No, I don't. No, I hear myself. But yeah, we're good. >> Okay, now we're good. >> All right. Call 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, 2026 by the
board administrative officer to the Asbury Park Press, Two River Times Township Clerk and has been posted in the meetings room and in the entrance hall to town hall in town hall pursuant to section 13 of the Oakland Public Meetings Act. Uh roll call.
>> Mr. Connelly >> here. >> Mr. Caran >> here. >> Mr. Vanderham >> here. >> Mr. Fagan >> here. >> Miss Plausus >> here. >> Mr. Bell >> here. >> Mr. Man is absent. Uh Mr. Silverman >> here.
>> Mr. Dors is absent. Mr. Robbins >> here. >> And Mr. uh Matanucci >> here. >> Thank you. We have a quorum. >> Okay. Uh please rise for the pledge of allegiance.
I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> A moment of silence honor the military, police and first responders.
>> Thank you. Okay. Uh at this time we just have some housekeeping to do. Uh we need to adopt the minutes from past meetings. I'll turn it over to uh Ireina. >> Yes. Thank you. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. We have u minutes to approve
for March 3rd. Um eligible to vote Mr. Connelly, Mr. Vanderham, Mr. Antonucci, Mr. Bell, Miss Plauses, and Mr. Silver. Um any comments, any feedbacks? If none motion and second, please. >> Motion.
>> Second. >> Mr. B. Mr. Connelly, >> yes. >> Mr. Vanderham, >> yes. >> Mr. Antonachi, >> yes. >> Mr. Bell, >> yes. >> Miss Plaus, >> yes. >> Mr. Sberman, >> yes. >> Uh, second se set of minutes we have for
March 12th, eligible to vote, Mr. Connelly, Mr. Vanderham, uh, Mr. Fagan, Mr. Mr. Andonachi, Mr. Bell, Miss Blouses, and Mr. Sberman. >> Move to accept. Second
>> Mr. Connelly. >> Yes. >> Mr. Vunderham. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fagan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Andonachi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bell. >> Yes. >> Miss Plaus. >> Yes. >> And Mr. Silverman. >> Yes. >> We do have minutes for uh to approve for
2023. Um I'm just going to go in a calendar order. May May 16th. Eligible to vote. Miss Plauses and Mr. Silverberman. >> I make a motion.
>> Second, >> Miss Plauses and Mr. Silverman. Thank you. >> Uh June 20th, 2023 eligible to vote. Mr. Fagan, Miss Plaus. Um that's it. >> Uh move to accept.
>> I second. >> Mr. Fagan and Miss Plauses. >> Thank you. Uh July 18th, 2023, eligible to vote, Mr. Fagan, Miss Plaus, Mr. Silverman, and Mr. Bell. >> Move to accept.
>> Second, >> Mr. Fagan. >> Yes. >> Miss Pauses. Mr. Silverman, >> and Mr. Bell. >> Yes. >> Uh September 5th, 2023. Eligible to vote. Mr. Sberman, Mr. Fagan and Miss Plaus
>> move to accept. Second >> Mr. Sberman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fagan and Miss Plaus. >> Yes. >> Uh October 17th, 2023. Eligible to vote. Mr. Fagan and Mr. Silverman.
>> Move to accept. Second. >> Mr. Fagan. Mr. Silverberman. >> Thank you. And last but not least, November 28th, 2023, eligible to vote, Mr. Fagan, Miss Plauses, Mr. Sberman, and Mr. Bell.
>> Move to accept. Second. >> Uh, Mr. Fagan, Miss Plaus, uh, Miss Plauses. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sberman, and Mr. Bell. >> Yes. Um, so for the record, minutes for
March 3rd, March 12th, 2026 were successfully approved as well as May 16th, June 20th, July 18th, September 5th, October 17th, and November 28th, 2023. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Arena. Okay, at this time there's only one uh one item on the agenda, which is the Bright View Senior Living Development LLC, 2129, New Jersey 35, Homedale, New Jersey 07733,
block 58, lots 29 and 29.01, and portions of block 5802, lot 36, requests for administrative plan revisions. Um, at this time, we have someone from from TNM here. I guess you have to swear a minute. >> We're going to swear Mullen's here.
Fran, do you swear to tell the truth about the truth? I for the record has been sworn in as township engineer to provide a brief overview of your findings in your letter. >> You could >> Is it on now?
>> Yeah, you you could turn it over and there's a button you can so you don't have to toggle. >> Oh, should be a red light on. That should Yes. >> There you go. >> Okay. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and board members. We were asked to um offer a review on a
request that was submitted by the developers attorney uh for some uh plan revisions that were um triggered by the developers required improvements based on the NJ
do. So, we took a look at the plans that they submitted that are revising uh the uh curb line and the widening of Route 35 across the frontage of their project property. Uh we have reviewed the plans. We have
issued a review letter dated April 14th, 2026. I hope the board has a copy of that. >> Yes, >> I'll refer to it, but I I won't read all the specifics. Um, in our consideration of the applicants or the developers request,
it's our understanding that the DOT requirements uh include a deceleration lane entering the property and an acceleration lane uh to leave the property. Uh therefore, the curb line on
the highway will be widened a little bit to accommodate those two lanes. that will trigger some reconstruction of the entrance into the project. The changes that will uh take place
uh do not materially change any of the circulation on site. It simply uh widens the highway uh drive lanes a little bit. They'll rebuild the curb. There's a curbed island uh separating the ingress and egress drive lanes that will be
pushed back a little bit. They'll restripe the stop bar and the stop sign. Um they're also relocating some of the utility poles along the highway and such. But uh our letter outlines the uh
on-site alterations as well as the off-site alterations. And then down at the bottom of page one, you will see that uh in our view, the plans ch the plan changes are triggered by the requirements of the DOT and in general should improve vehicle access to and from the site. And most importantly,
they do the proposed changes do not require any additional or expanded variance relief and do not materially affect any of the conditions attached to the prior planning board approvals, which is a fundamental uh baseline uh
for any administrative approval that the board considers. If it was to trigger a waiver or a variance or some increased degree of nonconformity of a variance that was granted, then we would have a different opinion and and make a different recommendation. It
would probably trigger an amended site plan uh submission to the board for full review and and public hearing. But because it doesn't do either of those, it doesn't trigger waiverss and it doesn't trigger any new variances or increased degree of nonconformity for
variances that were granted. Um and so ultimately in our view we we have no objection if the planning board concludes that it could approve the proposed revisions on an administrative basis without the need for further board
proceedings without having you know the 20 sets of plans submitted them coming in and presenting it or noticing for a public hearing um and and such. So based on the dimminimous extent of the proposed changes in our view, it is
our understanding that the planning board could proceed in one of the of the two following ways. grant the administrative approval of the proposed changes and the plan revisions and allow the developer and the construction to proceed based on a uh I
I would guess a um resolution granting administrative approval of the revised plans that were submitted to you and that we have reviewed subject to this letter. If however the board concludes otherwise, you can require them to come
in for an amended site plan approval or at least a presentation of the revised plans in in order to address any questions, concerns, or clarifications that you want from the developer, their engineer, their traffic engineer, or
their attorney. Um that that's pretty much the uh summation of our process with this uh particular item. Um in my opinion uh I think the extent of the changes are all
focused along the shoulder of the highway creating these two lanes for vehicles to enter and exit the property uh in a reasonable um DOT approved manner. And I don't see how any of it ripples through the rest
of the site plan or changes anything that the board previously uh was okay with uh based on their prior site plan approval with conditions. I don't think it changes any variances and I don't think it violates or changes any
of the conditions of approval. So that's why I am uh making the recommendation that I am tonight. So I can answer any questions or provide clarification to the extent that I can. >> Um
yeah, Fran. Um it sounds like first of all, Highway 35 there has two lanes and then a shoulder. now. >> Mhm. >> The shoulder is going to become the acceleration and deceleration and
there'll be no shoulder or is the curb getting pushed over? >> The curb is definitely getting pushed back. Um, I would have to double check the plans. I think at the immediate vicinity of the entrance drive there
would be no shoulder, but the curb is getting widened to accommodate essentially the third uh vehicle lane as the deceleration and acceleration lanes. And I I don't know if you have uh the
plans up there tonight. We could perhaps >> um >> take a look together. >> The other um question was is this work on 35 being done because of Bright View or that was planned on
widening? >> No, it is definitely I I'm not sure about the utility polls that might be part of a bigger utility uh transmission expansion that's happening through a a few of the municipalities.
But I would say that the um widening across this particular property is because of the facility that's there. Um I have no um reason to think this would be uh undertaken by DOT for just
the frontage of this property if the facility was not built. >> And this facility is operating now, right? It's people are in there. >> Yes, it is. Yes. All right. So, it's really just
widening of the road to make the ingress and egress from the parking area a little smoother or safer. Right. That is a good way to uh consider these changes. I think that's an accurate um explanation of of what the proposed uh
changes are. Yes. >> Okay. >> Just a quick question. Sorry. >> Appreciate the the thorough review. the um >> sorry >> sorry was there something that triggered the need for the uh deceleration and
acceleration lane like why wasn't it why wouldn't it have been proposed initially I don't have a clear answer on that I can only speculate on what might have happened um I think sometimes these applications
go before the municipal planning board. The developer has to apply to DOT for DOT feedback. I have to um surmise that the DOT provided some form of feedback that perhaps it's under further review
or further consideration, but that the traffic engineers that presented the project to the planning board here must have determined and presented that whether or not the DOT requires Axel or Del lanes, we can safely operate
vehicles in and out of the property based on their site plan design and then ultimately in subsequent re reviews by DOT the DOT engineers determined it's better to have axel and del lanes
than not. Um but that's pure speculation. That's that's all I can summarize. >> Okay. Thank you. >> The acceleration lane when you're coming out of Great View, isn't that going to feed right into the jug handle lane? because there's a jug handle at Centerville or Union.
>> Mhm. >> So, isn't won't that feed right into that? >> It starts to approach and it starts to get, you know, relatively close to that uh right hand uh lane that feeds into
the jug handle. But I can um assure that the DOT has evaluated all of those distances, you know, to get the vehicles accelerating and out into the travel lanes on the highway. At the same time, folks are
trying to get into the right-hand lane to decelerate into the jug handle. I can assure you that if it's gone this far with DOT, they have scrutinized everything and will would have required
the the widening, you know, all the way down to connect to the jug handle if the DOT standards required it. So if it stops short of that and it's just limited to the frontage of Bright View, it's because the DOT determined it is
not necessary to to extend it all the way down to the jug handle. It's really not a municipal jurisdiction at this point. I would not offer engineering commentary on the design distances and widths of the axel and del lanes and the
distance thereof. that is completely under the DO's jurisdiction and their engineering review and all of the physical work along uh the the the length of the frontage of the Bright View property is with is going to remain
within the DOT state right of way. I will say that it's always good to have acceleration lanes if you can because at least people can go out and then it's easier to accelerate parallel to traffic than from a 90° angle. Mhm. >> So, um
yeah, I mean I don't see any issue. I don't know if anyone >> Yeah, I would um be in favor of granting administrative approval of the proposed changes and plan revisions and allow the developer to proceed without any formal
hearing and I would move that. >> Okay. Second. Second. >> Second. >> Okay. >> Mr. Connelly. >> Yes. >> Mr. Caran. >> Yes. >> Mr. Antonachi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Verham. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fagan.
>> Yes. >> Miss Plaus. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bell. >> Yes. >> Uh, Mr. Robbins. >> And Mr. Silverman. >> Yes. >> Motion passed. Thank you. >> Thank you, Francis.
>> Thank you. Have a good evening. >> Every time I hear Francis, I always think it's stripes. That was I don't know why that my brain >> a lot of people do >> that right. >> Which one? >> Pewies. >> Yeah, that's a good one, too.
>> U all right. At this time, we have no professional reports. So, we have a motion to adjurnn. >> Anyone? >> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. Thank you. >> Thank you. Have a good night.