October 3, 2018

County under Green Acres funds. Mr. Schatzman stated the Applicant’s lot had been determined to be a buildable lot; presently the Applicant wished only to subdivide the previously approved lot in to two lots. He stated the Application did not require bulk variance relief. He gave the Board a brief recapitulation of the information stated in the Applicant’s Public Notice. He stated all adjoining property owners were properly noticed. Chairman Bagoff asked if the owner of Lot 6.01 had been noticed. Mr. Schatzman answered in the affirmative. Mr. Lamb stated the Association owned Lot 6.01; he did not know if every resident within 200 feet of Lot 6.01 had been notified. He stated the complex was comprised of property owned by the Association and individual unit owners. He stated the Association had been notified, but not the individual unit owners. Mr. Schatzman stated he received a certified list of property owners within 200 feet; he stated the list of individual homeowners was not included in the certified list. Mr. Lamb stated the Application itself did not include Lot 6.01 or the private road and adjacent property owners; the Applicant only listed the subject property, Lot 1.09; the Applicant only asked for the four corners of the subject property, Lot 1.09. Mr. Dwyer opined that Lot. 6.01 should have been included in the Application. He stated Mr. Schatzman should consider re-noticing. Mr. Schatzman stated that Cyril Kucera, P.E., engineer for Applicant was present; he requested Mr. Kucera be permitted to address the Board regarding noticing. Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Dwyer if Mr. Kucera’s testimony would add to the Board’s understanding of the notice. Mr. Dwyer opined it would make no difference; he opined the notice was defective. Chairman Bagoff stated Mr. Kucera would have five minutes to address the Board. Cyril Kucera, P.E., was sworn in, stated his professional credentials, and was accepted by the Board to be a licensed professional engineer. Mr. Kucera stated he had previously appeared before the Board for the Bel-Air application for development. Referring to Exhibit A-2, he stated Bel Air was a condominium community set on two (2) lots, Lot 6.01 on one side of Kelly Drive, and Lot 2 on the other side of Kelly Drive. He stated that through the Bel Air development, Kelly Drive was the only public road dedicated to the Township. He stated the

01 on one side of Kelly Drive, and Lot 2 on the other side of Kelly Drive. He stated that through the Bel Air development, Kelly Drive was the only public road dedicated to the Township. He stated the nearest actual building structure was 240 feet away from the Applicant’s property. He stated he strongly believed the Applicant’s notice was correct. In response to question from Chairman Bagoff; Mr. Lamb reiterated the Applicant’s notice was deficient; he stated there were additional issues to be addressed including lack of easement approval for the private road, and variance for steep slope. He stated his research also indicated that subsequent to the original subdivision approval, the drainage plan changed when the County acquired lots. He stated the Applicant kept referring the 2006 resolution; but there was a subsequent document showing a change in the drainage plan; however, he stated there was no documentation of a subsequent approval for the revised drainage plan. Mr. Dwyer advised the Chairman that the discussion was moving aside from the threshold of the public notice. Mr. Schatzman stated he wanted to know if the Application was to be deemed a major or minor subdivision; he asked if Mr. Grygiel would opine. Mr. Grygiel stated he had prepared a memorandum dated August 10, 2018, which did reference a minor subdivision based on the information submitted; however, the review memo raised a number of issues and requested additional information. He gave a brief recapitulation of 5