5 6 26 WO PB Draft Minutes

4 The applicant is seeking a minor subdivision with bulk variance approval to create an additional building lot from an oversized lot. PUBLIC COMMENT - Andrew Ellman, of 9 Ridgeway Court, stated that the notice he received referred to an existing structure on the property, but that structure had already been demolished. ○ He questioned whether the township attorney had determined if the application should be classified as a minor subdivision or a major subdivision. ○ He also asked what the process of the application actually was. - Chairman Bagoff responded that the board would first hear testimony from the applicant and its experts. ○ The board planner and engineer would review the application and provide opinions. ○ The zoning official would be asked to explain the discrepancy between the existence and apparent removal of the building. - Michaela Bennett of Old Indian Road stated that there was an active emergency situation on the property and that the board should not hear the application while the issue remained unresolved. ○ Excavation activity had apparently struck a spring or otherwise created a substantial body of water on the site ○ A lake had formed on the property - Ms. McGovern explained the board is generally obligated to hear applications that have already been deemed complete. - The zoning official, Ms. Gary-Adams, stated she became aware of water on the property after receiving a phone call. She notified the construction official. ○ An email was sent directing the applicant to install fencing around the area. - Mr. Ellman pointed out that the notice described an existing two-story dwelling on the property, even though the structure had already been removed. PRESENTATION - Attorney Frank J. Materia appeared on behalf of 15 Ridgeway LLC - He explained the property is an oversized lot. - The application is to subdivide it into two lots, and to create a subdivided, buildable lot. - Regarding the water issue, he acknowledged that a stop-work order had been issued. - He suggested that the order limited what the applicant could currently do on the property. - The property owner, Amoghene Francis Umude, entered on the record; he was sworn under oath. He testified to the following: - Mr. Umude stated that portions of the structure still existed. The foundation of the existing garage is still present. BOARD QUESTIONS - Ms. McGovern asked Mr. Materia

He testified to the following: - Mr. Umude stated that portions of the structure still existed. The foundation of the existing garage is still present. BOARD QUESTIONS - Ms. McGovern asked Mr. Materia whether the original proposal intended to preserve the existing house or whether demolition had always been part of the plan. Mr. Materia replied that he will have to ask the applicant. - Chairman Bagoff asked Mr. Materia if there are 2 buildings on the property or 1 building. Mr. Materia said there is only one building.