good evening everybody we're going to get started where's uh Marty marty let's go after you guys talk about the site they want to finish cross exam traffic who's not here and then they have
a plan who's who you talking about objectives yeah so we're just going to get through the comments and their plan and questions for the planner from the audience where's my agenda
okay Francine you ready good evening everybody welcome to the zoning board meeting of April 16th i'm call meeting to order i hereby announce pursuant to section five of the open public meetings act that adequate notice
of this meeting has been transmitted on January 14th 2024 by the board administrative officer to the Asbury Park Press the Two River Times the Township Clerk and has been posted in the meeting room and in the entrance hall and town hall all pursuant to
section 13 of the Open Public Meetings Act roll call mr berkeley online just for the record Mr berkeley and Mr j Paulo are present via phone miss Campus
here miss Gerard here mr luchiani here mr marzokam here uh Mr orphanulus here mr jolo here thank you uh M Miss Castellum
here and Mr friola is absent thank you okay uh stand for the pledge of allegiance and remain standing to honor our military police and first responders i pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible liberty and justice for all before we get started with the hearing we're going to get the two minutes approved and out of the way so um which
is the one Oh one is from the site visit and one is from the last meeting when what minutes were these minutes for April 2nd that was a regular meeting that's correct okay so did everybody get a chance to review the minutes any comments or corrections can I have a
motion i I gave my comments to Arena okay arena did you give Jason's comments yes that was comments in regards to the site visit which was already incorporated okay can I have I um I would advise to do um them separately since different board members are
eligible to vote so who's eligible for the fourth the second i mean uh Mr berkeley Miss Campus Miss Girard Miss Mr debulus Mr marzola Mr luchiani and Miss Castello so I would need motion
and second please okay so uh we roll call that please i just need motion and second i move to approve the minutes of the April 2nd 2025 meeting second i'll second it jean roll call mr berkeley
yes miss Campus yes miss Miss Ghard yes mr oranita Pulos yes Mr marzoka yes Mr luchiani yes Miss Castello yes okay april 5th that was a site visit right
april 5th was a site visit for Andrew's management zoning board application 2023-10 okay uh did anybody give any corrections to you are you okay i just have one comment on that one if we can maybe just remove the the note that says it was recorded
that That's correct yes that will be removed thank you and Francine and myself weren't at the actual onsite but we visited at a different time which we'll talk about later so just go ahead down the road please um motion and second motion i'm sorry motion when are
you guys working i move to approve the minutes of the April 5th site visit second i second the motion thank you thank you uh Mr berkeley yes and Miss Girard yes mr marzullam yes
mr luchanim yes miss Castellum yes and Mr orphan Pulos will be But you said you visited you can abstain okay okay thank you so minutes for April
2nd and April 5th 2025th were successfully approved thank you okay um before we get started with tonight's uh um witnesses that you have we want to do a review of our onsite uh
a few board members were at the meeting you want to read the uh caption oh yeah i'm sorry zoning Board of Adjustment 2023-10 Andrews Management Group LLC
125-127 Red Hill Road Block 21 lot 4 and 4.01 01 R4A zone D1 use variance bifurcated application seeking a D1 use variance to construct two threestory
medical office buildings in the R4A residential zone okay thank you so uh as I started saying earlier uh before we start the testimony for today I would like to have hear from the board members that went to the on-site uh two members
I think right just Francine and myself were not there but we went at a separate time i was there the Friday before and I don't know when you went i was there Sunday April 6th okay so um let's uh go down the line ask each board member and
Mr chair just for the for the record we have the plan that up on the screen that was given to everybody when they did the site visit i don't know if that was ever marked but you may or may not be referring to it as part of your summary want to mark it so we left as A5 last
exhibit from the last meeting okay so this will be A6 and and I'll ask I'll have our engineer identify it um so that the record's clear is is this um is this is this is new what's the date on this this was so the the revision date on this plan is
112024 this is a marked up so it's it's marked up with from the site visit okay so that that's fine because I I was not at the site visit so but it sounds like I don't need this so okay just making sure yes and this this was simply a colorcoded legend to give a frame of reference of what you were seeing out in
the field in terms of red stake for example delineates the building corner and so on okay got it just just double checking thanks sorry okay anything else no that's it thank you okay so um Jean you want to start with any comments or observations that
you made at the site um you're going to have to get closer to your mic uh my uh only well I had a few observations one was that the uh uh that the building was closer to the parkway
than to the residential areas which was good seemed like there was uh a lot of room between the uh uh buildings and uh and where the residents were uh I was a little concerned that the driveways
though going out in the Red Hill Road were kind of not that far apart uh but other than that uh you know it was uh uh good to see the the overall uh layout
yeah overall I was satisfied with uh the modifications that have been made based upon our comments and uh I thought it was a thorough visit and it was worthwhile appreciate it um agree with Jean's statement about the
placement of the buildings being closer to the parkway um I wouldn't have liked to see the height of the building um I don't think that there was the balloon there um so a little concerned about how high these buildings are going to be um but no other comments other than that
okay so uh we'll go to Jason next over the phone and then John when Jason's done yeah my some of my comments uh can you hear me okay yes can you guys hear out there okay go ahead yeah I can hear you yep so I I appreciated the u you know
hearing us about moving the septic tanks i think those are probably in the best location possible for this property um I I do also was concerned though about not seeing how tall these buildings would be to the neighbors surrounding property um
but I also did uh get a good perspective on the I I guess they're called BMS the BMS that kind of like are are kind of round mounds that will come up about four feet I believe with with tree shrubbery around that so I also thought
that was good um and uh those are my three comments you know again the septic tanks are good the the BMS uh appreciated that the the applicant listening to us but um I still do have some concerns about the height of the two buildings i I don't know how that
will be viewed by the existing neighbors that's all I have john yes uh in general I share my comments i concur with the comments already expressed regarding my concern about the height of building um particular also in
regards to how that may impact houses that are located behind it okay is that it John yes is that it yes okay yes um I guess uh I'll let you go in next and
then I'll be last okay um when I went there I my what I'm leaving with with my concerns which I think some of my other fellow uh board members feel is the height of these buildings i am concerned about that and I am concerned about the traffic and the driveways and I could
tell you I was there on a Sunday my daughter was driving not me we had a hard time getting out of that driveway with the traffic coming off the highway coming over the ramp and the sight of those driveways plus there was nobody coming out of MSK at that time i can't
imagine what that'd be like if somebody's across the way trying to get on that highway while we're trying to get out of those driveways so I am really concerned about the traffic situation there lori okay um to address the issue about the height Even though there were not
supposed to be any questions I know this issue came up because I happen to hear it um my understanding is the balloon that was set up for the height blew away when we got there on Saturday in fairness it was starting to rain and it was freezing cold that morning i don't
know why it was April but my understanding is the balloon blew away there was supposed to be something there for height it was there and it was not there when I got there Saturday but there was an effort i concerned about the height the reality is it's hard to
picture when you see the houses but you can't see any buildings there so I do think we're going to need to address the height issue at some point again and perhaps in a better weather day or something like that everything else I would agree with everybody i think the
accommodations that were made based simply on our suggestions I appreciated i not noted that the septic tanks were moved from the original plan and the building seemed to be closer to the Parkway okay um I went to the site visit on
Friday which was nice weather but it still was muddy out there in that field my boots will testify to that uh I did do a thorough walk around um I have a couple of concerns and I guess we'll talk about it i know everybody likes the septic there and it is better there than
where it was but I'm concerned that it's close to the parkway and all the vegetation where this I looked at the yellow marks and I actually walked over there you have to clear cut every tree out of there in order to put the septic in so I'm concerned that it's going to be open the back of the building is
going to be open to the park parkway ramp i don't know how well that is going to be but uh that that uh I don't know if you guys really paid attention to that but that bothered me so I don't know about if there's another place to put the septic that's not near the neighbors property but that's one of my
concerns the other concern I have is same thing that you guys already talked about was the height of the buildings and how that would be viewed from Red Hill Road the Parkway and also from the neighbors i also do have a comment also same comment Francine had about the
driveway i was there on a Friday and I had a difficulty time not only getting in and I was coming over the parkway trying to make a right the people right on my back of my tail and it kind of made me and then you know trying to make that turn there now I know it's only a little driveway and I'm sure if this
gets built they'll be a little bit easier to get in there but that was definitely a challenge and also getting out of there was a challenge as you said i can't even imagine I made a right because that's the way to go to my house if I had to make a left that would have been really difficult so I know we heard
everybody testify about the brakes and all that but it still was a little nerve-wracking because once you make you commit yourself to go there the cars are coming pretty quickly and you almost have to say whoa you know and stop in the middle before you went all the way
over because somebody would hit you because they're coming over the parkway pretty fast and you don't see them this line of sight wasn't too good to what I saw uh I walked also along the neighbor's property and I saw there was some vegetation there but if if we go
ahead with this application I'm sure we're going to need a lot more vegetation there because the neighbors would have an awful view of that building from their property seeing those buildings especially if they're going to be up high like they're proposed to be so
there's almost no way that you really could screen it immediately it's going to take years to screen those buildings so I'm kind of concerned about the the view of from Red Hill Road of these buildings changing the the scenic route along that roadway that's been there for
many years uh and I don't know how many trees are going to be cut down that are in the front there are huge amount of trees especially closer to the parkway uh those trees are definitely necessary there and you also need to have additional ones to supplement this the
streetscape and then also the same thing goes on the burm side i walked that whole line from the front to the back and saw the burm where it was going to go and it looks like in a good spot um I wasn't sure how high it was going to be so that's something that we have to talk about because I'm concerned with the
parking lot light the lights from the car's parking going into the neighbor's property because they did have two buildings that were pretty close to the property line and I you know I walked right up to see how close they were because it's not shown on this on the map here and they were significantly
close i think maybe 30 feet away at the most so I could see that that burm would be a very important thing to help screen the applicant of their view of the building if it's even possible to do that so those were my observations from
the uh site visit go ahead Francine just when I was there I observed all the vegetation that was there trees and roots and a lot have been cut down but once again which I think I mentioned I am concerned about storm water runoff that well when
there's not trees there and instead of impervious coverage what's going to happen to that water that used to be absorbed into that land where is it going to go that's a good point okay so uh that's the board's comments on the
site visit so with that being said um do we need to open up and get comments from anybody else we should but let's go to S first okay yeah i I don't know um how you want to handle answering some of the concerns i don't I we could do that as part of our rebuttal testimony after the
objectors present their case can South speak more directly into the microphone sorry but we um just in I know you raised a lot of questions that like the height of the BM etc we could either present those answers tonight if Mike's prepared to do that or we could present it as in response to the objector's
testimony because we're going to have to bring these witnesses back at some point for that for rebuttal anyway so okay we want to wait what do you think if if the board members think some of these things could be clarified now it may make sense that's what I would say but we may um we should hear the rest mr son are you
going to do you have any comments to make from the site visit on behalf of your clients or I know you weren't there but do you want to Yeah present any observations that your clients had because he still has to finish questioning has nothing to do with the
site visit only just a second come up come back come up to a microphone you have to get this one up here what happened disconnected oh you got time we dropped somebody we gota wait yeah i'm still here i can I'm still here so who do we lose john john
okay hold off one second let him get hooked back up again so we have to open it up to the public that might have been on there well this is only his class oh but we don't know if anybody else was there it's just observations they can do it across
i just want to give him the No no we'll give him the But I also have to open it up they can do it when they have public questions comments at the end his should he should answer your concerns
right out of the way yeah but what I'm concern if the public observes something all right we got disconnected so just stay online okay thank you how many people in the public went to the onsite that are not represented by
an attorney that want that want to say something at some point okay so what will happen is once we finish with this portion and the engineer starts this his testimony answering our questions we'll give you the opportunity to get up and make your comment or question question
about whatever you saw there that you need to ask for the even though he wasn't there right this is just for clarification issues right I don't know if he's able to answer questions if he wasn't there cannot accept any messages at this time we can proceed without him all right
let's let's Uh Jason you still there let's proceed because he could be watching it on Facebook anyway okay all right sir what's his name again mr simon mr simon go ahead
this is questions from the onsite to observations observations i'm sorry right so the reason why it came up is um typically Hi Jason we're going to just keep you draw yeah he he just texted me and said that he got disconnected okay so I'm not
sure tell him to listen listen don't talk okay thank you go ahead typically when it's time for you know either the object the objector's case or public comment um at that time I would have my clients to the extent that they
want to speak and make comment on the application would provide their observations regarding obviously the site and the neighborhood and also what they may have observed during the site visit so that it's not sort of truncated but you can reserve it for them if you
want but if there's anything that can be clarified now like there was seven yes i would like to have anything that needs to be clarified now for the for us on the board to know not at the end reserve those for later the number you have dialed okay i can while you're doing that if someone didn't understand what
the what the red flag was or the yellow flag or where the gonna have to drive was not far apart he was concerned with that respond to that okay thank you thanks we can't get John back on so John if you
can hear us we can't get you back on for whatever reason unless uh Jason you want to call him on your phone and put him on there yeah I can try that sure give me a chance okay go ahead yeah so um Mr chairman I I checked with my my clients and we would prefer to we have no
particular you know clarification questions I guess regarding the site visit and the comments will wait till the end okay do we want to let him continue his question um he has he's going to finish traffic
but traffic's not here so we're going to hold his no traffic until the traffic oh but we don't have any John you're you're connected through my phone it was easier for me to call you so I think John and I are both on back online now those are the
two listen so the folks in the audience that raised their hand do you need any clarification on the on-site not any comments or observations it's more like questions about what you saw there that
he can clarify if he can i don't know who he wasn't there so but all the comments or questions you've raised he can respond to because he designed the site so Okay all right okay okay sir come on up with your name and address and uh ask for your clarification of
whatever you observed this is interesting mhm and you'll have time to do comments later at the end this is right these are just question clarifications of what you saw right clarification okay so I was there what's your name start with your
name and your address go ahead we hear you just keep your mouth closed my name is William Arnhammer i live at 111 Red Hill Road which is two you know one adjacent i'm sorry could you spell last name please
arnhammer a U R N H A M M E R thank you okay uh so yeah thank you for doing this um so I notice on the plan it mentions that there's uh
26% imperous area um can you keep speaking into the the microphone yeah sorry so 26 it says on the plan the maximum coverage is 26%
impervious area uh zoning is for 25% but uh but what does this have to do with the on-site just just what you observed on site i was this was given to me while I was on site i'm trying to assess what the impervious area is there's an
inconsistency between that and what is in the latest uh letter on your um let's see the name of the company is Phillips Price uh there's they claim that there's 37%
uh impervious So I'm trying to find out first off why are there inconsistencies in a site in a plan that's being presented um and then what is the actual impervious area we can address that later but do you have a
specific question like concerned where the park was actually located is there Did you hear the comments that we kind of made did you have anything like that to to bring up well I I agree with some of the assessments and but you're asking a question okay I get it the impervious
coverage i was there at the site i'm trying to assess how much of this is going to be it was and it was addressed already but I think our planner could probably give a summary at some point when the fact that they're different she'll she'll answer that i'll let Kate answer it if you just give me a moment
um can you can you state the date on the plan that you're looking at uh well this is the plan that was handed to me while I was on site um it says 080423 and when it's on 112024 is the
last okay just hold on one moment so I that's that's me i'm Phillips Price i'm Kate Keller i'm the board's planner so let me let me just double check and the letter is 12 July 12th 2024 there's a more recent letter that is that is the wrong letter
this is what's up on the website and I'm trying to assess what's going on here on the this is on theell's website so how are we supposed to understand the facts when they're inconsistent well it's not inconsistent i um Yes the most recent
letter that I had is dated 2125 and do you state the impervious area there yes I I work for the board i'm not working for the applicant just so you know um Okay yes uh yes we we review the plans were changed over time and we
update our letter to reflect changes to the plans okay so I will have to look again but I did not find you have to go on the website everything is up to date everything is on the website i'm actually checking now okay she's our board secretary if something's not on there it's her job to put it on there so
she'll Yes and you know you wouldn't know that but if it's if something's not on the website you can request it directly from She'll get it up there okay thank you you're welcome all right now where am I there was one more i think there was one
more right no no she she didn't she's not saying anything so let's Okay so so um Go ahead i had a couple Well first of all introduce yourself so the record's clear sure good evening my name is Michael Wesalowski and you were the
engineer that testified previously and you're you understand you remain under oath that's correct and and for the record our board professionals were sworn previously still under oath so there were a couple questions first um well you I I outlined a few of them so
why don't you run through responses sure so I'll start with the landscaping BM on the bottom of your plan or the southwest of the property uh we're anticipating that to be a six-foot height which would block
the view of if you assume a typical car headlight to your point uh is an average of three to four foot above grade um that would directly hit the burm we'd also envision that that burm excuse me would be planted with largely evergreen vegetation particularly along the
highest points to provide additional screening in terms of its maximum height regarding the location of the driveway we intentionally located that about as far from the parkway as possible to maximize the the time and spacing
between those driveways i don't want to dive into that too deep without our traffic engineer present to further discuss the issue the location of the septic fields when we you know we heard your request and we looked at the plan to see what
would be the most appropriate location and we felt that where they are now between the buildings and the parkway is the most appropriate uh they're obviously on this plan you'll see there's some open space there's issues and constraints with all of those spaces
namely being I'll start with the right or north excuse me southeast to the right of building B if the septic field were to be located in that area there would be conflicting separation requirements to both the intended bio
retention basin in the front as well as the incoming water lines that was our overarching concern uh so we had placed the septic field for building B directly northeast of it between it and the parkway along those lines we follow the
same pattern for septic field A again bearing in mind that before you move off septic um there was a concern the chairman I think expressed about clear cutting that area that's correct we can look back at that area and see if there's any small shifts
we can make to keep some of the larger trees um at the expense of the smaller ones but keeping the largest ones possible um obviously to install a septic field clear cutting is required for the square footage area of those fields
wait so building a what what you why couldn't you put it towards the rear of the property where it was all open fields i didn't hear that i didn't understand what you getting so you read my mind there's a couple reasons why it becomes prohibitive to move them in that direction first we're planning for an
additional landbanked I believe it's 29 parking spaces and we can't have a septic field under potential parking space areas and as you move further northwest the topography of the site increases and it becomes more and
more prohibitive to have those fields be upstream of the buildings and further away okay and the other question was what type of clearing and what type of planting is proposed along Red Hill
Road so that is somewhat to be determined based on a couple things first once we make an application to Mammoth County they'll ultimately determine what uh right ofway and traffic improvements may be required uh we know that there's an anticipated 10-
foot wide rightway dedication a lot of the area where those trees currently lie is going to become county property if they decide to widen the road that's happening regardless of anything else happening um that being said once we
develop a full plan inclusive of a landscape plan we'd absolutely provide buffering along that frontage those are the only questions I had notes on that the engineer we can't comment on
the height or any of those items yet but that's all the questions I had if if he miss if I miss something go ahead i don't know if you can answer this because I know you're not the traffic person so if you can't it's okay you were saying something about the county widening the road how do we know if
that's going to happen that would be determined after we make and if we make an application to Mammoth County they haven't done it at this point not for this application and also even if we did um they're going to require a dedication of land but they may they may they have
the right to widen it anytime they want they may not widen it for 20 years but um all we all we know they're going to want is they're going to want a dedication because they always want a dedication along their frontage is there going to be any sidewalks up there again that's um Well if the board wants it we
can agree to do it and we'd have to get No no I'm not asking i'm just uh I'm not saying to put them i'm just asking it's the county's call again okay so we'll find out if that if this goes further okay any other questions i have a just a question I might not have heard i know
you said six foot trees on that burm on the burm and then how high is the burm like how high would those trees be with the burm the six foot height was specific to the height of the burm itself from the bottom of the burm to the top of the burm okay so it's not six
foot trees on a burm that's higher so we're talking just a six foot height for privacy right with trees on top of that planted at the sixoot height of the burm yeah but justight what's the height of the trees you would put that would be determined per landscape plan typically
we specify minimums anywhere from five to seven feet oh okay so the burm is six foot and then trees are planted on top of that five feet yeah Francine that's something that if they were to get approved here that would be discussed when they submit a full landscaping plan at site plan um because they've they've
committed to the BMS and like the engineer just said you know typically for evergreens um you're going to see five five six seven eight feet heighted planting okay any other questions vinnie Jean um there was you mentioned when you were
talking about moving the septic for building A um you mentioned something about parking spaces what can you just repeat that sure so at one of our prior hearings we had discussed possibly adding what they call landbanked parking spaces which is essentially reserving
land to add in parking spaces if at some point they're deemed necessary we don't want to place any other structure in or under that space so that it's reserved for the parking spaces okay can you point on the use the cursor to point where those would be sure generally they
would be to the left of building A and extending this drive aisle outward okay thank you you're welcome any other comments next witness all right next witness so yeah I just want if I could take Oh hold on a second what
did you Can I ask some questions yes yeah come on up some questions i I got it um just can you just identify on the on the plan that's on the screen where this uh burm is going to be located that you testified to that's going to be six feet
in height heading for it to essentially wrap the I'll say bottom and left property lines so it's going to be along the entirety of the of the bottom and the south and the west property lines yeah so it says southwest and northwest
um and you haven't submitted any type of landscape plan or burm plan to the board that's correct um okay nothing further that's it that was quick thank you okay so Mr chair um I just before we bring up
our planner I just wanted to summarize how we got to tonight just so um Yeah it's a little confusing yeah so we had our first hearing September 4th at which time the applicant and the engineer testified no cross-examination then
September the engineer again testified no cross-examination then in December our engineer could not be here so our traffic engineer testified and was cross-examined um um in February we completed the traffic
the the engineering testimony and the traffic testimony at that point and they were both um cross-examined after that meeting um at the request of your traffic engineer our traffic engineer um submitted and we submitted a date of
March 12th a um a copy of the the the study that he did about other medical buildings in Homeell which we submitted to the board and to council and to the um your traffic engineer um our traffic engineer
is in Jackson tonight on another application I'm involved in so he could not be here to at least answer questions because his testimony has been finished completed so if he comes back and I'm assuming Mr simon's going to want him back his testimony is going to be limited to this supplemental submission
that was made to the board and then he could be subject to cross-examination on that and then we had the site visit which we all know about um and we're here now tonight to present our planning testimony um just by way of to comment about the height uh we had a discussion
with the applicant today myself and the planner and the we're going to withdraw the request for a height variance so we will not seek a height variance the planner will discuss that in her testimony so you understand what that means um but the we will not we were around 45 feet or so we were proposing
that variance will not be requested here I go again not technically a variance but there but So so we'll let Christine put her testimony on the record we're just going to want to hear what the height is proposed to be correct so again for the board just you
know the height was something you were going to look at in the whole context of the proposal um but you know we'll we'll hear from their applicants planner what the ex what the permitted is in the zone etc because again because this use is not permitted in the zone there are not
bulk standards associated with it okay okay so we're going to now call Christine Capone our planner and do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth and nothing but the truth to help you out yes okay just state your name and spell it for the record please my name is
Christine Nazaro n A Z A R O Kafone C O F O N E i'm testifying as a licensed professional planner my business address is 52 Reckless Place Red Bank New Jersey 07701 i am the principal and owner of
the Capone Consulting Group i have been providing testimony in the state and a practicing land use planner for 29 years now i've been qualified here in Homeell on many occasions as well as in excess of 450 or so other planning and zoning boards throughout the state of New
Jersey my licenses are current and valid i teach planning and zoning courses for the Ruckers Center for Government Services in addition to that I am a courtappointed special adjudicator for affordable housing matters in a couple dozen communities and my firm while the
balance the the bulk of my practice is appearing before planning and zoning boards on behalf of applicants my firm does represent the Casino Redevelopment Authority down in Atlantic City where we function as the reviewing planners there just for clarification you said you represented you came and spoke in front
of boards but not zoning board planning board I presume oh I think I've been before the zoning board here too yes definitely definitely you remember okay self storage facility okay you're qualified we accept your qualified the self storage facility I think on the highway oh yes okay yeah we've had a few
years i believe Mr simon wants to challenge him do you do you want to challenge him he's very familiar with this i would love to challenge him that would be interesting as he uses me as an expert witness before you start your testimony Kate how do you want to do you want to start with your letter that you
wrote in response to what you saw or do you want her to do the testimony and do the letter later i think we can just let um Miss Capone just go through the test her testimony um you know we she you know we'll we'll go through the variances that are required um I think
it' also be helpful because there are some changes as they just mentioned um regarding you know what the proposal is um and then you know we can you know the board can ask questions i I will ask questions if needed and then um I can also provide some clarification to the
board again afterwards um you know I know sometimes you do that after the planning testimony you sometimes do it before you deliberate i think given the length of these proceedings and the fact that we're not going to get finished tonight um you know I I would be I would be happy to you know speak to the board okay thank you anyway go for it
Christine okay go ahead we're ready to go go ahead okay so I guess I'll start with the building height to get that out of the way because I'm not going to be testifying as to the D6 because as Mr alfier indicated we're going to withdraw that request so it's our intention to
comply with the building height requirements of the R4A zone where the subject property is located the way you define building height here in Homeell means sh building height shall mean the vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of the highest roof
surface there is however in your ordinance a section that we believe that we can take advantage of and intend to take advantage of that section is section 30-126 exceptions and the way that reads is
exceptions to the zoning provisions are as follows height non-residential I'm sorry i'm sorry to do this but can you speak more closely into the microphone i I can't hear you too well okay do you want me to go back and reread that definition of height for you yeah that would be great i'm sorry i just couldn't
hear you you got to have that mic within two or three inches of your mouth better to know now before we get through too much of this testimony yeah much better no I think I'll be just now that I know that that's an issue i'll just So just if you're if you're having issues and I get too far away let me know so the def
and again as I said we're going to be withdrawing our request for the Dvariance and any variance for height at this point as it is our intention to comply with the height requirements in the R4A zone which is 35 ft the way building height is defined here in
Homeell reads as follows shall mean the vertical distance from the grade plane to the average height of the highest roof service roof surface there is a section of your ordinance section 30-126 exceptions which we intend to
take advantage of we believe that that is applicable to the application and it reads as follows exceptions to the zoning provisions are as follows height non-residentidential roof peaks having no functional use such as storage office
or retail use but which are solely for aesthetic and architectural purposes in addition to roof structures such as elevators tanks ventilating fans air conditioning equipment solar panels fire or parapet walls skylights cupas steeples as well as flag poles chimneys
smoke stacks silos radio and television towers or similar structures may be erected no more than 25% above the height limits of this chapter or 15 ft above the height of the building to which it is attached whichever is shorter except that spires steeples
water tower towers and commercial radio and television towers shall have no height restrictions other than to be set back from any property line 1.2 times their height so when I read that I say okay the underlying zoning has a height of 35 ft the ordinance restricts you to
go 25% of that for architectural features which have no function so if we had an attic up there and we were trying to screen an attic portion of the building and we were going to use that for storage my interpretation would be we would need to include that in our height so if the height is 35 ft in the
zone and say we were going to do a mansard roof or a parapit roof or something above that 35 ft that was solely and only for architectural features that had no habitable space no storage no utility associated with it we
could go above the 25 above the height of the zone by 25% for architectural features only so and the reason you do that is because you want to encourage buildings to not have a flat roof to have nicer curb appeal so can I ask Kate
if she concurs with you um yes I do and I Okay I again I'm going to sound like an absolute broken record here and Christine you haven't been here for a few of these but so this is something that has come up in this application it's come up in prior applications for
use variances in the R4A and R40B zone in particular the way this ordinance is written if you look at it there if if you are coming in here for a use that is not permitted or contemplated the the the bulk standards do not
technically apply so you know when I we we spoke about this I spoke to Sal about this prior to to the applica applicant coming in here i let him know that there's not a D6 variance and like I said this has come up in prior applications and I you
know it's I'm I'm doing this pretty much to advise my client as the board because I think this is correct this to be honest this was brought to our attention by an um an applicant several years ago um and he was right he was right this is there's a loophole in this ordinance so
while the D6 varants is not technically required and the no the the bulk standards for R4A do not technically apply here certain other standards apply but not those buff buffers etc i have advised this board that when they're
considering the application that the height was a factor to consider as part of the use variance so um you know and I don't want to interrupt the testimony too much but I I think that this is I appreciate this because I think what I agree with what Christine is saying and I this is an interesting exception in
the Homeell ordinance that does not come up that often honestly but it is the the point is exactly what what um she just said the point is that you want to encourage commercial buildings to have a more residential appearance rather than
a flat roof so here it's a little unique we're not it's not taking a variance away but I would offer this as part of something for the board to consider when considering the whole use variance that the we would this would qualify for this
exception if it were in a non-residential zone or something where it was permitted so um you know just looking at looking at that taking that into account but it does not change the overall D1 variance that is still being requested um and so just and I'll let
I'll let you finish but so so the idea here is that you're not not making any physical changes to the building but but that the but that per this exception that if this were a more I'm going to say it a more normal zoning scheme um
that the um the variance would no longer apply so I I hate to keep bringing this in but I think it's important to get this on the record because of the fact that this is a unique zone and that I want everybody
to know what they're voting on thank you okay okay so so with that out of the way then I will move to the the planning testimony on what we're here for which is the use variance as the board knows the subject property is located in the R4A zone the R4A zone is a primarily
residential zone however it does have another a number of other uses such as houses of worship that would be conditionally permitted on this site so there are other uses besides just single family homes you could have municipal uses but it does not allow medical office uses so what that means is we're
here for a D1 use variance and we have a certain burden of proof that we have to demonstrate we have to demonstrate to you that the site is particularly suitable for the proposed use um years ago at the Institute of Continuing Legal Education I was on a panel for the
elusive concept of particular suitability that is a term that is not defined in the land use law nor is it deter defined in your ordinance here in Homedale so when we're talking about particular suitability you don't have to find that the site is uniquely suitable for the
use and there's case law to that effect you don't have to rule out that you looked at other sites for it what you f have to find is that there's something about your site that renders it particularly suitable for the proposed use whether it's the shape and size of the property the topography of the
property so in this particular instance I think the board can take notice of the fact that this is a single family zone that has several hundred feet of frontage on the Garden State Parkway exit ramp immediately adjacent to a toll booth so that in my opinion is one of
the factors that can certainly render the site particularly suitable for the proposed medical office buildings and additionally it's a five acre site in a zone that requires uh you know much smaller minimum lot areas and um while certainly not unique to the subject
property it is located directly across from the Memorial Sloan County Cancer Treatment Center so when you look at the site in the context of the surrounding areas and you look at the fact that we have significant frontage on the Garden State Parkway I don't think it's a
difficult conclusion to come to that a site with frontage on the Garden State Parkway is suitable for uses other than residential and specifically medical office uses so therefore it's my opinion the applicant meets its burden of proof with respect to the um particular
suitability in addition to the particular suitability we have an obligation to demonstrate that special reasons exist or the per the purposes of the land use law are advanced and they are not unique to Homedale Township they come right out of the municipal land use law at section
405D-2 and they're identified by letter statutoily to meet our burden of proof we only have to satisfy one i think that three are satisfied by this application at least three potentially more but certainly at least three i think criteria A which talks about promoting
the general welfare is advanced these are medical office uses medical office buildings um and I the applicant has several hundred,000 square feet of medical office in his port or portfolio of uses and has extremely low vacancy
rates so we believe that this will I believe that this will promote the general welfare and that certainly the medical uses um are are appropriate and in appropriate in this location criteria G talks about providing sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of
uses i think that there this is a 5 acre property there is certainly sufficient space to develop this property here we are literally hundreds at our closest point I believe to the to the west our closest residential neighbor would be
about 480 ft and to the south our closest residential neighbors are about 6 and 700 feet respectively so we have a situation where we have the ability to provide what I consider really substantial buffering and when I get a
little further in my testimony I'll talk about some of the specific buffering requirements in your ordinance because Homeell actually has a section of your ordinance that deals with um buffering of uh commercial and residential applications so it's certainly something
that Homedale Township addresses and plans for when you have commercial uses adjacent to residential uses and we do meet those buffers so I think that criteria G sufficient space in appropriate locations and criteria M which talks about an efficient use of
the land i do think that this is an efficient use of the land i struggle as a planner to come to a conclusion that using um property that fronts the Garden State Parkway is best suited for residential use and I think that this is a certainly a more efficient use of the
land i'm very familiar with the subject property i've visited it on literally dozens of occasions i am familiar i've been to the Memorial Sloan Cat facility across the street and I lived in Middletown for decades so I'm extremely familiar with the area and I think that
um that this is certainly an appropriate location for these proposed med office buildings um I also think the board can consider criteria I creating a desirable visual environment i know that you are not you don't have the site plan before you and we have not profered an
architectural plan but I'm not did we submit that architectural plan so we submitted a concept and I think it's it's an attractive building we are you know trying to make it look somewhat residential in character and we are proposing you know a nice mansard roof so I do think it's an attractive
building i do under appreciate the chairman's comment that um it will be visible i think it will be visible from the Garden State Parkway so I think if the board were inclined to look favorably on this application making sure that all sides of the building are treated architecturally the same will be
important right because we would want people coming off the Garden State Parkway to enjoy the same curb appeal and architectural views that people would see coming from Red Hill Road or other parts of the property and I think that that's certainly um certainly something that the applicant can do so I
think the board could also consider criteria I those are four so you don't if if you agree with one two for statutoily you just need to agree with one of them and that substantiates our burden of proof for the grant of the variance but I am citing four criteria
ag and I of the land use law so for that reason it's my my conclusion that we meet not only particular suitability but also what's called the positive criteria or the special reasons for the grant of the variance so regardless of the variance relief
being inherently beneficial not inherently beneficial we have a burden of proof to also demonstrate the negative criteria is satisfied and the negative criteria has two prongs to it one prong being the impact on the public good which is essentially the area that surrounds the property the second being
the impact on the zone plan so when you look at the zone plan here one of the things that I found was interesting right we look as What we do is we look at your zoning ordinance we look at how you're addressing this in other other other districts so in your uh 030 office
district the stated purpose of that that district to me was at least the planning concept behind it was applicable to what's going on here because when I read section 30-1531 of the purpose of the 030 office
district which albeit is not this district but I think the planning concept behind it is something we can take notice of here because the purpose of that district reads the purpose of this district is to recognize the changing character and impact of traffic improvements at the southeast corner of
Route 35 and Laurel Avenue in addition to continuing to permit the existing residential uses this district permits low inensity office uses in response to the reduced desiraability of residential uses at this heavily used intersection
the 03 district further provides for banks and financial institutions in appropriate locations with adequate means of access so when I read that I read that and I interpret that as Homeell Township looks at that intersection and again the intersection
they're talking about here is Route 35 and and Laurel Avenue as a busy intersection and it uses the words of reduced desiraability of residential uses at this heavily used intersection so again while not the same zone the
planning concepts are the same right when when we were planning for our communities we have certain fundamental concepts that we embrace and we employ and I think the board can take notice of that because I think if you look at this site you could make a parallel argument
that there might be um reduced desiraability for residential use at this given direct proximity to the Garden State Parkway for single family homes so and that doesn't mean that the site is is not appropriate for a multif family type or a different type of
housing product and again that's that's the benefit of the particular suitability arguments right we don't have to rule out every other use we don't have to be what's called uniquely suitable for just this med office use it just has to be something particularly
suitable about the property so going back to the impact on the zone plan there's another concept in planning that planners like to talk about is fracture versus framing the zone plan and I'm going to talk about this a little bit more when I talk about the
Medici proofs but the subject property is located in the R4A zone this is what I would consider a fringe of the R4A zone i actually print we might well I shouldn't say I our site engineer printed a copy of the Homeell Township
zoning map and we also have it electronically which he will be kind enough to bring up for you because that is well beyond my capabilities to do that so Kate I have a question Kate some of her testimony that she's making do you have I hate to ask you this but I'd like you to you know jump in there when
she's talking about things and either disagree or agree with her so we don't forget about these things so she's throwing out a lot of data to us okay i mean I I I'm taking notes um I mean I I I think Mr chairman I'm happy to offer
some comments um you know I I'd be more I think I think she should at least get through the negative criteria i know i know it's it's just that I don't want to because there's a lot of questions that I have that I would want to interrupt her but I'm leaving it up to you if you're writing notes down you can I'm taking notes on what on on
especially the the the ordinance the ordinance reference or ordinance she's citing the purp she's reading off yes yes so so yes I'll be prepared to answer that i'm trying to give you the sections so that because I figured you're writing them down so that you can go back and pull them if we don't finish tonight
then you have the sections that I'm pulling from so if I'm going to read from your ordinance I will cite the section so that you can All good all good thanks and and just so the record's clear Mike can you just into the microphone identify what that exhibit is this would be a correct that's correct
sure so this is an almost exact version of the township's zone map with the small exception that in red we've identified the site so can you make it bigger so chairman there we can make it bigger and there's also an exact printed hard copy so the
public can be looking at in front of the deis there is a a very large print of that that might be easier at least for the public I need I need a binoculars to see that oh wait just blow it up that's all I
know but I mean at That size is too small for any board member right you know I know but I they're going to blow up the area that we're talking about here all right we can leave it there that that this gets the point across okay so
what you can see and when when Mr weski says it's an almost exact replica of the zone map for Homedale Township we did not manipulate any of the zones all we did was point to our subject property this subject property on this zone which
as you can see is referenced here in site and then it points to this very uh small property here immediately adjacent to the Garden State Parkway so does everybody understand where that is board members right so here's the parkway and
here's the it says site and then here it says site right here which is these two lots right the subject property so one looks like a flag lot with a skinny piece and then you have this so it's these two properties right here immediately adjacent to the Garden State Parkway and this is important for
several reasons it's important it's important because the R4A zone is shown in this now when you look up here right R4A residents and agriculture is this
green color of the um the green color so anything on this zoning map would be the R4A zone in that green so it doesn't take uh anybody too long I would think to come to the conclusion that there is
a substantial portion of Homedale Township that is zoned for R4A so if this application were smack down in the middle of one of these other R4A zones to me that would be a very different application because it the concept of
framing versus fracturing a zoning plan here you have a site that is on the Middletown Township border right referring back into where our site is directly across this site is that's where Memorial Sloan Katering is actually in Middletown Township here we've got the Garden State Parkway here
we've got the um the single family homes coming off of Robin and then then you have the farm so your Sorry sorry can I just I know I said I wouldn't do this but I think just one thing that's not clear on this on the screens and on the
um the print out and this is no one's fault except the this map is that the you cannot tell the difference between R4A and R40B um I can I can tell it when I'm looking on my computer screen um but be like for example the property next to it
is R4B right but and so I think that I just want to point that out to the board because this is you know especially when you're on the edge of the of the municipality um but like it's like one is the R40B is like a slightly brighter green can you make it a little bit bigger you can but here's why I'm going
to tell you why I don't think that that matters so much i just want to be I just wanted to be clear because I was a little confused just made the point Potters is what r4b okay it is but your ordinance at section 30-127 is residents R40A and R40B
residents and agricultural districts so the zoning standards are the same for the R4A and R40B essentially it's it's two and a half acres versus one acre yes but essentially they're in the same section of the ordinance they're not radically different standards yeah yeah i just wanted to be clear that it's not
all R4 it's it's it's a it's an issue with the map it's an issue with the map but and the R40B I think is a little bit darker hard to see you can actually see it better you can't see it there it's easier to see it on the printed copy and the R40B is a little bit darker but I
can assure you that the lion share of the zoning in the the northern part here is essentially all R40A so what's what is the zoning right behind the property r40a all that's a So where where are the B's the R40B is the two farms on either
side of the Garden State Parkway our R40B you can see it's just a little bit darker the R40B is a little bit darker than the R4A so the R40B is um I would say most of the platted single family
developments that show the lots are R4A so all of this referring to the area north of the Parkway up here is R4A all of this behind the subject property and then going further here in a westerly
direction is R4A this large piece right here is R40B and then you have more R4A behind it um when you go over more into the western this is this right here all these subdivisions here all R4A so there
are substantial portions of R4A zoning in the township um so and we're talking about the impact on the zone plan so I would submit to the board that in a lot of those R4A districts this application would probably not be appropriate i would say it would probably wouldn't be
suitable for a lot of the R4A zone but this particular R4A zone in my opinion is not going to be fractured in any way shape or form if the application were approved by the planning board i think that this is not fracturing the R4A zone
plan here in Homeell Township um so I think that that's that's important for the board to consider as far as the impact on the zone plan because that is one of the burdens of proof that you have to find in the negative criteria is that there will be no substantial detriment to the zone
plan and when you're evaluating the negative criteria the land use law does not ask you to hold the applicant to a standard that there be no detriment the standards and that you do is a balancing test that the benefits of the applications would outweigh any detriment and you look at the totality
of the application and you weigh the merits of it and the balance and then you can come to the conclusion but the standard is such not is not such that we have to demonstrate to the board that there's no no detriments at all what about to the neighbors you didn't mention them at all
well the when you talk about the public good that's the impact on the neighborhood the impact on the zone plan so I'm talking about the surrounding zones to that property and there's you know numerous properties there right behind it and to the left of it or I
don't know what direction that is there are so so what's the impact to them so the impact to them is that to the I just want to get my bearing to the north right which is essentially behind us our
building is 440 434 feet to that closest residents it's um if you go to the northwest 502 feet going in a southerntherly direction we're 682 and
756 feet to our um our closest residents and are you talking about to the property line or to the No those are to the structures to the property line where those those dimensions are to the actual residential structures i'm just I'm just looking at the at the site plan
and I see 100 And looks like 87 on my glasses i can't see 187 and you're saying from there it's another the FO's building is how further over four 434 ft seems doesn't
seem correct well I mean I saw the bar the buildings i don't know what they were but there were two buildings they couldn't have been more than 20 30 feet away from the property those are barn structures though i don't know that anybody's living in those structures you don't you know for a fact they are barns they look to be barns to me i visited the subject property they do not appear
to be um habited by the the structures that you're talking about are right when you come in off of um when you come in off of Red Hill they would be to the immediate west of the property yes and they would be much closer but I'm not
sure that those are residentially occupied and then to the rear you said it's over 500 ft 502 from the north corner of the one building and 434 from the northern corner of the building yeah because I see 279 to the property line i don't have any any buildings in in this
sketch is it on another site plan that has these numbers that you're reading to us so we we probably do have that exhibit do you have that i don't need to know right now but we'll have to take a look at that so we have an exhibit that shows that william if he could look into that William yeah yeah
william and and Demetri demetri I I had a question wait one second will you can look Can you verify these numbers that she's quoting on how far the buildings are okay go ahead Jason so we should probably mark this so just out of curiosity you know I I I'm listening to
everything the planner has testified to and my question is this the farm how many acres is the farm next door to this this site the neighboring property is the farm i don't know how many acres i don't know if they have that information
he's looking would we would we estimate you know Kate possibly 5 to 10 acres he's looking we can we can get it in the tax records based on the tax records that farm is about 23 acres 23 acres Jason
23 acres so based on the testimony that the planner is giving right now could in the future that neighbor also make the argument that this farm could be converted you know applied for a variance as well to convert the farm to
commercial land use as well anybody can It's in the same zone it's in the same section jason anybody can do whatever they want to do they have to come in front of the board for that and you know we'll treat that as a separate entity if that ever happens does the
argument apply with the same exact argument that the planners are making right now apply to that farm if that farm wanted to if they wanted to sell the farm and convert that to medical office buildings as well so the same exact arguments really never apply right
and that's why we as land use professionals are schooled that each case needs to rise and fall on its own merits so when I talked to you about particular suitability one of the things that I talked to you about the particular suitability of this project was the direct frontage of sever several
almost 700 feet on the Garden State Parkway based on my review of the tax maps and my familiarity with the area the farm in question that you're speaking about has zero frontage on the Garden State Parkway so I don't see those those to me are two very different
arguments so I don't see how that applicant comes in and makes the same application that this application makes when our particular suitability factors would be quite different well they they would probably and I'm not an attorney but if I was a lay person I would say they would make the argument that hey
there's two buildings already here that the zoning board approved so why can't we put wars right next to it so I think that's what Jason is talking i don't think the the board should be judging this application that was that's what Jason's trying to say well and I understand Jason but I don't think this
board should be judging this application based on hypothetically what some other applicant may or may not come in and say i think each application has to be justified on its own merits and that's why we have you know those the things that I'm talking about particular
suitability the positive and negative criteria when I get to the Medici enhanced reconciliation that is not something that is unique to this application that's statutoily for anybody getting a use variance so whoever did that use variance would have to come forward and put those proofs on
and then the board would evaluate and give the testimony the weight the weight it feels and if you know I don't I don't see how someone competently makes the same arguments for a site that fronts the Garden State Parkway for one that doesn't again like I said the particular
suitability you couldn't use the argument that I used for particular suitability on that application it's not the same application well I mean I disagree with you personally because whether the parkways there there's still neighbors on two sides of the property so to me I look at it is we're changing
we're in a way and I don't want to use this word but I don't know what other word to use spot zoning for that building to go in that spot and then I could open the door somebody in the future if I'm still on the board who knows could open the spot for another 23
acres to become that those conclusions are inconsistent with the law to make an argument I know they're inconsistent with the law those conclusions yeah demetri just to for Jason's question I would just add that um you know I know everyone's everyone's human
but zoning board decisions are not precedential for another zoning board decision you know every application stands on its own that's not just something we say and I agree with what you know with what Christine said is that Kate yes Kate I agree with you Kate but you you know you there is opening
Pandora's box he's got you should stop stop all right Jason thank you i would I would also just We made our point both of us and that's it we'll move on all right i'm going back up to you thank you thank you i And I
understand the point i just think it's improper and inappropriate really to judge this application based in any way shape or form on a hypothetical application that could be filed i I'm sorry but I always look at the whole picture and I anybody can make an argument for anything going any place
there's always some way to make an argument but I'm looking at the total picture of Homedale and what our let's call our forefathers have visioned for that part of the town so that's what I'm looking at then you probably don't need
a zoning board exactly exactly i I agree i just I just want to say you're using the Garden State Parkway as making a reason that this property should be changed for residential and I don't think that that because then that's the
same argument they were trying to get to that if you put a medical building but in other words why does that land that's zoned for R40 should not be considered a good uh piece of land to stay R40 just because it backs up to the Garden State Parkway for the very reason that in your
own R30 zone you state and these are not my words but your zoning ordinances words in response to the reduced desiraability of residential uses at this heavily used intersection so in
other zones finds that heavily used intersections have reduced desiraability for residential uses okay and if you put your building there you're going to make it more congested and therefore less desirable for the land well I I think
think the point that we should be arguing about is not anything to do with backing up to the Garden State Parkway but the fact that there is a Garden State Parkway intersection there right next to the property that's really what
you why you're saying is particularly suitable it's not i mean there's all kinds of homes backing up to the Garden State Parkway that doesn't make them suitable uh for something like this the reason you're saying this is suitable for something like this and we have to
agree or disagree is that there's an entrance and exit to the Parkway right there right near where your property is so it makes the location desirable for people to access it at that at that
intersection it's the intersection that counts not the backing up to the parkway so I did say that i said that right but you've been constantly saying about backing up to the parkway which I think is irrelevant it's the intersection part that you ought to be talking about and I
did say that we're immediately adjacent to the toll booth so if I the parkway toll booth should be accessed so if we if you think that that should be accented I can certainly elaborate on that is that this is it's not exact it's not just the parkway and the fact that the parkway borders us it's the fact
that there's an interchange there's a parkway offramp right there and this property is directly adjacent to the toll booth so it's those things and again the board can certainly agree disagree with my testimony and give it the appropriate weight but regardless of
if you agree with me or disagree with me you shouldn't be disagreeing with me because of some hypothetical application that could be filed down the road because that's not really an appropriate consideration right in my opinion no and and I'll just chime in that's right you would have to listen to the planning
testimony as well as our planner as well as I'm sure the objector's planner i think they have one it'll give them all the weight that you think they deserve and make a decision on the testimony not on hypothetical futures that's correct or else that's an improper role of you
thank you and we we're about to refer to an exhibit that to support the distances that Miss Capone testified to but I need Mike to come up and identify this exhibit which would be A8 relative to the submitted use variance
plan this exhibit is titled dimensional exhibit 125 to 127 Red Hill Road and it is a colorized relatively zoomed out version of the plan with an underlying aerial image that in red depicts
dimensional distances from the proposed structures and the property line to the surrounding structures can you zoom in a little bit more so when you start telling us about the lines we could see them no would this be A8 yes
and we have that one in the handout packet no no oh it's being submitted in response to the questions you asked it was Oh okay and and Mike before you walk away the distances that are reflected on that
plan that Christine's about to refer to was something that your office measured um I guess a I don't know how to say it now ariel ariel yeah aerially is that the correct word you didn't go out and physically measure
you just did it through okay thank you go ahead Christine okay so regarding to A8 and evidence and going to the properties to our uh essentially to the northwest they are so referring to A8 and evidence and
going to the properties that are to our northwest you can see shown here on A8 is a red line indicating that that residential home is 434 feet from the proposed office building this and these homes are at the culde-sac of uh Robin
and then the home to the west of that or to the it's actually to the south of that I believe is um 502 feet from the proposed office building so that's where we got those dimensions from and then going to the properties to
the south still referring to A8 in evidence um right that's and and I believe the barn structures chairman that you were talking about that you felt were much closer are reflected right here immediately adjacent to the property
line but what we scaled was this dimension which is 652 or I'm sorry 682 feet to the residential property and then the other prop this other red line represents a distance of 765 feet to the residential
property so in in all cases these proposed buildings are hundreds of feet away from our nearest residential neighbors because we did consider the neighbors of course we did when when we were
developing the property the other thing is in between is substantial buffering and burming we have a substantial vegetated buffer on our property which you can see which will have not only landscaping but it will
have a burm so I believe we have great effective the combination of distance and buffering is going to allow in my opinion these buildings to exist here with no negative impacts on the surrounding property owners um so that's
my testimony with respect to the zone plan another um another thing I want to point out though is that in the Homeell Township master plan you are required to make a consistency review statement against all your zoning and your development with the development of
adjoining municipalities and in the master plan land use element consistency for Middletown Township there's a passage at section 232 in the land use plan element and it reads um when when you're talking specifically about your
contiguous border with Middletown Township it reads and I'm reading from the second paragraph up from the bottom from the Middletown Township uh section of the consistency review from your land use plan element section 232 and it
reads "Between the railroad rightway and the watershed divide Middletown's master plan designates both commercial and residential land uses and its zoning includes the R45 zone which permits one family and accessory units on lots slightly larger than one acre and the
RTH3 zone which permits multif family and senior housing at five units per acre there are also a few areas of commercially zoned land in Middletown along this section of the border those these zones permit offices and research laboratories with a minimum lot coverage
of 45 to 50% in general the permitted uses along this section of the Middletown Homedale border are compatible as homeale permits both town houses and single family homes on minimum 1acre lots however the commercial uses in Middletown generate
traffic that impacts both municipalities so middle home in your consistency review with adjacent municipalities recognized that um there are commercial uses these zones permit and again this is not my language this is in in the
master plan these zones permit offices and research labs with a minimum coverage of 40 to 55% in general the permitted uses along this section of the Middletown Homeell border are compatible so I don't find where because this site
would have residences adjacent with substantial I would consider substantial buffering in my opinion the buffering that's on this site I would consider substantial for office building that are going to have typical office hours um I would consider this a substantial buffer
to a fairly quiet medical office building and I would say that there are multiple points in both home's zoning ordinance and master plan where you acknowledge the proximity of residences and offices and take no exception to
that as delletterious planning so this these are the things that inform my opinion that having a similar situation here where you'd have residences because there are certainly residences immediately contiguous to our property uh and have the office building here i
don't see where just like it doesn't in other zones in Homeell and just like it was found in your consistency review with Middletown Township I don't see where that would elevate to a substantial detriment here um so that's my testimony with regard to the negative criteria
um as far as the impact on the zone plan and the impact on the public good um so one of the other things you have to testify to as a planner is the Medici reconciliation and what the Medici reconciliation talks about is that you
have to reconcile the miss omission of the use the governing body's continued omission of the use from the zone plan right and that's why I thought it was important to bring the zoning map here so Homedale so you so the board could see really just how much of Homeell is
zoned for for R40 um R4A zoning and how this site is unique it's it's in my opinion it's unique when you look at those R4A zones because when you look at those zones they are predominantly what I would consider platted single family
subdivisions so they are subdivisions that are cut up into individual homeowner lots and most of them are not immediately contiguous to a Garden State um parkway interchange or exit ramp and they are not across the street from a
substantial office building so those to me are differences with a distinction that doesn't mean that we don't consider our residences um around us but I think um the other thing you said about spot zoning I don't think that this is impermissible spot zoning if you were to
accept that then anytime you grant a use variance it would be in permissible spot zoning so the test for the use variance is do you meet the statutory burden of proof with respect to particular suitability um positive a negative criteria and the Medici reconciliation
as far as being a reszoning by variance one of the cases that govern um reasonzoning uh by variance that concept is the Hughes v Mammoth University case and in that case we are directed as planners to look at the area impacted by
the variance in comparison to the zone in which it is located that was another reason why I thought it was important for the board to understand how very very tiny the subject property is in regards to the overall R4A zoning
program for your township because it is a what I would consider minuscule portion of the R4A zone so this in my opinion as a planner in no way elevates itself to a reasonzoning by variance because if you follow the Mammoth the
Hughes v Mammoth University case right which we know directs us to look at the area of the impacted variance in comparison to the overall zone that it's located in it is tiny minuscule tiny and
on the fringe of that zone adjacent to a Garden State Parkway interchains and across the street from commercially zoned property in another municipality that you found in your consistency review to not be particularly um out of
character or disharmonious so I understand you know that there's a lot of interest in this application are the buffers to me are are critical to this application your ordinance I should have addressed this in the negative in the impact on the
zone plan as well because the ordinance here in Homeell specifically addresses um and and uh Kate brings this up in her review letter as well so your ordinance specifically addresses commercial and
residential properties yes so it's section 30-54 and it's on page four of Kate's most recent letter which is February 12th of 2025 i don't recall if it was in uh prior iterations of her letter it probably was but I'm going to refer to
the most recent review letter which is February 12th of 2025 so her and again this is on page four of her letter it's comment five per section 30-54 non-residential development abuing residential development shall provide
certain buffers including but not limited to a strip of land 20% of the average width and depth of the property shall be designated as a buffer area to be contiguous with the residential property line the buffer area between parking and looting areas and street rights away shall be at least 15 foot
wide buffer areas shall consist of a solid and continuous landscape screen to conceal the parking loading areas eliminate glare of vehicle lights throughout which I heard raised earlier as an issue and camouflage the building from the abuing residential areas so
what this tells me as a planner is that Homeell recognizes and plans for those instances where you will have non-residential development contiguous to de residential development and it doesn't say that you shouldn't have this it doesn't say in your ordinance that
this shall be prohibited and it doesn't say that this is undesirable what it does say is in those sections in those areas of development this is how we feel the buffering should be handled and should be appropriate and we meet that buffer section of the ordinance so again
I when you're looking at the impact on the zone plan I am challenged as a planner and again I understand we have residential neighbors contiguous and Homeell contemplated that specifically in your ordinance it reads non-residential development a budding
residential development shall provide certain buffer areas so that to me says it's important right because it uses shall we know that when you use the language shall that's not aspirational it's mandatory so you've planned for this and you've considered it so to say
in this instance that because we have residential neighbors here that this is an inappropriate type of development to me would be inconsistent with some of the planning concepts that you've embraced and implemented in your underlying zoning ordinance that we comply with we do meet those buffers i
believe Mr mr wesalowski testified to that at a prior meeting as to those specific dimensions and provided but I can tell the board that we have looked at that as a team we have calculated out those buffers um with those percentages
of that section and believe that we certainly comply with those numerical dimensions as well as the spirit and intent of the quality of the buffer because I think it's important as a planner that it's not just the distance in the buffer it's also the quality of
the buffer and what's in the buffer and we have a burm of six feet in height with plantings that will be between five to seven feet on top of them so I think that that is again an important consideration the last thing that I would like to talk about from
um Homeell is some of the economic plan element goals and objectives in the master plan and they talk about facilitating a positive business climate in home in Homeell and providing opportunities for non-residential development and local employment where appropriate i find this to be an
appropriate location another goal in the master plan is to strive for diversity in the township's economic base and jobs base so that Homedale can better withstand the effects of changing business cycles and fluctuations in different industries so I think that this is an opportunity to implement some
of the goals in your economic plan element and I you know I understand that we have residential neighbors i think the applicant has certainly been sensitive to that has designed a plan that pulls the buildings hundreds of feet away from those and has not only
considered but designed to the letter of the law when it comes to your ordinance with respect to buffering non-residential and residential uses so if I could just have a minute to look through my notes chairman and see if there's any points
um I guess one other point that I wanted to make is that in the um med office residential district the medical office residential district here in Homeell if you had a site that was 5 acres or less you would allow that building to be 30 feet um in height on sites that are
greater than 5 acres you allow a building up to 60 feet and again we're not zoned residentially but I think that that gives you some scale as to the type of building that you would find appropriate on a site that's uh five acres or more which the subject property
is just over five acres um so I think that those are all of the points that I wanted to make in order to establish our statutory burden of proof for the grant of the D1 use variance i have taken uh significant care to go
through not only your zoning ordinance but your master plan and to visit the subject property and to review the application submission documents and while I certainly understand like in any application when you put a shovel in the ground whether this was an affordable
housing site or something you're going to have tree removal disturbance and you're going to have traffic associated with it but the test is not to eliminate all of those things but to balance and to make sure that you are providing um buffering and addressing and providing
any mitigation needed to mitigate that to come to the conclusion that there's no substantial detriment so I can unequivocally tell the board that I believe this application meets its statutory burden of proof for the grant of a D1 use variance i have talked about particular suitability positive and
negative criteria the Medici reconciliation as well as the impact on the zone plan and I believe um I believe that I've established the burden of proof to grant the variance relief okay uh I think Kate I'll let you go
first before we do board members sure she's she gave us a lot of testimony she did and I Thank you Christine that was very comprehensive and I think we've also heard a lot of testimony from the other professionals as well um so you know always helpful um so I'm going to
start at the beginning and I was taking notes and board members please feel free to if you have any questions if I miss anything that you have a question about you know going to somewhat address the board i also have a couple questions directly for Christine um so first just to go back is that with regarding the height exception um again no variant D6
variance was needed but I agree that this that that exception for non-residential roof peaks is intended to apply to a situation like this again the idea here is that Homedale trying to trying to keep con uh um traditional style architecture and
non-residential development and again architecture is something that you know they provided conceptual plans and that is something that you would be able to um get much dig much deeper into if this were this were to be approved and there were a follow-up site plan application
so it's not the end of the line with the architecture or anything like that so then the next thing I just wanted to touch on is the um you know just starting with the positive criteria again we this is a D1 variance this is something that the board is this is
familiar with this is the um the main purpose of the zoning board and so I think that one of the thing when and I agree with everything that Christine said about you know the concepts of particular suitability it it and there is case law to this effect um not to
repeat but um the idea is not that this property is the only one in Homeell that's suitable for a medical office it does not have to be the um you know it it's not that this property is only suitable for medical office it's somewhere in it it it really is just
showing and it's up to the board to evaluate this based on all of the testimony whether there is something about this property and those are the special reasons that we talk about that makes it particularly suitable for the proposed use um and you know there's
basically when when someone's requesting a D1 variance they're you know you don't hear it very often because it's rare um and I'm bringing this up because of I'm going to get to the next thing with the other the other zone um but sometimes
there will be cases where a property is on a highway property changed over time or excuse me the area has changed over time and the an applicant will argue for a D1 variance because they can claim it's undue economic hardship essentially
you don't hear that very often because it's a very tough thing to prove and that's not what I just want I bring that up because that's not what the applicant is arguing here they're stating that because it's it's not necessarily that the circumstances have changed so much but that because of you know this is
this is on the Parkway it's it backs up to it it backs up to 114 that that is the particular suitability along with the surrounding uses which you know I know that the property that's now um Sloan Kettering was all previously office use now it's medical office use
that's also in Middletown so um but when it comes to particular suitability I again just just keep in mind the fact that it doesn't have to be this doesn't have to be the only thing that that's particularly suitable for this site and this doesn't have to be the only site that's particularly suitable but the
board has to you know it really has to has to beat that burden and I will I can provide um I want to go pick up the language for that too which I will come back to shortly um in terms of furthering the purposes of zoning um you know we uh Miss Capone
went over purpose A medical office use promotes the general welfare purpose G it's efficient space for a variety of uses um I don't take any exception with any of these um I think that you know it's just that's just one part of it though you know that that it's part of the special reasons but it also has to
show particular suitability and that's the most important thing here for this D1 variance case um so I'm going to just move on to the comments about the negative criteria and I think that you know the the the 030 office district which is
probably a zone that many of you have never heard of i've barely heard of it um and that is it does it it is stated in the ordinance that it is specifically what Christine said it permits low inensity office uses in response to the reduced desiraability of residential
uses at that intersection that's the intersection of Route 35 and Laurel Avenue um one thing I would say there is that that yes that is that is the townships coming out and saying that some areas when they become more commercialized are no longer as appropriate for residential uses um but
here I I think you have to look at here is whether you know look at the change is is this really comparable it's it's and that's up for the board to decide um you know if you look 30 years ago at the intersection of Route 35 and Laurel Avenue it looked a lot different than it
does now um here it al also looks different um maybe in a slightly different way um but I think that you know that that is something that is a valid planning argument in many cases where the particular suitability is because the circumstances have changed
the zoning is no longer appropriate whatever that me whatever that may mean in any specific case um so I am also going to so now I'm going to skip ahead a little bit because I'm speaking of going back 30 years um Christine when you were citing the master plan that was
the 2004 master plan correct that was which is the last time that Homedale did a comprehensive master plan um per the state statute the municipality has to update their master plan every 10 years we last did it in 2020 everything's above board with that but the last time
that the the township did a comprehensive master plan um was 2004 so to be clear the economic goals came out of the 2020 master plan yes the master plan consistency review came out of the 2004 because that's the last time that
it was done right and so I just you know and and I I understand that's the last time it was done it's not a required element of a re-examination report and that's what our last two re-exams have been um but I just wanted I just wanted to clear some things up here because I
think that you know there the border between Middletown and Homeell is rather large as is indicated there and did you read the section um I'm sorry it was what is it 23 2-32 um I think that there's a few few
discussions there and I I and I don't disagree with what this says but I just want to be I just want the board to you know just understand that a this was written um 20 not 30 but 21 years ago and that I just want to be clear that we're talking
about specific borders so I'm going to just you know go to 3-2-32 sorry um It's a big old document um so wait sorry
is to am I at the right page okay yes here we go sorry so this section talks about this is consistency with with Middletown's master plan and I will just say that first off I looked at I looked at the zoning map it looks like Homedall is zoned the same as it was in
2004 in this area i cannot speak for Middletown i think it might be because that was O R where is now um Sloanketing but the way that this is written is that um south of the watershed divide which
is not a layman's term but is um really where the Mahorus kind of goes into the I believe this is it the swimming river I'm not sure but it's right around here um and Middletown's master plan identifies open space farm residential
quas public sites and a single commercial site the zoning is exclusively residential in Middletown except for a single commercial zone o offices and laboratories located at the Garden State Parkway as with commercial sites farther north in Middletown this site contributes to traffic in both
Middletown and Home so again I just want to this is 25 20 21 years old um but I I think that you know this is a very spec at at the time this was the only real commercial site there so I just I don't
want to I don't I I just want to be clear about what the master plan did say there and not to say because I I think it's a little I I think it was not totally correct that it said that that middle that Homedale was fine with the zoning here so but again well say that on one hand the other hand this is from
21 years ago so take with that what you will um so but I will say you know that this this is that was what um that was office
research at that time it's now medical office and so again when we look at change circumstances is that a better it does that make this site now more particularly suitable or less particularly suitable um and you know that's that's for the board's decision um with regard to the discussion about
the R4A zone zone um and the location kind of on the fringe rather than fracturing a zone um and I I agree i think I think that there's often special considerations given from a planning perspective when you are a on the border of a
municipality b next to um something like the Garden State Parkway that you know like it or not is a you know it's a it's it disrupts the land use in that area it's not it's not a continuous um you know residential or anything else you
have the parkway you have 14 exit 114 and then also you know you look what you have across the the town town line in Middletown so you know that I think that that is well there is you know some there is residential property surrounding this i agree that I think
that there is a different consideration when you have something in this location not necessarily speaking that it makes it particularly suitable but in terms of you know the impact on the zone plan and zoning ordinance I agree that there is a distinction here um with this property
um or a property of this type um than if it was something that was fully in the midst of a residential neighborhood for example um let's see the only just a couple questions and I I have to admit I didn't I don't know
the answer to this offhand um Christine did you look at at all i know you mentioned the other um permitted conditional uses in this zone things like houses of worship etc um would a house of worship be permitted on a lot of this size yes okay and would any of
the other conditional uses so I believe a house of worship has to be on I want to say four acres yes yes yes so it would right the minimum lot area shall be four acres and the minimum fronted shall be 150 ft so I would say that yes
we would I believe actually I looked at that I have the conditional use standards right here for house of worship i believe we meet them all so I do think that we would be able to have a house of worship here as an as of right use as far as other conditional
uses I did look at that as well let me just pull that up for a second so other conditional uses in this zone include public utilities wireless telecommunications and towers um antennas and towers and then churches or
houses of worship okay so I would say yes we could probably certainly I looked at the house of worship and that we comply with all of those the other ones I have them I can look at them quickly i I think from a from a like an activity perspective house of worship is certainly that would be house of worship
would be the most intense that's why I looked at those specifically exactly and it would actually the site is actually in excess of what um you would require because we're just over five acres and your zoning requires four for a house okay so I I just I just want to bring that up because it was mentioned as part
of this because you know this is not specifically a residential zone no no zones in Homeell are specifically residential but another thing to keep in mind is that a house of worship is a it's conditional use so it is you know permitted in that sense it also is you know inherently beneficial use so you
know just by existing it meets the general welfare so it is permitted in that zone but I did just want to you know ju just just to to touch on that point of what else could go here and and just just to clarify also um public school private schools are
permitted but that has a minimum of 20 acres um so that would not private school for example would not be permitted here um libraries firehouses the rest are generally public um you know public or municipal things so that
I think is all I have for my comments and my questions but I'm happy to answer anything the board might have one question yes because I'm understanding what you're saying with the house of worship so that would be a per that would be a permitted use regardless of the traffic concerns or any other concerns if they for whatever reason put
a house of worship if if they met all the conditions which which you know they meet the the minimum acreage i can't say you know without looking at a site plan if they could meet everything with buffers or whatever um but if they met all of that it would go to the planning board and they would just need site plan approval
um but if they did not meet one of those conditions they would have to come to this board for a D3 variance which is a lower burden of proof than a D1 but that's that's because the township committee you know by having that as a conditional use they've essentially said that it's appropriate in the zone and
that and I would note that houses of worship are permitted in all I think all zones in the municipality not just residential zones all zones any other questions from board members i sorry I just have one more comment go ahead and I and I I know that this came
up earlier and I just want to um we talked a little bit about from Jason's comment and then your comment regarding you know setting a precedent and things like that and I don't want to dive too far into that but I just want to be clear and I I know that Mr al Fieri knows this and I know board the board is aware too but you know the purpose of
you know the purpose of all these proofs that we as planners come out with and we say you know negative criteria positive criteria special reasons that's what you know the zoning board's job here is to review all that and contemplate that and that's what makes it not spot zoning so if you do agree if you if you if you
think that the applicant has met their burden of proof then there is then that's what the you know that's what the statute is for and that's what all of you know this these proceedings are about and so but you don't have you know and that's why anyone can come here we always say anyone can come with any variance that they want um but that's
what this review process is for so it's but you know but no especially with the D1 variance it's that's the most difficult variance to get so that's why it's all a balance she Did she address all your comments on your letter um I
believe so i think all of my comments have been addressed by either um Miss Capone or the engineer or the applicant himself um because really the the the main thing here is the um the D1
variance um so okay any questions from our board any other anybody go ahead um so question on the neighboring property so there she showed up a picture where I think it was like 400 feet to the
residential structure and it surpassed those two I think barn structures that we're referring to if they without coming before any sort of b barn any sort of boards just wanted to use as their land allows right now if they
wanted to make those barns into bedrooms or whatever is that allowed can they do that um it's hard to say without knowing exactly what's going on on the property because because if it's a if it's if they have right to farm protection or something like that they can do that but
I believe that um only one dwelling is permitted um except for maybe seasonal but in very specific very limited situations um but one dwelling is permitted per farm property in home okay thank you just want a little bit of clarification
on using some things as suitability um in Homeell in a lot of the R40 residential areas there are homes that are really adjacent to the Garden State Parker you can hear the traffic on the Garden State Park when you sit in some
of these people's backyards so I'm looking at it is that suitability to say that those also could be come before us for variance i'm not saying and I'm not trying to say project to anything else but we generally have Homedale is
residential there's a lot of R40 here that's what makes our town the town it is and if we looked at every thing about it there are plenty of R40s that are up against the highway does that mean that that's suitable to change the zoning that's number one number two about the
traffic on 35 making a site not suitable are we saying that this site is already full of traffic so therefore not suitable to be considered still a resident residential because then I'm concerned that we're going to add to a traffic
situation if it's already considered a busy intersection that makes it suitable to change the zoning so in two cases the suitability somehow is making me not feel comfortable that this is a good enough reason to change from an off 40
christine do you want to do you want to take take this one because I I think I think with particular suitability I understand you I the backing up to the parkway was not the only reason she said but I'm I'm going to let we're going to let let Christine answer that one it was so certainly there are if you look at
the zoning map right that we entered I forget what we marked it but the the Garden State Parkway A7 so we bring A7 back up the Garden State Parkway traverses almost the entirety of Homedale Township um in a essentially a north south
direction right so I agree with you there's a lot of zones that back up but what there are not a lot of them there are not a lot of them that back up to an interchange with a toll booth behind them and have that traffic associated with them or those impacts so right and that front on a county road
so they are more traditional platted subdivisions that don't have the same circumstances as this property and as far as the 030 zone the 030 zone talks about and it uses the word a heavily used intersection so certainly this is
immediately adjacent to the interchange of the Garden State Parkway so there's absolutely a parallel to the planning concept there that you in your in your zoning found that for reduced desiraability for residential uses many of the lots that you're talking about
are not located at intersections they absolutely are not when you look at the zoning map and you look at A7 in evidence the lion share of the balance of the single family homes that back up to the Garden State Parkway and I agree with you there are quite a few of them are not at intersections and that is a
difference with a distinction and that same argument makes me that if you believe that's a heavy trafficked intersection then you putting an office building there is going to add to the traffic and are you going to make it
worse which is my concern which I have heard testimony saying that it wouldn't but if you're making that argument for suitability that it's already heavily traffked then we've got a problem here i I don't think we do have a problem and that's why as part of our case we
provided testimony from Mr ray at the last hearing mr ray provided to you in response to your traffic engineer's request he provided an additional gap study where he went out again and I believe his gap study culminated in a
paragraph and I don't want to speak for him and I'm certainly not a traffic engineer but I can read you the concluding paragraph from his report because I have it give me a minute i will find that and I will read to you the paragraph that he
concluded with and this is his January 21st 25 report i'm reading from page two of this report which is part of the record again it should be noted that there are many gaps in excess of 10 seconds which will
permit multiple ex exiting movements to be safely made from the driveway the overall capacity for enabling left turn movements out of the site driveway is well in excess of the anticipated 54 left turns during the afternoon peak
hour so part of the reason the planner testifies last is because my testimony has to be based on the foundation of other professionals right and one of the things that we do when we have a D1 use variance the reason we have a traffic engineer is because we need to
demonstrate to you that the traffic and the site can function safely and efficiently and in my opinion you have uncontroverted testimony in the record from a a a traffic engineer who has been testifying for decades in the state of New Jersey was qualified and found to be
an expert issued a supplemental report to address your professional concerns and he culminated that again the capacity for turning movements out of the driveway is well in excess of the anticipated 54 left turns during the
afternoon peak hour so what that means is that he found that there's going to be 54 turning movements during the peak hour so in the busiest hour we're going to have 54 left turning movements and he his findings are that they can be safely made and that the overall capacity has
um many gaps so and yes we will have more traffic that's an undisputed fact there's no doubt about that we will have more traffic anytime you introduce a shovel into the ground you're going to have more traffic right so but does that statement lead us to
conclude that this is going to have a substantial negative impact when we have a traffic engineer who did supplemental studies to address your board's concern and he finds that the courtesy gaps or the gaps that the many gaps in excess of 10 seconds are well in excess of the
anticipated 54 left turns so and this is why we look at all these things as as planners accept his testimony and I you know I agree with his figures but when you were talking about the 030 I don't think you were talking about making the land not desirable because it was unsafe
because of traffic conditions you just talked about the amount of traffic and that's what I'm saying like I I heard you but I was surprised that you were using that as an argument for su suitability was the amount of traffic making the property less desirable i'm
not questioning the safety and I I understand his testimony the argument is that your 030 zone in the purpose cites reduced desiraability of residential uses so it recognizes that at heavily used intersections residential uses
might be less desirable so that was the point the point is that your own planning documents acknowledge that to be an acceptable planning concept of having not having residential uses at heavily trafficked intersections and that was the point to be made francine if I could just offering this to
everyone else on the board too when you're kind of think weighing this um I think these are kind of we're we're we're looking at two separate things here which one is that is there an amount of traffic or commercial activity because it doesn't really say doesn't say you know that the traffic is backed
up nobody wants to live here it just says there's a lot of activity there it's heavily used um the fact that that what what is it sorry what's the word it says it's no more for sorry for for residential uses no longer desirable yes so So what desiraability of residential
uses at this heavily traffic so so I think I think my read of this or way I hear this is that that's one that's a statement saying that for whatever reason the activity of this intersection including the change in uses the traffic
etc has led to reduced residential desiraability and you know I don't know when that was written I don't know what that was based on but that's what that says then then there's the the then the other the other the flip side of that is what you know you're looking at and what we're what you're typically weighing
with use variance which is whether the additional traffic from this project will have a you know will have a negative impact and I think that those are two separate things because um you know the the traffic engineer for
example John Ray can't come back here next time and say this is the amount of traffic that will make people not want to live you know that will lead to an undesirable location that's you know that's that's it's it's it's kind of more ephemeral I would say it's it's
it's subjective but the testimony about you know the amount of traffic that this site may give up the way impact it'll have on the roadways the kind of testimony that this board hears all the time from traffic engineers that that's a more um that's a a more quantit
quantitative that's the numbers one quantitative type of thing so I think you know I I I agree with what you're saying it's it's it's on on when you look at it both ways but it's like but it's it's really measuring two different things and the first one can't really be measured in my opinion which is you know
what makes it less desirable okay anybody else jason John got any questions i don't know if they're there or not okay all right uh Mr simon you're up and we're going to have a hard stop
at 9:30 yeah I was going to say that i mean I Yeah sorry I was on mute i'm trying to please get off the mic mr simon you do you have any questions John or Jason yeah I'm I'm here can you hear me yes I
hear you yeah i I just wanted a clarification i wasn't I wasn't sure um if I understood the testimony provided by the planner about the I don't know was it called a partnership with Middletown when we're doing zoning and and and variances with with Middletown and we're sharing this one road together
and Mart I guess this is more from Marty or and or Kate is it it is this an inherently beneficial use and that I mean I I remember we had a lawsuit against Homeell from Middletown when we were discussing the location right
across the other side of the parkway jason Jason Jason I'm gonna stop you right here because I think you're getting it a little too too ahead of it the what what Christine was citing what she was quoting from the master plan um about the relationship between Homeell's
um zoning and Middletown zoning and that is a statutory requirement from the municipal land use law that every municipal master plan has to evaluate um your zoning and your land use your proposed land use plan with all of the municipalities around it so this
document also contained the same things for Colts neck tint fall tinfalls uh HLlett etc so um so it's it's not it's it's it wasn't something that Middletown had any participation in that those that review if that was that what what you're
asking okay so so the traffic concerns that they had with the property on the other side of the parkway uh I believe it different application that was a totally different application and they and they I mean it's public record they they
formally objected to that application which they are not doing here okay does that answer your question Jason yes yes thank you anything else i think I'm good for now uh John
john this is Yes I'm okay for now go ahead John you're okay you said okay Mr simon you're up wants to come to get because I'm probably not going to finish in a half an hour yeah with in a half hour so I just want to give you fair warning about that and I know we have to
bring back the traffic person um for purposes of their parking supplemental and I'd like to take a look at you know the exhibit particularly that distance exhibit um that they just presented for the first time tonight i'm happy to get started no no Mr simon do you have do
you have a affirmative planning witness that you're bringing or anything i absolutely do yes okay okay that's what Okay oh I was going to ask you that question do you have witnesses that you're going to be presenting i I Yes definitely okay so Marty knows all this yet yes just mention it we talked about in the hall before okay but we we would
like to at least use the time we'll use it for half an hour okay all right and then uh you're going to have to bring back because who was the witness that you we stopped you last time traffic traffic john Ray so you got traffic and you're going to have more for the planner then at another meeting
probably okay and and as it relates to John Ray his his questioning is going to relate solely to the parking study he did for other medical uses because otherwise we completed we completely um Mr fury is 100% correct so that'll be pretty brief all right so the next
meeting whenever that is you know when the next meeting is because I want to make sure June 4th well let's first make sure we're available but anyway at that meeting that means that we'll start off that meeting with both your professionals and Mr simon following up
all his questions right good what about the traffic person i'm going to call him before we leave all right if unless he's testifying in Jackson he won't pick up his phone but if he can he will all right so let us know so I don't know we'll have to find that out he's
not good are you available March June i have a conflict on June 4th oh okay the next available is July 16th you can do July 16th 18th is already booked we're just We have one other one earlier date but she's trying to we're trying to
figure out if they gave notice already for the that would be May 21st is so we have three potential dates may 21st June 4th or July 16th all the rest of the dates between now and then have other matters but May 21st may have something
that Irene is trying to decide you didn't get them i can't do May 21st oh never mind july 16th let's do a special Do you want to All right so you want to figure this out
later and let Mr simon keep going or start going yes are you ready i am i'm just putting it in my phone okay i'm ready do you want to sit down because you're
going to be there for a half an hour i wouldn't want you to sit down yes yes i love that christine good evening just uh try to have that mic next to you this way they can listen from the back um there's a second yeah [Music]
just keep that mic near your mouth yep i'm looking for our attorney i want to make sure Yeah i I I don't want to uh He left yeah may want to wait a minute no we have to make sure Let me wait for him yes please can we move that so there's more room
for Yeah so Rob you might be able to move that table if you want your own table and just kind of wheel it in the middle do you care okay okay try not to we try to make you friends really close you're using up his half hour it's okay
um Miss Kafone good evening um when were you first uh retained for this application um I don't know the exact date Mr simon it's been it's been a while um I would say at least over a year
um at least a year did you participate in the um design of the variance plan before it was submitted to the board did I participate in Yeah in other in
other words um did you um provide input on what ultimately was the design of the variance plan that was submitted to this board for this application yes we had a number of team conference calls so we talked about things like buffering so yes I would say my office
definitely had influence over some of the buffering and and some of the site features okay um but in term other than buffering and that's why I asked you when you were retained whether you um had input in terms of the design of the
variance plan where the buildings were located where the parking was located driveways etc or were you um retained after that was submitted so we generally don't design the site plan that's the engineer's responsibility so I don't recall the
exact date that we were we were retained on this okay um did you uh conduct an investigation of the property history as to any prior uh development applications for this
site no are you aware of whether this site was subject to an application before the planning or zoning boards in the past
prior to this application no and um you when you were providing your credentials which are extensive admittedly to this board um you you talked about participating as a planner before this board of adjustment in
connection with the development application do you do you recall where that was well there were several so Okay and which which ones do you recall so most recently probably the self- storage facility on Highway 35 any others that you can recall for
Homeell Board of Adjustment certainly we I've been before the Homedale Board of Adjustment previously i've you know been practicing for decades so I'd have to go back and look at my one on Robert's Road and Homeill Road yes there's been a few of them a few gas
stations varants yes justin from my office was here recently um we've had a few cases here and um any use variance uh applications that you or Justin from your office participated in uh involving
property in the R4A or 40B zones again Mr simon I would never do that analysis for this application because it would be irrelevant so the fact though these cases are all facts sensitive so what was relevant and important in those
cases would in in my opinion have no bearing on this application so unless we were going for an interpretation which would certainly have a binding effect on future applications they wouldn't be relevant they're for different uses so
it it wouldn't be relevant to my analysis do do you does this answer did do you recall whether you participated in any board of adjustment application for use variance concerning property in the R4A or 40B zone again I may have I
don't recall the specifics of those zones and I I wouldn't have looked at that to come here tonight because it's irrelevant to this application okay um you uh reviewed the uh zoning ordinance in Homeell in preparation for your testimony correct yes and there are
other zones in Homedale Township that permit uh medical office use as of right correct yes and do you recall how many different zones permit that use no um you talked about we'll get into this a little bit later you you spent some time
discussing the 030 uh office district do you recall whether the 030 office district permits uh medical office use as of right it does not does not professional and business office it does not say medical office
um do you recall which zones permit medical office as of right there's a medical office district that allows it but I I'm not sure where it's permitted as of right elsewhere correct yes because as I stated in the particular suitability we don't need to rule out where other sites might be appropriate
right that's not one of the burden of proof before the board so we don't go through the analysis on this or any other application as to where you could do this because not relevant to the board's findings so despite the price versus mei case in
the Supreme Court from 2013 you don't believe that that analysis is relevant to this board's determination for this use variance i don't believe it is no I don't believe you have to rule out other sites i do not believe that's what that case found and I believe the board's planner
concurred with me when she talked to her board about suitability i believe it was her concurring with me that you don't have to do that you don't have to demonstrate that it's uniquely suitable for this nor do you have to rule out other uses or other sites where it would be appropriate mr simon do you want our planner to
comment on any of your questions no not at this time and and in fact um I would respectfully ask that certainly um the board's planner uh await you know our professional planning testimony before providing any comments to uh to the
board um so you um have not done any type of studies to determine various vacancy rates for any medical office buildings in Homedale correct no correct that I didn't do direct meeting
i got to do it yeah um and did you um so Memorial Sloanketing you talked about that in your testimony a located across the street that's that's actually a permitted use in Middletown's um O zone correct yes and
do you know do you know for how long that property um uh became a Memorial Sloanketering approximately what year it's been a couple of years i don't know the exact year that that became MSK do you do you know for how long that
property had uh office development on it for years again I'm not sure how long but it's been office for years decades and the same thing for having a fully controlled intersection with a traffic light correct to the best of my
knowledge and I've lived in the area for decades did you do any investigation to determine uh whether the memorial salone gathering properties within the sewer service area i did not and there's um based on your uh zoning
map I don't remember where we we marked it but okay a7 zoning map um there are no other zones in this portion of the township that permit office use or medical office use as of right correct so when you say this portion of the township do you mean the subject
property and the sites immediately contiguous to it the sites in the in the area of this property yes then yes I would agree they don't permit that office and um the you talked about the M medical district that's located
approximately uh four mile driving distance from this property correct i don't know the driving distance the the comparison I don't know the driving distance the comparison was on the height that that zone would allow based on the acreage that you had so it wasn't on proximity okay but you didn't do any
studies in terms of how many acres that zone comprises or how many medical office buildings are currently um up and running uh in that zone correct no because that wasn't the point that I was making the point that I was making was that zone allows for 30- foot tall buildings on sites that are less than 5
acres and 60 foot tall buildings on sites that are greater than 5 acres so it was a scale point not a proximity point and again you have no idea about vacancy rates or or other uses of those medical
office buildings in that M district correct i did not do that study and you didn't uh your development team nor you provided any type of needs analysis for medical office use in the uh R4A zone right that is not one of the
required proofs to substantiate a D1 use variance and we did not provide that um with regard to um actually can you put up even though I haven't seen it the that that exhibit that showed the the distances please
thank you i can't do it but Mr can do it miss Kafone if you notice I did not I did not look at you and ask you to do that and cause it to Yes can you just make it a little bit uh more magnified just so I can just Yeah we can maybe start to you know
whatever that is the uh the west or northwest so um those distances that were uh dimensioned and by the way uh even though it was your testimony that those dimensions weren't done by you per se
that was done by the uh the engineer for the project correct correct and um with regard to the dimensions that you're showing um from the office building um were there dimensions that
were done from the uh commercial parking area um or sorry driveway area on the site i don't see those um Michael can you read that i don't
know why I can't no I mean to were there dimensions from the commercial parking area no but I mean you can clearly see where the commercial parking area is so the office building the office building is actually further east than the parking right the parking based on this
which is I believe is A8 in evidence is this a No it Yeah the buildings are further away than the parking area and and what about the driveways driveways are are closer to the parking to uh to those residents yes yeah and then um
there was some testimony uh provided I think it was by you Mr phone about uh Oh no i'm sorry it was by the engineer it's my fault about a bank parking area to the uh west of the office build medical
office building on the left do you know approximately where that would be located as we're looking at this i do know where approximately that where that were located so it's there the bank's parking plan had like two parking fields to it one parking field would be approximately located in this location
where I'm showing you so I do know where those bank parking fields are located and one would be um due west essentially of this parking space here shown on A8 and the other parking field would also be um accessed off of this drive and in
the general location um west of where this drive is so this area that I'm showing the cursor on um approximately So so that's where the trees are are located there to the west it's shown as green space on A8 but that's the
approximate location um of the bank's parking field and no dimensions have been provided the distance from that bank parking field to those homes correct um not on this plan no and um with regard to um those we're starting
with those properties to the to the left or to the west um what zone are those properties located in is that R40A or R40B r4a and in the R4A zone um those the land
immediately adjacent to your client's property those would be considered rear yards of those residential properties correct yes and are you aware for the R4A zone what the uh rear yard setback requirement for
uh principal andor accessory structures is um I'll tell you in a second 25 ft so um so within 25 ft of the common lot line uh to those residential prop shared with those residential
properties um those residences could put in accessory structures such as a pool or or a patio as of right correct well no because that's the principal the principal building setback is 25 ft from
the rear yard yeah I'm I'm I'm sorry what is the accessory structure setback for the R4A zone and I'm particularly um thinking about a pool or a patio so certainly it would be somewhat less than
25 ft i don't know offhand but if the rear yard setback is 25 then a pool could certainly go in the rear yard or an accessory structure so something less than 25 ft and um going to the the property to the um and by the way what are the what's
the acreage of those two properties to the uh to the northwest do you know i don't and I think there was a um if we can turn to like the property to the south thank you thanks i'm sorry
to put this no no that's that's Don't I'm the one who should apologize so um so now we're looking um moving the cursor to the distance from the
uh med Yeah it's okay from the medical buildings to the um to residential buildings to to the south yes correct so again um you didn't provide or the engineer didn't provide dimensions from
the ingress egress driveway to those properties correct no that's not well it's not from the ingress egress drive but if you look at the um the eastern most line the 360 the 365 ft dimension is from our corner which is actually
further or um not not to the driveway but we show it to our our property line and then the driveway is fur is a little uh further away from that and then the other two dimensions the 682 and 765 those dimensions are to um from the
buildings to the residential use and I think you answered the question that was asked of you regarding um whether those the the buildings that are immediately abuing or adjacent to your client's property uh can be converted to uses
other than what they're used for currently you just you just don't know in terms of density and use whether they could be converted as a right to residences correct well I think uh planner Keller answered that but I'm saying you you in terms of your testimony you don't know one way or another correct well do I know that they
could be converted i mean anything can be converted um as of right you're allowed one principal use in that zone so in my opinion if unless they were used for a farm because there are certainly certain allowances if you have a far an active farm to use those for
farm help or whatnot so it's you're asking me a broad brush question with no context no specifics of the application so it depends on what they're going to be used for if they do do do you know what the current use of that property is it's a farm um do you know what what
kind of farming activities conducted at that property i'm not certain what what they find and um did you do an analysis either for that property or even the subject property to determine um how many residences could be
constructed as of right on either one of those properties i did not and you didn't perform any type of um residential layout for either um the subject property which is subject to this application or the property to the
south correct correct fourminute warning um you know I'll do this so um with regard to your your testimony about about the height just so just so I'm clear the applicant is not proposing
to change the um rendering elevation of the height that was submitted to the board as part of this application correct yes that's my understanding um do you know whether the applicant submitted any elevations
or floor plan architectural elevations or floor plans in connection with this application i don't believe so and um you talked about the 03 office district and the intersection of Route 35 and Laurel Avenue um there's no
recommendation in either the master plan or re-examination report to reszone this property to any different zone whether it's 030 or any other zone correct no and I certainly didn't state that there was
and in terms of um your the zoning map uh that was provided and the whether it's R4A or R40B did you identify how many uh properties or residentially I'm sorry let me back up residentally zoned
properties are located adjacent to or abuing the Garden State Parkway no because I think A8 speaks for itself it's it clearly demonstrates that the subject property that and I believe I was questioned by this by um by one of the board members um board member campus
is that yes and and I acknowledge there are many many lots that back up to the Garden State Parkway there are not many lots that back up to a Garden State Parkway interchange though and as I said my direct testimony was that is a difference with the distinction okay in
terms of the interchange versus the Garden State Parkway um do you know whether Mr ray or anyone on the development team did a traffic or um trip generation analysis comparing the interchange to just um vehicles
traveling back and forth in the Garden State Parkway abudding those residential properties i think that question would be best directed to Mr ray um oh you last question you know what i'm going to wait i'll stop here okay yeah because I'm going to
go into a different area so okay that's fine all right so did we come up with a date everybody july 16th july 16th is that the date
where is uh where is he oh over there it changed sides without further notice okay so this application will be carried till July 16th without further notice thank you everybody for attending
today okay we have nothing else right on the agenda and the website will be updated for the next meeting in in case there is anything missing on it miss my minutes all right uh any professional s if
you're uh witness like those small versions of that for the board next time yeah be great whatever those were that we did today okay okay any other uh professional uh comments professional no
nothing can I have a motion to close jean second second okay meeting closed thank you have a good night