WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=Do6Ui5vVZS4

Part: 1

1
00:00:32.719 --> 00:00:50.160
Okay. I'm calling to order the regular meeting of the July 21st, 2026 Township of Bernard's Planning Board. All rise for the PL flag flag salute. Pledge to the flag of the United States

2
00:00:50.160 --> 00:01:13.360
of America for it stand. >> That's true. [laughter] In accordance with the requirements of the open public meetings law of 1975, notice of this meeting of the planning board of the township of Bernards was

3
00:01:13.360 --> 00:01:29.360
posted on the bulletin board in the reception hall of the municipal building, Kolier Lane, Basking Ridge, New Jersey. Was sent to the Bernardsville News, Whippony, New Jersey to the Courier News, Bridgewater, New Jersey on January 21st, 2026.

4
00:01:29.360 --> 00:01:45.119
was electronically mailed to all those people who have requested individual notice and was posted on the official township website. The following procedure has been adopted by the Bernard's Township Planning Board. There will be no new cases heard after 10 p.m.

5
00:01:45.119 --> 00:02:01.119
and no new witnesses or testimony will be heard after 10:30 p.m. May I have a roll call. Miss Slayman >> Mr. Angelo >> present. >> Mr. Argaw, Miss Bannon >> here. >> Mr. Crane >> here. >> Mr. Eorio >> here.

6
00:02:01.119 --> 00:02:18.000
>> Mr. Schaefer >> here. >> Mr. Suburb >> here. >> Mr. Tommpkins >> here. >> Mr. Drill >> here. >> Mr. Schly >> here. >> And for the record, Miss Layman is present. Madam Chair, you have a quorum and may proceed. >> Thank you, Miss Slayman. Uh, may I have a motion to excuse the absences of Miss

7
00:02:18.000 --> 00:02:32.480
Manduk, Mr. Seville and Miss Smith who have previously uh let myself and Miss Slayman know that they had um other engagements and could not be present. >> So moved. >> That was Mr. Tomkins. May I have a second?

8
00:02:32.480 --> 00:02:50.480
>> Second. Mr. Suburb. Um have a roll call. >> Mr. Argawa. >> Miss Bannon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Crane. >> Yes. >> Mr. Eorio. >> Yes. >> Mr. Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Suburb. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tomkins. Yes. >> Chairwoman Master Angelo.

9
00:02:50.480 --> 00:03:06.000
>> Yes. >> Thank you. The next item on the agenda are the approval of the minutes for June June 2nd, 2026 regular session. These minutes were distributed in advance to our board members. This is version two.

10
00:03:06.000 --> 00:03:22.720
I assume that everyone has a had a chance to review the minutes. If you have not, let me know. But um if there are any edits or suggestions, please let me know at this time. Otherwise, I will take a motion for approval of the minutes. >> Madam Chair, there's only three people

11
00:03:22.720 --> 00:03:38.879
that are eligible to vote on the minutes for 62. >> Okay. I have Agarwal, Bannon, Crane. No. >> Uh, no. Mr. Schaefer. >> Oh, sorry. Sorry. >> Mr. Agaral, Miss Bannon, and Mr. Schaefer. >> I can hold the >> You're going to make the motion?

12
00:03:38.879 --> 00:03:56.000
>> Yes, please. >> Okay. Um, may I have a roll call of those three people? Mr. Argaw. >> Yes. >> Miss Bannon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Hopefully we'll

13
00:03:56.000 --> 00:04:11.920
have more people for the next one. Um on June 16th minutes are now um up for approval. This is draft minutes version three. Also distributed in advance to our board members. If there are no suggestions or edits, I will entertain a

14
00:04:11.920 --> 00:04:29.840
motion for approval. And who is uh eligible? >> Only Mr. Crane and Mr. Eorio are not. >> Okay. >> Everyone else. >> All right. Who would like to make the motion to approve minutes? >> I will. >> Miss Bannon has it. Who seconds? >> Second. >> Mr. Tommpkins. May I have a roll call,

15
00:04:29.840 --> 00:04:47.360
please? >> Mr. Argaw. >> Yes. >> Miss Bannon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Suburvy? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tomkins? >> Yes. >> Chairwoman Mr. Angelo? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Okay, the next item on the agenda are approval of resolutions.

16
00:04:47.360 --> 00:05:04.800
The first resolution that we have had distributed to us as drafted by our esteemed lawyer, Mr. Drill, uh, is Octa Pharmaceuticals block 2401, lot 4170 Mount Airy Road, PB23-

17
00:05:04.800 --> 00:05:20.240
001A. And um, is there anyone ineligible to vote? >> Only Mr. Schaefer. >> Only Mr. Schaefer. May I have a uh motion? Yes. And everyone has gotten this uh resolution advance as well. We

18
00:05:20.240 --> 00:05:36.240
have a motion for approval of the resolution as written. >> I'll make that motion. Chair >> Mr. Crane has that second. Miss Bannon seconds. May I have a roll call? Miss Slayman. >> Mr. Argawal. >> Yes. >> Miss Bannon. >> Yes. >> Mr. Crane. >> Yes.

19
00:05:36.240 --> 00:05:49.919
>> Mr. Urio? >> Yes. >> Mr. Suburvy? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tomkins? >> Yes. Chairwoman Mr. Angelo. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Next item on the agenda, Ridge Oak Management, Inc. block 1611, lot 40 and

20
00:05:49.919 --> 00:06:08.400
block 169, lot 2201, 95 and 150 Manchester Drive, PB26 hyphen 0001. This was a resolution distributed in advance. And who is it? Mr. Schaefer that's not eligible as well. >> Mr. Crane, I'm sorry. Miss Bannon, Mr.

21
00:06:08.400 --> 00:06:23.919
Crane, and Mr. Schaefer are not eligible. >> Okay. With the exception of those people, could I have someone else make a motion? >> I can make the motion. >> Thank you, Mr. Agawal. May I have a second to approve? Second by Mr. Suburvy. May I have a roll call, please? >> Mr. Argaw, >> yes.

22
00:06:23.919 --> 00:06:39.280
>> Mr. Eorio, >> yes. >> Mr. Suburvy, >> Mr. Tomkins, >> yes. >> Chairwoman, Mr. Angelo, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Next item on the agenda, resolution 2607, awarded award of change order number

23
00:06:39.280 --> 00:06:56.400
one, 2026, professional services contract for the board planner. Uh, just so you know, we have a certain amount of escrow for the board planner. Um, and because she's done some work for us, this is a change order to allow us to What's that? It's not escrow.

24
00:06:56.400 --> 00:07:11.919
>> Not an escrow. Yes. Sorry. Thank you for that. The escrow is by applicants. This is non-escrow. Thank you, Mr. That's why you sit next to me. [laughter] Mr. Droll keeps me on point. So, non-escrow

25
00:07:11.919 --> 00:07:29.280
and um >> Does anyone have any questions on this? >> Okay. I will entertain a motion to um approve this change order number one under resolution 26-07 from Miss Fehee. And everyone is

26
00:07:29.280 --> 00:07:44.960
eligible today to move. >> That was Mr. Tomkins and Miss Bannon has a second. May I have a roll call, please? >> Mr. Argawal, >> yes. >> Miss Bannon, >> yes. >> Mr. Crane, >> yes. >> Mr. Eorio, >> yes. >> Mr. Schaefer, >> yes. >> Mr. Suburvy.

27
00:07:44.960 --> 00:07:59.280
>> Mr. Tomkins, >> yes. >> Chairwoman, Mr. Angelo, >> yes. Motion carries. All right. The next item on the agenda is the hearing for the modification of condition of approval. This is Fellowship Village,

28
00:07:59.280 --> 00:08:14.960
Inc. block 9301, lot 33 and block 9401, lot 9, 8,000 Fellowship Road and 55 Allen Road, extension of time to have final site plans signed, an extension of time to

29
00:08:14.960 --> 00:08:32.719
obtain construction per construction permits PB22-005C. And we have the attorney here. If you could put your um appearance on the record please. Uh thank you, chairwoman and uh members of the board. Uh for the record, Kenneth McFersonson of the law firm uh FBT

30
00:08:32.719 --> 00:08:50.800
Gibbons LLP uh One Gateway Center, Newark, New Jersey. Um again, good. >> What does the FBT stand for? >> You I think maybe I can't remember if [laughter] we talked about this last time. You may have. >> Okay. All right. My memory is good on that. Um it's Frost Brown Todd was the

31
00:08:50.800 --> 00:09:08.880
predecessor firm from uh uh Louisville. That's where they're based. So, >> thank you. >> Okay. All right. >> So, now don't ask again. [laughter] >> For the record former life, I actually worked for Gibbons Delo Dolan Griffin, which was a previous one when I remember,

32
00:09:08.880 --> 00:09:24.320
>> which is a longer longer time ago. It was Gibbons and then FBT. >> You don't look that old. [laughter] >> And this is a new firm so he doesn't have to recuse. >> Okay. Good. >> This is 15 years ago. >> Okay. No kidding. All right. Um so uh

33
00:09:24.320 --> 00:09:41.519
good evening again. Uh we are applying once again uh for an extension of those conditions uh specifically being conditions number one and 14. Um and there's you know a bit of a history

34
00:09:41.519 --> 00:09:56.720
u and this is in relation to uh >> you said one and 14 >> one and 14. Yeah. >> I want to be clear because it sounded like one number 114. No conditions number one and condition number 14. >> Yes, that's right. Um, so

35
00:09:56.720 --> 00:10:14.720
on May 20th, 2025, uh, this was two years, you know, about a year and a half after the original approval was granted in October of uh, 2023. Uh, we applied for the applicant did apply for an extension of the plan

36
00:10:14.720 --> 00:10:33.600
uh, signature deadline for final plans to be signed. Um, and that deadline originally was December 31st, 2025. And also the construction permit deadline uh at that time was uh June 30th uh 20

37
00:10:33.600 --> 00:10:48.720
202 >> might be a little too close to Mike. If you can move that >> 2026. Yep. >> Okay. Um and then in response to that, we appeared before the board and they granted a an extension of those uh conditions

38
00:10:48.720 --> 00:11:05.920
uh to June 30th, 2026 for the plan signatures and December 31st uh 2026 for the construction permits. Um so and then uh you know we most recently made a

39
00:11:05.920 --> 00:11:20.720
submission a resolution compliance submission back in uh November um we uh comments from the board planner Mr. Schlly which we uh have already incorporated into the plans. uh there

40
00:11:20.720 --> 00:11:38.320
was a a prior board engineer memo uh by UTRS that was issued and then subsequent to that there was a change in port engineer um which our engineer has discussed those comments they still apply the TRS

41
00:11:38.320 --> 00:11:53.120
comments at the same time we made the submission in [clears throat] November to the town for resolution compliance we also submitted to the county um with the same uh updated uh submission in terms of

42
00:11:53.120 --> 00:12:09.200
plans. Um and that was again November 25th, 2025. Uh and that submission to the county also addressed prior storm water comments uh

43
00:12:09.200 --> 00:12:25.920
which had to do with replacing the previously proposed pipe underground system with a purpose pavement system and stone uh storage bed um that you know our engineers here might help bring up in a moment. U he's not going to get

44
00:12:25.920 --> 00:12:41.760
into those technical details, so to speak, but just for the board's benefit. And also for the board's benefit, uh condition number 18 of the original 2023 approval resolution um requires Somerset

45
00:12:41.760 --> 00:12:58.800
County Planning Board approval uh before any zoning or construction permits to be issued by the town. Um, so when we made that submission to the county in November 2025, uh, we had not received any comments back,

46
00:12:58.800 --> 00:13:13.760
um, while we did receive comments back from, uh, the town and, uh, we followed up with the county, asking them, you know, was their approval letter because their prior letter had only a few comments,

47
00:13:13.760 --> 00:13:31.920
um, three maybe, uh, very minor, But there there was a a lapse and them getting back to us for many many months. And I was told um on the phone, you know, there was some changes in the county uh planning department um and the

48
00:13:31.920 --> 00:13:45.680
engineering department. They had some new hires and you know there's been a lot of uh storm water uh regulation >> discussion going on and changes which our engineer can address and so can

49
00:13:45.680 --> 00:14:03.040
yours. Um, so we surmise that that's what has taken so long for the county to get back to us. And in fact, after many months of our pushing them and asking them and telling us telling them we have this extension deadline, um, they got

50
00:14:03.040 --> 00:14:18.560
back to us like two weeks ago and told us they would provide written comments, which are asking for uh, by July 16th. Don't they have a time limit? They do, right? They have uh I think it's uh n

51
00:14:18.560 --> 00:14:35.120
>> Yeah, I think it's it's 90 days. I mean, it's a fairly strict and they're not allowed to extend it, >> right? And in the interest of uh you know, the condition where the the county's approvals is required and um you know, it's we we want to make sure

52
00:14:35.120 --> 00:14:49.920
we're doing things by the county standards. Um as I'm sure the town does, uh we decided, you know what, we'll wait. Um, so we finally got those comments uh in written in written fashion that's dated uh July 17th. I

53
00:14:49.920 --> 00:15:04.240
think we got the Friday afternoon directly to our engineer. Um, so he's looking at them already. Um, so that that has been the only holdup is the county. Um, not trying to make them not to be a bad actor. It's just a fact. Um

54
00:15:04.240 --> 00:15:21.519
but um in order to uh address those comments in a submission to the town and to the county you know simultaneously again um which also you know a lot of those storm water comments I think um or some of them there's overlap from the uh

55
00:15:21.519 --> 00:15:40.079
UTRS memo as well um so with with that uh background uh we are requesting an extension of plan signature deadline to December 31st, 2026. Um

56
00:15:40.079 --> 00:15:54.639
then >> construction permit deadline. >> Construction permit deadline. Thank you. To June 30th, 2027 and then um to the extent you necessary um extension of the board's approvals

57
00:15:54.639 --> 00:16:12.560
within the original resolution. Um >> here's the right. So the original resolution granted the approval adopted on October 3, 2023 and that was preliminary and final site

58
00:16:12.560 --> 00:16:32.399
plan approval. So the final site plan so there's there's two things going on. Board has time deadline conditions in its rules. Their general purpose is to keep things moving and not wind up with like a sleeping approval where something is

59
00:16:32.399 --> 00:16:49.839
approved years ago, they put it down and they come back and things in the neighborhood. >> Also, MLUL has protection periods that protects against a change in

60
00:16:49.839 --> 00:17:06.720
zoning ordinance provisions. So final approval gives them two-year protection against the zoning ordinance change, but it's subject to three one-year extensions. So you can get up to five year of protection. So their final approval, >> we're in it

61
00:17:06.720 --> 00:17:23.679
>> October 3, 2023. So the first two-year protection period would have expired October 23, 2025. The only reason I asked this is because Dave Schwe sent an email. >> Who you? >> The applicant. >> Oh, okay. copy to me saying

62
00:17:23.679 --> 00:17:40.000
>> I'm happy to address that. Go ahead. >> That's right. Saying that listen, there were there have been two ordinances that have been adopted after the two-year protection period. And he asked a question, how do these impact at all these approvals? Because, for example,

63
00:17:40.000 --> 00:17:56.640
on the same general theory that let's say they haven't applied to extend their protection period. I don't even know. Do you guys need to apply to extend your protection period or not? >> Um I we would like to do so in uh the

64
00:17:56.640 --> 00:18:12.160
interest of caution and good practice. >> So you probably want to make an oral application right now. >> Yes. >> To and the MLUL allows them to apply before or after the fact for extension of the protection period. So, at

65
00:18:12.160 --> 00:18:28.640
minimum, you would want to get it extended one year to October 3, 2026, but you probably want to get it extended two years to October 3rd, 2027

66
00:18:28.640 --> 00:18:44.799
because you're seeking to get the permits June 30th, 2027. That's right. I would think you want to make >> an an oral um request to two years >> to to modify the application to extend

67
00:18:44.799 --> 00:19:00.240
the protection period by two years. >> That's right. Okay. >> Now, is that what you want to do? >> That was exactly what we'd like to do. >> Okay. >> Published the pellet division case talks about what's the board supposed to consider when you consider whether or not to extend the protection period. And

68
00:19:00.240 --> 00:19:19.440
I've always given advice to all my board clients, including this board, that that case, I think by analogy, also applies to whether or not you want to extend the time get permits. And what the case says is you're supposed to do a balancing,

69
00:19:19.440 --> 00:19:34.960
supposed to balance what basically benefits would there be from the extension. the applicant will tell you their benefits are. They're they still have their approval. They don't have to start from scratch. And quite frankly, the board might say they still have their approval. You don't

70
00:19:34.960 --> 00:19:51.200
have to start from scratch. So, it might be a mutual thing. You're supposed to balance that against any negative factors. A negative factor is if there's an ordinance because once you do the extension, ordinance change doesn't apply to the application. So, I

71
00:19:51.200 --> 00:20:06.559
think at this point you should ask Mr. Schlly just for the record. So, the board what the two ordinances are and then ask them to address it. I don't know >> if I or not. >> You're up, Mr. Schlide. >> Well, first of all, Mr. Schlide,

72
00:20:06.559 --> 00:20:22.320
affirm the testimony you're going to give in this matter. Is your microphone on green? >> Yes. Okay. Push push your microphone closer. >> Yes. Real close. >> Thank you, Dave. >> Uh, so the two, one, one deals with tree

73
00:20:22.320 --> 00:20:38.400
removal and replacement and one deals with drainage. uh removal and replacement ordinance uh was amended. Actually, both of these ordinance. The reasons they were adopted was to comply with D requirements uh making our uh our ordinance consistent

74
00:20:38.400 --> 00:20:54.080
with uh taking the the tree ordinance first. township adopted the tree removal and replacement standards of Dent. Yeah,

75
00:20:54.080 --> 00:21:11.919
>> actually this is a rare case where our tree replacement requirements were actually stricter than the D model ordinances. >> That's no harm, no foul then, right? Well, it's harm in that if if the

76
00:21:11.919 --> 00:21:28.320
applicant didn't have to comply with the old ordinance, they'd be complying with new ordinance that required less trees to be planted. >> Oh, >> that's that's really an oddball ordinance. Usually, the applicants looking to not have a stricter ordinance apply here. It's a little backwards. There's

77
00:21:28.320 --> 00:21:45.120
some other standards in the um that were adopted as far as uh details for tree protection, details for tree planting, uh things that I would think the applicant would not have a problem uh complying with. uh main one is the

78
00:21:45.120 --> 00:22:01.760
difference in the tree required number of replacement trees and in this case I mean it's a handful of trees their current requirement um 57 trees and it would take the um the

79
00:22:01.760 --> 00:22:17.520
calculation's not easy to tell uh to convert from one to another but my estimate is it would definitely be less than 50 required probably somewhere between 40 So that's a crazy one. This is not an ordinance that would require them to do more. It would require them

80
00:22:17.520 --> 00:22:33.520
to do less. So my opinion on that ordinance is [laughter] that that's not a negative factor here. >> In other words, if the tree replacement ordinance >> before they had to replace 57, if they had to give you 67, >> then you might say, I don't know if

81
00:22:33.520 --> 00:22:48.559
we're going to do that extension unless you give us 10 more trees. here >> cuz right now they're they're >> requirement is less than what >> it's less than what the requirement >> they're proposing 73 trees on the plans as it stands right now. So it it's kind of moot but it should be discussed

82
00:22:48.559 --> 00:23:05.480
>> be noted. Right. And that's ordinance 2553. Correct. >> Yes. The it deals with the uh township ordinance section 2145 which is tree removal. >> Ordinance section what? >> 21-45.

83
00:23:06.000 --> 00:23:25.120
So that's not a negative >> drainage. >> Drainage. Um that was also adopted uh as required by D to bring our ordinance. Uh I'm not going to pretend to know uh try

84
00:23:25.120 --> 00:23:43.919
to explain that. Um it's technical engineering. >> That's why the engineer's here, >> right? So, we'll let the engineer. >> Yeah, this was one in a series of similar ordinances over the past several years where the town is keeping up with D turning out new and stricter

85
00:23:43.919 --> 00:24:02.960
requirements. >> Just tell me ordinance 2551 >> amended ordinance section what? >> 1-42. >> Okay. Can you come on up? Identify yourself for the record. Daniel Dockerty D O U G H E R T Y

86
00:24:02.960 --> 00:24:18.960
Dynamic Engineering Consultants >> right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give in this matter? The truth, the whole tooth, nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> I sure have. >> Accept you as an expert. >> You were accepted in this very application, weren't you? >> Uh for the original um site plan

87
00:24:18.960 --> 00:24:35.840
approval and also for the extension. >> Okay. >> But you understand the issue. >> I do. I do. So, um, a little bit of a backst step. I believe both of these ordinances were passed in in 2020. >> Yeah. On June, uh, ordinance 2551, which

88
00:24:35.840 --> 00:24:51.120
amended the drainage requirement, was adopted on June 11, 2024. >> So, so, um, we're in really the same position that we were in when we came. >> This wasn't brought to this wasn't brought up at that hearing.

89
00:24:51.120 --> 00:25:06.240
>> Wasn't brought to your attention, but it's been brought to your attention. >> It was the same. It was the same item was there and our extension was was granted without consideration. >> We're asking for an extension of the protection period. So you were just asking permit and uh the plan. Correct.

90
00:25:06.240 --> 00:25:21.279
>> There's more at stake this. >> So um I'll I'll address both ordinances. Well, >> I think we're pretty clear on the first one. >> So for the for the landscape, >> forget the tree thing. >> Well, I'll just regardless of the of of how it's decided, we would keep with the

91
00:25:21.279 --> 00:25:36.640
old um designation, >> right? That's what the condition of the board if they granted the extension is going to say in any of so don't even waste time that just go for the gusto. >> Well, I also wanted to mention that there are some housekeeping items in that landscape ordinance that are like detail oriented not having to do with

92
00:25:36.640 --> 00:25:53.679
the tree replacement calculation. The bulk of it, the main part of that ordinance is that the tree replacement calculation changes to the benefit of a of an applicant. But there are other other aspects of that which we would agree to. >> Just listen. >> If the board right extends the

93
00:25:53.679 --> 00:26:10.400
protection period and if the board extends the other two, that new ordinance is not going to apply to you. >> No, I understand that. What I'm saying is that if the board were to extend the protection period without um without applying those ordinances, the applicant

94
00:26:10.400 --> 00:26:26.320
is going to agree to the aspects of that new landscape ordinance that are detail oriented and housekeeping just so that the township standards are kept up to date regardless of when this application came through. >> Um and it's really a matter of details and and tree protection fencing um

95
00:26:26.320 --> 00:26:42.720
perimeters and that kind of thing. So, um, as far as the Senate, as far as the stormwater ordinance, um, the the crux of the storm stormwater ordinance is, um, the D's real, uh, program that was passed several years ago. Um, that

96
00:26:42.720 --> 00:26:59.440
requires a higher level of storm water management detention. Um, what D did, I don't know how, um, how much you've kept up with D's proposed rule changes. >> I read it all the time. >> Some have to do with flood hazard area. Mr. I assume Mr. Crane has actually read

97
00:26:59.440 --> 00:27:15.120
it. So >> yeah. So so like the current one has to do with um the the ocean sea level rise. So a lot of this is all based upon D's planning for the year 2100. So what the the flood hazard area aspects of that rule both inland and

98
00:27:15.120 --> 00:27:30.960
coastal is for developments to start planning for the the year 2100. So the rule that was passed by DP that then subsequently this ordinance puts into place is for um and you guys probably hear this all the time. We have to make

99
00:27:30.960 --> 00:27:46.559
reductions on the two 10 and 100year storms right and that it has a certain precipitation rate. Well, there was a study done uh by recorders um although not for this purpose which D grabbed and decided to use to implement new rule

100
00:27:46.559 --> 00:28:01.200
changes. And what they asked of applicants in that new rule change is not only do you have to meet the reductions for the 210 and 100red-year storm events u based upon today's estimated rainfall. The study they used

101
00:28:01.200 --> 00:28:19.039
showed that rainfall in 2100 in the future due to climate change is going to be a higher rainfall event. So the two 10 and 100redyear storm events that we see now this study that Ruckers did on 21 on the year 2100 the D took that into

102
00:28:19.039 --> 00:28:36.080
consideration and said you have to meet the current rainfall amounts and reductions on the 2100 rainfall amounts which is substantial. Let me just ask a question. >> To comply with the new ordinance, what changes would have to be made the

103
00:28:36.080 --> 00:28:50.720
application and site plan? >> It would result in us propose uh having to um uh construct a much larger storm water detention system. Um and a little bit of background on on our history of our application. When we first submitted for this application, we submitted as a

104
00:28:50.720 --> 00:29:06.720
minor project uh from a stormwater standpoint with the stormwater ordinance which requires only that you don't increase runoff from the site. Um after some review with the township engineer um we um agreed to the fact that since

105
00:29:06.720 --> 00:29:23.360
this although it's standalone applica a standalone improvement from the rest of this fellowship site because the fellowship site um was involved with our driveway connecting to their driveway and already had a previous site plan approval which had storm water elements

106
00:29:23.360 --> 00:29:40.399
in it. It was determined that we have to treat this as a major project because it's tied to that old property and that old application and and that is per ordinance. We agreed with that. We didn't see that see it that way at first, but we for a second that >> but was that before this new ordinance

107
00:29:40.399 --> 00:29:56.720
was adopted? >> Yes, this is this is before we had our approval. >> Want to get to the what changes if any do you have? >> So, no no I was want to give you a little bit of history. So at that point we upped our storm water design for the site um substantially to handle the 210

108
00:29:56.720 --> 00:30:12.480
and 100year typical >> it's not adequate for this year >> it's not adequate for that extension to the year 2100. >> So all the new applications that you'll be getting in >> saying it covers the two and the 10 but not the 100. >> It no actually it's the it's the 210 and

109
00:30:12.480 --> 00:30:29.440
100redyear storm event which means it's the likelihood of a storm at any given time today. Okay, based upon accepted rainfall amounts today, in the year 2100, 74 years from now, that those that that

110
00:30:29.440 --> 00:30:47.200
rainfall data is greater. So the likelihood of a of a two-year storm or a 10ear storm or a 100redyear storm, those storm events are actually more water in the year 2100 than now. I'm not saying that as a fact. That's the basis of that

111
00:30:47.200 --> 00:31:03.760
rule. So the the the um the the crux of it for us is it would be a substantial change to our stormwater design incre substantial increase into our detention requirements to see if we could even manage it the same way we're managing it

112
00:31:03.760 --> 00:31:22.159
now. So what you'd have to come in if the board decides they're not going to extend protection period because of storm water is such an important issue blah blah blah. I'm not saying they will or but if they said

113
00:31:22.159 --> 00:31:37.760
that you'd have to come in with an amended preliminary and final application correct >> they'd have to change >> that would be I guess that would be up to the board to decide. put it this way. Is it if it's a substantial change to the storm water, I'm going to advise the

114
00:31:37.760 --> 00:31:53.200
board that you need an amended preliminary and a final. If it's not a substantial change, it's an insubstantial change, then maybe an amended final. But in your opinion, describe what changes you'd have to make to the detention system. You said a

115
00:31:53.200 --> 00:32:07.840
larger detention system. >> Yeah, I'd have to I'd have to actually perform those calculations to to know what the impact. currently it would not at all be adequate is what you're saying. >> It wouldn't be adequate now. No. No. And and I would agree with you on the aspect

116
00:32:07.840 --> 00:32:24.960
of just from a procedural standpoint, not an attorney. Um [clears throat] but the fact that we would be meeting a different ordinance that's that's been passed since our site plan approval, it would make sense that it was an amended site plan application of sorts.

117
00:32:24.960 --> 00:32:41.279
my opinion if he can't say that this would result in an insubstantial change to the detention basin I think you have to assume it would result in a substantial change to the detention basin then you have to decide how important is the new

118
00:32:41.279 --> 00:32:57.679
storm water regulation to you if it's important then you would say listen we you know we love the project we approved it but we don't feel comfortable extending the protection period and because of that we're not going to extend the others either either come back with an amended preliminary and

119
00:32:57.679 --> 00:33:13.720
final site plan application to comply with the new storm water ordinance and all the timing and everything will start a new >> I I just want >> question down there. >> Okay. I hold that thought for a minute. I just want to be clear. You did say that your current project

120
00:33:14.399 --> 00:33:32.480
aside from this ordinance change was tacked on to the current fellowship >> that was for purposes of storm water purposes only. Okay. So that that raised the standard of our storm water design at that point >> project. >> Right.

121
00:33:32.480 --> 00:33:48.640
>> This approval is has nothing to do with the other one other than the >> correct >> storm water here was considered a major not a minor because of the other project. But this new ordinance didn't change that. ordinance is going to >> I understand that >> is going to make I mean I'm not an

122
00:33:48.640 --> 00:34:05.120
engineer but what I gather is the new ordinance has more stringent requirements therefore they're going to have to make the storm water system the basin larger maybe even some of the other parts of the system larger >> so but I just want to make sure I understood so but but for the delay that

123
00:34:05.120 --> 00:34:20.879
was that that council talked about in the beginning of this right >> it would have been held to the lower stand >> that's right so >> correct and if you guys feel that when you balance positives of the project versus the negatives as a storm ordinance, you guys can say that the

124
00:34:20.879 --> 00:34:35.200
that the positive outweighs the negative and you can you have the authority to also extend their protection period. >> I'm just I'm just >> and the delay was caused through no fault of your own. >> Correct. um based on the county and who

125
00:34:35.200 --> 00:34:51.679
have already submitted to us uh further storm water comments that will improve water proposal prior and uh >> it's not going to be up to the I just want to get the facts out there. It's not going to be >> so it's either it's either I think

126
00:34:51.679 --> 00:35:07.200
there's two ways to look at it. either you either you were the h unfortunate circumstance of you of of the county taking so long to to get back to you on this or right that's one way of looking at it. The other way could be well if if

127
00:35:07.200 --> 00:35:23.440
you if the county had addressed it in a in a timely fashion um you would have slipped in before this this new uh requirement. >> That's that's a what good way to put it. If I could just read from the actual drainage ordinance itself. >> Yeah. Uh, >> which ordinance?

128
00:35:23.440 --> 00:35:38.880
>> This is uh >> one >> the one >> 2551 which amended ordinance section 21-42. >> This is uh >> this is a good idea to have this read into the record. >> The amendment to uh section 2142.1

129
00:35:38.880 --> 00:35:56.400
scope and purpose and specifically uh section C applicability. Um this is section three. Uh a complete application required by ordinance pursuant one above which is

130
00:35:56.400 --> 00:36:12.960
says it's applicable to non-residential major developments and aspects of residential major developments. Um but getting back to the section pursuant to C1 above that has been submitted prior to the adoption date of this ordinance shall be subject to the stormwater

131
00:36:12.960 --> 00:36:30.320
management requirements in effect one day prior to the adoption of this ordinance application a complete application which ours wasitted prior to the adopted date of this

132
00:36:30.320 --> 00:36:47.920
ordinance October Correct. Correct. And the original application would have been grandfathered if the and will be protected if the board extends the protection period. I I have a question for you. Um and I'm just

133
00:36:47.920 --> 00:37:02.560
putting this into a context I can understand. So say under the old ordinance you had to have a drain basin that could handle 50,000 gallons in an hour. I don't even know if that's anywhere in the ballpark. The new one,

134
00:37:02.560 --> 00:37:19.359
the new ordinance is it has to handle 100,000. So that's a huge difference. Is there is it a totally binary like it has to be 50,000 like we let it go at 50,000 or we say no you have to comply

135
00:37:19.359 --> 00:37:35.359
and it's 100,000 or can we say you have to comply better than 50,000 i.e. split the difference at 75. I I'm I'm just wondering if there's a way to to split the baby um or is it is it totally binary?

136
00:37:35.359 --> 00:37:52.480
>> It's Yeah. So So the way the rule is set forth um you've got a reduction that you have to meet for each of those um chance storm events to 10 and 100. And basically D has created three more

137
00:37:52.480 --> 00:38:08.720
storms all larger but overlapping with those. So hypothetically, the order of the storm events in in magnitude might be the two-year storm today, the 2100 two-year storm, then the 10-year storm

138
00:38:08.720 --> 00:38:25.359
today, then the 2100 10-year storm, and then the 100red-year storm today, and then the 2100year storm. So now instead of six points of analysis on reductions, you're meeting or sorry, instead of three, you're meeting six, and they're all overlapped.

139
00:38:25.359 --> 00:38:42.320
But it does come into what's the biggest one which is the hundred and you're looking at like a 20 to 50% ballpark of increase in storm water measures. >> So that that but my question is does it does it have to be all or nothing? So, and in our case, we're we're using

140
00:38:42.320 --> 00:38:59.280
pvious pavement um which is something that that the um the D has championed and it's great because it doesn't take up more space and more um um um disturbance in property would site like this, especially we're talking about

141
00:38:59.280 --> 00:39:14.480
tree replacement calculations. >> That's not my question. >> No, no, no, no. What I wanted to say is that we're using um a pvious pavement system where that storage and detention is handled under the pavement system. And when we get to a bigger amount, that might make us reach outside of the

142
00:39:14.480 --> 00:39:30.800
pavement system and start looking at more disturbance in order to have an above ground basin or something of those sorts. But I I wouldn't know until I looked at it. But that's where you get that 20 to 50% starts driving you out of the ground a little bit. >> Okay. I am a little bit uncomfortable that our township I mean our board

143
00:39:30.800 --> 00:39:47.440
engineer is not here. I did not think we were going to get this much into the weeds and I feel that at the board needs its own engineer to look at this. >> I believe that you should also have the township. >> They'll tell you why. Because the D can find the township if the if the township

144
00:39:47.440 --> 00:40:04.240
storm water uh is not following their their regula >> MS4 standard. >> Correct. So, I think that you should ask you should ask the board engineer for his opinion and the township engineer for his opinion on whether there'll be

145
00:40:04.240 --> 00:40:18.640
any negative impact to the township at all from extending the protection period. >> That's a good idea. >> Do you have a opinion [clears throat] on the applicability based on >> Well, here's the problem. There's no

146
00:40:18.640 --> 00:40:35.680
question that if you filed an that it it doesn't apply If you were within the two-year pro any protection period, the MLUL provides that you're protected against an ordinance change. But once you get

147
00:40:35.680 --> 00:40:52.000
outside the protection period, the case law says you're not protected against an ordinance change. The fact that the ordinance says if you had a complete application before a certain date, it doesn't apply. That's irrelevant to our discussion. Your application was complete. It was

148
00:40:52.000 --> 00:41:08.960
complete three years before the ordinance was adopted. But the problem is now in my opinion the ordinance clearly applies and the only question to the board is if you were if you had obtained extensions of the protection

149
00:41:08.960 --> 00:41:25.839
period. >> Let's say you extend all the way out >> to the full >> three one-year protection period. So in other words, >> thank their amendment seeks an extension of the final site plan protection period.

150
00:41:25.839 --> 00:41:42.720
The original period ran to October 3, 2025 because that was two years from the adoption of the memorializing resolution on October 3, 2023. They've now sought two one-year extensions to get the protection period out to October 3, 2027. Let's assume for

151
00:41:42.720 --> 00:41:59.440
argument sake that the board had granted three one-year extensions to get you protected out to October 3, 2028. If you had ordinance changes during that time period, you'd be protected except there's an exception in the protection

152
00:41:59.440 --> 00:42:16.560
period for ordinances that impact health and safety. I haven't even gotten into that. Okay. So, arguably a stormware ordinance probably is health and safety, but there's also a Supreme Court case that differentiated between a final approval and a preliminary approval

153
00:42:16.560 --> 00:42:32.319
after a shipyard case out of Hoboken. But the bottom line is you you you're outside your protection period. >> Arguably, I I well, I'm saying >> not arguably. You're outside the the final site plan protection period

154
00:42:32.319 --> 00:42:47.280
offered under the MLUL. you're outside of it. Now, you're allowed to apply and the board can grant up to three one-year extensions of it. But the case, the appellet division case, published appellet division case says you have to balance it and if you have

155
00:42:47.280 --> 00:43:03.760
an ordinance change doesn't say you have to deny it, but you can deny it if there's an ordinance change. >> Thank you for that, Mr. Drill. Just the um on the health and safety, this is after of the ordinance, not any separate

156
00:43:03.760 --> 00:43:21.680
record. Um >> well just a >> I mean still the health and safety app it can only apply to the zoning and site plan ordinances. It can't apply to the board of health. But the courts say you look at the zoning and site plan

157
00:43:21.680 --> 00:43:37.200
ordinance. Is it health and safety based? Right. Landscaping probably not health and safety based. Lighting maybe health and safety based. Storm water. It seems to me storm water is absolutely health and safety based in my opinion. >> Well, especially if you look at the I

158
00:43:37.200 --> 00:43:51.920
mean like the news today where you had cars getting swept off the road. >> No. No. I'm not disputing that. >> Yeah. >> Talking about it. >> No, we're you know just for the record. That's that's if we grant if we grant the three-year exception on these two uh

159
00:43:51.920 --> 00:44:08.160
uh items and then other things pop up, other ordinances pop up, is it exceptions? Is it a blanket exception? Yes. For everything else that comes along. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> That's a good question. >> Okay. I I think getting over our skis here.

160
00:44:08.160 --> 00:44:22.960
>> So, it's been a good discussion. >> Yes, it has. and thank you for your law review um commentary on this. But um at this point, >> yes, go ahead. >> More points. >> Okay, you can make your points, but I'm telling you right now, we're going to

161
00:44:22.960 --> 00:44:38.319
have our engineer Okay. Um just uh to the extent we just want to at least put it on the record with the prior extensions just want to make sure there's no uh you know from the applicant's point of view we had thought

162
00:44:38.319 --> 00:44:55.680
in our minds somewhat that these these may have doubled as a extension >> they absolutely didn't because the resolutions were quite clear. What is the what is what is >> what he's saying is he wants to argue

163
00:44:55.680 --> 00:45:12.800
that that granting an extension of the time period to obtain sight sign plans and obtain a construction permit also extended the protection period >> but you didn't ask for that >> right and and the resolution doesn't reference it and resolutions where applicants have asked for extensions of the protection period specifically

164
00:45:12.800 --> 00:45:29.680
reference I think it's NJSA4 55D- I think it's like 53 it's it's in the I think it's 53 three. >> That's an important that is an important enough distinction that we would require it in a resolution. >> The amount of extensions we had, I just

165
00:45:29.680 --> 00:45:46.040
figure >> Well, and that's another problem that you've had a lot of extensions. >> We certainly don't dispute that. >> Yes. So, here's what we're going to do. >> Last point, Madam Chair, I do interrupt. >> Go ahead. >> Just for the benefit of any new board members in terms

166
00:45:47.839 --> 00:46:04.800
of F members. >> Well, I I can say this, the board, the people on the board that approved the project thought it was a great project. >> We did, but we had a very long discussion because I have a very good memory >> about landscaping >> and about the parking

167
00:46:04.800 --> 00:46:20.800
>> about parking >> and and the you have some um parking that we that you could use, you know, as that weren't rails and we had a whole long discussion about that. What you didn't have a long discussion about was storm water. >> No. Uh no.

168
00:46:20.800 --> 00:46:36.880
>> Is they complied with the correct the issue is if their engineer >> was able to stand up here and say nah insubstantial impact but he's not able to he doesn't know. So that's why I think it's totally appropriate that you refer this to the board engineer and the

169
00:46:36.880 --> 00:46:52.480
township engineer get their opinions. He should also look at it. You should come back with >> I just want to clar I wasn't sure if you would if you had said >> I would definitely say it's a substantial impact to the scope of the design. >> Yeah. Correct. You just don't. >> Correct. But you don't know exactly what

170
00:46:52.480 --> 00:47:08.800
it is. Correct. >> Oh, no. I I haven't calculated what that new design would be. No. Correct. >> You'd have to determine whether it would We wouldn't do that unless it's applicable. >> Correct. So that's why I think that your suggestion is excellent to get the board engineer and the township engineer get

171
00:47:08.800 --> 00:47:23.359
their not trying to make your job harder, but we also represent our town. >> I don't dispute the fact that you'd want your engineer. >> They want to make sure that the township doesn't get tagged. What's the um >> MS4? >> They have an MS4 permit. Okay. From the

172
00:47:23.359 --> 00:47:39.119
D. And basically the D sent the thing along to all the municipalities especially with the AMS for saying listen if you don't make sure that the projects that are approved by your planning boards and boards of adjustment

173
00:47:39.119 --> 00:47:54.480
comply with the ordinance we will find you township >> and and I don't want to dis I I get that MS4 and I love the way D just threw all that obligation on to all the municipalities so they had a lot of extra work to do so they could be the cops that's just great for everybody.

174
00:47:54.480 --> 00:48:11.680
body. [laughter] Um, but also that it it doesn't it doesn't get in the way of the fact that the board has the right to decide how that ordinance applies. The D can't say, "Oh, no, it it should apply." >> But, correct. >> But we still want to hear from Okay, I'm not going to entertain anymore here.

175
00:48:11.680 --> 00:48:28.400
We're going to adjourn this and we're going to get our inter engineer and our township engineer here. Um, we our next date, Miss Slayman, I would hope that our engineer would have enough time. I have >> Can I ask? >> Yes, of course.

176
00:48:28.400 --> 00:48:44.240
>> Can you do the calculations in the meantime? >> Um, >> but that's the only way the board is going to know fully what's at issue. I mean, it would be Listen, if you don't, the township [clears throat] engineer and the board engineer, they're going to charge your escrow account and they're

177
00:48:44.240 --> 00:48:59.440
going to try to do calculations. So you might as well what's the meantime like that's what we're trying to figure out. >> Carried to >> Well, how much time do you need to do the calculations? >> I'm not really certain yet. I I'm just trying to get a feel for what we were looking at. >> So why don't we wait? Let them get back

178
00:48:59.440 --> 00:49:15.680
to us. For now, the board's >> table say in effect. Wouldn't that be us? >> Now you're informing us. >> Just a storm water. >> It's substantial. >> We're not going to know the difference until those calculations are done.

179
00:49:15.680 --> 00:49:40.200
problem with the board engineers escrow. >> Talk to our client about >> that's been our position. >> Okay. >> Explain why you think it shouldn't even apply. >> That you had a complete. Can you read that provision again?

180
00:49:47.119 --> 00:50:08.960
application required by ordinance pursuant to C1 prior to the adoption. Okay. And so how does that say that the ordinance doesn't apply after your protection period has expired?

181
00:50:08.960 --> 00:50:36.319
>> Does uh this applies to completes to them or it doesn't apply to them. this the new applications that >> right new applications right

182
00:50:36.319 --> 00:50:52.880
this is >> filing a new >> right this is an approval >> this isn't an application >> right yes I >> right so the ordinance wouldn't apply to an application being a new application being filed,

183
00:50:52.880 --> 00:51:08.079
>> right? >> But you don't you have an an approval which is subject which in my opinion the provision you're reading is irrelevant to the issue of whether the new ordinance applies to an approval where the protection period has expired

184
00:51:08.079 --> 00:51:25.040
because if the board did not extend the protection period. Okay. So, the ordinance applies. You're going to have to file an amended preliminary and final application, which under the MLUL, if it's substantial, it's considered a new application and it will be filed after

185
00:51:25.040 --> 00:51:43.040
that ordinance was >> our understanding of the D. >> Thank you're putting on the record. No problem. >> I just want to um I do believe we need our engineer to look at this. We thought he would be here, not putting it on anybody. >> Yeah.

186
00:51:43.040 --> 00:51:58.880
>> Well, I don't think we thought we Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I Yeah, that was an oversight on all parts. Um, so >> listen, even a little quite frankly, the engineer was here. >> He wouldn't have had the calculations >> because he would have said, "Well, do

187
00:51:58.880 --> 00:52:15.359
the calculations. I'd like to review them." That's probably what he would have said. >> Let me just figure this out. You're going to ask him to do the our engineer to do >> No, you need No, our engineer is not doing any calculations for them. We're asking our engineer to look at the situation and render an opinion if he thinks

188
00:52:15.359 --> 00:52:31.520
a we know it's substantial because their engineer has said it's going to require substantial change. What we want to hear from our engineer is does he think that if the board were to extend the protection period so that the new ordinance wouldn't apply is there's some

189
00:52:31.520 --> 00:52:47.680
negative impact on the township. That's what I think the opinion you want from your engineers. >> Okay. >> Um if and it depending on timing and everything if you'd like I can speak to your engineer now and whenever we're coming back.

190
00:52:47.680 --> 00:53:03.599
>> I think it would behoove you to speak to the engineer >> and and ask him if he would need us to perform a calculation or not, you know, on his comfort level on it just because it was discussed today and that might kind of shortcircuit some of this, you know, what we're what we're deciding to do. I mean, we're happy to do that.

191
00:53:03.599 --> 00:53:19.280
Another good idea. So, >> when's the board's next meeting? >> Well, I think August 18th. Is that too um ambitious? >> You think we'll have enough time for that, Miss Layman, with those other two items?

192
00:53:19.280 --> 00:53:44.000
I think so. Right. >> Be honest about it. >> I'm not sure what will be attention. What's what's this the second meeting in August? >> That's it. >> First meeting in August is >> That's too early.

193
00:53:44.000 --> 00:53:57.920
>> That's too early. >> September 8th. >> So August 18th or Why? Listen. >> Why don't we do September 8th? >> Yeah, >> I think that would be better because right now we don't Yeah. So we're going

194
00:53:57.920 --> 00:54:16.800
to do September 8th. No, I think that everything should be held. Yep. Everything should be held separately. >> Y Okay. So, we're going to table this. We don't need a motion for that, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. And >> there's there's just for the record, there's no notice required.

195
00:54:16.800 --> 00:54:48.079
>> No continuing. Yeah. >> Correct. not an item that was mentioned in the county. >> Okay. >> You looked at the county. You looked at the county review letter. What sort of things was the company looking for you to do? >> Storm. So, their first review didn't do much of a storm water review because it

196
00:54:48.079 --> 00:55:05.400
was our first application where we were a minor project. Now that we're proposing the pvious pavement system, they came in with some stormwater comments, very similar to the township engineers comments. So, >> when did when did you submit when did you submit the major storm water application to the county?

197
00:55:06.319 --> 00:55:22.720
>> November. >> Did they deem that application complete >> prior? >> Not the minor >> minor. I'm the major. Did they deem the major? don't they don't they just look at the our ourselves as one application not whether it's a major or a minor.

198
00:55:22.720 --> 00:55:39.200
>> So so our application is was an application for site plan just like it was here regardless of the storm water classification. The county's time to decide starts when the application's complete and it can't be extended. But if they need information,

199
00:55:39.200 --> 00:55:54.400
if they it's possible that they've taken the position that it's as if the [clears throat] application was amended, did they say in any of those letters or anything to you? >> No, >> it was clear that they had a lot of delays in in, you know, interior to the

200
00:55:54.400 --> 00:56:11.760
department from changing of the guard. Um, >> all right. Let's >> the applicant should not be held responsible that they didn't, you know, be aggressive or adversarial. >> I understand that. >> I'm not sure if it was >> We still want our engineer to look at it. >> Oh, when we first submitted.

201
00:56:11.760 --> 00:56:26.640
>> Okay. >> I think it right. Because >> I think September 8th, is that right? >> But just for the record, Dave, do you know if this if their application was deemed complete by the county? >> It was incomparent letter issued Friday said is deemed incomplete. >> Yeah. Okay. So, can can I just say

202
00:56:26.640 --> 00:56:42.480
something? Just for the record, >> course. Yes. >> So, if until it's deemed complete, their time never started to run. >> So, they don't have the 90-day clock yet. >> They They don't even have the 90-day clock. >> Okay. So, >> listen, I understand. I'm just telling you how things work. >> Yeah, we're not leaning on that.

203
00:56:42.480 --> 00:56:58.720
>> Well, you can't lean on that because the application wasn't deemed complete. It's It's just not nice to like imply that somehow their their time had started to run when it didn't because the application was deemed incomplete. And I asked you, you said, you know, no, they never mentioned that. I asked Mr. Schlly

204
00:56:58.720 --> 00:57:14.400
and he's like, the letter says it's incomplete. >> I I don't recall that we as a team were counting the 90 days on the county. We were just looking for comments. >> Right. >> But you did say earlier you did say earlier that they didn't get back to you and you he called you out on it.

205
00:57:14.400 --> 00:57:30.480
Actually, he said did they they had a 90day and you said we just wanted to do it right. >> Yeah. But I kind I kind of got the inuin. Okay, it doesn't matter, >> you know. >> Okay, go ahead. I was under the

206
00:57:30.480 --> 00:57:46.960
understanding and maybe I misunderstood that when Mr. Schllo, Mr. drill said to you they have 90 days and you said yes, but you know the 90-day clock was had clicked off that even if the 90 days

207
00:57:46.960 --> 00:58:20.319
they didn't comply with you we're still going to grant them uh you weren't going to Yes. Okay. >> Okay. All right. >> Right. And Right. And that engineer,

208
00:58:20.319 --> 00:58:39.680
right? the engineer who wasn't with [clears throat] the board long but just because there's a New Jersey Supreme Court case equity versus NJD and the New Jersey Supreme Court says that the government has the duty to correct itself. So even if somehow [clears throat] the board

209
00:58:39.680 --> 00:58:55.680
engineering experts mistake and not pointing out the ordinance could somehow be imputed to the board which I say it could not it would not be the board still has a duty to corre to correct if there was a mistake and thank goodness Mr. Schlly caught the two ordinances is all I'm going to say.

210
00:58:55.680 --> 00:59:11.680
>> Yeah I think we're all in agreement that we need the engineer here. Are we going to have Go ahead. No, I was just going to say and given the time now that we're in September, you know, I think we'll have time to be able to pull together a comparison. You know, I don't know how how um refined it would be, but at least something

211
00:59:11.680 --> 00:59:28.319
>> to give to give you guys guidance without me having to talk to the town, right? They're going to want to have some idea of what's involved. >> Okay. Listen, talk talk to >> I'll I'll take we will take a look at it

212
00:59:28.319 --> 00:59:43.359
and at least a preliminary >> at least idea of what the >> right don't simply talk to the board engineer. He's the new board engineer. He's only been here a year. >> Try to get a conference call with the board engineer and the township engineer

213
00:59:43.359 --> 00:59:59.040
or an inerson with both of them and Mr. Schlly to discuss the situation. That's my suggestion. Sounds good. everyone on the same page at least as to who has what facts. And again, the engineers are going to be asked, is there ne is there

214
00:59:59.040 --> 01:00:14.240
any potential negative impact to the township if the board were to basically grandfather the application against this new ordinance? >> And we think not. >> Well, he doesn't know. >> That's what he's telling you. >> We we we understand. We'll do it. >> Okay.

215
01:00:14.240 --> 01:00:30.400
>> Okay. Uh hold on. I've got to open this up to the public >> for any questions of your witness. I'm opening this up to the public. >> Seeing none and I do appreciate us all

216
01:00:30.400 --> 01:00:45.920
going round and round. I do actually to get to the crux of what we need to do. >> Yes. Okay. So, thank you for being understanding of us. Okay. I think we came to a good conclusion September 8th.

217
01:00:45.920 --> 01:01:04.720
Okay. And I thought Mr. Drill's comment or suggestion is a very good one for you. Okay. And I'm sure you'll take him up on it. >> And regarding the other aspect, >> correct? >> Okay. Um, does anyone else here have any

218
01:01:04.720 --> 01:01:22.000
questions for them? Okay. All right. So, thank you for your time and >> All right, guys. >> Yeah. Thank you for your time. Any comments from our uh board members? Not any comments from our staff >> on this application or in general?

219
01:01:22.000 --> 01:01:39.440
>> No, in general. She's she's done with this application. >> Okay. Just making sure >> she's moving along. >> So, with that, I will um >> I have comments. >> Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. I missed that. >> I thought you meant one with this application. >> I'm sorry. >> Um >> Mr. Crane.

220
01:01:39.440 --> 01:01:56.880
>> Yes. Um, as you probably all know, we have the mandated storm water course that we have to take each year. >> Outdated. Is that what you're going to say? >> Yes. It's kind of appropriate tonight. Uh, and uh, >> maybe they've updated it. Did you look?

221
01:01:56.880 --> 01:02:13.119
>> Yes, they have. Um, >> see, they've updated it >> and I've got a few notes to go over that uh, seminar basically. Yeah. Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're not going to go >> I'm gonna keep it under two minutes. >> Okay. I I'm starting

222
01:02:13.119 --> 01:02:31.680
>> to tell the board your opinion on the D seminar before they take the >> Don't you think it would be better if all the board took the seminar and then discussed it before you tell them what they should think or not think about the seminar? >> That's the advice you want to give me.

223
01:02:31.680 --> 01:02:48.160
I'll take it. >> That's my advice. >> Okay. We know I I do listen I I love your um I do I really like your um knowledge of this but I do agree with Mr. Drill that I don't want to be >> pre free pre uh

224
01:02:48.160 --> 01:03:02.640
>> yeah pre-tainted there >> not tainted not tainted because I think he has great >> pre-educated >> yes thank you because I really do appreciate your comments a lot Mr. Crane so everyone please your homework should get that storm water management done

225
01:03:02.640 --> 01:03:19.720
course and then Mr. Mr. Crane and us, we will have a conversation. Okay, that >> be great. >> With that, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Thank you, Mr. Tomkins, Miss Bannon. All in favor? >> I