Planning Board - Regular Meeting

All right. I'd like to call the Hillsborough Planning Board meeting July 4th to order. And please join me in a salute to the flag. All right, IT issue? Bear with us folks, having an IT issue with a member.

What's that?

All right.

Not everybody talking. All right, let's get started. All right, announcement. This meeting has been duly advertised according to Section 5 of the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 231, Public Law 1975, also known as the Sunshine Law. Notice of the 2026 annual meeting schedule has been provided to the officially designated newspapers, the township clerk, posted on the township's website and available at the Hillsborough Township Municipal Complex. Pursuant to PL 2025, C72, starting March 1st, 2026, municipalities are required to publish their public notices on the municipal website. The Hillsborough Township public notices are available at HTTPS, hillsboronj.gov backslash public dash notices. Application documents and plans have been made available on the township's website at hillsboronj.portal.civicclerk.com. and they were made available at least 10 days in advance of this meeting. The complete application files are available in the planning and zoning department for inspection in accordance with the public meeting notice. Our agenda currently includes an oath of office, but we're going to table that till next week. We have a couple of items to iron out. It does not change the composition of the board, and we can still conduct our business. So could you have a roll call, please?

Mayor Payne are absent. Mr. Flagg? Here. Mr. Suraci? Here. Mr. Smith? Here. Mr. Radowitz? Here. Mr. Vitale? Here. Deputy Mayor Lupani? Present. Mr. Pugin? Present. Mayor Ciccarelli? Here. Of course. Present. Ball.

Here. Mr. Bernstein.

Mr. Bernstein.

Mr. Mayhew? Here. And myself and the videographer here.

Okay, a multitask. We don't have any meeting minutes to consider, no resolutions, no planning board business, is that correct? So let's get right to business from the floor for any matters not on tonight's agenda. So if any people in attendance have anything that's not on the agenda, please come up and state your business. All right, seeing none. We have no ordinances to consider, so let's get right to the applications. The first one is public hearing on specialty assays incorporated file twenty three dash p b dash sixteen dash s p v two thousand twenty six extended uh... this is block sixty seven lot sixteen fifty six old campaign route applicant is seeking a one-year extension for a minor site planned approval c bulk variance and waiver through july tenth twenty twenty seven twenty seven to construct an approximate 4,869 square foot addition to the existing building for use as a research facility and related improvements on the property located in the I-1 light industrial and RA residential agricultural zones. So, floor is yours. Is it Ms. Kaczynski? All right.

May I start over?

Kara Kaczynski of McNally, Arrows, Kaczynski & Lyme here on behalf of the applicant. You may recall we were here some time ago and received this board's approval with conditions of the project that the chair just described to you and since then we've been going through resolution compliance. We had a little hiccup and change to the stormwater design which has been submitted and we're in the process of getting revised Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission approval. That is one of the outstanding items. Since we requested the extension, we have received county planning board approval, or actually a letter of no interest, which is one of the other outstanding items, and then we recently received from town council a request for a completed stormwater facilities maintenance agreement, which we have also completed and will be submitting for approval. So really the DRCC is the sticking point here. They have asked for continued changes or clarifications, which our engineers are in the process of doing. As of right now, it does not change in any way the approval that this board has granted. Hopefully, crossing our fingers, it won't do that. But ultimately, once we get the approval, we'll submit that. And if we need to come back for any sort of amendment, we'll certainly do that. But as of right now, we just need the extension of the time period so we can satisfy that condition. Okay.

And there's nothing to present, just any comments from the dais?

No, it's just a third party outside agency approval that we're waiting on, unfortunately.

Any comments from our...

So you're looking for the extension through July of 2027, I guess, because the construction, that bumps it out. Correct. You need that much time.

Correct. I mean, hopefully we won't. I would love to be able to report back that we've got everything finalized within the next month. That never seems to happen, but certainly I will tell you that my client is on all of us to get this done as quickly as possible. So we're doing our best.

Yeah, I think it's better to build in a little flexibility in your request than it saves you having to come back.

I do appreciate that, and that's the exact reason.

Okay, thank you.

Anything else from the dais? How about our professionals? Mark, no? David, anything? Do we need a motion to open the comments from the floor? Motion and a second, please. I'll make the motion to open. Second. All in favor?

Aye.

All right. So if there's any comments from the floor for the applicant, from the public, I should say, please come up now and ask away. All right. I guess a second and a motion to close public. So moved.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Mr. Bernstein, do you want to? I think I could do this myself, but.

It's up to you, Mr. Chairman.

So I need a motion and a second to approve the extension of time of decision to, not time of decision.

Extinction for a minor sub-point site plan approval, see both variants and waiver through July 10th, 2027.

All right, you can count them a check. So moved. Second.

Can we vote, please? Mr. Flagg? Yes. Mr. Srirachi?

Yes. Mr. Smith?

Yes. Mr. Radowitz? Yes. Vitaly? Yes. Deputy Mayor Lopani? Yes. Vice Chair Pizan? Yes. Chair Ciccarelli? Yes. Thank you.

Thank you very much, everyone. Have a great evening and a great summer.

Thanks. Good luck with work. Okay, next is 480 Hillsboro, RD, LLC. You guys wanna come up? I'll read the file. It's file 25-PB-19-SV. Time of decision, August 26, 2026. Block 203-10, lot 29, formerly known as block 203, lot 4B. This is 480 Hillsboro Road. The applicant is seeking minor subdivision approval, sea bulk variances, and waivers to subdivide approximately 4.851 acres approximately into three single-family dwelling lots, a new proposed lot of 29.01, which is 1.68 acres, a new proposed lot, 2902, 1.74 acres, to be served by individual driveways with access from Leiden Drive with associated improvements. The remainder lot... Reminder lot, proposed lot 2903 is 1.54 acres to contain the existing single family dwelling and retain access from Hillsborough Road on the property located in our residential zoning district. This is Mr. Fieden. Fidon, yes. Fidon, okay. So the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Michael Fidon on behalf of the firm of Singer and Fidon on behalf of the applicant. You've announced the site accurately, so I don't need to repeat all that. It is a simple subdivision. I have for my witness tonight, Mr. Ford. I'm certain you're familiar with him. I'll follow your lead, Mr. Chair, as far as qualifying Mr. Ford. and his expertise. I do also have my clients here as well. I don't intend to call them as witnesses. I don't think that's really necessary, but I'm just letting you know that in the event that some questions come up or something to that effect. They're certainly willing to testify if need be, but I don't have any desire to make this go any longer than it need be. Without any further ado, then, I call Mr. Ford to the stand.

Yeah, absolutely. My apologies.

First time in Hillsborough.

As I was stating, Mr. Chairman, my name is Chris Sobieski. I'm from the firm Savo Schalk in Somerville. My firm represents Mr. Fourier's neighboring property owner. He owns lot 25 within block 203.10, otherwise known as 48 Beverly Drive. We have some concerns with the application that we'd like to raise this evening, particularly with respect to the applicant's notice. I figured I would, rather than let the applicant proceed with testimony, raise those now if that's THE BOARD IS GOING TO LET ME DO THAT. IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO DO THAT AT THE GET GO AS OPPOSED TO GETTING HALFWAY THROUGH THE PROCEEDINGS AND THERE BEING A NOTICE ISSUE.

MR. BERNSTEIN, WE HAVE A NOTICE ISSUE. LET'S HEAR IT.

OKAY. SO JUST VERY BRIEFLY, YOU KNOW, IT'S OUR OPINION THAT THE NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING IS DEFECTIVE FOR A COUPLE REASONS. NUMBER ONE, THE NOTICE INDICATES THAT QUOTE UNQUOTE VARIANCES IN WAIVERS ARE REQUIRED TO PERMIT THE PROPOSED LOTS 29.01 AND 29.02. to present deficient quote lot widths of 25 feet. So the issue with that is that we did review your board planner's memo and he indicates that the variances are sought to permit proposed lots 29.01 and 02 to present deficient lot widths at their front setback lines as opposed to just lot widths. Calculated at 104.72 feet. FOR THAT REASON, THE NOTICE IS AT WORST INACCURATE IN THAT IT DOESN'T ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND AT BEST IT'S CONFUSING BECAUSE IT DOESN'T STATE WHETHER IT'S A VARIANCE OR DESIGN WAIVER RELIEF THAT'S BEING REQUESTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSAL. SECOND, ANOTHER ISSUE. THE BOARD PROFESSIONALS RESPECTIVE REVIEW MEMBERS WERE and they both raised a number of concerns about the project. As such, the public has not had an adequate opportunity to digest that information, seek advice of their own engineers or other professionals to review the reports and submitted plans. My client, for example, would like to explore retaining an environmental expert to determine what the impact of the proposed development would be on his property. And just for those reasons, we would respectfully request that the hearing be adjourned, give the applicant an opportunity to cure the notice deficiency, and give my client and other members of the public an opportunity to retain professional guidance of their own. So that's my case. I just figured I'd put it on the record from the start. You're seeking ejector status, counsel? That's correct, Mr. Bernstein.

And you're representing whom?

My client is William Foyer. Spell his name. Yeah, F-W-I-L-L-I-A-M. Foyer, spelled F-E-U-E-R. and he owns the property at 48 Beverly Drive, Block 203.10, Lot 25. Just for context, that's the property that sits in the northeast corner of Beverly Drive and Linden Place, bordering the subject property to the west.

Is he your only client?

That's correct, Mr. Bernstein.

Thank you. Mr. Fedun, at least on the issue of the notice?

I beg to differ with counsel. I think the notice is entirely... accurate, it says proposed lots with the lot width where 150 feet is required, 25 feet is proposed, whether the exact location of where that lot width is de minimis or of no real import as far as that's concerned. If somebody has an objection, they're not going to object if They're not going to not show up simply because they're confused if they were to be confused about the 25 to the 150 feet that the council thinks it should say. The bottom line is the objector is here. The objector had Plenty of adequate notice the case wall is very clear It's if you have enough notice to show up you have enough notice And so trying to point out things like what may be and what I what I would describe as Hardly a technical deficiency because I don't think it's deficiency at all, but If his argument should stand as far as that's concerned doesn't make any difference. He's standing right here. He can object I And so the notice is sufficient because the objector is here. As far as just getting the comments of the professional staff the day of or the day before, well, we're in the same boat, frankly, which is very typical of these types of applications. We have to have our application in within 10 days prior so the public can see it. And the staff obviously has many more applications than this application to address, and so they're The memos come in when the memos come in and we address them. We are certainly prepared to address them. And I think as far as that's concerned, I would certainly allow the, at the very least, have the board flesh everything out. It may well be that the information that's been provided and the discussion that the board hears tonight, and it will be certainly enough to address any concerns in that regard. You know, frankly, Mr. Bernstein, if anybody could raise the issue of the expert, the town's expert memos got in the day before, you guys would never hear an application on time because every time there's an application before any board here in Hillsboro or any place that I present applications, those memos come in at the last minute. That's just what happens.

Does anyone have a copy of the notice on them? I do.

I do as well.

There's no questions from the audience, ma'am. No.

Yeah, hold on.

No, I would like the notice that's in the paper. I'm going to ask for the official reader of the- We have to find it, but- I'm sure it's in here somewhere.

I was also pointing out, Mr. Burns, that the notices were deemed adequate and accurate by the staff.

I found the notice to be accurate, but I want to take a look at it. Because the issue is not whether I found it accurate because it appears to be what you're asking for. The question is, is it accurate for the purposes of what's been raised? I guess I have to get on. Oh, here it is.

Thank you.

That one, I want to see the one that was put in the paper, because the one that's put in the paper is the one that matters. Everybody? Counselor, for purpose of the record, I'm looking at the copy of the advertisement legal notice.

Your contention is what part of this notice is inaccurate? Could you turn your mic on, please?

Sorry, I thought it was. What part of the notice that I'm looking at is inaccurate?

Subsection B, where it says variances and waivers required.

Mm-hmm.

It's not necessarily that it's inaccurate, but it doesn't accurately describe the relief that's being sought. You said... You see B1, proposed lot 29.01, lot width where 150 feet is required and 25 feet is proposed. Below that, proposed lot 29.02, lot width where 150 feet is required and 25 feet is proposed.

You missed the last sentence.

Yeah, I understand the catch-all is there.

Your office better than most.

But nevertheless, it's not accurately indicating what variances are actually required as per the board professional's memos.

The board professional's report is Mr. Mayuse, I believe.

Actually, I believe it's Mr. Coyce. Mr. Coyce's memo, yes.

Mr. Coyce points out the specific variance is being sought He indicates that there are, by the way, Mr. Coyce's report says there are three bulk variances and then says two. But leaving that aside for the moment, basically he indicates the necessary requirements for a hardship C1 or a flexible C or C2. Is it your contention that the notice fails to delineate that?

No, my contention is that the notice doesn't accurately describe the variances that are requested or that are necessary.

It's his belief that the lot width on both properties cannot meet the requirements, but the number of feet, 25 versus 104.72 is the issue. Because otherwise, I'm trying to understand where you're contending that this is not accurate.

The applicant's notice says lot width. 25 feet is proposed. Your board professional, Mr. Coyce's memo says minimum lot width at setback. Those are the variances that are needed. 104.72 feet proposed for both 29.01 and 29.02.

Mr. Bernstein, if I may point out, one is for the setback and one is for the front of the lot itself. And the ordinance links the two. Your ordinance links the two.

I'm looking at, you have Mr. Coyce's report, counsel? No, I'm talking the Objectives Council. You have Mr. Coyce- Yeah, I'm looking at it right now. All right, where in Mr. Coyce's report are we referring to?

Page two, the table in the middle. Mm-hm. Third row down.

Mm-hm. Second row. Third row across, second row down. He says, is the variance required for minimum lot width at setback on both lots?

Correct. As opposed to the notice which just says lot width and gives a completely different.

It's missing the words at setback.

That's one and it has the inaccurate measurement as well.

And there's notice says 25. Right. I don't see 25 anywhere in their table. I understand that. Which is why the 25 didn't end up in my report.

Well, that's why I'm trying to ascertain what I think is the issue.

Okay.

And not only that, for what it's worth, as I was saying, the notice says variances and waivers required. And it doesn't delineate whether these are variances or waivers or both. I mean, I guess that's... It says one or the other, which is something, but certainly not a completely accurate...

So the argument is that instead of, if he had used the word variances and or waivers required, would we be having this conversation?

If he said variances?

And or waivers, because he's asking for variances and waivers.

I understand. I don't see where there's any waivers on this list.

Does there have to be waivers on the list in order for the notice to be inaccurate?

Not necessarily, but if you're saying variances and waivers and you have two items listed and you don't indicate whether they are variances or waivers, it's not entirely accurate and it could create confusion for the public. That's my contention.

Councillor, you want to make your comments? A couple of things.

I'll point out that Mr. Coy's letter of April 28th indicates that the request is 150 feet is required and 25 feet is proposed. That was in the April 25th letter. The memo that he produced for us today says differently. It says 14.72 feet is required. Depends on if you're measuring it from the front or at the setback.

I believe it's his, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, he got that from your client's plans.

That's correct. And the ordinance links both the setback and the width of the lot at the setback and the width of the lot at the front of the lot. The bottom line is, again, Mr. Bernstein, the objector is here. The notice brought the objector here. And if the objector has an issue as to the lot with or what have you, we're happy to hear it. That's why the notice is designed to say, this is what we're doing, and if you have an objection, please come. So here they are. And it's done what it's supposed to do. There's a room full of people who have issues or what have you. So the notice has been effective. There's no question about it. And if you want to say and or waivers or and waivers, sometimes when I'm before boards, boards add a waiver that could or could not be a waiver. Are we going to start that hearing all over again because someone says there's a design waiver that was missing? That's why the catch-all is there. The bottom line is, and I could quote extensively from Cox, the bottom line is it's notice. They're here, and that's what you're talking about. The objectors here, they probably have some very interesting arguments they want to raise. I'd prefer the board got to them. They're here.

Mr. Chairman, if I may. I just would like to clear things up. My April correspondence had to do with completeness and the report, let me see, dated June 3rd. That's our planning and zoning review. That's our full review. My April is basically just reviewing completeness. We weren't diving deep into completeness. just for the board's edification.

Based on that argument, and I'm not necessarily agreeing with it, then the argument would be that the report that would have to come out of your office would have to be done prior to the promulgation of notice to make sure that the applicant can rely on something different if the notice is different, but I don't see it being an issue one way or the other in terms of Which ended up in your report that came out today or yesterday and which was in the completeness report. The issue is whether or not there's sufficient notice to allow the party that there is being a request to the board for a variance.

I'm not aware of. you know any report that we do sure there might be the applicant is relying on it but again we don't look at their notice and sign off on it for them to do the purpose of my june third memo was to lay out all the variances as i As I saw, I don't understand where they were coming from with the 25 feet. As I look at their table, I see no reference to 25 feet being proposed as it relates to any of the bulk standards. That's why in my report, I specifically say that in regards to minimum lot width, 150 feet is proposed and they're proposing 104 and change.

Anything else, gentlemen?

I guess nothing, I mean, that's, my apologies. I, really nothing further, that's my argument. The, you know, this is at best confusing, your board planner was a little bit confused as to what was being requested. Ultimately, it's the applicant's responsibility to notice properly, and it needs to put an ordinary person, an ordinary layperson, quote the Cox book, you know, on notice that, you know, give them enough information to intelligently determine whether to object or seek further information. So my contention is that based on the language of the notice, it's a little bit confusing. They're indicating that one set of variances is being sought. They get here tonight and a completely different set of variances could potentially be being sought. So that's really it in a nutshell.

The issue between, and I understand there's another objector here, and we'll let her get up in a moment and have her say, but What's clearly in the notice is that they can't meet certain requirements of the zoning application. The issue appears to be a difference between whether it's 25 feet or 104.72 feet. Either way, they don't meet the requirements of the zone, which requires a variance. So to that part, we appear to be quibbling over the issue of how much of a variance they're required to have. But before I render an opinion to the board, I understand there's a second objective here who wishes to place some comments on the record. or at least introduce herself for purposes of being an objector on the record. So let's let that individual come on up.

What if her objection or her comments have nothing to do with notice?

I don't know if they do or they don't, but normally what we do is, you recall, Mr. Chairman, we let our objectors come up and place their objector status on the record. And if they wish to have comments relative to this issue, as to notice, then she should. If she has something else that's notice-related, then yes, but minimally to indicate she's serving as an objector and for the purposes of the record. Okay, thank you.

Take a seat.

Thank you, gentlemen. My name is Marcy Green.

You need to move closer and the mic down.

Sorry. Sorry, my first time alone. So my name is Marcy Green, and thank you for allowing me to speak. Again, this was short notice, and we are trying to seek a lawyer, and I have been speaking to a lawyer, but due to when we received the certified letter on Memorial Day weekend and then Monday being a holiday, I have not been able to fully, with my mom, figure out a lawyer, but... i have been speaking to one and um my representation right now has told me that the applicant should not go through for the fact that the applicant has to prove that the bulk variances won't detrimentally affect the neighbors or the public good the application does not state that because it hasn't been addressed all the criteria in the application. And we insist that the applicant pay an escrow to the board to allow for the professional review of the water management calculations.

Okay.

For purposes of the record, Ms. Green, you are on objector status. If you're not familiar with an objector status, that allows you to come up once testimony is given And ask questions of the applicant's witnesses before members of the public. And you are here representing yourself, is that correct?

Correct, but what I just read came from the attorney that I was working with.

And that individual is?

Corey Gray.

Okay, is Mr. Gray going to be representing you?

I'm in hopes of that, but again, with such short notice.

Well, it's not short notice necessarily. It was sent out in the time period, and Mr. Fedun addressed that issue.

We received it on a Saturday of the 23rd in the afternoon of Memorial Day weekend.

That's still a standard mail day, ma'am, whether it's Memorial Day weekend or not.

Right, but what about Monday when everything is closed, right, of a holiday?

According to you, it was received on the 23rd, correct?

Right.

Okay. Your issues relate to the application and the testimony of the application and the applicant's witnesses. And we are not at that point, assuming we get to that point, we are more dealing with the issue of notice. Your contention is you did not receive the notice in a timely fashion, is that correct?

Yes, we will retain.

Though you did receive it for the purposes of the record on the 23rd of May. Correct. Thank you. Counselor?

I'm sorry, your name again, please?

Marcy Green.

Can you state the address? 46 Beverly.

Sorry, was that 46? Yes. Thank you.

My affidavit indicates that Loretta Green was sent that notice on May 21st. I can find the green card if that's necessary as well, but that Loretta Green of 46 Beverly Drive was included in the list of people in the 200-foot list. Is that your question, Mr. Bernstein?

Well, that's part one. Ms. Green, are you the owner of the property?

No, my mother is, but I've lived with her my entire life.

And she's here this evening?

Yes, she is.

And you're up here on her behalf?

Yes.

Thank you. It was received and acknowledged, Mr. Fidon, on the 23rd of May. That was the indication from Ms. Green. Her mother received the certified letter on Saturday, May 23rd. I apologize for asking the question again, Ms. Green.

It was mailed on May 21st, that's correct.

Right, and it was received on May 23rd.

Whatever that Saturday was, yes.

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

Anything else, ma'am, at this moment? No, that is all. Thank you.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

Thank you. So the issue is twofold. The issue is that the notice is, my words, incomplete or inaccurate, according to one objector's counsel. And the other objector is contending that the notice, I assume, is untimely.

If I may interrupt, Mr. Bernstein, I think what she was saying was it wasn't enough time from a perspective of time to retain an attorney. I don't think she's saying that the notice itself wasn't sent timely in accordance with the law. I think what she was saying was that's not enough time for me to get an attorney.

Let's just confirm for the purposes of the record. Is that the argument, ma'am?

I feel that it's both.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I took it as both counsel, but the second part, there is no requirement under the MLUL that notice be given in sufficient time to allow parties to retain counsel. As much as members of the bar would like that to be a requirement of the law that in order to move forward, everybody has to have an attorney. So I would argue to the board that Ms. Green's issue as to timeliness regarding an inability to find counsel is not a reason to put off this application. The bigger question is the issue whether notice is sufficient.

Mr. Bernstein, can I just ask a quick question about the timeliness issue?

Be my guest.

Is it calendar days or business days?

Calendar.

Okay, and how many calendar days?

Ten.

Okay, so we're within that.

And tonight is 12. Okay, thank you. The bigger issue is the issue where the notice is sufficient to give the parties an understanding as to what the applicant is seeking. Council for the objector indicates that it is insufficient. Council for the applicant says it's sufficient. And more importantly, it obtained the desired result because the objector's counsel and the objector are here. Just for edification purposes, my office reviews the notices for sufficiency. I don't cross-check whether the numbers in the notice are correct or whether it should be 25 or 104.72. Our review is to ensure that the notice meets the general requirements, which is in this case is a request for waivers because of setbacks. and to make sure that it's been given, sent to the sufficient personnel and it's been put in the paper, et cetera. That's what our job is. Our job is not to go back and tell council for applicants, oh, by the way, unless I'm aware personally, and we did not have any reports from anybody at the time the notices were reviewed. So, frankly, I see the issue of proposed versus setback of requirement to be de minimis. It's quite possible, depending upon where this application goes, it may still require a C variance, but not necessarily for the number of feet necessary for the setback. This would not be the first application that this board has ever heard where the parties ask for A and we end up with something different from A as part of the testimony and the professional recommendations and the like. I think the objective is that the application is before the board and the parties who are here have the right to question the applicant's professionals, present their own testimony if they so wish, seek extensions appropriately where necessary. And none of that is assisted by quibbling over whether or not the number of feet in the notice is correct necessarily and or whether it should have said and or waivers or or waivers versus and waivers. And frankly, I don't know if the board knows whether they're asking for waivers or not. We're not going to know totally until we hear the application. So it's my recommendation. Did I see a hand? Okay. It's my recommendation, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, that this application be heard. If ultimately Judge Menden wants to deal with this at some point, he'll deal with it accordingly at the appropriate point. over whether or not this is a technical issue sufficient enough to overturn a planning board decision. which may or may not go the way the parties want. You never know. Objector could convince the board that the application is not appropriate or the board may not find the application to be appropriate irrespective of what the objectors have to say. So I think for the purposes, unless anyone else has any disagreements or questions, Mr. Chairman, is the board allow the application to move forward in its current And we'll deal with it appropriately.

Does anybody have anything to add before?

I concur with Mr. Bernstein. We should move forward.

Do we need a vote of any kind or is it just?

Objectors, comments relative to the issues are so noted.

And we appreciate you coming up for the objections and or objecting and I welcome you to listen to what our engineer has to say with respect to, for example, stormwater. And if, like Mr. Bernstein suggested, if you want to argue that it needs to be extended so that you want to take another look at stuff, that'll be considered. And I think we'll hear what they have to say tonight. You're here, so we'll hear.

I just want to, for the purpose of the record, council knows, but this is more for Ms. Green. In your current objector status, Mr. Fedun is going to call Mr. Ford as a witness. Mr. Ford will be qualified, Mr. Ford will testify. Once Mr. Ford's testimony is done, objector's counsel will have the right to cross-examine him. You will then have the right to cross-examine him. Then members of the public separate from you will have the right to cross-examine. So your current objector status at least gives you for the lack of a better phrase, preferential treatment in terms of questioning. But you're questioning also on behalf of your mother who owns the property, so she cannot come up and ask questions separate and apart from you.

Okay.

Thank you. Just real briefly, thank you all for your time. Objection is noted, so thank you. Thank you.

Okay, without further ado, what I started to do is call Mr. Ford to the stand. Given the circumstances, I'm going to ask that he be sworn in, and then I'm going to put his qualifications on the record.

Yes, I do.

Yes, Michael Ford, F-O-R-D, licensed engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey for more than 30 years. with Van Cleef Engineering for more than 30 years, and I've appeared before this board numerous times as both a professional planner and engineer.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest before the board qualifies Mr. Ford, though Mr. Ford is a regular visitor to this board, sometimes more than members of the board. that if the board and or any of the objectors have questions as to Mr. Ford's credentials before you designate him an expert on behalf of, I would suggest that occur. Though I'm not sure objector's counsel necessarily should have a question since his firm regularly calls Mr. Ford as a witness.

Maybe he knows something we don't. All right, so anybody on the board have any questions on the dais? Have anything with respect to Mr. Ford? No? Okay.

Very briefly, Mr. Ford, your license is current and in good standing both in planning and engineering in the state of New Jersey? Yes. Okay. No objection is credentialed.

I would hope that his license is current. It's current. Because your office, as I said, calls him on a regular basis on applicants for you.

So do I just open it up to the public?

No, just the objector.

Just the objector. Do you want to question the witness about his credentials only? No, thank you. He stole my question, so.

We'll proceed please. Is the board have any objection to qualifying Mr. Ford as an expert witness in the field of engineering?

No objections.

Mr. Ford, you had been retained to assist the applicant in preparing an application and site plan for this particular application, is that correct? Yes. Would you please, sorry. It's a subdivision. Would you please take a moment to describe to the board the application, your design for this application?

Yes. The property is located in the R zone. Property address is 480 Hillsboro Road, has frontage on Hillsboro Road as well as Lydon. The proposal is a minor subdivision to create three lots. One lot fronting or along Hillsboro Road with the existing dwelling and two new lots at the rear or south end of the subject tract with access from Lydon. The property is in excess of 4.8 acres. The three proposed lots are ranging in size from approximately 1.4 acres to 1.7. That's well in excess of the one acre minimum lot size for the property. All three lots would be either with existing single-family dwellings, as is the existing structure at 480 Hillsborough Road, or the two rear lots would be the subject of a building permit application with thorough review by the engineering department, including storm water management, grading, drainage for two single family dwellings on the two proposed rear lots. The bulk variance relief that was discussed at some length moments ago is with regards to the two proposed lots at the rear or south end of the site that would have access from Leiden. What we've proposed is rather than, and right now, Lydon is an improved street, approximately 200 feet long, extending from Beverly in an easterly direction to the subject site with a 50 foot wide right-of-way at that point. With all appearances of some time in the past having a plan for a future extension of Leiden. In fact, further to the east is another section of Leiden that was constructed some time ago with single family residences on it. What our proposal is, is to not extend Leiden with a public street. I've appeared before the board in numerous other subdivisions and residential developments, and often the preference would be to not produce new public improvements that would be the responsibility of the township to own and maintain. And in this case, since we're proposing just two single-family dwellings, we believe there's adequate ability for access at the end of Leiden, and our proposal and preference would be to not extend Leiden with either a public right-of-way, which would cure the frontage or a lot with variance. uh... but but have uh... access from the existing conditions online uh... the Alternative with the extension of the road is actually part of the plan set that was provided sheet 10 in the plan set of minor subdivision plans submitted as part of the application includes a representation of a variance free extension of the public right away of light and whereby both lot frontage and lot with would be adequately provided where in this zone the minimum required is a hundred and fifty feet the distinction that we've talked about uh... or has been talked about is that in the township ordinance there's a requirement for a lot with and then in the definitions the lot with requirement is equal to or the lot frontage that is the Distance along the public right away of a lot must be equal to the lot with in this case the Proposed lot frontage at the end of that 50 foot right away would be 25 feet for both of the proposed lots so that's what I think was, you know appropriate listed in the notice so that that is the I'll say that smallest or the greatest departure from the zoning criteria of 150 feet required, whereby if you measure the lot width, which is required as an equal distance as the lot frontage, we're in excess of 104 feet at the setbacks. From a planning perspective, we feel that that departure from the zone requirements is a benefit whereby it reduces the public improvements that would be required to be owned and maintained by the township while still providing adequate access for the two single family dwelling lots. Should the board act favorably on the application, the only thing that would be created out of this would be the three lots. This is not approval for construction per se because the single family dwellings on both lots would have to go through the building permit application process including a zoning permit and review by the engineering department and the building department. As part of the application, We do have some other details to share. That would be all three lots would be serviced by public water and sewer. There's public water and sewer available both in Hillsborough Road and Lydon. The application included a application to the county planning board. the Somerset Union Soil Conservation District, as well as will serve letters, including a January 11th, 2026 will serve letter resolution issued by the Hillsborough Township Municipal Utilities Authority. Approval by the Somerset Union Soil Conservation District of the Soil Erosion and Semicontrol Plan dated December 19th, 2026. and a county planning board review letter dated May 20th, 2026, which depicts county approval would be issued upon satisfaction of some minor conditions, including the provisions of providing for the payment of recycling containers to be provided for both of the two new dwellings. We also, as part of the application, submitted a letter. Let me find that.

Mr. Ford, before you go on, I remind you, you've been called as an expert witness on engineering. Let's limit any planning related testimony unless you're

As part of my introduction, I identified myself as both a licensed engineer and planner.

But you're qualified, I believe, for this testimony as both or just an engineer?

Our request was that we address both. What I was about to introduce is, as part of the record, we provided a February 1st, 2025 letter from a consultant indicating that there are no freshwater wetland or wetland buffers present on the site. And as part of the application review by the township, there was a determination that there's no flood hazard area indicated. areas located on the site. As part of the application, we've submitted a detailed grading, drainage, and utility plan, including a stormwater management report. The stormwater management report includes the specific design of a stormwater management facility, in accordance with the township standards and the state standards for major projects. That includes small-scale subsurface infiltration basins that would be provided on both of the individual new lots for the future single-family dwellings. That would provide for mitigation of peak stormwater runoff from the site for all the required design storms, infiltration for the recharge requirements of the stormwater management requirements. With regards to water quality, There is a single motor vehicle surface, or if you will, a dirty surface that requires treatment. That would be the driveway accesses to the two proposed dwellings. And what has been provided on the plans to attenuate and address stormwater management treatment aspects is pervious pavement driveways. The stormwater management facilities have been designed for potential maximum build out of the lots in accordance with the zoning criteria, which is limited to 15% impervious coverage. And that's in excess of 11,000 square feet on the site. one lot and 9,000 square feet on the other lot, what has been depicted for a box, if you will, of where the house would go in the driveway is approximately 5,000 square feet. So you'll see on the plans that the representation doesn't show a max build out of the lots and certainly houses built of that size and criteria would provide substantial opportunity for future homeowners to provide for a swimming pools in the township are not considered impervious, decks are not considered impervious, but a covered deck, so there's adequate provisions and flexibility for additional impervious coverage on the site for both of the rear lots beyond what is represented on the plans. However, the stormwater management system that has been represented on the plans would address maximum build out on both of those lots. So unless those lots get up to complete 15% impervious coverage, those stormwater management facilities would be substantially greater than what would be required if less than 15% is built. Chairman?

Can I interrupt here for a second? Because I'm a little confused. You're asking in the testimony for us to do a simple subdivision, according to what I'm reading here, to make three lots.

Correct.

And you stated that the homeowners would have to come in and submit a new plan once they decide what they want to build. So how can we consider... what's gonna be built on these lots if we're not proposing. They're not the builder, these aren't the actual plans. All you're asking for is three lots and some variances. So I don't feel that the testimony you're giving about the drainage and all the amenities and stuff isn't a simple line adjustment. You're actually talking about a site plan approval. Well, for a single- Which isn't, I don't think, what you're asking for in the application.

No, no, and a permission to construct a single family dwelling on a residential lot doesn't require site plan approval. The application includes those elements now to demonstrate how adequate storm water management can be provided on both of the proposed lots. And certainly, as part of the detailed review of the construction permit of the final layouts of the houses would be subject to the engineering department review.

Am I missing something? Maybe I...

It's really, it's not, say this were...

So, for example, someone comes in and you have a house that's on here, I don't know how many square feet it is, 3,000, 5,000 square feet, right? and Apple comes back and decides he wants to build a house X on there, right? Which would then change setbacks, variances, possibly drainage, et cetera. Are you asking for us to look at this and propose site plan with the buildings where you have them, or just the possibility of where the buildings would be?

Right, and the points that you're making, the subdivision would carry with it the limitations that all of the zoning criteria for the future construction of the dwelling would have to comply with the township criteria. So they would have to meet the setback lines that are shown on this plan. This is not unlike, say, a 100 lot subdivision plan where the improvements are shown and the setbacks are shown, but the specifics of the house are subject to a building permit application.

Yeah, that I understand, but it just appeared when I'm reading the introduction, you're asking for basically a minor subdivision approval to do a lot line change and then we're kind of getting into some pretty detailed plans here on development so that's why i was i was kind of confused as to where where we're going that's okay okay mr ford to that end and what you had start to touch on i just want you to maybe uh reiterate just to make it clear

There is the 15% impervious coverage limitation. Anything in excess of that would require variances. What you are describing here doesn't exceed that 15%. Is that correct? Correct. whatever proposal were to come in would either be a proposal for something that complies entirely with the development of a single family home on a single lot or would require variances at that time if the contract purchaser wanted to do that. Correct. Okay. Mr. LaPonte, does that satisfy you as far as that's concerned?

Yeah, I understand. I just continue. I understand what you're saying. Yes. You're setting parameters is what you're doing.

That's what we're doing. That's correct. All right. Is there anything else that you need to describe as far as the overall description of the site? I don't see anything else, Mr. Ford. No. Okay. There are some other issues that we want to touch on, and I think probably the best way to do that would be to run through the memos that we have because they did raise a couple of issues that I think we have some very satisfactory responses for.

Mr. Fore, is it possible for you to put the plans up on the screens for the public?

I have them on my computer.

We're being told that it's not functioning.

Oh, okay.

Mr. Coy is the expert on computer hookups.

While we work for this tech issue, we'll take a five-minute recess.

Okay. Is there anything? Can we try that? You want to try that, Mark? I mean, I don't know. Well, do you have...

All right, we're back on. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for granting the waiver, not so much waiver, for the recess. Mr. Fedon, it's been raised to my level and I have a question. You're seeking variances in this Are you planning on having a planner testify as the same?

No, I have a planner because Mr. Ford is qualified .

Get the mic closer, okay. So Mr. Ford is going to grant planning testimony. You're aware, I know Mr. Ford is aware, he's been here more times than a lot of people, that Hillsborough has a ten day requirement. before planners submit reports in advance of a hearing so that we avoid getting planning testimony on the night of the hearing versus all the other professionals who we have normally get reports in favor of. So do we have a report from Mr. Ford tonight?

We do not have a report from Mr. Ford, and the reason for that is twofold. The variances that we're asking for, I don't mean to belittle them, but they are not significant variances. They are something that this board grants frequently and almost as a matter of course. But more importantly, he'll be responding also to the planner's memo. That planner memo that we received, we received only that today from the town. So that most of what he's testifying to will be in response to that.

It doesn't matter how significant or insignificant the variance is. It's a variance. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here for a variance application. You wouldn't be here because you wouldn't need the variance. Whatever kind of C variance it is, it's still a C variance. And it still requires planning testimony. And in this board's requirements for i've lost track of the number of years i thought it was longer than that but for the last four years at least we have required planners to provide planning reports so that we don't get the night of the hearing planning and the board is reacting to whatever Mr. Coyce's office is not reacting, the board is not reacting, and where applicable, Mr. Mayhew is not reacting to testimony on the, and these are my words, on the fly. So whether you're planning on calling Mr. Ford or not to get planning testimony, if he's qualified to give it, is fine. However, Mr. Ford needs to provide a report ten days in advance and he hasn't. If it's your intent to call Mr. Ford as a witness for planning testimony, we need a report, and we don't have a report in a timely fashion. So Mr. Ford can testify as to engineering items, which we do have and have had. And we'll deal with the rest of it at the appropriate time. But at the moment, giving planning testimony without a report is in violation of the board's requirements.

The board also does allow for exceptions to be made, and that's in the resolution that is adopted as far as- And the exception that you're making here is? that the variances that we're asking for are, they're slight. A variance is a variance. Of course, if we didn't need a variance, it is a C variance that has to do with the width of the lot. So it's not, if I may suggest, it's not a significant variance. It is a slight variance. And so this board can waive that requirement. Let me suggest this, Mr. Bernstein. Let me just suggest this in the interest of moving it along. I can have Mr. Ford testify. I was going to have him testify also to the C-variances. Perhaps we can do that. And if there's any issue that would be of any interest, interest as far as Mr. Coy is concerned, or he would like to render his own opinion or something like that, we can decide at that point whether a continuation is necessary. It may well be that a continuation is necessary anyhow, and we'll produce that report. But I have to tell you, I can't imagine that the testimony that Mr. Ford is going to proffer as to the need for and why we meet the requirements for the C variants are really that momentous. They're simply not.

I am periodically accused of playing planner, sometimes by my own planners. So let me play planner again. The reason the board adopted the resolution four years ago was we were getting planners coming in here every night telling us, A, how easy it is to grant, and B, how insignificant a C variance is because that's what we hear. We don't hear use variances, we hear C variances. And therefore, there was really no reason to need a report because it's which sort of belays the question, what do we need planners for? Which is not what we're here for. I understand your client's desire and yours to get this done yesterday. and trying to do this all in one shot. And frankly, if Mr. Ford had provided a report, however short or however long it was, 10 days in advance, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. But it seems to be we're trying to ram this application through And trying to now indicate that this is an exception to the board's resolution because it's really not much of anything. I would suggest you go down the road with Mr. Ford's engineering testimony and then let's see where we are.

Okay. And believe me, I'm not here to argue that. You advise the board and it's the board's pleasure to proceed how the board wants to proceed.

I'm recommending that to the board and to you. The board can tell me what it wants me to do with my recommendation, but what? No, I don't think this is an objective related issue. This is more a board issue than it is an objective related issue. They may be heard at the point in time when the board decides whether or not it wants a report from Mr. Ford or not, but at this moment, no. Mr. Coyce, anything else you wish to say at the moment?

I'm not aware of an exception in the resolution that the board adopted in 2022.

I'm not aware of one either, but for the sake of this discussion, there is one. I'm not so sure this really necessarily falls under such a criteria.

I can read it to you if you'd like, but there is an exception.

Well, I don't have the resolution in front of me at the moment.

I do.

As I said, let's do the engineering testimony. Maybe at that point, we open up Mr. Ford to course examination by the board, etc. And then the board can revisit the planning issue thereafter. Unless you got one more, you had something to say.

The only exception that's in the resolution, and I could read it, failure to provide said report in a timely manner will require the postponement of such testimony to a point in time where the 10 calendar days lead time can occur, except under exceptional circumstances as determined by the board chair or designee.

So it appears that the exception issue is the ten days for the hearing, not so much that there's an exception issue for the lack of need for a report. But again, why don't we get the engineering testimony done and then we can see where we are, because I know Mr. Mayu has things to say.

Yeah, let's proceed with the engineering testimony.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Ford, you had an opportunity to review the report of the Township Engineer regarding this matter, is that correct? Yes. I would ask you to step through that report on behalf of the applicant to render to the board your responses.

Okay, this would be a report from Pannonia Associates dated June 3rd, 2026, addressed to David Coyce, the Planning Director. It's five pages. I'll speak to the items that we'd like to discuss with the board, but I'll go directly to, for example, the stormwater section, which starts at the bottom of page two and goes on to page three. and four containing 11 items. They're all technical in nature with additional information requested to be provided in a second spot as opposed to just in the one spot. We would agree to address each and every one of those 11 items to the board engineer's satisfaction and they are all regarding stormwater management. I would say the same for grading and drainage comments one through four, which is on page four or five with regards to items one through five under utility comments. We would suggest that specifically items four, which is regarding a suggestion to extend this public sanitary sewer be deferred to the jurisdiction of the Hillsborough Township Municipal Utilities Authority. So in other words, we would comply with their requirements and what they would require. And then with regards to item five, regarding public water and public water access, we would comply with the requirements of New Jersey American Water, which is the franchisee for public water service at this location, and what their requirements are to provide adequate water service to the two new dwellings. And then continuing regarding item five, under utility comments, there's comments regarding the location of the nearest fire hydrant. What I would refer to there is that we are also in receipt of June 4th, actually two memos from the fire official dated June 4th. we would agree to comply with, to the fire official's satisfaction, all comments regarding emergency access for fire vehicles and the location of hydrants. And certainly we're not, I'll say, taking away jurisdiction or review opportunities from the board engineer but what we're suggesting is those elements are under the jurisdiction of those two utilities and and that's what we would defer to whatever they would require in the event there's conflicting requirements and then under minor subdivision comments starting at the bottom of page four Items one through four, we have no objection to. Item five, I'm sorry, on page five, landscape comments and outside agency review approvals, we agree to comply. The one item I skipped is under general comments and I'm back to page two. Page one is description of the application. On page two, there's general comments number three. And that is a suggestion that the applicant provide an extension of Lydon Road and improve Lydon Road. And as I pointed out earlier in my testimony, the public road, lot and road were extended through between the two proposed lots, that would eliminate the relief we're requesting regarding lot width and lot frontage length of 150 feet required. And what we would suggest to the board there is that in addition to what I've already stated with regards to the the lack of warrants for the need of a public road over the last 24 hours. We have also, since reviewing and receiving these reports, done additional research. And as many of the board members may be aware, the adjoining property just to the east of this site, It's lot 30. In block 203.10 was the subject of a Board of Adjustment application approved by the township recently for a religious facility, which is under construction. that's our nearest neighbor to the east where if we were to provide and have opportunities for a continuation of extension of Lydon Road, that's where it would go to. And what we've discovered in our due diligence review over the last 24 hours is that part and parcel to that township Board of Adjustment approval was the requirement that a conservation easement be placed over the majority of the excess lands that are not being used for that religious institution. And I have a copy, an exhibit that we prepared this morning that we'd like to enter as evidence now. And that is an exhibit illustrating in green the extent of that conservation easement that would basically eliminate the potential for any continued future extension of Lydon Road past the applicant's property and therefore make it moot to extend the property through the applicant's site. And then attached to this exhibit is the actual conservation easement that was recorded.

So Mr. Chairman, I'd like to mark this exhibit as- Do we have copies?

Yes. Why don't we have copies distributed to the board members and to the two objectors, and then we'll talk about marking it.

Are we unable to see anything up here?

So the green would be my easel.

I would suggest, Mr. Ford, you take the mic off the stand. Right here.

No, that's fine. So the extent of the conservation easement, is the entire rear portion of the property and all the areas beyond where the proposed religious institutions building and parking area are. And it not only encumbers the rear portion of the property, but actually slivers of land down both sides of the property. And what was passed out is the recorded document for that conservation easement. And the exhibit we prepared is a illustration of the extent of that easement. So the existing portion of Leiden, which would at some point in the past had been planned for a potential extension all the way through the three lots, the applicant's property, the church's property, if you will, and one other vacant piece of property to the east, and then connect the other existing portion of Leiden has been rendered unobtainable by virtue of the reservation of a substantial portion of the middle property into a conservation easement that could not be disturbed.

So just to make the record clear, Mr. Ford, what you're saying is there's a conservation easement on the property, on the church property, if you will, which would prohibit the extension of Leiden.

Correct. Correct.

It would prohibit the extension of Leiden where?

If you look at your key map, there's the little piece of Lydon from Beverly, but to the east of us, there's another portion of Lydon. And it would have, I think the vision was that those two segments of Lydon potentially could be connected by going through all three lots. And what was suggested in the review memos was that we continue, we provide this segment to help preserve the potential future extension of Leiden further to the east and a connection to the other portion of Leiden. And we don't wish to do that. We don't think it's necessary. And this aspect of the conservation easement makes it actually not possible.

But nothing would prevent the current property owner from extending Leiden through the property that you want to subdivide?

No, no. Okay.

So the fact that, just to point out to everybody that it can't go any further than that.

Correct. Okay. Right, right, right.

You want to mark this council as A1?

Please.

Mr. Ford, I believe you've already testified you're the author of this document? Yes. Of the map and what's attached to it is the recorded conservation easement?

Correct.

And I can represent to you as part of that exhibit that recorded document was something that my office retrieved from the public records.

But what's not attached, just so that everybody is aware, what's not attached is the zoning board resolution approving the application, correct?

I can supply the copy of that as well, if you'd like.

You got copies?

I don't have copies, no, but I certainly can supply them.

I would have thought that it would have been attached to this document simply because simply referring to it in the conservation easement, in and of itself really doesn't give the board the full picture of exactly what the zoning board approved four years ago relative to the site and what the plans were.

My apologies, Mr. Bernstein.

I'm not assigning, Mr. Verdun, blame or anything else. I'm merely indicating that if you're going to ask the board to review the document as a indication of the fact that Leiden cannot be extended because the conservation easement on the neighboring property prevents such from occurring. It would have been nice for the board, and it may not be an issue tonight anyway, but it would have been nice for the board to understand what the zoning board's thoughts were when they adopted the resolution granting the neighboring application at the time four years ago in which they discussed the conservation easement.

I will grant you that, Mr. Bernstein. We found out, we saw this objection from Mr. Coy today, probably, I want to guess sometime, but just before lunch. I found this conservation easement and this recorded document at about 4.30. Forward.

So. I mean, John, do you at some point want some feedback from our office? Since you started this. Do I want feedback from our office?

Yeah, I think on this specific topic, I mean, I was thinking about while this was all going on. I think we should get a copy of that. And then, yeah, do you have any?

Well, I was waiting until I guess Mr. Ford. finished his engineering testimony then, unless there's more items.

In summary, with regards to the June 3rd memorandum, under general comments number three, our suggestion is that lot and road not be physically extended. And then with regards to the utility comments four and five we just suggest that the Entities that have jurisdiction over those elements be the Subject to we would comply with ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS OTHERWISE IN THE REVIEW MEMORANDUM. WE HAVE ALREADY REVIEWED IN DETAIL ALL OF THE SUGGESTED REQUIREMENTS AND THEY WOULD NOT RESULT IN ANY SUBJECTIVE CHANGES TO THE ENGINEERING DESIGN.

I know, but one thing I... Typically, we hear you talk about stormwater and runoff, and we jump right to your comments and your report without... explaining to us where's the runoff gonna go from these properties. I mean, I think that's why we have residents here and neighbors are concerned about where the runoff's gonna go. So we, and I know we don't have it up on the screen, but typically we go through And I'm looking at the drawings I can assume what what's gonna happen, but I think that would be That's always an issue and it's you know, I so I'd like to hear I don't know how we can get it up on the screen I'm looking at drawing number four Which is the grading drainage and utility plan and the Well, the profiles, again, I'd like to hear about that and what your plans are. Yeah, I know. I was going to change operating systems.

What's that?

Good. Reverend to go.

Why is it not, it's not working now?

Okay.

Mr. Ford, if you would mark this A2. This is sheet four of the plan that were provided to the board as part of this application. Mr. Ford, you're the author of this? Yes. And the date on the document is? Here we go. Wait, wait, wait. Okay.

This is last revised March 11th, 2026.

Thank you.

And this is, I believe we're looking at it on CivicClerk. So this is actually already part of the record.

Well, but as you are well aware in your prior life being here, exhibits that come before the board, even if they had previously been provided for the board, are marked for purposes of the record, so we know which ones also were discussed in the public view separate and apart from what was on Civic Clerk.

That's just, I wanted to make sure the public knew that this is not a new exhibit. Okay, so we've zoomed in on the presentation A portion of the land where the two proposed lots would be proposed and there's been a request to provide for discussion of stormwater management. The property generally drains from east to west direction. That would be toward the lots that front on Beverly. What we've proposed as part of this application is on the downslope side of the two proposed lots, that is immediately to the rear of the lots that front on Beverly is where the stormwater management system would be placed to intercept runoff and capture it before it can continue to runoff onto the neighbor's property. And there is highlighted on this exhibit larger gray boxes, if you will, rectangles. that you see are actually larger than what the proposed dwellings are depicted. They are the small-scale subsurface infiltration basins. That's basically, if you will, a substantial septic disposal field type of situation where stormwater runoff is, or similar to that, stormwater runoff is directed both via pipes that collect from the roof runoff of the dwellings, as well as some lawn area inlets, and I'm highlighting them now, with pipes that capture overland runoff directed to that underground basin, if you will, that has an outlet structure that controls the release of runoff, and then the discharge from both of those underground basins is connected directly into the municipal management system at the end of Lydon and there's no discharges at grade from those basins toward any of the lots on Beverly. And then the Driveways would be the poorest pavement, which would also offer an opportunity for groundwater infiltration as does the subsurface basins. And as I stated earlier, they've been sized to accommodate for the total impervious coverage that would be the max allowed by ordinance on both of the proposed lots. That's essence of the stormwater management system. I think I didn't mention earlier, we also have made application to the Delaware and Aaron Canal Commission. We have some minor comments that we received from them regarding stormwater management, but certainly any approval the township may grant would ultimately be subject to the Delaware and Aaron Canal Commission approval as well. And one of their aspects of their review is stormwater management. And as I stated earlier, all of the application comments in the June 3rd Board Engineers Review Memorandum regarding stormwater management, we agreed to comply with to their satisfaction.

Okay, you said that the driveways were impervious?

Porous pavement.

Porous pavement?

Correct.

I guess the rhetorical question is what's to prevent somebody from five years from now from just paving over it?

A deed restriction that would be required to be filed for the onsite stormwater management facilities. That would include a maintenance manual and a restriction that they continue to maintain them. And the township has a code requirement that requires annual reporting of inspections to the township engineering department.

Okay, thanks. Yes. Okay, so that comes with the sale of the property or whoever? Okay, thanks.

And they can be done with porous pavement. Like, for example, the portions of the parking lot at our office are porous pavement. They don't look much different than... Then regular pavement. Um, but certainly during a stormwater running event, you can see them functioning and. Um, there's also options with. Porous paver blocks, if you will. Um, an example of that would be on sunny mead road is you had northbound just before you get the Falcon road. There's about four lots in series and all those driveways are the paver blocks which are, you know, serve the same function but perhaps are, you know, a nicer aesthetic option.

Okay, thanks. Is there any other engineering? If not, we can, I don't know if the dais has anything, we can jump right to Mr. Mayhew. Look at him smiling. Anybody have anything or follow up? Take the lead, sir. I have to justify sitting here.

I'd like to hand out an exhibit. This is a Exhibit prepared by Pannoni Associates. It's taken a screenshot from the New Jersey GeoWeb, which shows streets and partial numbers. And then some text that we've added to the plan, showing the general work area.

To Mr. Fedon, to the two objectors first, Mr. Mayu.

Here's us. Here's the church.

So I think everybody has one now. Let me help orient you.

Why don't we mark this B1. Which one? The one that went up was A2. This is B1 because it's a board exhibit. Mr. Mayhew, give us a description again for the record, who the author of this document is, where it comes from.

Yes, I prepared this exhibit today. It's a screenshot from the New Jersey GeoWeb webpage. It delineates roadways. Partials or lots and you can see the lot numbers block numbers and Then in red that's the information that our office added and it shows the proposed three lots the applicants here tonight for 2901 2902 and 2903 It shows the adjoining religious establishment You can't see it, but underneath the text, it's lot 30. And then it shows one more long lot that fronts on Hillsborough Road. It's lot 31. And then as Mr. Fords testified earlier, then you'll see the beginning or the end of the Eastern Linden Drive right away. And as Mr. Fords alluded in our general comment number three, Our office strongly suggests that any application be contingent on the applicant providing the required 50 foot right of way through their subject lot and the standard roadway improvements associated with that. Now, Even if the road is never extended, we believe providing the right of way and roadway is good planning and good engineering for multiple reasons which I'll address and share. I do want to point out one item that I take exception to the applicant's testimony. I found out by accident talking to the Hillsborough MUA today, that the applicant was gonna bring up this adjoining conservation easement. And the township staff was kind enough to dig up the conservation easement that was filed. And I wanna bring everybody's attention to page two of that easement, paragraph number five. And it talks about grantor's obligations And I wanna bring to your attention the very last sentence. Granteurs shall not construct any buildings, structures, or improvements within the easement without the express written consent of grantee. The grantee is Hillsborough Township Committee. I'm gonna defer to the attorneys, but in our office opinion, this easement does not prohibit forever any improvement. It simply provides the township to write to make a decision whether they want improvements at some point or not in this subject area.

But as I said before, whether or not that road ever gets extended in our lifetime,

Our office strongly believes providing the right of way in lot 29 is good planning and good engineering for multiple reasons. As I said, I spoke to the Hillsboro MUA today. They strongly support. Extending the existing sanitary line in Linden Drive extended through lot 29 to a manhole at the end of lot 29 and then providing services directly off that extended line rather than the long laterals proposed trying to reach out to the existing dead end sanitary. Our office communicates with New Jersey American Water Company multiple times. I didn't have time to call them today, but we believe we have jurisdictional rights to provide the best engineering and planning for the community and to protect the health, welfare, and safety of the community. I strongly suggest the existing water main be extended to the end of lot 29. provide the opportunity to extend it in the future, and to provide a fire hydrant at the end of that extension. As I noted on our review letter, proposed dwellings currently don't meet the maximum 400 foot distance from a hydrant. And as you'll see, as Mr. Ford alluded to, the fire chief has issued a letter today where he has, as he says in his words, has concerns. I don't wanna read his whole letter, but essentially, he says it would be more advantageous to have Linden Drive extend past the homes so engine or aerial apparatus could be strategically placed. By doing this, this would make the backup distance for an apparatus approximately 350, which may now require a turnaround for apparatus. And that piggybacks on what our comments stated that this right-of-way should be extended, the cartway should be extended, and there should be a temporary K-turn easement provided at the end of the dead end. We're not suggesting the expense of a full cul-de-sac, but simply a K-turn that would allow the fire apparatus and any other emergency vehicles to safely exit the dead end. And that temporary easement could be voided if this road was ever extended all the way through. Providing this right away would eliminate, that we haven't discussed yet, but we mentioned the two front yard width variances. They would no longer need those variances. It would also still allow lot 2901 and 2902 to meet the minimum required area. There's plenty of space to provide the right of way. We also believe that it's appropriate to extend the right of way in front of the two proposed homes so that the new neighbors are not imposing on the existing neighbors. There will be visitor parking associated with the new homes. They should park on the street in front of the new homes. There will be snow plowing issues which I'm sure right now snow gets plowed to the dead end and left there. If we don't extend this road, the applicant's trying to put two driveways on both ends of that dead end and you'd be plowing up the driveways or having to move it somewhere. So as I mentioned, from a sanitary sewer standpoint, from a water standpoint, from a fire protection standpoint, for good planning that allows the future connection if the Township Committee ever decided it wanted to do it in years to go, from a health, safety, and welfare standpoint to the public, It all makes sense to extend the rental way and extend the cart way to meet RSIS standards. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

What would be involved in the K-turn facility? I'm just not familiar with what

I believe we recently just did that for a three lot subdivision on Valley Road where this board approved a K turn at the end of a private roadway to provide adequate turning for the fire apparatus. It would be very similar to that.

I was here for that and I don't remember that specific.

So what it means is on one of these lots, 2901 or 2902, there would be a temporary easement. 25 feet wide or so, and maybe 25 feet into the property, that allows the fire truck to turn into it and then back up and then finish making the turn to exit Linden Drive.

But it could just be grass. It's just an easement, right?

It would have to be stabilized so that the wheels could stone or something.

There's no curb at that point. There's a cutout to allow the vehicle to turn into, correct?

I would suggest a depressed curb. I would express at a minimum a reinforced lawn area that you can put this plastic product underneath that helps stabilize it. It would be more attractive than just stone and less maintenance. I think the applicant had mentioned they want to defer to the approving authorities. Well certainly the roadway is township authority. And having proper fire protection and public water and sanitary I believe all comes under the board's ability. It's in our ordinances to also review and approve. So I don't believe that all these decisions should simply be kicked to another authority. Specifically, general comment number four talks about the applicants proposing to rip up several hundred feet of roadway to put in a storm pipe and then simply leave it with a patch. And we're suggesting that roadway should be milled and repaved because it's not fair to the township and the residents to live with that trench. Again, I think the applicants said we'll defer to the authority. Well, it's a storm pipe. We are the authority. It's our road.

Well, Mr. Mayor, I said the township passed an ordinance. Now anything that is disturbed on a road now is paved curb to curb. So that is now a township ordinance. So that would eliminate. Just leaving a patch. Correct. That is not allowed anymore.

The applicant has no objection to general comment number four. That's why we didn't bring it up. That's the suggestion to mill and overlay the road.

I would also, I'm sure everybody didn't read the whole review letter, but in this general comment three, we point out in section 188-89B, your ordinance states, when a new development adjoins land capable of being further developed, suitable provisions should be made for optimum access of the remaining and or adjoining track to existing or proposed streets. This is specifically stating therefore that we should think about the future and what might make sense. And again, even if you extend the right-of-way and the cartway, it's not telling anybody right now that you have to continue all the way through. Decision can be deferred when the next two lots are being developed. Anybody have any questions?

Mr. Mayhew, along the lines of lighting, if the street were to be extended, any comments about what would need to be done?

Well- In terms of street lights- I think our office and the township office try very hard to respect the night sky view. And so we work very hard to minimize night glare. And our opinion would be no streetlights would be required on this section. We generally limit streetlights to intersections, and so we're not talking about the intersection right now. So we would not recommend any additional streetlighting. And that's consistent with some of the larger subdivisions, like Toll Brothers subdivision and the M&M, West Track, Glengarry. Those lights are limited to intersections.

Any other comments from the dais on Mr. May's suggestions?

Yeah, Mark, can you just clarify number three where Say we suggest the board require the Linden Drive 50-foot wide right-of-way and 30-foot wide cartway with curbs. What does that mean? Is it a 30-foot wide road with the extra 20 for sidewalks and curbs? Correct. Give me a little idea of that.

So 50-foot is the legal right-of-way, which matches the existing right-of-way.

That's what I was saying. It was matching what it is now.

And it meets RSIS. 30 feet is the recommended roadway width from curb to curb, which would meet RSIS criteria. And it also matches the existing cartway. And we're only recommending putting sidewalk on one side. which is allowed in RSIS, and that would match. Currently, the sidewalk is only on one side, so we recommend only extending the existing sidewalk to allow the new residents to safely traverse up. So as you explained, there's 10 feet of lawn area on both sides of the road, and in one of those, there would be a four-foot-wide sidewalk, and all that's per RSIS.

Okay, and it would match up to the existing, so we're not? Exactly. Re-tearing things up and reinventing the wheel here. You're correct. Okay. Thank you.

I know you took some thunder from some of the board here, especially our friend down here, especially about the snow. I couldn't agree more. As I saw a bunch of people nod their head over there when you talked about that, but I'm glad that you consider that because a lot of people don't think about the snow and how it affects plowing and our trucks. And to me, extending the road not only is good planning, but it alleviates some of the other issues you talked about and variances in road frontage. So I think that was a good comment. Thank you.

Thank you, Matt. I want to also point out when you mentioned it eliminates the variances. If you do this with the extension, the homes as shown on the plan now would still meet front yard setback. So this extended road would create the front yard for these two lots and the way the homes are positioned currently on the sketch, they wouldn't have to move. They already meet the 50 foot front yard.

And it looks like it doesn't affect the stormwater design. or anything else that was, I mean, it looks like it doesn't from what I can see.

There's no significant impact to the stormwater other than I would make a condition that the applicant address this additional increase impervious with his systems.

Oh, might have to upsize them or? A little bit.

Now, there are options available, and I was gonna bring this up tonight. On large lots, sometimes they never meet the total impervious cover. So these are allowed 15%, which is a significant amount for an acre or plus lot. And if the applicant felt that they would never use all that space, they could be restricted to a lower impervious cover number. That might compensate for the roadway.

All right. So if there's nothing else from the dais, do either Objector One have any comments on what Mayhew presented or engineering testimony? Thank you, Mr. Mayhew. Are we done with engineering testimony? Yeah, let me check on that. Was there anything else, Mr. Mayhew, that –

Sorry, I think for the record, Mr. Ford, I was trying to make notes that said that his client would agree with all the other comments, so I'm not going to repeat any of those. I've talked on general comment three, general comment four, five, and I think we've talked about the utility comment number four is we suggest sanitary sewer remain be extended, and I spoke to Pamela today, and they agree. And then... Utility comment number five is that we suggest extending the wood remain in the public road ending it with a hydrant to provide safe fire protection and getting the dwelling units within the required RSIS 400 foot distance. And certainly we would coordinate that with New Jersey American Water Company. Yeah, that covers the only comments that were necessary to talk about. Thank you.

Thanks. Objector one, any questions on the engineering testimony? Mike, you need... You good?

Sure. Mr. Chairman, just real quickly, it's 9.12 now. I just want to be respectful of the board's time. I have a number of questions for Mr. Ford. I might take maybe a half hour or so, hopefully less. I just thought, you know, figured I'd throw that out there for the board.

No, I appreciate our typical... Procedure's been to take no testimony after 10, but that doesn't preclude the question, so I don't. Okay. So.

Okay, all right, so I'm called to proceed. I just don't want to hold you guys up. No, I appreciate it. Okay, all right, thank you. All right, Mr. Ford, you're on the spot, sir. Okay, first question for you, Mr. Ford. Regarding proposed lot 29.01, could you give us an explanation of how that lot's going to be graded, like where's it going to be sloping down to, general topography under proposed conditions?

Can we pull back up B1? I knew that was coming.

The site, I think I described already, the site generally drains from east to west direction from the property toward the rear of the lots fronting Beverly.

I'm sorry to interrupt. Under existing or proposed? Are you talking both?

I'm talking both.

Okay.

We're not substantially changing the general drainage patterns.

Okay.

We're simply providing storm.

That was one, but I was really looking forward to the one from Mr. Mayhew. But if you want to leave this one up, this is fine. This is A2. I think this is A2.

To the questions that are being asked.

For the purpose of the record, this is A2.

Okay. So I guess on that point, so is it going to be sloping, Proposed Law 29.01, is it going to be sloping down towards the adjacent lot to the west?

Yeah. It's my client's property? Yes.

Okay. And I believe you said that you're going to be capturing the water that's going to be before it runs off on his property. Is that true or not?

I've said that multiple times already this evening.

Understood. Okay. Another few questions, just more so about the ongoing maintenance of the stormwater facilities. So as you testified to, you prepared an operations and maintenance manual. It's going to be recorded. in the chain of title when the properties are sold, is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. And so what's the ongoing, what's the plan for maintaining those facilities after the lots are sold? Are there any reassurances we can rely on that the systems will be maintained in perpetuity? Like is an HOA going to be responsible, an LLC owned by the applicant? Has that yet to be determined?

You know they would be individual lot owners would be responsible for the maintenance and I think as I answered the chairman's question about a half an hour ago, the township requires that the owners of such facilities provide inspection reports to the township engineering department annually to demonstrate adequate maintenance is being taken.

Okay, all right. So every property owner subsequent to the applicant would be responsible for doing that every year with the township?

Correct.

And if they don't, are you aware of what kind of penalties that would be faced or what kind of enforcement mechanisms? I'm not familiar with the... Might be a question for the township engineer. I hate to put him on the spot, or the board engineer. I don't mean to put you on the spot, Mr. May. I'm cross-examining the applicant's engineer. I'll just move on.

No, I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?

We're curious about what mechanisms the township has to ensure that these stormwater management facilities are going to be maintained in perpetuity when subsequent property owners come in. Let's say the applicant sells to somebody. They don't maintain it. What happens to them?

Well, in order for this project to be filed, the applicant, if it's approved, would have to submit a deed, an agreement for stormwater management maintenance, and part of that allows the township to inspect the site and take action if the homeowner refuses to address any maintenance issues.

So would that be like placing a lien on the property, for example?

Well, I'm not an attorney, but it would allow the Township Public Works to do the work, and then I don't know how, and then you get billed. Okay. And prior to that, our office also reviews the area identified on the deed to make sure it's encompassing the areas that need to have maintenance.

Okay, yeah. My client was curious, and I don't want to speak for other members of the public, but I think everybody was, major concern is stormwater, so that's why we're asking these questions. Okay, back to Mr. Ford. The pervious pavers, so are they going to be strong enough to handle daily pressure?

Yes, they're appropriate for vehicles, yes.

Okay, all right. And would the applicant, I don't know if you could speak to this, or maybe if Mr. Fadun could speak to it, the... Would the applicant be willing to agree to place deed restrictions on the subdivision deed indicating the use of the proposed underground detention system and the existence of the pervious papers?

I don't understand the question.

Okay. When you record the subdivision deed, would the applicant be willing to include something in that deed that indicates that there's underground detention systems and that the pervious papers are supposed to be maintained in perpetuity?

Well, that's included in the OEM that's filed.

Right. Okay. But in the subdivision deed itself?

The subdivision deed itself in certain references, either the resolution of approval or the OEM itself, the OEM is filed.

If I may, it actually is going to get recorded with each of the individual lot deeds. They're going to be subject to these easements. So when Mr. Ford's office prepares a deed, for the new lots those will be filed and they're going to say somewhere in that language subject to these stormwater management but not with the initial subdivision you'd have to go searching the chain of title to find them correct

Might be a legal question.

Yes, you're going into legal again for me.

All right, that's all right. I think we can move on from there. All right, another question. Would the applicant be willing to agree to submit an as-built survey post-construction that includes the stormwater management components depicted on them, on the survey?

Yes.

Okay.

That's a township requirement.

Okay, excellent. Something to be concerned about. We talked a lot about Linden Drive, so I don't want to go over it too much. more than we already have, but I don't know if you're aware, well, are you aware that there's a cul-de-sac on the other terminus of Linden Drive to the east of the subject property that'd be adjacent to lot 31?

Yes.

Okay. And would you agree that providing a cul-de-sac at the end of Linden Drive in front of proposed lots 29.01, 29.02 would be a safer alternative to creating two new driveways off that terminus as is currently proposed?

The other section of Linden you're proposing referencing actually has 10 lots on it. So it's much longer and bigger. There's been discussion and I think it's gonna be a board decision as to how the existing or even potential future extension of Leiden is treated in this case. As I understood Mr. Mayhew's suggestion, if it were extended through the subject site to the church's property, it would have some type of K-turn at the end of it.

Right, but would a cul-de-sac be a safer alternative to that?

The RSIS standards recognize both options, and as Mr. Mayo referred to, I'm aware of another similar application, I'll say with a longer residential cul-de-sac that was treated within a K-turn rather than a cul-de-sac.

Okay, but With respect, Mr. Ford, my question is whether or not it's safe or not.

I think that ultimately, both alternatives would provide for adequate turning of emergency vehicles. So they both meet the criteria, so there's a threshold, and once you meet the threshold, you've met the criteria.

What about passenger vehicles? So the reason I raise this, my client's driveway, is connected to Linden as it currently exists. And if you have two more driveways at the end of Linden on its east face, so let's say somebody makes a wrong turn and goes down that road. How do they get out of there? Do they have to pull into somebody's driveway to get out? Would a cul-de-sac not be an easier alternative for everybody, fire trucks included, members of the public, to just get out of there instead of having to back into somebody's driveway or into somebody's lawn?

A 30-foot-wide cartway that exists now is adequate for a passenger vehicle to make a K-turn in.

Right. I mean, I hate to get technical, but wouldn't that be violating, you're not an attorney, but I think that would be violating local traffic laws. You're not maintaining a lane.

I'm just speaking from a practical standpoint and an engineering standpoint.

I think my point's made.

Yeah, and there's standards too, sir. The residential site improvement standards dictate what's adequate for turnarounds, not only in residential subdivisions in Hillsboro, but throughout the state. Yeah.

And so RSIS would be okay with what you're proposing?

Yes, RSIS doesn't require a turnaround on a dead-end street that's less than 300 feet, and that's what it is right now. Okay, all right. In fact, recognize the existing condition.

Okay, all right. Okay, you've already talked about you guys are agreeing to repave Linden, so that's great. That was another concern of ours. Okay, another thing I want to get to is landscape screening. I think you might have briefly touched on providing tree replacements or tree mitigation, but could you tell us what's proposed along the property lines bordering the existing residential lots, particularly my client's lot? That'd be on the western side of proposed lot 29.01.

Well there's been a request and we've agreed to it in the June 3rd Engineer's Review regarding a tree mitigation plan. There is actually a tree mitigation plan as part of the set of plans that shows landscaping essentially at the entire perimeter of the limited disturbance on both lots. I'm not aware of a township buffer requirement to buffer one residential use next to another residential use. So there isn't a criteria that I understand where, or perhaps there's a criteria that you're aware of that you can refer us to that the township ordinance requires buffering of two residential lots.

Okay. I understand there's not a township requirement, but I'm asking on behalf of my client. With what you're proposing, do you think that's adequate to provide screening between both his lot and this new proposed lot? I mean, It's a concern of ours because my client, his backyard is going to face right into this new dwelling. Certainly, you guys would be willing to work with us to provide some additional trees. Post-construction, it doesn't look like there's enough of a buffer there. We're just looking for some natural foliage, potentially a fence, depending on the circumstances, how it looks. I think it would be to the eventual property owner's benefit, too, because I'm sure he doesn't want to look into my client's backyard either.

Yeah, I think it's something that can be considered by the applicant.

Okay.

And the buffer or the landscaping that's proposed now as part of the tree mitigation includes evergreen plantings in the area you're referring to.

I hate to put you on the spot with that, but how many trees are proposed along that shared property line?

Um, there, I don't have a count. There's, there's a, it's, it's a, it's a dense planting, but we're talking about something different and we can consider it.

Okay. All right. Excellent. We appreciate that. So thank you. Um, all right, let me move on. I think I just got one or two. Um, okay. I think that's it for now. I did have some questions about planning, but we'll see if we get to that tonight. So that's all I have. Thank you board members for your time. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Could I add one thing, Mr. Chairman? Yes.

As the objector's attorney was pointing out certain issues and buffers, I will also point to the board's attention that if the road's not extended and they build it the way it's shown, these new lots have driveways that come in and curve and there's going to be headlight shining into the rear yards of these two existing homes. If If you look at proposed lot 2902, when they use their driveway and exit, their headlights are gonna be shining right directly into Mr., I don't wanna mispronounce, Favors' property, his rear of his home. Foyer, thank you. And when a driver leaves proposed lot 2901, And as they curve in, their headlight's going to be shining straight onto Mrs. Green's mother's property. So in my opinion, the landscaping that's proposed, especially in those areas, is not sufficient to take care of the headlights. Again, extending the road and putting the driveway straight into the road would eliminate that headlight issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Green, objective number two.

So again, I don't know how much time we have, but I have a bunch of questions, mainly regarding the stormwater issue. So, and most of my questions go to you. So, first of all.

Yeah.

What?

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

I'm a little nervous.

Don't be nervous. You're doing fine.

So the stormwater volume, your point of analysis table show that total discharge volume rising in every storm from 4,926 to 6,650 cubic feet in two-year event, which is a 35% increase. The observation for the infrastructure infiltration basin that do not perform a design converted volume restriction into the volume discharge compounding the problem identified what analysis confirmation that is increased in the discharge volume does not worsen the condition for the properties that already flood on Beverly Drive.

Yeah, the stormwater management requirements require that we address and attenuate peak discharges and reduce them for the two and 10 and 100 year storm. And these are for rain events that are substantially different than what we did just a few years ago for rain events up to 12 inches in a 24 hour period. And we've complied with all of those regulations.

but the DNR Canal Commission application is stated as incomplete and does not recommend approval at this time for both the basins and the groundwater modeling analysis. In addition to this information, the actual seasonal high groundwater evaluation cannot be determined. Soil logs omitted ground surface evaluations required in item two. Runoff quality, water quality, recharge, and non-structural compliance all require additional information to confirm.

Yeah, and what I stated earlier, we recognize that we received the review memorandum from them, about a half a dozen comments, and we would have to address all them to their satisfaction.

Okay. Yeah. My next question is in regards to the scope of the analysis. The model analysis of 1.49 acres are approximately 4.7 acre site, routed to a single point. Pannoni's notes, the report omits the disturbance area, imprevises, sorry, I'm nervous, coverage increase and development CN calculations for stormwater A1 to AD. 46 Beverly Drive, where I live and my mother, can the applicant say on record that no drainage from the unanalyzed 3.2 acres reaches lots 23, 24, 25? Can you show on the grand grinding plan with the flows of area with flow arrows where the remaining acreage drains and confirm whether any of its flow towards Beverly Drive of lots 23, 24 and 25.

Okay, that sounds like there was multiple questions in here. I'll try to address, I'll say the, I think the bigger question you had, which was the analysis for stormwater management, the responsibility is for the areas that are being disturbed. The areas that are not being disturbed are not being changed, so therefore the runoff from them wouldn't change.

But the runoff, so if you're going to, the houses behind us are going to be elevated higher than ours. The water's going to run down to us.

Right, and that would be within the disturbed area. So certainly that was part of the analysis. Part of your question, I think, referred to areas beyond the area of the... on site that are beyond the area of study. And the areas beyond the area of study are the areas that are not being disturbed. Perhaps maybe what I could ask you, of course, you referenced the Pannoni letter and some deficiencies. Could you perhaps point me to the specific item in the stormwater management review, what item number you're looking at?

Because, yeah.

Maybe I could help Mike you might remember a prior application for a three or four lot subdivision I Go by the Angus track that your office worked on and one of the things we added was Rather rather than just analyzing the drainage to one point of interest your office then came back and analyzed it to an adjoining homeowner So I would suggest that you provide at least two more points of analysis, one to the rear of Mrs. Green's property to document existing and proposed runoff to her property, and one to Mr. Foyer's rear yard. This is similar to what we've done on other applications. Is that something you and your client would?

I think we could take that under advisement. I was actually looking for it in this review. This is a new comment, and I understand what you're saying, and that's certainly something that can be done. Okay.

And this, just so you would understand and Mr. Ford would understand, Mr. Ford's office would calculate how much water is running off onto your property, specifically today, and how much once if the site was improved.

Okay. One of my other questions have to do with the trees as well. The plans say that they're removing about 123 trees and only replacing 23. With the site losing over 100 net trees and the stormwater module should account for what those trees were doing. If it doesn't, the pre-development baseline is understated in comparison to the post-development conditions is not accurate. Was the loss of the trees, rainfall interception and groundwater uptake considered or does the module reflect only the change in the ground surface cover?

I think when you say module, you mean model, and that's what we do. We model the stormwater. To answer your question specifically, the analysis does take into consideration the existing trees and the impact of them being removed. What it doesn't take credit for is the mitigation plantings. In other words, you have existing woods today and perhaps you create substantial additional woods with the tree mitigation. But in the stormwater analysis, you actually don't take credit for that. So I think that the analysis would be conservative in that regard. And we've already agreed to prepare the tree mitigation plan to the board engineer satisfaction and that would likely be additional plantings or or perhaps a contribution to the tree mitigation fund of the township if they can't be they can't fit on site that's a township requirement okay um my next question is regarding the groundwater mounding

Your mounting analysis shows 1.9 feet of groundwater rise beneath each basin, decaying near zero, around 50 to 60 feet. Again, the DRCC required item five and the Pannoni comment 11 both require more on this. Pannoni specifically requires it be related to the basement floor elevation. Speaking of basements, Loretta's basement has flooded previously over the years. She's owned the home over 50 years.

Loretta's your mother?

Yes, and I live with her. The connection between the mounting analysis, that cannot be verified because the SHWT is unknown per the DRCC in an already flooding basement. What is the distance from each basin to the nearest foundation on the lots 23, 24, and 25 that will provide the dimension exhibit confirming those homes and the new basements lie outside the mounding influence?

So the mounting analysis is done under both of the subsurface infiltration basins it Assesses the impact on the groundwater with beneath the infiltration basins we've actually already within receipt of the Board engineers review within the last 24 hours of The groundwater mounting analysis is in the drainage report and the ask was, has that impact on the potential basements of the proposed dwellings, which is the closest dwellings to these underground basins. And we've already looked at that and there would be no adverse impact. And certainly we've already agreed to demonstrate that to their satisfaction.

So I would like to put on record that we have pictures of the amount of water that sits for weeks if not over a month in the yard of the water. And pictures of the water without even being flooded that just sits in the basement. We actually had to have a basement company come in and put in seven rear bars into the wall and put in another pump because of the water issue. It actually created a crack within our foundation. If you were to stand behind our house, you could see where the water line is. We've paid several times to have the water removed from being flooded in our basement and have lost items. So these are just pictures of normal rain that we've had where it's just puddles and puddles in our backyard and where we share on the other side of us. Um, the water just sits with our other neighbor and it actually freezes over because the water does not absorb into the ground. We have a fence that, uh, for a garden. And when it rained on May 23rd, just a little, we have pictures of the water just sitting. So we would like to put this on record so everyone is aware of the impact that we already have and what this is going to cause even more.

Mr. Ford, before we go any further, Ms. Green, do you have copies of these pictures for council?

He's more than welcome to take these.

No. The question is A, do you have pictures for council, both applicant's council and objector's council for their records as well as copies of pictures for the board?

I said.

And if we're going to start to have testimony, you're going to need to get sworn in as a witness. because you're giving testimony on the record relative to what occurred. So I'm just setting out the ground rules to start.

I did send David pictures today. Not all of these pictures, but I sent him a lot of the important pictures in the backyard.

I did not send him basement. Yeah, they were just sent after, like at 5.04 they were sent, so we just weren't able to...

I wasn't about to... I'm just, now that she's thrown the planning department under the proverbial bus. No, now that she's indicated she's provided them, obviously because it was after hours, your department did not give them or circulate them to the board for obvious reasons or put them on civic clerk or all of that.

You can scan them to me too and email them to David and us and we'll make sure that they get distributed appropriately.

Appreciate it.

And I would suggest, Mr. Bernstein, it sounds like the photographs and the testimony that's gonna be presented with those is beyond the engineering testimony that Ms. Green will provide at a later date, which will give sufficient time to have the photographs presented and provided to all the parties.

Well, let me, before we sort of indicate that. Ms. Green, do any of the pictures relate to any of the testimony that Mr. Ford has provided either under direct or under cross-examination so far?

Well, I feel it has to do with the basins that they want to put in and it's so-called septic.

I won't speak for Mr. Fedun, but I suspect... He's going to advise Mr. Ford not to respond until he's had a chance to look at the pictures and the impact of it. So while it's always fun to watch Mr. Ford testify, I think Mr. Ford should be given the opportunity to review materials he's being asked to testify about before he actually does.

Yeah. Yes, I agree. Thank you, Mr. Bernstein, I concur.

Just back to the plan that's on, so this is the property?

I mean, if you can answer the question, Mr. Forbes, related to the plans without the pictures, that's fine.

Well, I'm just trying to describe some of the drainage improvements that are proposed, and I believe this is the property highlighted here. Oh, there we are.

Yes.

Right, okay. So you see the contours show the drainage and you asked about flow arrows. This is the direction it runs off now. And just by observation, you can see that there's an inlet here where runoff from the subject property drains toward the rear of your mother's property today. there's a swale being proposed to capture that runoff before it gets to the property line and direct it to that underground basin. And I think this will be further explained and I'll say the benefits of the input or the improvements would be illustrated by virtue of the specific analysis to the rear of your property that Mr. Mayhew is suggesting. But that's by reducing the area of runoff from this site that goes into the rear of your mother's property, it should minimize or reduce the runoff to your mother's property. Now that's not a guarantee that existing conditions and drainage problems that you've had for years and I've seen many I'll say older dwellings in town that, you know, my engineering solution would have been to build the house two feet higher because it was, you know, too close to the groundwater table with the basement. Um, but that should be a benefit by capturing the runoff and directing it into a controlled and managed, um, structure and then have a discharge to the existing drainage features in Leiden rather than let it continue to drain through the rear of your property.

Mr. Ford, before Ms. Green asks, I have a couple of questions that come to mind for this. Is the property currently wooded? Yes. When, if ever, is the applicant proposing to cut the trees and install the basins?

That wouldn't be until a construction permit is issued for the dwellings.

So it could be months, years in the making before any of this could occur?

Yes.

Okay. I would like to state that last year he started removing trees and digging and dug a hole and David came out because we complained and asked him to stop. The hole that he dug did fill with water and he pumped it out himself so he does know that there is a water issue. So I don't know if that's true that it will be years.

That was in construction. I don't believe what you're referring to. One of the requirements in order to develop these plans, which has taken place over the last better part of a year, is to do site soil testing to identify the groundwater table, the permeability of the soil. It's a requirement of the drainage report. It's in the drainage report. So there was soil testing done.

For several days?

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah, the testing requirements have, you know, by state mandate required testing that's much more extensive and takes more time than it used to. It's not a simple short PERC test as much anymore. It's more elaborate testing.

Thank you for explaining. My question to your comments is, if that fails, who's responsible?

I think we discussed that point already once already with the first objector's question to the town engineer and the enforcement action that could be taken by the municipality.

Okay. So for the existing flooding... Was the document exists in flooding on a neighboring lots considered in the hydraulic analysis in any way?

The analysis requires that we treat or address the stormwater runoff from the area that's being disturbed. So as far as an existing drainage problem on a neighbor's property, that's not something that would be on the onus directly to an applicant to correct.

So for.

It may be a byproduct of the improvements that are being done, an enhancement or an improvement to it, but it's, I see on your mother's property the contour intervals are spaced pretty far apart, so aside from perhaps the house not being built high enough above the groundwater table, the slope of the existing grade is not such that it provides for a great enough slope to produce runoff. Right now, and this is different than, say, 30 years ago, the minimum slope of a lawn area is 2%, whereas years ago, there might not have been attention paid to that, and flatter areas do lend themselves to ponding or puddles of runoff because it just isn't promoted to drain off. but without going on your mother's property to regrade it, to provide better drainage, to direct the runoff and promote the runoff, that wouldn't necessarily change one way or the other out of this application.

Okay. For the long-term maintenance from the Applicant and Operation Maintenance Manual, August 25th, 2025, the responsible party is Private Developer LLC, 480 Hillsboro Road. And the manual states that the responsibility may be transferred to another party. The basin sits on two nearly created lots, 2901 and 2902. So future individual homeowners would inherit them. Hillsborough Township and Somerset County are granted emergency access only or not obtained. Required by maintenance includes jet vacs cleaning 2,000 and work homeowners cannot perform. An estimated cost includes up to $10,000 per occurrence for outlet outfall repair and $14,000 Sorry. It's just, you know, so the question is, when the developers and the LSC dissolves after the build-out, who is legally and financially responsible for maintaining these basins, and what binding-funded mechanicism...

Mechanism.

Mechanism, I'm sorry. Bond, escrow, and HOA guarantee. Given the system requires specialized equipment costs, thousands per year, and fail if not maintained.

I think what you just read exemplifies the change in the difference between when your mom moved in and has no such stormwater management or property or obligations. And the document you just referenced has to have a title today of who the responsible party is. Right now, it's identified as the developer. And as you indicated, As title transfers of the property, that legal document that's recorded at the county clerk's office transfers with ownership of the property, rightly so. The property owner would be responsible.

And what happens when the property owner can't afford it?

Well, you just heard earlier about the enforcement action that can take place.

Okay, and in the meantime, again, if it fails or if it overflows, who's then responsible if that homeowner cannot maintain it?

Again, the township can take action. Okay.

Those are all my questions for now. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Green, before you leave, can you give the photos to Mr. Coyce's office and see whether or not they match up with what you'd previously provided? And if there's additional photos that you want the board to have, he can provide it to the board as well.

Will do.

At the appropriate time.

Yes.

And I'm assuming, David, that we'll give Ms. Green back her pictures when we're done.

Thank you, everyone.

So at 10 to 10, should we open up to public questioning?

Yeah, let's open up to public. With all due respect, the council who is itching to come back, it's not his time until after.

I'm sorry, I don't have any questions for the applicant's engineer. Procedural question. My client would like to come up during the public comment portion to present some pictures. Not right now, but procedurally. Mr. Bernstein, you mentioned that Mr. Green would need to give pictures to the applicant's engineer ahead of time. I just didn't know if I needed to give them to him now.

I would suggest if you plan on having your client testify at some point regarding it and to have people to be able to respond to it, yeah, it would make sense for everybody to have copies of them, including Ms. Green and Mr. Fedun and the township.

Okay. Do you want me to introduce them now or just hand them?

No, you can hand them to Mr. Coyce. Okay. We will circulate them. If you've got an extra copy for Mr. Fedun, that's fine. If not- It's one of those nights. Counsel, for the purposes of the record, the pictures you have just provided, who is the author of them and when were they taken?

Are you talking to me, Counsel?

Yes, I'm talking to you. It's your pictures.

Yes, they were taken by my client.

When? No, he let him...

I was going to have him introduce him on the record. July 25th of 2023. 23. Correct.

Thank you. Okay, that's all I have. All right. Okay, Mr. Kois, you'll distribute. Also, don't forget Mr. Mayu. I think at this point, Mr. Chairman, the appropriate thing is a motion to open to the public for questions of Mr. Ford as to his engineering testimony. I have a quick question. Unless Mr. Pearson has a question, thank you.

Mr. Ford, on your minor subdivision plan, you're referencing the key map, which is page one. I'm looking at page three. it kind of came to mind when somebody mentioned water and sometimes you build the houses up a little higher and I'm down to the residential zone data kind of right towards the middle bottom and at the very last bless you maximum building height and is 35 feet slash two and a half story existing condition has under 35 feet proposed the little arrow goes the other way saying greater than 35 feet is that correct no no okay yeah we would have to comply with the height restriction so there's not a variance that's going to be no there is so that could be corrected correct all right thank you

All right, motion to open, motion and second to open a public comment on Mr. Ford's engineering testimony.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. I will point out before anyone gets up that if you are represented by an objector, you cannot get up and ask Mr. Ford questions. That's what your representatives are here for.

And give your name and address and start your questions.

You can pull the thing out of the mic or raise it up to you.

Is that good? Can you hear me? Yeah. David Warner, 54 Beverly Drive. Thank you to the board tonight for having us here and listening. I just have a few questions for the engineer. I just want to make sure I heard correctly as far as your testimony was that at 4.30 today, you were made aware of or became aware of the 650-foot environmental easement at 490 Hillsboro Road? Unless I heard incorrectly.

No, I think Mr. Fodan referenced that.

Okay, so you were aware of that?

No, within the last 24 hours is when, after receiving the review memorandums, both from the board planner and the board engineer, it sparked us to try to develop answers to every one of them so we could address them tonight, and that prompted the research that resulted in the discovery of a... We believe that the church had a restriction... on the development of the rear of the property. That's what you're referring to, the conservation? Correct, yeah. But we didn't become knowledgeable of an actual recorded conservation easement until today.

Okay.

We have project plans from the church. It doesn't show the conservation easement on it.

Just a follow-up question to that then. So at 4.30, you were made aware of this two and a half hours before this meeting, and then I guess you gave testimony. regarding the development of linden road and that that could not be completed because of this easement so i'm just trying to figure out the timeline 4 30 to find out and here we're testifying that you've made a conclusion that that road could not be developed because of that yeah the

You're recognizing the panic that is of life of an engineer that gets reports the day of a hearing. But seriously, the collusion was our understanding, me as an engineer, is when a conservation easement is... recorded, it's in perpetuity, and it is intended to preserve a natural feature, like the wooded area at the rear of the church. Now, after 430, at about 9 o'clock tonight, the board engineer presented other testimony about what could or couldn't be done in that. That's new knowledge to us as well, but that was, that's, so our Our presentation is that by virtue of a conservation easement that would preclude disturbance of an area, the road couldn't be continued.

Okay, right, and I understand that.

If you want to preserve the trees, you couldn't build a road through the trees. You'd have to disturb the trees.

No, no, I understand that also, but I could just make the point, too, that if the church wasn't allowed to build 650 feet in that back property because of the trees, the lot right next door that we're talking about here tonight, we're developing all that and essentially ripping out the trees.

Right. Right. Yeah. And that's that's the church was a zoning board of adjustment application for use that's not permitted in the area. And that was one of the conclusions of that approval.

Yeah, no, I recall that Board of Adjustment meeting I was at, and specifically asked that question about the road, and there was a response given there by an attorney from Wilson & Peach. It's archived on your guy's YouTube site, where he specifically sort of stated that... The church could not develop that road, but the term that he used, and I have to remember it, we watched it last week, was that the township could reserve the right at any point in the future to develop that road, whether it was through the easement or the property at 480. So that's leading to my question, and I didn't quite understand it. I know it wasn't your testimony, but it was the board engineer. Who is responsible then if the road were to be extended, if the board allowed that? Is that the applicant's responsibility or is that the township's responsibility to kind of develop that road?

Typically with development, it's the construction of a public road is the... Applicants responsibility, but ultimately the township would it would be turned over as any public road just like the existing Lydon section and be the townships responsibility to It's a township option to accept a proposed road as a municipal road and I would not want anybody to be left with the conclusion that if this road is extended and

to the end of the proposed lots of which it is still significant distance between both sides of the township committee is going to run out and turn this into a township road. So for the purposes of if the road were extended to from where it is on to where Mr. Mayhew is suggesting in the absence of a township committee acceptance, it would be a private road. And built by the developer. Built by the developer.

Okay. Yeah, I just didn't quite understand that from the attorney at the 2021 meeting. He said the town could do that.

I believe you're referring potentially to the board attorney, Mr. Anderson. Yes. And I would point out. that come that statements he makes like statements i make i'm not necessarily binding on our clients they're merely statements and it has to find its way into the resolution of the respective board which is why i believe the board is going to need the 2022 resolution approving the project at some point

Okay, then one just last quick question. As far as the way that the project is constructed now with the two driveways coming off of the end of the dead end road. Maybe a question you can't answer or I maybe I'll ask it this way. Is that a common township sort of building project in terms of a dead end rather than a cul-de-sac, you know, the driveways come off? Are there others in this town or that come to a dead end and you have two driveways? you know, basically separated.

Well, each project has to stand on its own. That's what we've presented on behalf of the applicant. It's been discussion about multiple options this evening, and that would be ultimately a board decision. Okay.

All right, thank you. Thank you. So, yeah, all right.

James Magic, 12 Fernway.

I'm sorry, 12 Fernway.