Contested 480 Hillsboro Road subdivision continued after neighbors press notice, drainage and road‑extension concerns

The Hillsborough Township Planning Board heard more than three hours of testimony and public questions on July 4 over a proposed three‑lot subdivision at 480 Hillsboro Road (file 25‑PB‑9‑SV) and decided to carry the matter to Sept. 3, 2026 so neighbors, the applicant and staff can resolve outstanding technical and procedural questions.

What the application would do: Applicant witnesses described a minor subdivision of about 4.851 acres into three lots (one retaining the existing dwelling fronting Hillsboro Road and two new rear lots to be served from Leiden Drive). The two new lots would be roughly 1.68 and 1.74 acres; the remainder lot would be about 1.54 acres. The plan seeks several bulk variances including reduced lot frontage/lot width relative to a 150‑foot ordinance standard.

Notice and procedural objections: Neighbor counsel Chris Oieski, representing William Foyer of 48 Beverly Drive, argued the published notice was confusing because it listed "lot width 25 ft" whereas the board planner's memo described variances measured at the setback (≈104.72 ft). Oieski said the board's review memos were issued too recently for neighbors to obtain technical advice and requested an adjournment. Board counsel and the applicant countered that the notice brought objectors to the hearing and that timing to retain counsel is not a statutory requirement; the board allowed objectors to register and hear testimony rather than adjourn on that basis.

Engineering and stormwater concerns: The applicant's engineer, Mr. Ford (qualified as an engineering witness), described stormwater plans that rely on subsurface infiltration basins sized to meet the township's 15% impervious‑coverage limit and porous‑pavement driveways for water quality. Mr. Ford said the applicant had submitted a stormwater report but acknowledged comment letters from the Delaware & Raritan Canal Commission (DRCC) and the board engineer requiring additional groundwater and infiltration detail. He agreed to revise the stormwater design to address the DRCC and board engineer comments.

Neighbors pressed technical points: Marcy Green, speaking for her mother at 46 Beverly Drive, and other residents provided photos showing persistent ponding and past basement flooding. Objectors and counsel asked the applicant to demonstrate by point‑of‑analysis that runoff to the Foyer and Green properties would not increase, and to show groundwater‑mounding distances from proposed basins to nearby foundations. Mr. Ford agreed the DRCC review was incomplete and that the applicant would respond to the commission's items and the board engineer's comments; he also agreed to submit as‑built surveys and deed restrictions to secure long‑term maintenance responsibilities for the basins.

Road‑extension, safety and conservation easement: The board engineer recommended the applicant provide a 50‑foot right‑of‑way and a 30‑foot cartway extension of Leiden Drive with a temporary K‑turn and a fire hydrant to meet RSIS and fire‑safety concerns; that extension would eliminate the need for the reduced front‑width variances. The applicant presented a recorded conservation easement on the adjacent church property discovered the day of the hearing; applicant counsel argued that easement would prevent extending Leiden through the adjacent parcel. The board engineer described that the easement gives the township a consent right but does not necessarily preclude future decisions by the township committee. The board and professionals agreed to examine the recorded documents and the zoning board resolution for the neighboring property to clarify what is or is not possible.

Evidence handling and schedule: Objectors delivered photos to planning staff; the board instructed that any photographic evidence to be used in testimony should be circulated to all parties and that witnesses be sworn. To give all parties time to prepare and to allow consultants to respond, the board carried the application to Sept. 3, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. and extended the time for decision to Oct. 31, 2026; the board required supplemental expert reports to be submitted at least 14 days prior to the Sept. 3 hearing.

Why it matters: The application directly affects nearby homeowners' flooding and drainage conditions and raises questions about whether extending public infrastructure now would be more protective and reduce future variances. The DRCC comments and the discovered conservation easement add technical and legal questions that need resolution before the board can render a final land‑use determination.

What's next: The applicant will provide revised stormwater and groundwater analyses, any amended plans (if applicable), and exhibit/supporting documents (including the neighboring zoning board resolution and recorded easement) to the planning office and board professionals. Objectors may submit expert reports and testimony in advance per the board's deadline and may appear on Sept. 3 to cross‑examine witnesses and present evidence.

Representative quotes from the hearing:
"The notice is a little bit confusing — it indicates 25 feet in one place and the planner's memo talks about width at the setback," said Chris Oieski, neighbor counsel. "The applicant says the notice brought the objector here," replied board counsel Mr. Bernstein. "We'd ask the board for an adjournment so we can review the reports and retain experts," objector Marcy Green said; applicant engineer Mr. Ford acknowledged the DRCC had outstanding comments and said the applicant would address them.