Planning Board - Regular Meeting

We're good. All right. Recording. All right. We're recording. We're here. All right.

Good. Good evening everyone. and welcome to the Hillsboro Township Planning Board meeting on November 13th, 2025. Please join me in salute to the flagg to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please be advised this meeting has been duly advertised according section 5 of the open public's meeting act chapter 231 public law 1975 otherwise known as sunshine law knows the 2025 annual meeting schedule has been provided to the officially designated newspapers township clerk posted on the township's website and available here at the Hillsboro Township municipal complex in addition application documents and plans have been made available on the township civic clerk website at least 10 days in advance of this evening's meeting. Complete application files are available in the planning and zoning department for inspection in accordance with the public meeting notice. That may I have a roll call of board members and also board professionals and township professionals. Mr. Vitali is absent. Mr. Wagner

here. Mr. Flag here. Mr. Rawitz here. Miss Smith here. Mr. Deon here. Mr. Smith here. Committee Money present. Mayor Trarelli here. Vice Chair Pasen present. Chair Sarra here. Mr. Present. Ball here. Bernstein may be Mr. Mayhew here. And myself and the videographer are here. Okay. Welcome everyone. Have a few things to go through before we start this evening's hearing. First up, consideration of meeting minutes. May I have a motion to approve the July 24th, 2025 meeting minutes? The eligible members are Mr. Flag, Mr. Ratawitz, Mr. Deb, Mr. Smith, Committeeman Leani, Mayor Chikarelli, Vice Chair Pson, and the chair.

Thank you. So moved. So seconded any any discussion from the deis hearing? None. Roll call, please. Mr. Flag, yes. Mr. Rawitz, yes. Mr. Deb, yes. Mr. Smith, yes. Committee Leaning, yes. Mayor Cherelli, yes. Yes. Vice Chair Pasen. Yes. Chair Sarra. Yes. Next. I have a motion to approve the September 4th, 2025 meeting minutes. Mr. Wagner, Mr. Flag, Miss Smith, Committeeman Leani, Mayor Chikarelli, Vice Chair Pson, Chair Sarra. Thank you. So move. Second. Comments. Was that edit made?

Oh, good question. Dave acknowledged acknowledged it. So the edit was made. Make that edit. Okay. Just for the record, the edit was 12 challengers instead of um and it was put in as 12 units. Thank you. 12 units. So it should have been 12 challengers. Great. We will make those changes. Okay. So whoever made the motion good with that change. Approved with motion. Okay. And the second is Mr. Ryan. Okay. Okay. Any other comments? Okay. Roll call, please. Mr. Wagner, yes. Mr. Flag, yes. Miss Smith, yes. Committee Money, yes. Mayor Trillley, yes. Vice Chair Pasen, yes.

Shiraji, yes. And finally, meeting minutes of September 11th, 2025. Mr. Bernstein, Mr. Wagner, Mr. Flag, Mr. Radoitz, Mr. Deb, Mr. Smith, Vice Chair Pson, Chairman Sarra. Okay. May I have a motion to approve? I move that we approve the minutes as the chairman. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. Any comments from DES? Roll call, please. Mr. Wagner, yes. Mr. Flag, yes. Mr. Rawitz, yes. Mr. Deb, yes. Mr. Smith, yes. Uh, Vice Chairpen, yes.

Yes. Moving on to resolutions for consideration. First up is SPG Hillsbor LLC with a file number of 25-pbs P, Mr. Bernstein. Eligible members are Mr. Wagner, Mr. Flag, Mr. Ratowitz, Mr. Deb, Mr. Smith, Vice Chairman Pon, and Chairman Sarra. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the resolution? I move the motion motion. Thank you. Second. I'll second. Okay. Any comments? Roll call, please. Mr. Wagner. Yes. Mr. Flag. Yes.

Mr. Adawitz. Yes. Mr. Deb. Yes. Mr. Smith. Yes. Vice Chair Pasen. Yes. Chair Sarra. Yes. And finally, resolution for HMG Fuel LLC file number 24-PB-03-MSPV. Mr. Bernstein. Mr. Wagner. Mr. Flag, Mr. Ratowitz, Mr. Deb, Committee Leani, Mayor Chikarelli, Vice Chairman Pson, Chairman Srai. Thank you. Motion to approve. I'll make that motion. Thank you. Second. Okay. I'll let you figure that one out, Mike. Comments from DES hearing. None. Roll call, please. Mr. Wagner, yes. Mr. Flag, yes. Mr. Rowitz,

yes. Mr. Deb, yes. Committee Money. Yes. Mayor Cherelli, yes. Vice Chair Pee, yes. Chair Sarra,

yes. Uh, we do not have any planning board m business nor ordinances for consideration. So, I will go from business from the floor for matters not on this evening's agenda. If anyone would like to address the board, please come up and state your name and address for the record. Okay. I don't see a rush up, so I'm moving on to this evening's public hearing. Um application for the estate of Harriet E Derling Mr. ATGO file 25-PB-03-SV time of decision is January 7th of next year. Block 203-20 block 203.23 lot 52 formerly known as block 203 lot 17 Willow Road. Applicants are seeking minor subdivision approval seabol variances and waiverss to subdivide two acres from approximate 44.667 667 acre farm parcel to separate the 2acre residential exception area from the preserved farm area with the intent to reside on a future single family dwelling to be located on proposed lot 52.02 which is known as the exception area on the property located in the agricultural zoning district. So I will turn this over to the abence attorney.

Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh members of the board, uh my name is Ryan Kennedy from the law firm of Stevens and Lee. Um thank you for your time this evening. I'm here as chairman had said in a phenomenally uh both accurate and detailed summary and a summary that I think will be approximately as much of an explanation as we will need uh for tonight's um hearing. Um here for uh the Sternac family. Uh they have their family has been the owners of uh farm on Willow Road for several generations. Uh in the early 2000s the farm was permanently preserved uh through the county agricultural program leaving a 2acre exception area severable exception area uh to allow a home to be built. We're here tonight to sever through subdivision that 2acre parcel to allow them actually to keep in the family the buildable lot. Uh and likely the plan would be to uh sell the farm to uh to the farmers that are going to continue to um work uh the farm going forward. Um we've got uh our engineer to my right, your left uh will testify this evening, our planner here as well, and we have the Sternac family uh for a very brief uh background um of of their involvement. Um if it if it's all right um with you, Mr. Chairman, if I could invite them up as our first witness.

Sure. Betty and Paul, come on up. Bernstein, do we need to swear them in? Okay. So, Bardosi gets extra money for swearing people. So, it's Yeah, but we're doing a package, so we'll do it together. We have They're providing testimony. The answer is yes. We got another chair pulling right on up. Thank you. There you go. There we go. And Mr. I have another point of technical order. I if uh is this a hot uh wire? Well, will it what? I automatic. It'll Okay. So, I'll wait till it's I'll wait till it's we want to show it. Don't put your tongue on it.

So, Eddie Paul perhaps we can have you both way if you can raise your right hand and do it in the mic. You both testimony here tonight. The whole truth truth. I do. Yes. And ladies, first can you just explain your name for me, please? My name is Elizabeth Derling Sternacco. You want me to spell the whole thing? Paul Sternato.

So, u Betty and Paul, if you could just briefly um give the board the benefit of your connection to the property and and the history that you've had here in um in the Hillsborough Township.

Okay. Um this farmland has been in my family for over four generations. Um in 1897 it was deeded over to the Whiteoff Derling family and um at the turn of the century my father passed away and his one wish was to this land would never be developed and would always be preserved as farmlands. So in 2006 my mother did so and um we have maintained the scenic landscape of the area and the rustic um the rustic character of this area and um it's my hope that we can continue living at least on some part of my farmland. If you want to count it maybe you're counting me as the fifth generation of farmers. Okay, I'm not gonna Paul talk

J. So, um, if you approve then the balance of the farm we've been in discussions with, you probably know Jim Abna. Um, it's not formal yet, but he's interested in farming the remainder of the land. So, um, it's still going to be farmed and maybe you'll get some good produce out of the deal. It has to be formed. Yeah. Betty Paul, thank you so much. U Mr. Chairman, if if the board or any of their professionals uh have questions, happy to have them available.

Okay. Anyone from the DES? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um Mr. Chairman, my next witness will be our engineer, uh Michael Ford, if we bring him up now. Yes. Michael Ford, FO RD. Michael, if you could um briefly give the board the benefit of your credentials and experience so I can have you qualified as an expert here tonight. Mr. Ford, Mr. Ford, have your license changed in the last couple of weeks? No. Okay. Uh we could disqualify him in general. We could say and Mike could go home early, but I don't think so.

Have a Boy Scout meeting tonight. So good. No, no audience kid tonight, you know. Yeah. No, I'm still a licensed professional engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey uh with Van Clee Engineering since 1991. Appeared before this board and numerous boards throughout the state over the last 35 plus years and still a relatively new grandpa. Yes. Yes. Okay, we accept. Okay, please continue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I'll I'll just note um we've provided two I'll call them exhibits. One was 11 slide um deck and and then one uh additional exhibit from Van Clee. Um I'd like to uh during the testimony um perhaps mark and and show the the first exhibit if that's all right. We nor we normally do when we introduce them here at the even if you provided to them previously we introduce we mark them individually. So, it's up to you council. I'm happy to um mark them individually if it's all right to do just as one. Um I don't think Hope will borrow my help. That's apologies for my background.

That we're not going to mark that one. You can just I mean the ones we mark are the ones that Mr. Ford or the other your other professionals will testify to. Okay. Otherwise, it's going to be in the record as having submitted his part. Understood. Just do the subdivision first and then the minor. Show those. Do you have the eggs? That's all I

Okay. Um, good evening. Uh the subject of the application is a minor subdivision uh to create a twoacre um buildable or building lot for a single family house. Um the limits of the proposed 2acre lot were established in 2026 as part of the farmland preservation. And for uh the record uh when we refer to it as a severable exception as part of farmland preservation often um the owners of the farm in negotiations of that agricultural easement that precludes development on the site uh set aside small areas where a single family house could be developed either to you know continue to support the farm farming of the operation or to build a single family house that's for sale. In this case, the 2006 farmland preservation agreement and the easement between the owners uh and as I understand it, the county um was included two exception areas. The property uh that was preserved extends on both sides of Willow Road at what I'll refer to as the S- Turn in Willow Road uh right near the entrance to Hillsboro Irrigation, if you will, and just past the ball fields that the town maintains on Willer Road. Um on the we're we're dealing with the property on the south side of Willer Road. Uh the exhibit you see up now is the agricultural easement plan which established the preservation and those two exception areas. One exception area on the north side, which is not the subject of the application, but is as far as the history of the property,

includes an exception area that is around an existing dwelling on the south side. And that is the property that is lot 52 in the subject of this application included a twoacre exception area that basically encumbered or or um outlined an existing wooded area on that portion of the 45 acres that um makes up lot 42. So basically, sorry Michael didn't realize.

Yeah, the uh the exception area was a for a future dwelling unit is surrounding the one portion of the entire 45 acres that's not farmed. And as the applicants and the owners um explained to the board just moments ago, um as in accordance with the agreement, that area will continue to be farmed. the remaining lands. Uh, and that this um subdivision will allow them to transfer title of the remaining area that'll continue to be farmed to another owner while still maintaining ownership of the twoacre exception area. Right now, because it's an exception area doesn't mean that it can be sold individually and separate from the farm. So the real purpose of this subdivision is to allow that legal transfer of title changes nothing about the uh farmland um easement the agricultural easement that preserves the land and the reason I say this all to you is because part of our application to create the two acres includes some nonconformities with regards to that proposed lot. the lot size uh the lot depth and then it also uh to create a usable building envelope the the area within the building setbacks we've shown a conceptual layout of a dwelling but we are going to require some uh setback variances that is the front yard setback and the sideyard setback and what I would suggest to the board and we actually show these details on the minor subdivision and perh Perhaps that's the next exhibit we can go to.

Why don't we mark the previous one is A1 which is the it's of easement and drawing. Thank you Mark. This is A2. You're the author of this Mr. uh Yes. Our office prepared the minor subdivision for block 203.23 two three lot 52 dated September 25th 2024. So over a year ago and last revises June 6th of 2025 this year too.

And this is as I explained uh is the southern portion of the lands the lands that are on the south side of Willow Road. Um on the right hand side of this plan is the frontage along Willer Road which is being highlighted by the attorney. Um and then you see the red outlines 2acre area. That's the existing exception area which we um hope to gain subdivision approval for this evening in order to create a separate lot that can be sold individually and separate from the farm. And that would be a twoacre lot. Um, and what I was about to say is part of the minor subdivision plan that we've prepared in the lower right hand corner. We've outlined the zoning criteria in the AG zone. This is located in the AG zone where the minimum lot size is is 10 acres. We're proposing two. The um minimum lot depth is 400 feet. we're proposing or the exist existing exception area if you will is 197 has 197 foot lot depth and then with regards to the setback criteria I alluded to uh while the required uh minimum sideyard is 75 ft we're suggesting 50 feet and with regards to the minimum front yard where 150 ft is required as part of a 10acre lot. We're suggesting 75 feet. And what I'd like to highlight um is that within the AG zone, the egg zone, could you stay back?

Yeah, stay resumed in there. that table that you see there. Uh the first column all the way on the left outlines the criteria within the AG zone for 2acre lots. And I'm sure some of the board members are familiar within the AG zone. There's um alternative development options which are the open lands uh or a conservation type uh subdivision where you're allowed smaller lots and and as part of that you preserve other lands. I've been to this board um on other occasions seeking that type of subdivision approval. And it's I think not uh without being pointed as a fact in this case that I think while we're not seeking a subdivision that's an open in accordance with that criteria of the open lands or the cluster if you will type subdivision. By default, the 2006 farmland preservation really created this type of a a development where it it uh preserved a substantial area for farming and then created this twoacre area for for building a a single family home. And you'll note that it's in accordance with the township standards for lots that don't have access to public water and public sewer. This would have an on-site septic. So it it is in accordance with that minimum lot area of two two acres. And if you look down that left hand column under the um requirements for a twoacre lot in the AG zone, basically what we're suggesting is in compliance with that but for the lot depth and again that's because of the shape of the lot which is that triangular piece that encumbers the wooded area on the site.

So the setback criteria that we're suggesting front yard of 75.9 is basically in accordance with the minimum standard of uh 75 ft for a 2acre lot in the AG zone. And similarly the sideyard setback we're suggesting at 50.4 is in accordance with the 50 foot setback that's required for a twoacre lot. So, uh, we've basically applied standards that are similar to our particular situation. um like to just go right to the two reports that we received and perhaps go through the items that we'd like to discuss with the board and uh gain questions then go to the planner and some of those comments and the reviews will be addressed by the planner. But what I'd like to say first is we've received two reports. Uh one dated November 12th, 2025 from uh Mr. Ko, your planner, and one dated November 11th, 2025 uh from Mr. Pon um Mr. Pony, Mr. Mayu's office, Penoni Associate Board Engineer. And I'd like to go through uh just a couple of items within that that I think uh require some testimony and then uh without exception the items that I'm not discussing the applicant would agree to uh as any a condition of approval this you know that this board may grant and like to go to and uh first really it's all on the second page page 204

uh I'm sorry I'm starting with the November 11th report by Mr. Mayo, the last one I referred to. So the under storm water management comment one, we would uh address that at the time of construction because because right now we're creating the lot, but we haven't finalized design and uh the details for the proposed dwelling. But what I would suggest is in order to perfect the subdivision, we could include on the subdivision plan a note referencing requirement to compliance with the stormwater management rules. And as Mr. Mayoo points out, this is not a major project. It doesn't include more than an acre of disturbance or more than a quarter acre of new impervious. So it's not a major project. It's not governed by the state stormwater rules or the township's stormwater rules for major projects. It also qualifies for an exemption from the Delaware and Ron Canal Commission. Um they only take jurisdiction over projects that exceed an acre of disturbance or quarter acre of of new impervious. So uh with regards to storm water, the only real applicability here is the town's specific rules with regards to minor projects. The state doesn't have rules for storm water management regarding minor projects and the township has adopted uh enhanced rules to apply to minor projects. And as stated in comment one in the stormwater management comments in Mr. Mayhe's report, we would comply to that uh requirement, but it wouldn't be uh in advance of creating a lot and prior to filing the deed to create the lot. And this lot would be filed by deed. It wouldn't require a final plat. We do descriptions for the two new lots. It's a minor subdivision. And deeds would be

uh created and prepared by the applicant's attorney for review and approval by the township with meets and bounds descriptions. So, it wouldn't be a final plat be a deed recording, but on the plan itself that would be stamped approved by the township, we'd add a note referencing the requirement to address stormwater management at the time of construction. with regards and I'm only going to go to two other items. Um, with regards to um I'll skip landscaping and go to stream quarter, if you will. Um, it's interesting. It's a new unique aspect of this application. Since 2006, the township has certainly adopted new code standards. One of them is the requirements for stream quarters. It turns out in this particular case, while there's no streams on site, no regulated areas by DP that would be impacted by this project, there is a drainage feature on the other side of Willer Road. Um, sure you're familiar with this. At the S turn on the opposite side of this wooded area next to the existing dwelling is a little pond and that would require a stream quarter and it happens to this the 150 foot stream quarter just kisses and cuts across the frontage of this lot and in order to connect to Willer Road with a driveway we have to cross that stream quarter. So, we're going to need relief in the form of a hardship. And I'll tell you that there is no place from this twoacre triangular exception area that access to Willer Road could be gained without disturbance of the stream quarter. And we've shown the location of the driveway at the narrowest point. So, there's the smallest disturbance. And I would

suggest too that because Willer Road, a paved municipal um motor vehicle surface which exists between this property and the water feature that is being protected by the stream quarter really disconnects this property from that stream quarter. Uh but technically we need that relief to disturb that portion of stream quarter to connect the driveway to Willer Road. There's also a suggestion, this is in accordance with your town code, that that portion of the stream quarter that's along our frontage, it's a narrow portion and it undulates. It's not it's an irregular shape requires a conservation easement. I would suggest two options for the board's consideration. One is to wave the requirement to file the stream quarter conservation easement. An alternative uh and this is something that would require a meets and bounds description, a deed of conservation to be prepared by um the attorney's office, reviewed by the township attorney filed with the county clerk. Um and it's um we're not proposing any disturbance of those other areas other than the driveway crossing. An alternative would be because of the irregular shape is that um uh we provide a stream quarter easement that equals the area that's on our site. So that we would have at least the ability to provide say a more linear uh or or perhaps even just a conservation easement in one area in one portion of along our frontage rather than an awkward shaped conservation easement. So the easement would be in the same form and area that's required but perhaps

with some averaging and the and the code does allow that. A third option would be just follow the irregular line that's there and provide a conservation easement along that line. We would defer that to the board. We don't have an objection. I think from a practical standpoint, it's really not necessary to provide the conservation easement and record it and encumber a land that's already been through the encumbrances associated with a agricultural easement that established a substantial portion of preserve farm, but we defer to the board. Last comment, uh, tree mitigation and landscape requirements. And that's on that same page two on Mr. Mayheu's November 11th report. There's one item, one comment. Um, as part of our application, we requested a submission waiver from a tree mitigation plan. Um, what we're suggesting is that certainly trees will be disturbed in order to construct the dwelling on this twoacre lot. But the twoacre lot and the shape of it and the location of it were determined 21 years ago when there was a negotiation between the farmers and the the owners and the and the county for the a preservation. So the we don't have the ability tonight to relocate that twoacre lot to another portion of the site that's not wooded. We have we have to put it here. What we're requesting is a waiver from that portion of the tree mitigation ordinance. And I'll give you the specific sections 188-163.

Uh within that section 163, there's a section B that limits the percentage of woods on uh project for residential development to 20%. This 2acre portion of the land that we're locked into is in basically entirely wooded. And even the concept plan we've already developed for a limited area of disturbance for the house driveway and septic system encumbers about 40% of that tree area. So we're in excess of that 20 20% limit. We'd also suggest that part of that section 188-163 requires tree mitigation. Um we're certainly going to disturb trees. We don't have a specific count now. Um and again we if we don't really have the choice to go somewhere else and avoid the tree disturbance which would perhaps eliminate the need for any tree mitigation. So it's somewhat uh hardship as a result of the acquiescent to the tree the farmland preservation easement 21 years ago in 2006. Um so what we would suggest to the board is that we the board grant the relief from the tree mitigation aspect and the limit and threshold of the um 20% tree removal. And I feel like I've talked way too long because afraid some heads are nodding and then it's I perhaps I I go to the rest of that memo. uh dated November 11th, 2025. Page uh three

of four under minor subdivision comments includes 17 comments. We'd agree to address each and every one of those comments to the board engineer satisfaction. And I'd point out that uh a number of those comments are with regards to if this were a subdivision filed by Platt and I, as I've stated already, we would uh file this by deed with just descriptions. So many of the comments would not be applicable. And then at the bottom of page three, certainly at the time of construction of the single family dwelling before any con construction take place, the disturbance would be over 5,000 square feet and would require an outside agency approval from the Somerset Union Civil Conservation District. We'd be glad to address that and certainly the construction department will enforce that in order to gain a permit for construction of the dwelling. And then uh with regards to the county, believe we already have an exemption letter from them and certainly again at the time of construction, the septic system. We've done soil testing for the septic system, but at the time of construction of the dwelling, should the board approve the the two acre lot and they and they can proceed with construction of the single family dwelling, uh we would um prepare a detailed septic system design that would be approved by uh the local health department. But that wouldn't be required for the minor subdivision, be required for the single family dwelling construction and certainly agree to do that. Then um sorry I'll go on to the November 12th 2025 review memorandum by Mr. Kis. Uh on page two he highlights the variances we required lot area lot depth lot frontage set or the setback

requirement along our frontage front yard setback and sideyard setback. I've discussed them already and I'll uh defer to our plan the applicant's planner with regards to the planning testimony uh supporting those. The use is in accordance with the zone. I'm on page three at the top. Um the subdivision is been classified as a minor subdivision. So, it can be filed by deed and doesn't require a final plat, although that is an option to file a minor subdivision by plat, but it's more costly and and more complicated. So, we will be filing by deed. At the bottom of page three, the um bulk standards that I've enumerated a number of times are outlined. And I believe that's it. Is there any Anything else that may

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I refer the board to the letter Mr. Ford was discussing from our office dated 11 November. And I just wanted to clarify a couple items on the stormwater management. U, we're comfortable. Uh, Mr. before and I had discussed this prior to the meeting, adding a note to the plan just to help the township when the time comes for a building permit that there will be storm water um issues to address at that time. And and Mr. Ford, I just want to clarify, as you mentioned, it uh would fall under the township's new non- major development ordinance that requires proposed peak flows be less than or equal to existing And it says to mitigate the volume of runoff. In our office opinion, mitigating it would be not increasing the two-year storm runoff. Is that agreeable to your applicant?

Yes. I I I the the the specific code says to minimize it doesn't give us specific criteria for it. Mr. Mayheu suggesting the two-year storm. And I think that what I would say is since we haven't done the soil testing for it yet, we would need permeability in order to do that or some level of permeability, but that would would be what we would endeavor to do two-year storm minim. Okay. I I don't know what endeavor means, but well, if there's going to be a onsite septic system, I guess it's just like we don't know what minimize means, then we're trying. Yeah. And so our office opinion minimize would be making sure there's no increase in the two-year storm runoff volume. Correct?

And that's what we would ask. That would be the condition. Okay.

Thank you. Um you've heard Mr. Ford's testimony on the landscaping and tree mitigation. Our office has no other opinion or comments to add to that testimony. Um, as far as a stream quarter comments, our office would take no exception to a hardship waiver being granted to allow a driveway. As Mr. Fords testified, this lot is encumbered with a stream quarter along its full frontage. And so, in order to provide access, it would need to cross. Um, under item number two, I discussed with Mr. forward. Prior to the meeting, our office would support an averaging plan which would allow the applicant to simplify the conservation easement. Rather than trying to follow the uneven line, we would suggest that you simply, as Mr. Ford said, calculate the conservation area required, put it in one corner of the lot that's probably not going to be disturbed anyhow and make a simplified easement for that portion of the lot. Um, as Mr. Fords pointed out, a lot of the comments on the minor subdivision can be waved. Um, since he's clarified that they're going to file by deed. So, our office will work to minimize the amount of unnecessary plan revisions that are not as important if you're going to file by deed. The key is, as you mentioned, provide our office the description lock closure report. I would add one comment that didn't make it to our letter. When I looked at the minor subdivision plan, it says to corners are to be set. It would be our preference to have the corners set. U we've had other applications where the applicant submits a bond or letter of credit or some other. It would be simpler if those corners could be set prior to finalizing the the plan.

Actually, um the plan I have in front of me says that the pin was set and they actually even say 2006. might have been set as part of the exception area, right? So, I think and and and if they're not set, we would set them. But yeah, that would be that would be fine. If your office can clarify that the pins are set, that would be I think they're there already. That's typically required for an a easement. They have all the corners set and monumented. So, believe they're already there and we'll confirm that. That's the limit of our comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of course. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hello, Mr. Ford.

Hello. Um, Mr. Ford, are are you aware that um so when the SADC when they create the exception areas, essentially there's there's no process to ever change those exception areas. So, once those exception areas are made, they're permanent. And since you started talking about some hardship, are are you aware of that as a as policy from the SADC? Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Um and just to address what Mr. Ford was saying, you know, the timing all of this when the preservation had happened just for the board's edification. Um so the AG zone, so the major changes that were made were in in 2003. Uh the stream corridor of rules were put in place in 2005. And basically the the spirit in which I think Mr. Ford is uh was explaining uh the 2acre uh option within the zoning district. Let's just say uh the applicant at the time had the means to come to the board, go through the concept review, present everything. Uh there could have been an option to go that way. Uh a lot of times when preservation is is happening, they're they're basically striking while the iron is hot and then the focus is to get the preservation done. Uh so there's no provision in our ordinance that talks about how to do it backwards. It only really talks about how to do it one way. You come in and then it gets preserved that way. Um but then just also for the board to realize in that situation that's where the um the reward to the applicant is giving them a like a buildable lot and in return it's preserving the land. Uh going the other way going through SADC they're selling the development rates. So it's a better incentive usually for an applicant to go to go that direction. But the SADC depending on the lot size and things like that give certain exception areas and everything like that. So just wanted to provide a little bit of background. Uh we also don't uh take any exception to uh what was presented for the for the stream corridor as as well. So

thank you board members. Any questions? I just had a real basic question. Uh the existing lot is 44.67 677 acres. Lot 52 and the proposed lot 5201 is 44.667 acres and 52.02 is 2 acres. How does the math wouldn't the proposed lots add up to the existing lot? Like wouldn't it be 42 acres for the proposed lot 5201 instead of 44? You know, you're taking two acres away from one.

No, the the the minor subdivision, if we go back the in the middle in the middle of the farm, the lot 52 today is 44.667 acres and the remaining lands, which will be the preserve farm area, is 42.66 acres. 2 acres less than I'm sorry, 42.6. Did I say 42.6 66 acres exactly two acres less. So I was looking at your um the original plan that had the um the columns with the option 188.99 if you can pull that up.

Right. Yeah. I think I think the table is wrong where it's still it still uses because it if you look to the existing lot 52 it says 44.66 677. It didn't take off the two acres. Yes. Correct. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Get that corrected maybe. Yes. the the the four should be a two because even on our planners review memo he took those numbers also. So yes yes thank you.

Can you um and I I understand what uh Miss May was saying about you know averaging for the for the conservation easement along the front because it makes sense because you got a road going between the property and the pond anyway. Can you explain to me more about the the tree mitigation and the fact that, you know, we're cutting down trees and normally there would be a a replacement and you're asking for a hardship. How how are we what are you asking for us to disregard the tree mitigation ordinance? Well, first two aspects I spoke to. One is the 20% threshold. Um, in this case, uh, our hands are really tied to avoid that.

I understand. Okay. Right. The second aspect, the the planting of the trees, it's not disconnected from the first aspect where if if we had uh the flexibility, we could have located this twoacre lot in an area where we're not disturbing trees and therefore wouldn't have to mitigate for it. And then also we're in a situation where with a twoacre lot that's essentially entirely wooded, we're going to have a difficulty planting the trees on site and without a tree count, some preliminary estimates since we received these two reports over the last few days. Um, if there were no trees planted on site and there was a contribution made to the town, it could be as much as or in the ballpark of $50,000. That's a, you know, a 100 trees and and the the rationale behind that is, you know, that the formula for the tree mitigation is dependent on the size of the tree removed. So, unless it's a smaller tree, it's not a one to one replacement. A larger tree requires a two to one replacement. Um, and I think uh I would think that the applicants if they had the knowledge in 2006 that there was going to be a tree and this tree mitigation formula that we're looking at today was adopted in Mr. Ku no December of 2024. So, it actually was adopted after the initial plan date of this of the of the minor subdivision. Um, absent that knowledge from back in 2006, perhaps the applicant in agreeing to the and like Mr. Koi said, there was a monetary exchange, don't develop the land, don't build the houses,

uh, be compensated for it. And part of that compensation was an allowance to have a severable area for the existing house, but also have a severable area for a future house. And now we're being told that the severable area for the future house has this added expense of tree mitigation that wasn't in existence in 2026. So that's part of I'll say the explanation for the ask to consider the hardship and the waiver from the tree mitigation. You know, certainly certainly we want the subdivision no matter what.

Yeah, I understand. So, are you asking and I don't want to Are you asking for a complete waiver of all tree mitigation or a percentage a hardship of calculation of a of certain? Well, we asked for the submission waiver for the tree preservation and mitigation plan as part of the application in the first place. And that's still our ask is that that aspect of the code that requires that tree mitigation and preservation plan be exempt and again that we be allowed to disturb over 20%. Because of the fact that it was 2006 when it was approved.

Correct. Okay. Like we could have avoided this if we knew about it in 2006 by selecting an area that didn't have the woods. Certainly if part of that and it's it's a it's a preservation effort at heart. You've heard it's not vulnerable. There's a bunch of woods there. You can't run a plow through a wooded area. I get it. No, no, no, no. Okay. I'm just trying I'm just trying to

It's a balancing act. You're right. They probably certainly selected that and it made logical sense. put the house where the woods are because we're not farming that. But now we're being because you were putting the house where the woods are at, you you you have a pretty substantial financial obligation to to be allowed to cut down those woods. Gotcha. All right. Thank you. Any additional comments? Okay. May I have a motion to open the public then? Second. All in favor?

I anyone in the public that would like to ask Mr. Ford questions on his testimony? I think there was somebody back there at one point. Um, that's our chairman. Oh, okay. About the trees probably. Yeah. All right. Finished. Thank you. Now, now um thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um our next and final witness will be our our planner. Tonight's slowly will be the truth, the whole truth, and the truth. Yes, it will.

Paul Gle last name G L E TZ. Paul, I know I'll likely be interrupted quickly because you've testified here many times, but if you could briefly start the process of um your credentials and license uh so I can have you qualified. Sure. I'm a licensed professional planner state of New Jersey. I'm also a member of the American Institute of Certifi Certified Planners. I have a graduate degree from um the Black School of Master City Regional Planning. I've been testifying before boards for 20 years and I spent many nights with you during the uh Western Road warehouse application. So if you believe me then hopefully you'll believe me tonight. Okay. Should we disqualify him based on that?

Are there any objections? Hearing none, we accept. Please proceed.

Excellent. Thank you. Um I think we have a really good idea what the project is. I won't go through all that. We're all pretty good what the property is, where that is. Um and we've had some uh good discussion about what the relief necessary um is um uh will be. Um again, um the agricultural zone is a is a major part of your zoning plan. Uh over 9,000 acres in Hillsboro or about 25% of your total land area is devoted to the zone. Um and about a little less than half of that is active is an active agricultural use. Um you have many purposes for your a district. You want to encourage land use patterns and development practices which enhance the township and the state efforts to preserve farmland. uh promote the continuation of farming in the A district, permit limited non-farm residential development in a manner and at locations that will be consistent with the continuation of farming. Um and you also want to advance the goals of the master plan for the A district. Um single detached single failing dwellings are permitted uses in the zone as well as agricultural uses. Um you have, as discussed before, there's a couple of other options. you have your standard straightforward subdivision at 10 acres and then you have um these other permitted zoning options, the lot size averaging and the open space uh the open lands ratio subdivision options. So, and that was as was testified to previously. Um that's essentially a a process where you can get smaller lot sizes if you preserve the remainder of your property for um conservation purposes. There is a slight difference between again a conservation easement and an a easement. Um I'm sure you're all aware that they have they to the to the public they may seem pretty similar. You're this removing the the development rights but a easements are specifically in support of agriculture. Um they don't permit access. There's other types of um restrictions that are different and certain rights invested in

those properties to to continue the right to farm and other types of things that support a agriculture. Whereas a conservation easement is often time a uh severing the development rights for preservation of open space. You do allow public access and you're looking for habitat conservation and you know water quality preservation those types of things. So there is a difference between those two concepts. Um right now the current use is agricultural farmland with this undeveloped twoacre um wood lot. Um and the future use is the same amount of 42 point some odd acres of a land with u a twoacre um building lot with a single family home. To the north and south um well to the north there's agricultural farmland. To the west there's a farmland. To the south there is single family home residential development. Um and to the east we have farmland and additional single family home residential development. And it to me it looks like a lot of those are on um two acre to oneacre lots in the surrounding area. We're kind of on the township border. So there's some uh you know development patterns shifts a little bit as you moved into Hillsbury from Montgomery. Um again we're here for site um no for sub minor subdivision approval. Four bulk variances. 10 acres required. We're providing two. Uh lot depth of 400 ft is required. We're providing 197 uh front yard setback of 150 ft where just over 75 is proposed and a sideyard setback of 75 fts required and 50.4 is proposed. We're also seeking waiverss from the storm water germ management capture and recharge as was discussed, a waiver from the tree preservation mitigation calculations, the waiver from the tree removal um requirements, and a design

waiver for the um entrance to the proposed driveway. Um again your master plan speaks about uh the uh the a zone describes the number of acres in it over 9,000 acres within the a zone. U your 2018 master plan re-examination report had a number of land use management goals including uh provide a future land use pattern that includes agriculture and farms and recreation and residential all for safe and healthful environment. Uh, the township wants to continue to expand land use policies that guide development to suitable locations and at appropriate intensities, protect and maintain the prevailing rural character and unique sense of place within Hillsboro, particularly in the A and the mountain districts. And you also have um specific agricultural goals encou encouraging a preservation, preserve large contiguous land bases for agriculture, coordinate a preservation with the SADC and Somerset County A development board, recognize agriculture as a significant economic industry, and encourage compatibility between a operations and neighboring non-ag non-ag development. your 2002 master plan amendment for the a and mount mountain districts um recited as their goals and objectives essentially the purposes of zoning under under the mal land use law and those include a to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use and development of all lands in the state to promote public health health safety morals and welfare to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons uh provide sufficient space in appropriate location for a variety of agricultural, residential, and other types of uses to meet the needs of New Jersey's citizens, promote a desirable visual environment, promote conservation

of historic sites, energy, and viable natural resources, and to coordinate uh encourage coordination of various public and private procedures for the most efficient use of land as well as others. Um, you also have a number of land management, land use management goals that are supported by the application. And again, we mentioned the agriculture goals were repeated from your 2018 master plan. Um, let's see, moving on. There's also some public policy objectives that just talk about how a and farmland retention is a significant objective for all local levels of government. And there's a number of benefits listed within your master plan that support the retention of agriculture. Moving on, as you heard before, the the Derling Farm, the block 203.23, lot 52 has been prever preserved since 2006. Um, and the intention is to, you know, sever this severable exception of of two acres as described as you saw in the on the DW of easement and then the maps included. Um, so we have these four bulk variances. Um I'm going to present the C2 variance um proofs, the what's known as the flexible C. I think you've heard these before. Um and so I have we have five steps along the way to establish those proofs. Um and again, lot area, lot depth, sideyard, and front yard setback. Um number one, I have to talk about the particular piece of property and how it applies. This is a legally existing lot subject to the existing farmland preservation easement with this approved exception. Um, and so this is a uh we're we're not here to create any two two uh acre lot on this property, but just that which coincides with this already designated severable exception. Um under the positive criteria I listed several of those I believe in terms of

the uh municipal uh purpose a the municipal action to promote health safety and welfare. I think by virtue of this being a part of a greater agricultural retention preservation program, um the appropriate population densities, this one single family lot on a twoacre um it mixes and it it it resembles a lot of other um single family homes in this area. The existing home is on a similar site just across the street just like this. So it'll fit in well within the fabric of the this A area. Sufficient space for a and residential uses. This is a great, you know, example of that type of thing where we can mix um minor residential development with preservation of large pieces of a desirable visual environment. We talked about the character of the area and how this will this will preserve that. And again, we could talk about conservation of and prevention of urban sprawl, coordination to reduce the um uh cost of development around the state. And we also promote a number of your purposes from the Hillsboro U master plan as well. Your land use management goals and your agriculture development goals are all uh referenced and uh supported by this application. Under the negative criteria, we talk about two parts of that substantial um can we grant this without substantial detriment to the public good. Um this is a reasonable approach to creating a new single family home for the family to continue to enjoy the farmland that's now multigenerational use of the land. Um and the surrounding area has properties and adjacent zoning areas that are developed in a similar manner with similar bulk variances. You heard the U engineer testify that they we looked to the um cluster open space type um zoning and um we meet in terms of uh a twoacre lot. We're compliant in terms of the side and

front yard setback. It's just the triangular shape that drives the the lot depth and the fact that we're not on 10 acres. We're only on two acres here for the lot depth. And in terms of the zone plan and the ne the negative impact on the zone plan and the general welfare, we advance many goals and objectives I just talked about. Um community and neighborhood character is protected and uh you know the use of the land and the buildings in terms of development intensity um are very similar to neighboring uses. So again, we're not having any adverse impacts. And so when you balance these out together, the, you know, the possible negative impacts versus the u purposes of zoning and the benefit to your master plan, you know, the lot area um we're talking about an existing severable exception. It was designed this way. It matches some of your own design um guidelines for this type of open space preservation zoning. Um, the lot depth is driven by kind of a little bit of C2 C1 testimony here, the hardship of the shape of the of that size and the the reduced size of the lot itself to provide that lot depth. And the sideyard and front yard, again, when you're looking at if you looked at other twoacre lots built under your um zoning scheme, um they would have similar front yards and setbacks, sideyard setbacks. So I think taking all that into consideration, I think the board can easily um find that this is an approvable application.

Thank you, Mr. Mayhew. No questions, Mr. Chairman. [Music] We do not have any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Board members, questions, comments? Okay. Excuse me. Turn your mic on. Uh, how would I pronounce your last name, sir? I'm having a hard I'm having a How would I pronounce your last name? Gleets. Gleets. Sorry. All your German high school teachers will tell you wrong, but just wanted to be sure. That's how we do it. Yeah. Gle.

Didn't know whether I should read it exactly as I read it. Um, general question probably, and as you said, there are similar instances around in the same section, right? Um, how will the agricultural operations on this lot 50.1 be protected from conflict with the residents? How would it be protected from the presence of the single family home?

Correct. Um, actually it's kind of the opposite here. It's the agricultural use is the protected use. Um, so there are your own right to farm regulations, the state right to farm regulations, the fact that it's preserved farm, it's recognized as the existing use for the property. Um, I think the fact that we're on this wooded lot, um, and the fact that the intended owners are are part of the agricultural community would really minimize any kind of ne negative impacts. Um, this is one of the this isn't a 30 lot subdivision in the middle of farm country where the new owners are going to be surprised in the spring and the fall uh about the odors and and the operations. Um, this is a family that knows and this is a carveout of of an existing farm. So, I think we're not going to have any of those kind of issues.

Probably my next question is going to be moot based on the explanation that you provided, but will there be any new lighting, fencing, or any grading that would impact substantially the neighbor's property?

Again, right here, we're just we're here for subdivision. We're showing a a basic plot plan here, but from the proposed grading and the the size of the property and the size of the lot. Um there may be some exterior lighting. There may be some fencing, but again, as you have with any residential lot, um but the fact that it's it is a wooded lot and they're looking to keep as much of the woods on there. Um and the fact that the surrounding area is a lot of egg fields as well. So, you'd have to you'd have to be it's pretty far to get to the next house from any of the spotlights that might be on on on this on on this house. Thank you. Anyone else? I don't have to read. Oh, you

Yep. public, where are you? Okay. No public. Thank you. Thank you. closing.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um again, members of the board, um back in 2006 when this preserved, what we are here to do tonight was contemplated. Um we hope we've been um for the Derling family um faithful to what was approved then. Uh I'll I'll note uh both the county uh planning board and the county a board have already approved this uh to occur both in 2006 and uh at our request as part of this application. Um we're excited to continue u both the preservation and the farming history of this site by allowing it to stay in the family so that uh uh a farmer can continue uh with the larger lot and um members of the family can actually live on the land. and we're excited to be uh presenting that to you here tonight. So again, thank you for your time. Um and if there are any uh follow-up questions or certainly our team is available to to answer them. Thank you.

Okay.

Um Mr. Mayhew, I don't know. Is it possible? I mean, obviously we're talking we haven't seen the the plan yet for the home, right? We're we're just going off that they're going to develop a house on a twoacre piece of property and I'm going back to this tree waiver that we somehow put a language to minimize any tree disturbance and then obviously protect the trees moving down the road that the lot isn't clearcut by anybody else in the future because obviously we're giving a waiver or they're asking or seeking a waiver from the tree mitigation. That's that's a great question and concern. Um, the applicant has shown a potential limit of disturbance based on a potential driveway, home, and septic field. I I think it would be appropriate to ask the applicants engineer um if they think they could agree to limiting the proposed tree removal to the limited disturbance that's shown on these plants. And I think that would help provide the township assurance that you're not granting the ability to clear the whole site. Uh Michael Ford back at the mic and uh two uh comments uh in response to that rate. We did we did provide I think at the request of the staff as part of the completeness review a conceptual grading plan with a limited disturbance of about 2 point I'm sorry.7 acres almost 8 acres. um we're going to have to do something with storm water management mitigation which may require some other disturbance but what I would suggest is another

threshold that would really impact and and steer the applicant toward uh not massive otherwise you know certainly the trees have value and actually you know they they also are costly to remove but the um limitation of the one acre threshold that would then require where major storm water management mitigation would also be um I think um an obstacle that would would be avoided by any applicant for a building permit or a future land owner. So certainly we're I don't we wouldn't go over I think it's going to be around8 acres disturbance but the that's just shy of the one acre but if we go over one acre you know it'd be major storm water management and that would be a much more difficult task than the minor I don't know if that answers the question we're at 7 with the concept I'm suggesting perhaps 08 but certainly no greater than one which is about half of the one of the two acre lot. Mr. Chairman, maybe missed either Mr. Mayu or Mr. Kois can answer the question. The current application is to subdivide two acres off for the purposes of building a future residence. to build the future residence going forward. Which board if any requires approval of same

neither none okay so it's if I may add to that that's why this is really important right now that's why I'm the question was whether or not it can be avoided at this point and dealt with accordingly and the answer is no only certain aspects can but this not necessarily this one so that's why

I understand that So, Mr. Ford, uh, the conceptual grading plan that was submitted to the board shows 72 acres of disturbance. Uh if the board was to grant the tree removal waiver up to say 8 acres, that still gives you another 3,400 square feet to play with for potential stormwater management. Would your applicant, your client be willing to limit? Because I think as Mr. Kois is saying, there has to be some kind of agreement so that the township building code officials know what's allowed and what's not allowed. when they come for a building permit.

So I'm what I'm saying I think a reasonable flexibility would be to allow disturbance up to 08 acres to in order to build and construct the improvements necessary. Um the applicant is agreeable to that. Um and just to clarify though, if we were to um a overage over that would require would be I guess an administrative application under the tree ordinance if uh and with with appropriate mitigation. It's it's possible. Um we're not expecting it. I just want

Yeah. I don't know off the top of my head if there's a provision in there that would kick it back to the board. I just can't give you an honest answer right now. That could be agreed to. Ju just what I'm trying to explain is I I don't know about the exact provision in that ordinance unless everyone would like me to look up now. If there is a provision, it applies. If it doesn't, it comes back.

Okay. Yeah, the the tree preservation ordinance. Um there is a provision in there for an existing single. I've looked because I I'm a resident. uh that uh there's a provision that limits um a certain number of trees per year, very small, four or five. It it exempts removal of dead or diseased trees or trees that present a safety issue,

right? Um, and then beyond that, it has a mechanism where you can file for a tree removal permit, $25 fee, uh, and have it reviewed by the, uh, appropriate department, either planning or or engineering, and that would be identifying the trees to be removed and the mitigation for those trees that are required to be mitigated. I believe that's the case. But again, uh certainly if it if we if it's to be something that's done that triggers back to a board that's not in the code because we're talking about the code today.

Yeah. I I would think that if we're inclined to to have a waiver or have an agreement on a specific percentage, if by the time you get to development, that percentage is no longer attainable, I would think it has to come back to the board to for representment on just that limited issue. Not open it up for any other discussion, any other issues. It's simply the tree preservation issue. I don't think we can agree to defer it to um a township professional.

Yeah. Yeah. I I thought actually we were answering a question about like once the resident is in there and something's going on and what applies after that. I'll defer to the attorney and I I would imagine and that don't disagree with me ultimately beyond that agreed upon threshold would be the required compliance with the or then ordinance at the time and if that required coming back to the board or if it required um a a fee or consultation with the municipal arborist that's ultimately what what the homeowner would have to do. Okay. So it sounds like 0.8 8 is the limit

and that would be like delineated in the on the plans or whatever how so again so the people who are looking to verify it's they can tell

yeah at the time of construction we would have a detailed soil erosion and sediment control plan that identifies the limits of disturbance for not only Somerset Union soil conservation district but the township uh engineering department as well and and that limit would not exceed the 08 otherwise it would trigger other action. Okay, any other comments? Okay, so last bite at the apple from the public. All right, motion to close.

Motion to close. Second. All in favor? I Okay, Mr. Bernstein, please summarize.

Mr. Chairman, the applicant is seeking a minor subdivision approval CB bulk variance and waiverss to subdivide 2 acres from an approximate 44.667 667 acre farm parcel to separate the 2acre residential exception area from the reserve farmland with the intent to reside in a future single family dwelling to be located on proposed lot 5202 on property located in the E A zone to approve such application subject to all conditions approved on the record including all the reports submitted by the board professionals to agree agree to return to this board if the tree issue exceeds 0.08 acres of trees. No

point8.8.8 point sorry 0.8 acres of trees to be removed and any and all other conditions or approval stated on the record by either the applicants or their professionals. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'll make the motion to approve. Everybody's eligible, Michael, but Mr. Smith. Okay. Any final comments or thoughts? Okay.

Uh, yeah. I just want to thank the applicants, um, Elizabeth and Paul for bringing this to the planning board. Um, we appreciate the gener the generational dedication to open space and farmland here in Hillsboro and uh preserving farmland. So, I'll be happy to when my vote comes uh to approve this. Okay. Any other final thoughts before we go to roll call? Okay. Sh. Roll call, please. Mr. Wagner. Yes. Mr. Flag. Yes.

Mr. I am also going to agree with what Mayor Cherelli had said. I want to thank the family and I uh say yes as well. Miss Smith, yes. Mr. Deb, yes. Committee Pani, yes. Thank you very much. Mayor Cherelli, yes. Vice Chair Pasen, yes. Chair Saraj, and a yes. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you so much. Okay. So with that, there's nothing else on the agenda, but we do have an allimp important meeting for the FAB 5 on December 4th

at the moment. Yeah, at the moment. So our next meeting is December 4th about the 27th of November. I didn't see it. No, I thought we were No, I thought Yeah, that thing we've There's no November business meeting schedule because Oh, God. Unless you're going to bring the turkey and stuffing. You can start taking notes. Um, that's it. So, that's all I have. So, I will entertain a motion of adjournment. So moved. Second. All in favor? I I we're journed. Mr.

Have a great Thanksgiving holiday. Yes. I need you. I need Mr. Le Pani. I need the mayor. I mean Mr. Mayu. And I need Mr. Kis and Miss B.