make sure

[1:27:22] there wasn't.

[1:27:22] Okay, fine.

[1:27:23] Well, you just got to throw wide open on that.

[1:27:25] Clear that.

[1:27:25] Everybody out, took the board member down there, put him under the guidance and everything

[1:27:30] you said to that person.

[1:27:32] I mean, when I recorded it, it was a delivery.

[1:27:35] Did it, did it, did it, did it.

[1:27:36] And I went on for like, it's more as I possibly could.

[1:27:39] And I put the other person up.

[1:27:40] Did the exact same thing.

[1:27:42] You just exhausted it.

[1:27:43] And I was, Mr. Crank, can we continue?

[1:27:45] Or, or treat me at this point, treat, abort the hearing and start a new board members.

[1:28:08] Thank you everyone for that brief break. We are back on the record. I can tell you Mr. Chair I believe there's a

[1:28:16] I'm not sure we were with questions, Mr.

[1:28:18] why are you still going?

[1:28:19] You're finished.

[1:28:20] Okay, I believe Ms. Petriello had a couple.

[1:28:22] I think you had a follow-up.

[1:28:24] There's you.

[1:28:25] I just had a very simple question just for clarifying for myself.

[1:28:31] It seems like we're concerned about the roadway.

[1:28:37] If the roadway has to be taken up, not because that's failing but because of the storm water management system is failing.

[1:28:44] And then the cost, who has the burden of that cost, right?

[1:28:50] And I think in the HOA documents, I think we should absolutely clarify that.

[1:28:55] I'm not quite sure how we would do that, but that seems to be, seems like the concern that we're hearing.

[1:29:03] I think it's a fair comment, Mr. Murryuchi.

[1:29:05] And I think we should provide in the HOA documents, if that were to occur, the HOA would be responsible for any road repair.

[1:29:12] that would be necessitated because of doing work

[1:29:16] on the stormwater management system certainly.

[1:29:22] Kind of my follow-up question.

[1:29:23] So we're talking about having pervious gutters.

[1:29:28] And I see the way our township we collect trees,

[1:29:32] you know, the tree branches.

[1:29:34] And we sweep with circular, so we're out there

[1:29:36] with bucket loaders picking up the branches

[1:29:38] or out there with circular vacuums vacuuming the gutters.

[1:29:43] I wonder what kind of effect or impact

[1:29:45] that's going to have on this pervious sidewalks and should they become damaged or is the township responsible?

[1:29:55] Does the township have an obligation to find a different way of providing those services?

[1:30:00] There's that might not adversely affect that infrastructure. So if there's other conversations that are happening around this road and the maintenance and the care for it, can we consider ongoing maintenance from the township's perspective when it provides these additional services to residents?

[1:30:23] Who is that question directed to? Let me ask you this. I don't know a lot about the impervious gutters. So it's not uncharacteristic when we have storms or we had last night.

[1:30:32] people dry tree branches out and throw them in the gutter. Is that going to affect the

[1:30:36] purviews? Is it going to get a higher? And you're also referring to street sweeping too?

[1:30:40] Yeah, well seasonal, seasonal pickup, you know. That's fine. These are designed to handle

[1:30:46] truckloads and street sweeping, that will not damage the concrete porous gutter. And circular

[1:30:51] sweeping, coming by on a regular basis. In fact, we specify that there needs to be sweeping

[1:30:56] of the gutters. That's going to be in the maintenance manual. Right, right. But I know it's

[1:31:01] pervious services so they are a unique breed and they require special care so I'm just

[1:31:07] making sure that the way we provide that care is care that the system benefits by.

[1:31:16] And if not, do we have an obligation to have to provide it in that manner?

[1:31:21] Maintenance of the gutters is part of the HOA.

[1:31:23] Maintenance of the pervious gutters is required, it'll be part of the HOA's requirements.

[1:31:28] That does raise an interesting question of someone actually took down a tree in my neighborhood

[1:31:37] and all the branches are right on the street and we actually have daughters that are impervious.

[1:31:47] How does it work when you have debris all over like on the side?

[1:31:55] Yeah, so like you know people taking their brush the brush out to the to the sidewalk

[1:32:02] I don't think it would be any different. I'm not sure. Well does that block the water from going through? Oh, no, no, no

[1:32:09] Because you're talking about debris like branches and trees. Yeah, no, that's that's fine

[1:32:15] It would be removed eventually and and also they're generally water can proceed through the branches and debris that so that's fine

[1:32:26] Just to follow up on that, one of my concerns, and again, this is why I have not talked to Mr.

[1:32:32] Lloyd about this.

[1:32:35] We pick up leaves every fall.

[1:32:38] Stormwater regulations say, put it on off the street.

[1:32:44] I put it off the street.

[1:32:47] Everybody drive by in a couple of weeks and you'll see, I put it on it.

[1:32:52] kills my grasp, my wife always yells at me and says you're being a martyr, don't do it,

[1:32:57] but I do it. I try to be a good example. Nobody else does it. Everybody else puts the leaves in the

[1:33:02] street. I know our regulations say don't do it, but everybody does it. They start to decompose.

[1:33:09] You're going to get bits of leaves getting into this impervious concrete. And then I can see

[1:33:16] the association saying, you know, oh, townships' leaves are now causing a problem here.

[1:33:23] Well, they're not the townships' leaves, but I think we're getting this, you know, speculative.

[1:33:29] Leave's going to fall. I don't think it's speculative. I'm sorry, Mr. Benowski, but then what's going to happen is

[1:33:34] these people are going to get these, put these leaves in the street, and then the township's going to say,

[1:33:40] you can't do that, then they're going to get fined. And here's the other thing.

[1:33:44] Again, we need to talk to Mr. Lloyd.

[1:33:46] We really don't have the proper equipment to pick the leaves up on the grass or the sidewalk.

[1:33:53] So we're going to have to do that if you can't put the leaves in the street because it's

[1:33:59] pervious concrete.

[1:34:01] But your ordinance already says don't put them in the street.

[1:34:03] We started with that premise.

[1:34:04] But in any event, these systems are designed to function in the place where they're being

[1:34:11] put.

[1:34:12] but they're not designed to be a gutter of a road if, you know, if holding your hands

[1:34:18] on top of it for 30 seconds or putting some leaves on top, you know, they're designed

[1:34:23] with the fact that leaves do fall and they're designed for utilization in this state.

[1:34:29] They're conforming with the stormwater management requirements.

[1:34:33] The plan and the materials involved satisfy the stormwater management regulations.

[1:34:39] They have a certain design where they will function under these circumstances.

[1:34:44] So I know we're kind of really retreading the issue because the concern is what if the township owns the road and does something and there's a dispute between the HOA and the town over who did what and did the town make the stormwater management system unfunctional by clogging it or sweeping it or damaging it.

[1:35:08] and I think we can really parse out all of those issues

[1:35:13] in the documentation.

[1:35:14] I don't think we're gonna come up with things

[1:35:18] in this colloquy right now that will render

[1:35:22] the situation unworkable.

[1:35:24] I think these circumstances can be very directly addressed

[1:35:29] in the appropriate HOA maintenance documentation.

[1:35:35] One last question I apologize, probably for Sam.

[1:35:38] I am not aware that this is in any development in Morstown, where we have sub-road, sub-public

[1:35:49] road, stormwater.

[1:35:52] I know we have some areas where we have pervious pavement out at the Maldives Pervious

[1:35:58] Pavement, Harper Drive's Pervious Pavement, but that's private, not public.

[1:36:02] Can you tell me any other municipality in the region that has this type of

[1:36:12] pervious concrete or sub-road basin as is proposed here so I could go take a look at it?

[1:36:24] The last time we proposed it is for a project in Glassboro.

[1:36:29] I was not the project manager, but my office worked on the project, and there is storm tanks underneath the parking areas and the driveways adjacent to the public right away. I believe part of it does go in the public right away, but I can check that for you.

[1:36:45] That project is under construction. I believe part of it is done. So I can give you I can send you that address.

[1:36:53] Do you know the name of the project?

[1:36:55] Okay. Just because we're the glass for our plan.

[1:36:59] I believe I won't I will get to that. Okay.

[1:37:05] So I see my question maybe a little bit naive but given all the concerns and issues we've just spent a lot of time on and a lot of the unknowns going forward has the applicant considered using the more traditional above ground basin and not going forward with something this new that have so many potential issues.

[1:37:27] we have. And part of our concern with the

[1:37:30] bug ground basin was our charge at the

[1:37:33] beginning of this project and throughout

[1:37:35] this project is to preserve as many trees

[1:37:37] as possible. If we have one lot that is

[1:37:39] solely, maybe even two lots, I'm not sure

[1:37:42] we haven't done the design, but if we have

[1:37:44] two lots that are solely above ground

[1:37:46] basins, that would be 100% tree removal.

[1:37:49] Whereas if you look at exhibit 1a, each

[1:37:52] of these lots has areas where there's

[1:37:55] trees on that are saved on part of the property, if not majority of the property in some cases.

[1:38:00] So those basins would have 100% tree removal and a traditional basin would have that kind

[1:38:07] of design.

[1:38:08] Our charge was to save as many trees as we could, so that's the reason we chose that path.

[1:38:13] Could you perhaps save some trees by having less houses?

[1:38:18] If I can I address that because I hear that question again.

[1:38:22] Yeah, can we just pull the microphone up closer?

[1:38:24] Could that issue about saving the trees be balanced out by having maybe one less house or so?

[1:38:31] The plan conforms with the ordinance for lot size.

[1:38:37] So the number of houses is appropriate and the plan conforms with storm water management requirements.

[1:38:42] So that is a conforming plan and I think one of your comments was concern over the system

[1:38:49] not working.

[1:38:50] I thought the discussion was being driven by a concern that the road would be public

[1:38:55] and the gutter area would be privately maintained.

[1:38:59] I don't think there's a concern that the system won't work as designed in and of itself per

[1:39:07] say.

[1:39:07] That's not the concern.

[1:39:08] and the concern is would the township somehow be responsible for some cost associated with

[1:39:15] the stormwater management system if it's adjacent to the township road and if it's within

[1:39:21] the township's right away. So it's not that the system won't work. I think Mr.

[1:39:25] Noel is familiar with the engineering requirements. I think he's weighed in on it. And Mr. Noel,

[1:39:30] Mr. Renaro, or an agreement that the system meets the stormwater management design requirements.

[1:39:35] It's expected to function as design.

[1:39:40] I think that the debate was, we don't, you, as a board,

[1:39:44] understandably, I get it, don't want the township

[1:39:47] to absorb any cost associated with this proposed storm

[1:39:51] water management system.

[1:39:52] If you accept dedication and ownership of the road,

[1:39:56] and that's why I'm proposing we address that

[1:39:58] by way of the HOA documentation and the ONM manual.

[1:40:02] We can lay out the responsibilities there.

[1:40:04] It's not. I don't want to give a false sense of concern that the system won't work because it will work as design or

[1:40:11] The or the system, you know designer and and fabricator would have you know a claim against it

[1:40:17] But it's expected to work as design

[1:40:20] Does that make sense? It does but yet again the only example is one in Glasper that's under construction and not

[1:40:26] Completed so we don't really have a history of how they work

[1:40:32] I'm sorry, I'm sorry we got one person at a time and we have to be on Mike so we can't

[1:40:36] talk from the back benches like we're not in parliament like we got to be right up on

[1:40:39] a microphone please.

[1:40:40] No that's just what I've worked on personally this project is all over this product product

[1:40:45] product probably use all over okay all right because I'm just hearing concerns about ongoing

[1:40:49] potential problems and I'm just thinking how can they best be addressed by coming to

[1:40:54] some agreement that would limit some of those.

[1:40:57] That's the agreement I want to answer into with the HOA documentation.

[1:41:02] Thank you.

[1:41:02] Okay.

[1:41:05] All right, board members, at this point in time, I'm going to open the meeting to the public.

[1:41:09] Anyone who would like to speak on this application, please come forward and be sworn in.

[1:41:21] Good evening, how are you?

[1:41:22] Hello.

[1:41:23] How many have you come right up close to the microphone?

[1:41:25] It's amplifier finance recording.

[1:41:26] Could I have your full name slowly please in your address?

[1:41:29] Yes, my phone name is Shirley, and-

[1:41:31] Is Bella for me, please?

[1:41:33] SHUO is the first name, L-I is the last name.

[1:41:37] OK, and your address?

[1:41:38] For Kando's Renroad, Morristown, New Jersey.

[1:41:41] And can you raise your right hand?

[1:41:43] And do you swear from the test room to give a view of truth?

[1:41:46] Yes.

[1:41:46] OK, go ahead.

[1:41:47] OK, if I ask a question, are the experts allowed to answer

[1:41:52] or do I just have to answer?

[1:41:53] It's public comment, so it's not a question answered,

[1:41:57] But you can ask questions, you can articulate information that you would like to hear, and it'll be up to the applicant to determine if they will respond or not.

[1:42:06] Okay. So on Kendall's run, we're all on well water, and when I hear about this underground tank, that's going to be very deep.

[1:42:15] I worry about whether that's going to disrupt our water supply, you know, how deep it would go, how big it's going to be, and the construction of that, whether it's going to impact the well water supply.

[1:42:27] for our street. That's my question number one. Question number two is we're very

[1:42:33] low-lying you know all direct direct your voice this way because the microphone

[1:42:36] just set up. Okay good. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Elevation is low on

[1:42:41] Kandos well we're not in FEMA flood zone but we are close enough like there are

[1:42:47] certain areas you know even on this property that's in flood zone but we're not

[1:42:53] yet in FEMA flood zone. So I worry about flooding and when you have basements that meet the water table

[1:43:02] standard and you know bottom of the basement will be two at least two feet above the water table.

[1:43:10] Does that mean that the houses will be built on elevated hill like you know the dirt will be

[1:43:18] And when you build there, then the basement will be sufficiently high.

[1:43:24] However, the water will be run off from the new houses, hills to our condos run backyard,

[1:43:31] which impacts the storm and the water for our street.

[1:43:35] So those are my two questions.

[1:43:38] Thank you.

[1:43:43] We're going to run all through public comment and then to the extent the advocates want to respond to this room.

[1:43:49] We can.

[1:43:51] Good evening, sir.

[1:43:51] How are you?

[1:43:52] Good, how are you?

[1:43:53] Good.

[1:43:53] Could I have your full name and address, please?

[1:43:56] How are you, Mayor?

[1:43:56] I'm AYER.

[1:43:58] 349 East.

[1:43:59] Second Street.

[1:44:00] I had a whole list of questions.

[1:44:02] And can you raise your right hand?

[1:44:03] And you swear from testimony to be truth?

[1:44:05] Yes.

[1:44:06] Go ahead, sir.

[1:44:07] I had a whole list of questions, and I appreciate that most of them are answered.

[1:44:11] This does say, I know you guys brought up a lot of good points about this road.

[1:44:14] This is a private road written all over to me.

[1:44:16] I don't want to have the township be responsible for putting salt down or sand down flowing into the impervious gutters.

[1:44:25] To me, if everybody have a HOA, make them responsible for the whole road.

[1:44:30] That's back up a little bit now.

[1:44:32] If this development does go through, it has anyone ever contacted that New Jersey official wildlife.

[1:44:37] I know there's, I'm concerned about the reptiles in this area.

[1:44:41] if they're going to build it in the winter time,

[1:44:43] who's going to do the reptile sweep for protective species

[1:44:47] like Eastern Box Turtle and corn snakes.

[1:44:55] I know they're in the area and being in proximity

[1:44:58] to Banger Creek.

[1:45:00] I know they're in that area, so I know that the two properties are a budding, so there's got to be there. This is the last property. This property hasn't been really touched in the last 40 years. I know it used to be an old Boy Scouts camp. It's a pristine property. I'm sure there's reptiles in there that need be taken care in the summer and spring and summer or fall, not in the winter time, because they're on the ground. All right. Thank you.

[1:45:29] Thank you, sir.

[1:45:38] Good evening.

[1:45:39] Welcome.

[1:45:40] Could I get your full name and address, please?

[1:45:41] Pamela Richards, 304 colonial ass.

[1:45:46] Thank you.

[1:45:46] Raise your hand, Mr. Richards.

[1:45:47] And do you swear from the testimony to give a seat to be the truth?

[1:45:50] Yes.

[1:45:50] Okay, great.

[1:45:51] Thank you.

[1:45:51] Go ahead, ma'am.

[1:45:52] I also would have concerns that perhaps this should be a private road.

[1:45:58] I appreciate the applicant's attorneys viewpoint of additional expenses onto the HOA.

[1:46:07] I find the only alternative and I don't think Worsetown has done a very good job of this

[1:46:14] in the past, but the HOA documents as well as the deeds would have to take a lot of time

[1:46:23] in articulating all the responsibilities.

[1:46:27] I find it troubling that we constantly make exceptions take on more than we can handle for

[1:46:36] new developments. Meanwhile, we have a large portion of this town that needs sidewalks installed

[1:46:43] and we don't have the money to install sidewalks. So, Ergo, the private road, although I understand

[1:46:51] the viewpoint of the applicant's attorney. As far as trees, for those that don't know me, I have

[1:46:58] a bachelor's assigned some both horticulture of forestry and I am a old-time master gardener

[1:47:04] and I am a tree hover. On the other hand, this property is not a managed forest. It is predominantly

[1:47:16] what we call volunteer and junk trees. And another one of my pet peeves is we constantly go out

[1:47:26] of our way to drive homeowners, builders, crazy about saving junk trees.

[1:47:35] And meantime, a storm comes through $2 million houses or $1 million houses get built.

[1:47:42] The trees come down and we've now put more of a burden on a homeowner.

[1:47:47] In addition, I don't think we should put a builder, a developer, regardless of how many millions

[1:47:55] people are making in the position of selling a high-end home, which obviously these will

[1:48:01] be given the acreage. And then that homeowner has to argue with the town of taking down

[1:48:09] we have three D's, we have three R's and recycle, reduce, reuse, recycle. We have three D's

[1:48:15] and trees, disease, dying, and dangerous. So I would just ask Mr. Davis if that's the

[1:48:23] person to use common sense. I happen to think there's a lot of problems with both the

[1:48:31] state ordinance and the township ordinance on that matter. And I also would suggest that

[1:48:37] we remember that the climate is changing and a lot of the wildlife and birds are not migrating.

[1:48:44] So we are a town of primarily deciduous trees. We need Mr. Davis to take into account wherever

[1:48:52] wherever we can to install healthy ever greens,

[1:48:57] not just deciduous flowering trees

[1:49:00] throughout the whole development, let alone the homes.

[1:49:05] I don't know when you'll be addressing lighting,

[1:49:08] but I'm gonna go on record now

[1:49:10] that a lot of the new developments we've approved.

[1:49:16] Talk about light pollution.

[1:49:19] It's outrageous.

[1:49:20] So I would just make sure that we take that in mind when we are putting in

[1:49:27] street lights, not just the actual houses but the street lights. We built that

[1:49:34] big monstrosity out on Lanola and we don't have any caps on top of all those

[1:49:40] street lights for all that housing out there. So I would also ask us to pay

[1:49:46] attention to that parking. I want to make sure that we take proper parking into account

[1:49:53] in this. We traditionally have had a problem and it's not getting any better and council

[1:49:59] is just keeps waiting and waiting. Let's push it down the road. But we build houses. We

[1:50:05] have two car garages. We have driveways that accommodate two to four cars and then what

[1:50:14] do. They park the cars on the street and then the people can't get through. God forbid a fire truck

[1:50:19] has to go through or the police and that kind of factors in with the sidewalks. People need a

[1:50:25] place to walk. We need to get, I hate to say this given MAGGO, but we need to encourage people to

[1:50:33] be outside walking and enjoying, you know, whatever physical activity they can get and they certainly

[1:50:38] can't do it walking on Creek Road. So thank you for your time, and thank you for your service,

[1:50:44] and thank you to gentlemen as usual doing an outstanding job. I appreciate it.

[1:50:49] Thank you. Anyone else?

[1:50:58] Good evening, sir, and welcome. Can I have your full name

[1:51:00] slowly in your address? Yes. Mark, Pencierro, 109, Colonial Avenue. More stand?

[1:51:09] I don't want to beat the dead horse. Yes, yes, yes, sir.

[1:51:12] You raise your hand. Do you swear from the test going to give us any of the truth?

[1:51:16] Yes, sir. Go ahead, sir.

[1:51:17] Okay, so I'm trying not to be the dead horse, but I can't help it here.

[1:51:21] And I really have a lot of concern about this pervious roadway and the additional maintenance

[1:51:27] that's going to be required. Now, we all know AI never makes a mistake, but I'm going to read a couple

[1:51:33] of things searching. I can tell you this. Hold on, Mr. Barron, asking. It's public comment.

[1:51:40] that. He could, he could say whatever he wants to say. If you want to see, I just

[1:51:44] looked up an a anus but they prompted me. I mean I, he can't say that. What if he

[1:51:49] said, I, I did some research for I got here tonight, and this is what I did

[1:51:53] I don't know what he's doing.

[1:51:57] He's a late, he's a late, he's a late.

[1:51:59] He's a late, he's a late.

[1:52:00] The first one disputed?

[1:52:00] You can dispute it.

[1:52:02] Wait, wait, wait, wait, hold it, hold it, hold it.

[1:52:04] What does it time please?

[1:52:05] So I mean, I saw you motion behind him.

[1:52:07] So he's a late person, it's public comment.

[1:52:10] It could be, we've all been involved in public comment where the applicants

[1:52:13] council will say, hey, they just said A and B. I'd prefer that nobody heard A and

[1:52:18] B and you have to not consider that.

[1:52:23] So is your concern right now? Are you stopping this member from the public to continue his comments?

[1:52:28] How? It's not his comments. There's AI's comments. It's GROC. It's Claude. It's Harvey. I don't know what it is.

[1:52:33] I don't know what it is. Can I just, can I please speak on this? Okay.

[1:52:38] So are we accepting testimony from GROC or whatever, a chat GPT or Gemini? I don't know what he's going to talk about.

[1:52:46] No, once we talk about it, you asked me to explain my judgment.

[1:52:49] You can say that and you can challenge the credibility of it, but once it's out here

[1:52:52] I don't know where it's coming from. Are we accepting this as some kind of expert report because AI is telling us something?

[1:52:58] Can we have a pro can we have a proffer? What are we why are we using AI?

[1:53:02] What are we gonna?

[1:53:03] Everybody does and that's not a good excuse for any so so let me ask your question

[1:53:07] But it's also no different than Google. He can say what he wants and if it's not true, you could tell me

[1:53:11] Is your question? Are you? Are you a me ask question without regard to AI?

[1:53:15] Are you able to make comments based on your research before you came up to this microphone?

[1:53:19] Yes.

[1:53:20] Are you able to make comments that are probative to your concerns without reading off your phone?

[1:53:26] Yeah.

[1:53:26] Okay.

[1:53:27] Can you do that for me?

[1:53:28] Can you share with me?

[1:53:30] Am I accurate so that you did a little bit of research before I came up here tonight?

[1:53:33] And then I ask you to give, you raise your right hand and I ask you to tell the truth tonight.

[1:53:37] Is that accurate?

[1:53:38] Are you going to do that, sir?

[1:53:40] Yes.

[1:53:40] Okay.

[1:53:40] Based on your research, your informal research, can you tell me what if any concerns you have or anything you want to tell me about this without making a specific reference to AI or a specific AI platform?

[1:53:52] Okay, is that a factor in Mr. Baranowski?

[1:53:54] Sounds pretty good Mr.

[1:53:56] Okay, so I also just want to place my objection on the record to the objection is just not a standard, right?

[1:54:03] And we're not going to start pretending that we have these imaginary standards on who gets to testify at our meetings.

[1:54:07] File on ethics complain if you don't like it.

[1:54:09] understood, understood. Go ahead sir. Okay, so my research has pointed out that the use

[1:54:18] of sand in snowy conditions will have an impact and negative impact on the

[1:54:24] pervice material. Okay, this and I know in Morstown we use sand when it snows,

[1:54:32] all right, and we have crowns in our road so that sand is going to move into the

[1:54:38] pervious, which will decrease, I assume, the perviousness of that material.

[1:54:46] Okay?

[1:54:46] So, I think now we're getting into a situation where whose fault is it that the system

[1:54:54] isn't working and we're going to have to have additional or changes into how we do maintenance

[1:55:01] during snow just on this street because we can't use sand on this street.

[1:55:08] So that's a big concern that I have, and I think it gets back.

[1:55:11] I think this being a township road is just going to cause a lot of problems.

[1:55:18] Thank you, sir.

[1:55:19] Thank you.

[1:55:19] I'd also, at this point, respectfully ask for a two-minute break if I could, please.

[1:55:24] Thank you.

[1:57:34] Thank you, everyone, I appreciate the courtesy.

[1:57:37] Okay, any additional public comment?

[1:57:41] Okay, hearing none.

[1:57:43] At this time, Mr. Barranowski, certainly the applicant's not compelled to.

[1:57:47] Do you feel inclined to respond to any public comments at this time?

[1:57:50] Yes, I'd like, if I may have Mr. Renaro, just address the public comment with regard to concerns about well-water impacts and the low-lying property, so can you comment to Mr. Renaro?

[1:58:03] Yeah, I think generally the project complies with DEP requirements.

[1:58:07] We do have a relatively complex permit with the DEP, and everything that was discussed by not everything.

[1:58:16] But some of the items discussed by the neighbors, including fish and wildlife,

[1:58:21] well water, and flood plain, are all part of our application to not only the DEP,

[1:58:27] but also the Mr. Nol and part of this application.

[1:58:30] So I don't see any negative impacts to adjacent well water and we're complying with regulations

[1:58:35] that are intended specifically to protect neighbors from any problems.

[1:58:40] Specifically about well water, too, sometimes you're concerned with well water that there's

[1:58:44] too many wells in one location,

[1:58:46] and this project is gonna be connected to public waters.

[1:58:49] We don't have that concern there.

[1:58:51] Fish and Wildlife is part of our approvals with the DEP.

[1:58:53] That's DEP jurisdiction.

[1:58:55] In addition, we are set back significantly

[1:58:59] from the rank focus creek.

[1:59:01] There's 150 wetlands buffer that we're respecting

[1:59:04] and repairing buffers from the rank focus creek.

[1:59:06] So a lot of the concerns about species along the rank focus

[1:59:10] are protected by the DEP

[1:59:12] and by the fact that we're set back from the road.

[1:59:16] I'm sorry, from the creek, okay, right.

[1:59:20] Okay, and I appreciate the comments from the public.

[1:59:23] I hope we've addressed those concerns.

[1:59:26] I understand comment about light pollution and so forth.

[1:59:29] We will be reviewing those.

[1:59:31] The street lights are ordinance requirement,

[1:59:33] but certainly, I think there was a comment Mr. Noles

[1:59:36] that are for a night light test.

[1:59:37] We'll certainly comply with that

[1:59:40] and we'll work on the HOA documentation.

[1:59:43] I do also in response, not only to public comment,

[1:59:47] but to the board's comments and to the colleague we've had

[1:59:50] this evening.

[1:59:51] We don't want to leave you to your deliberations tonight

[1:59:54] with a question marks.

[1:59:55] I think the concern that's driving the discussion

[1:59:58] about the fungmen.

[2:00:00] The functionality of the stormwater management system is its proximity to the roadway and concerns about overlapping maintenance responsibility and cost and so forth. I did have reservations about putting more burdens on this HOA, which needs to be formed regardless. It will have to have responsibility for the stormwater management system. I think it would be in everybody's best interest.

[2:00:29] and responding to your concerns and your professionals' comments, as well as the comments from the public.

[2:00:37] If we just propose to make the road private and it will put the obligation for the road maintenance

[2:00:44] and for snow plowing and for stormwater management system maintenance, we'll put it on the HOA.

[2:00:52] This way there's no question in your minds about any obligations being unintentionally

[2:00:59] unintentionally create it that would voice these obligations on the township.

[2:01:03] Obviously, the people who will be living here will still be taxpayers and so forth.

[2:01:08] There will be some services that would still be provided to them, such as trash pick up.

[2:01:14] However, that gets worked out, Mr. Abrant, you know, best on that.

[2:01:18] That'll still be a part and parcel of servicing the residents who we live here.

[2:01:23] but I think it would make sense based on your comments and questions tonight.

[2:01:29] If we propose just to make the roadway private, which will, as Mr. Null indicated,

[2:01:35] will result in some redesign.

[2:01:36] It may actually make the loss even a little bigger, but we'd like to propose that the roadway

[2:01:44] would be private and this way, I think it takes that concern off your shoulders.

[2:01:49] I appreciate that. How do we Mr. Noel and Mr. Davis, if you could turn that microphone on and slide it over to Mr. Noel? How do we approve even preliminary a subdivision plan that we don't have in front of us if the roads are going to be private, the roads are going to be private?

[2:02:11] I don't think you can.

[2:02:15] What are you approving?

[2:02:18] So, like I'm only caught, because earlier he said if it goes private, the dimensions

[2:02:23] are going to change, the lots will change, that there's going to be some form of change

[2:02:27] to it.

[2:02:28] It may not be that significant.

[2:02:29] You even just said that some of the lots might get a little bigger.

[2:02:32] I'm not looking to throw any hurdle, but if you got to the mountaintop and it was private

[2:02:41] and it got approved. It's not even the subdivision plan that's marked as a one or what we submitted in a review.

[2:02:46] There's going to be some type of even if it's minor alteration of that and it could be that we carry to get to get it.

[2:02:54] Something like that or it could be, I mean, I don't know what it is, but how do we,

[2:02:59] how do we approve a subdivision that we don't have even if it's a different modification?

[2:03:03] Well, it's still a 24-unit, 23-new, plus one existing, you know, I'll defer to Mr.

[2:03:13] Noel, but if the change is just going to be, you know, narrowing the width of the

[2:03:22] road so they don't have to deal with the right-of-way issue, it's still going to be largely

[2:03:29] like this, at the size of the plan, the lines are going to move in eighth of an inch.

[2:03:35] It's a technicality, and it's more of a legal question than an engineering question.

[2:03:40] But in my years...

[2:03:41] That's why I was trying to put it over there, buddy.

[2:03:42] Thank you.

[2:03:44] But in my years of...

[2:03:45] And in planners' issue, my years of experience, you have to show, you know, you've got setbacks

[2:03:51] that are going to change, everything is going to change from that perspective.

[2:03:54] and the stripper is right,

[2:03:56] if the plan probably won't look much different,

[2:03:58] but on paper it's much different.

[2:04:01] But Chris, would you agree that all the changes

[2:04:03] would make the prop less intense as far as setbacks?

[2:04:07] The right-of-way wouldn't be as large.

[2:04:09] Everything would get less intense from that standpoint.

[2:04:12] Everything's shown now conservatively, conservatively.

[2:04:16] So if you have a private development,

[2:04:18] everything would be a smaller right-of-way.

[2:04:21] It would be a whole kind of,

[2:04:23] Where's the property line going to go to between two houses on either side of the road? Where's that go?

[2:04:28] Where is it? It would always be it would make the properties larger and more compliant

[2:04:33] Where is the property line between two houses across the street from each other? Where is that property? The center line of the pavement?

[2:04:41] The center line with an easement

[2:04:43] but I mean

[2:04:45] But that's easy for us to address as a condition of approval in my opinion

[2:04:49] So instead of a 50 foot right away you'd have a 50 foot

[2:04:53] white easement. Yes. Or maybe even less since we don't have to comply with RSI with the

[2:05:00] road with change then. No. No. Okay. So the geometry that you see here other than property

[2:05:07] lines other than rights of way really would be exactly the same. But we would not be proposing

[2:05:13] any design changes other than lines that are already imaginary really. So what you're talking

[2:05:21] about is changing the lot lines versus changing the design of what's submitted here. Is that

[2:05:27] that I'm maybe oversimplifying? Yeah, and actually changing the name of the lot line from

[2:05:32] a right-of-way to an easement that would really be the as far as I can see the only change.

[2:05:37] And of course, you know, the discussion about trash collection and those things would have to be

[2:05:41] discussed. But the change as far as the geometry and the engineering of the plan does not change

[2:05:47] other than changing a right-of-way line to easement line in the way I'm looking at it.

[2:05:51] Maybe I'm looking at it to take the lot line to the middle of the road and then there would

[2:05:55] be an easement for everybody that's entering an easement to use the road and the sidewalks on

[2:06:02] people's properties. Well, yeah. He just brought up the sidewalk issue. Wouldn't the road be a

[2:06:08] common area? You would still have an association. Wouldn't the road be a common area? It probably

[2:06:16] It wouldn't be the same width, so rather than an easement, I think we've seen it

[2:06:20] before where the road becomes a common area that the association would own.

[2:06:27] And my point is that those details are easily addressed.

[2:06:31] I agree with you.

[2:06:31] I think they are easily addressed.

[2:06:33] You can be additional proof.

[2:06:34] I think tabling this would be a little bit of a waste of the board's time.

[2:06:38] Yeah, and here's my one other question.

[2:06:40] I agree, right up until we get it wrong, right?

[2:06:43] Right up until I don't get it right.

[2:06:45] And I do the resolution and we have a plan and it gets sold to developer and then they come back and they said

[2:06:51] You guys did it wrong

[2:06:53] So I

[2:06:55] There's a component preliminary

[2:06:57] What about sidewalk is there and change with the sidewalk requirement if this is okay

[2:07:05] so if

[2:07:06] If it's private and

[2:07:09] And if you don't follow RSI-S, then the town is not obligated to take it over ever in

[2:07:14] the future.

[2:07:15] So if they want to eventually turn it over to the town, I don't know if that's acceptable,

[2:07:20] not acceptable, whatever.

[2:07:21] But I would not recommend changing any of the RSI-S standards.

[2:07:25] And if they're going to have a 50-foot, make it an open space lot, or whatever you want

[2:07:31] to call common lot, or an easement, then effectively it's pretty much the same plan except for

[2:07:37] there are a lot lying down the middle of the road.

[2:07:40] With an easement, it's going to go over.

[2:07:43] So the roadway itself, if you go private,

[2:07:46] the roadway dimensions are not going to change.

[2:07:49] No, would not change.

[2:07:51] OK.

[2:07:52] In fact, no.

[2:07:53] Traditionally, what happens if it goes private,

[2:07:55] you don't have to do RSI-S, you make it thinner.

[2:07:58] Well, actually, we still have to comply with RSI-S.

[2:08:00] I think you've been private, right?

[2:08:01] Chris, we have to comply with RSI-S, even for private.

[2:08:06] Well, they've agreed to do it, so it's not an issue.

[2:08:09] Okay, so somebody articulate for me the condition of approval.

[2:08:14] The condition of approval would be the submission of an acceptable form of subdivision plan with a private road.

[2:08:23] I think it's just a revised subdivision plan that shows a private road instead of dedication of a public right away.

[2:08:29] Great.

[2:08:31] with either an easement or the private road being

[2:08:34] owned by the association a lot, all to the association.

[2:08:39] Can I say something?

[2:08:42] Now you still have to change a lot.

[2:08:43] Well, if you have an easement, you don't have to change a lot.

[2:08:46] Well, no, you have to change a lot lines

[2:08:47] because the easements could have been easement

[2:08:49] from somebody's property.

[2:08:51] Well, it would be a common piece of property

[2:08:53] there to the whole.

[2:08:54] Right, but they would go...

[2:08:58] In back in history,

[2:08:59] lot lines used to go to the center of the road all the time and then the right

[2:09:03] of ways came in so it'd be just like that.

[2:09:08] Yeah I have a comment so so this

[2:09:11] this design we have one design we have two design exceptions are looking for

[2:09:16] here one is no sidewalk in the in the cul-de-sac the other is 50 feet between

[2:09:21] trees right the reason we're talking about the road is because our Township

[2:09:25] manager God bless my love I wasn't in a meeting with our public worst person who

[2:09:30] said he was going to accept the road if it was dedicated.

[2:09:34] That's what he told you in a workshop.

[2:09:36] So I'm sort of struggling like, how do we get here?

[2:09:39] Well, it's not a perfect process.

[2:09:41] I mean, the reality of it is the work

[2:09:43] that everybody does to get here is to try to eliminate issues.

[2:09:47] And in heaven, but he doesn't try to accommodate us, right?

[2:09:49] By the same, we're going to go private road.

[2:09:51] They're trying to accommodate us.

[2:09:52] And we're making them redesign the whole thing.

[2:09:55] I'm not making anybody redesign it.

[2:09:56] All I'm saying is that whatever we get and we articulate it,

[2:09:59] I just want to make sure that everybody's comfortable with it and we go private that's fine

[2:10:04] So I do the condition of approval and I circulate the courtesy review resolution

[2:10:07] And it's not like were we at the same meeting because that's not what I heard right no, I understand your concern about

[2:10:12] I have the same concern is

[2:10:14] My concern is you're changing the design on the on the phone

[2:10:17] I also think that just Mr. Aborant

[2:10:19] Summarizing and I appreciate that and Mr. Nolto that basically it's the same plan

[2:10:22] But we're not gonna have a right of way we're gonna have an easement and we just need a revised subdivision plan

[2:10:27] that shows that easement as opposed to the right-of-way.

[2:10:30] Is that properly articulated?

[2:10:33] Yes.

[2:10:33] Okay.

[2:10:34] I'm okay with that.

[2:10:37] Like intellectually and legally being able to do that.

[2:10:39] So it isn't necessarily on the flight, like the subdivision plan.

[2:10:42] It's the same subdivision plan.

[2:10:44] It's just now, it won't be a right-of-way that is owned by the township.

[2:10:47] It will be a private road that is owned by the HOA, and there'll be an easement

[2:10:55] provided.

[2:10:56] No change in lot lines, no change in, is that what we're saying?

[2:10:59] No changes, a lot of lines would extend them to the center.

[2:11:03] Yeah, that's the only change.

[2:11:05] Because it's an easement.

[2:11:05] Yeah, the only change is now the lot line will go to the middle of the previous road.

[2:11:10] The HOA will have responsibility for the road and the stormwater management conveyance system.

[2:11:15] Right.

[2:11:15] I mean, I think you as an applicant are doing everything you can here.

[2:11:18] My concern is we're making it too much, and I never am in that position on this board,

[2:11:24] Or by the way, it's a great new grant.

[2:11:27] Are we all settled now at this point in time?

[2:11:29] At this point in time, I'm closing.

[2:11:32] I just want to, I just have one more comment from Mr. Null.

[2:11:36] I see it.

[2:11:37] Hi.

[2:11:38] Go ahead.

[2:11:38] So Mr. Abbott, as far as snow plowing trash pick up,

[2:11:42] what happens then?

[2:11:44] I think the same with other private streets

[2:11:46] of the reimbursement statute.

[2:11:49] So we deal with that all the time.

[2:11:50] OK, good.

[2:11:52] I just want to make sure that was on the record.

[2:11:54] Now are we finished?

[2:11:56] I'm finished.

[2:11:56] Yes.

[2:11:57] Okay.

[2:11:58] You have something you were excited before I close comments?

[2:12:01] I just want to make sure, anything further, can we summarize and get to a vote?

[2:12:05] Please summarize and go to a vote.

[2:12:07] I want to close the comments on this project and would you please read a summary of what

[2:12:18] we need?

[2:12:19] Sure.

[2:12:19] Well, we need to consider.

[2:12:27] Thank you, everyone.

[2:12:28] The applicants come before tonight seeking preliminary major subdivision.

[2:12:32] They've been very clear with regard to the number of lots, and I'm not going to get into all of that.

[2:12:37] The applicant has requested two waivers.

[2:12:41] There's no variances necessary.

[2:12:43] One's a partial waiver with regard to the sidewalk will only be on one side of the roadway.

[2:12:49] it'll be the internal roadway where the loop is and will not extend down from

[2:12:55] Creek Road will not extend down to the cul-de-sac, but it'll go from Creek Road

[2:12:58] to the internal loop on one side. That's a partial waiver. Also the applicant

[2:13:02] request a waiver of the street tree minimum distance and they put their

[2:13:05] personal records with regard to that and the various stands of trees and what

[2:13:09] necessitates that. The applicant's agreed to comply with the review letters with

[2:13:14] the exceptions that we've noted in the meeting tonight and that I'm not going to

[2:13:18] review, but we've the exceptions with regard to the one fire hydrant that's not on the

[2:13:24] loop and various others.

[2:13:27] The applicants also agreed to point of sale disclosures that will detail the responsibilities

[2:13:34] of the HOA and the obligations of the HOA and each of the members, and that will include

[2:13:43] the identification of existing wetlands and specified lots being advised in the future,

[2:13:49] they will be restricted in development.

[2:13:52] Applicants agreed to comply with the tree ordinance true placement plan, including Payment

[2:13:57] and Loo, and has also indicated a willingness and intent to try to bolster the replacement

[2:14:04] tree planning in a manner acceptable to our board plan or an engineer.

[2:14:07] Applicants agreed to comply with our OSIS, the board to all parking also.

[2:14:10] Americans also agreed that all homeowner's association documents include them not limited to the O&M manual

[2:14:17] capital improvement plan capital improvement budget all docs with regard to the HOA will be submitted for

[2:14:23] Review and approval of the municipal solicitor and the board professionals

[2:14:31] The

[2:14:34] happens also agreed that now this is this is private so no parking on one side. So what are we doing with that?

[2:14:42] I think we're still gonna show

[2:14:43] Okay, so still do note we'll still do no parking on one side with street signs

[2:14:48] consistent with the ordnance standard.

[2:14:51] I can also agree with regard to the replacement trees that they are going to use native species

[2:14:57] in a manner suitable to the board planner.

[2:15:00] All right so far. Okay.

[2:15:06] Applicants also agreed that they will place signage in a manner recommended by Mr. Noel with regard to the lots with restricted with restricted areas and developments with what lands.

[2:15:20] Applicants also agreed to the extent that dealing with the postmaster, to the extent that

[2:15:27] a cluster is proposed, that they'll need to design and put in place pull-off lanes for

[2:15:31] that cluster in a manner accessible to the board engineer and board planner.

[2:15:37] Applicants also agreed with regard to the existing home that, while it will remain on well,

[2:15:42] that water service will be taken up to that existing lot line for potential future connection

[2:15:51] The

[2:15:54] applicant agreed that the roadway will be a private roadway, and that the applicant

[2:16:03] agrees to the submission of a revised subdivision plan depicting that private roadway in the

[2:16:11] identical dimensions as exists now with the right of way, which will show the extension

[2:16:15] of the lot lines to the middle of that 50-foot easement,

[2:16:20] and that will all be in a manner

[2:16:22] that's accessible to the board planner and board engineer.

[2:16:26] And I think, yeah, I might have already said this,

[2:16:28] but the applicant agrees to fully comply with the township.

[2:16:32] Oh, I didn't, applicant agrees

[2:16:34] that it'll comply with the ordinance

[2:16:36] with regard to reimbursement of the township

[2:16:38] for trash recycle and snow on private roads.

[2:16:43] Yes.

[2:16:44] I think that's, yeah, yeah.

[2:16:45] What did I say?

[2:16:48] Well, I'm sorry.

[2:16:49] The, the, the each away, the, the service

[2:16:51] that you'll reimburse the township.

[2:16:52] What did I say?

[2:16:54] Oh, because they do it privately.

[2:16:56] They do it privately.

[2:16:56] They agree to the reimbursement.

[2:16:58] They agree to comply with the reimbursement ordinance with regard to the private street.

[2:17:07] Okay, all properly articulated, Mr. Bryanasky?

[2:17:10] Yes, sir.

[2:17:10] Mr. Noel, Mr. Davis?

[2:17:13] Any questions from the board members with regard to the relief that I identified and the conditions that I identified?

[2:17:19] Okay, Mr. Spirito, you are eligible to vote.

[2:17:21] Mr. Driscoll, we appreciate your participation, but you won't be poll, Mr. Spirito, it gives us the full.

[2:17:26] Because you're concerned, Mr. Mouse, that would give us our full nine.

[2:17:29] Okay, board members, you've heard the summary.

[2:17:32] I need a motion and a second to approve.

[2:17:35] No, no, you can't, you as a board chair can't say to approve.

[2:17:37] It's a motion, you need a motion and a second to approve or deny the application.

[2:17:42] That's exactly what I meant.

[2:17:44] Okay, and I know.

[2:17:46] Mr. Chair, I would make a motion to approve consistent with the recap provided so

[2:17:51] ably by Mr. Waleechco.

[2:17:53] Second, Keating.

[2:18:00] Mr. Aberrant.

[2:18:01] Yes.

[2:18:02] Mr. Cara Burns?

[2:18:03] Yes.

[2:18:04] Mr. Thomas?

[2:18:06] Yes.

[2:18:06] Mr. McGuire?

[2:18:08] Yes.

[2:18:08] Mr. Marioucci?

[2:18:10] Yes.

[2:18:10] Mr. Petriello?

[2:18:12] Yes.

[2:18:13] Mr. Keating?

[2:18:14] Yes.

[2:18:14] Mr. Wasolowski?

[2:18:16] Yes.

[2:18:17] Mr. Spurrito?

[2:18:18] Yes.

[2:18:21] Thank you, everybody.

[2:18:22] Thank you.

[2:18:25] Mr. Lamont, I can't believe you didn't get to testify.

[2:18:27] It's all the edge of my seat.

[2:18:37] Mr.

[2:18:41] Chair, would you enter, if there's no other, oh wait, wait, wait, I see we've got to get, we're still, we're still in our meeting.

[2:18:47] Paddy, Miasella, just, just string, is there something you need to add, Paddy?

[2:18:54] Oh, I was going to ask if you would entertain a motion to adjourn.

[2:18:58] Second.

[2:18:59] I.

[2:19:00] We're out of here.

Planning Board Meeting

Transcript