[Music]
Zoning Board of adjustment meeting Monday March 24th 2025 I hereby declare this meeting of the Howell Township zoning board to be open adequate notice having been given pursuant to the New Jersey open public meeting act in the following manner
first on January 2nd 2025 a copy of said notice was email to the Asbury Park Press and the Star Ledger second on January 2nd 2025 a copy of said notice was hand delivered to the clerk of the township of Howell third on January 2nd
2025 said notice was posted in the office of the zoning board and on the bulletin board in the Howell Township Municipal Building 4567 Route 9 Howell Township New Jersey in accordance with the fire prevention
code and your safety please be advised that this facility is designed with two emergency exits which are at the front and rear of the meeting room furthermore smoking is not permitted in the municipal building please take note that this meeting is being videotaped for
possible future broadcast on Howell Township TV 77 thank you thank you eileene could we have a roll call please yes you may Mr burillo here Mr caner here Mr
Hughes is excused Mr odonnell here Mr Orosco is excused Mr Ryan present miss scotson here Mr corocus here and chairman Martens I'm here too you have a
quum thank you hold on oh Jose is here thank you welcome could everybody stand for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to
the Republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all Andy could you swear in the professionals please please your for the Charles Cliff Jennifer beam Barry
SP thank you Andy uh first thing we're going to be doing is the approval minutes approval minutes for March 10th 2025 eligible voters burillo Hughes odonnell Rosco Ryan scotson and Martens can I have a
motion motion to approve second roll call Mr burello yes Mr Hughes is absent Mr odonald yes Mr Orosco yes Mr Ryan yes Miss scotson yes and chairman Martin yes
motion carries thank you uh do we have any correspondence I have no correspondence this evening shocker okay resolutions before the board tonight case number ba 23-16 the center for educ ation New
Jersey resolution granting use and BK variant approval eligible voters burillo caner Hughes odonnell Rosco Ryan and Mertens do I have a motion I make a motion to approve I'll second it second
Mr Ryan roll call Mr burillo yes Mr caner yes Mr odonnell yes Mr Orosco yes Mr Ryan yes and chairman Mertens yes motion carries resolutions memorialized in the second resolution case number ba
24-3 Third Avenue Associates in corporate resolution denying use variance in sight plan approval eligible voters burillo caner Hughes odonnell scotson Ryan and merens can I have a roll call I'm sorry
motion Mr chairman I I know Mr Hughes had a question about the wording on that was that ever it was it was it was we changed it it was changed okay so his question is yeah it was just on the on the very end about what the motion was to okay very good just want to make sure
that they got addressed since he's not here tonight yeah yeah thank you Mike for asking that question so we have a second on that we don't have a motion okay motion I'll make the motion to approve I'll make the second okay by Marie roll Mr burillo yes Mr caner yes
Mr odonnell yes Mr Ryan yes Miss scotson yes and chairman merens yes motion carries resolution it's memorialized okay the first application tonight before the board case number ba 24-22 Kevin and Danelle OK Conor type O
variance application of Kevin and Danelle OK Conor as applicants and owners seeking a Bo variants approval to construct an inground swimming pool with Associated patio and a 6 foot high solid fence the existing deck and shed will be
removed moved the improvements are proposed in the rear of the dwelling they are technically in the front yard of the premise known as block 1.03 lot 16 115 pine needle Street the
expiration is May 15 2025 good evening good evening good to see you back again thank you you notice okay go ahead okay sorry uh good evening M of the Town board thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak tonight my name is Kevin OK Conor and I'm here to respectfully request a
variance for the installation of a pool and fence on my property at 115 Pine Street uh the addition of the pool has been a dream for my family since we moved in three years ago uh it would not only enhance our quality of life providing a space for recreation exercise and relaxation but also serve
as a Gathering Place for friends and neighbors fostering a strong sense of community I understand that our request uh requires a deviation from the current zoning regulations due to the unique nature of our property backing up to a culdesac and I want to assure you all that we have carefully considered the
impact this project will have on our neighbors and surrounding area we have consulted with professionals to ensure that the design of the pool and fence aligns with safety standards and aesthetic harmony with the neighborhood additionally we've spoken to several of our neighbors in the culdesac who have
expressed their support for the project uh the fence we're proposing uh is not just a matter of preference but a crucial safety feature particular for children and pets it will give us the ability to feel like our kids are in a safe space because even though the street doesn't have any through vehicle
traffic it does have a decent amount of foot traffic for instance last year our kids were teased during their birthday party by other kids who stood in the street looking directly into our backyard couldn't do much about it because they were in the street and not on our property the proposed 6 foot height of the at the corner while not
posing a safety issue due to the lack of through traffic and ensured Clear Sight lines and safe visitability will be providing a secure barrier and creating a safe space for our kids to have privacy and simply be kids all while bending seamlessly with the neighborhood's character we're committed
to minimizing any disruptions during construction and ensuring the project is completely completed efficiently and respectively moreover the addition of a pool can have positive effects on the property values not just for us but for the neighborhood as a whole aru um the
handout I gave everybody um the survey is the first page I think everybody got that in like the Mr chair I can probably cut through this yes pretty quickly no worries she's she's good at cutting through so the Lots
undersized that's an existing condition they have uh less than the frontage required also in existing condition and the side yard setback is an existing condition we're here for the pool and the fence because they have multiple front edges
so as we've seen in the past when you have a corner lot or a through lot or what have you anything that happens in their physical backyard is technically our front yard which wouldn't allow the pool excuse me the pool the equipment or the
fence hold on one second sorry we have seen this multiple times mhm this is not an egregious violation of our zoning they have a a hardship based on a lot that they're dealing with
they want privacy as we've seen in many instances I would take no exception to the relief being requested for the the pool the the fence and the equipment as long as Charlie can commit that the fence at 6 feet solid will not impede
the site triangle or any kind of traffic distance we don't take any exception so let me ask you a couple questions right okay so does the benefit in terms of privacy and safety outweigh any detriment that this pool would have look at my face
yes will the deviation from strict compliance impact the Zone plan or the zoning ordinance yeah and it would have no negative impact to your neighbors right no I have nothing further okay Charlie yeah just a couple engineering
items so there is a 10-ft wide utility eement that wraps around the entire of the property Frontage um looks like your pool on your sketch is like slightly inside that you're amenable to moving that to make sure that none of the sidewalk or anything is within that easan area yeah they um I
don't know if he put it on that but they I don't want to say cut the corners because I doesn't sound right but they they made the corner an angle so at that upper corner it wouldn't go in there yeah so if it has to get moved yeah it's just so it's the pool and the S I just want to be clear so uh and then as far
as the fence I think the survey you provided the existing fence might look like it's right into the RightWay when you set the new fence make sure you get a survey you're going to have to relocate that so it's actually within the property line not in the RightWay um as far as uh construction so
any curber sidewalk that gets damaged by your pool contractor they're going to have to reconstructed if it gets damaged um there's no impervious coverage limits in the R5 zone so there's no implications on that as far as I think you had one plan that showed like a trench strain for the pool slab that would be directed towards either pine
needle or bayber court right now out to the neighbor's property right um and then the existing deck and the shed you had a note on the plan those are going to be removed or no I I wasn't sure why they were going to they put that but I just moved it like so
there's like three feet of deck that I'm going to cut off and then the the the giz so the the deck itself is going to get cut and then the Gazebo that's there is going to get shifted okay not gazebo uh I would just request that whatever
you're actually going to do Morgan actually puts on the survey to submit to the board okay yeah just show the location of the shed because if it's going to stay then it needs technical relief because it's in the front yard area so um I take no issue with it because it's a practical rear we just want to see it on the plan so that way
you know zoning at the end of the day they know what was approved by the board um I I would recommend since you're here that the board consider the relief for the shed because it's existing absolutely and so if they've relocated out of the setback that's great but if
you don't I don't want you to have to come back here to solidify your your shed okay I think it's something you should just ask them to Grant now saying that we are trying to relocate it out of that setback area but in the event that a portion of it remains you don't have
to come back I would just say wherever you're going to put it Morgan needs to show it on a plan to submit it back to us so the zoning office understands what goes where okay yeah so and just to clarify with that so same thing with the
10 foot wide utility easement uh the shed just has to be relocated outside of that the town only lets like fences and things like that um and it's just a you know five years from now the utility company replaces things you're not ripping up your shed and you know it's not at your cost so I mean I have um
that picture this is my best ability M no no that's fine that's fine uh so I would just say as a conditioner approval they just got to submit an updated plan compliance the testimony that's all I have put that into the resolution okay at this time unless you have any further
I want to open to public I'd like entertain a motion to open the public motion to open have a second second all in favor I yes I no
okay NOP I didn't expect anybody based on your took your word for it okay do I have a motion to close motion to close second all in favor I okay what is the pleasure of the
board uh Mr chairman I make a motion to approve the both variants requested with all of the stipulations provided by Miss beam and Mr fund I'd like to second that motion based on uh
the facts this is a hardship and all the changes have been agreed upon and will'll Grant relief on the shed and any updates so okay ien can we have a uh roll call yes Mr burillo yes Mr caner
yes Mr odonnell yes Mr Orosco yes Mr Ryan yes Miss scotson yes and chairman Mertens yes good luck and let's hope for for better weather yes yes thank you very much I appreciate itk you so the resolution will probably be at the next meeting and then you can go back to the
pool company okay thank you very much you could you could call the office and we'll tell you what you have to do okay thank you oh yeah okay moving along tonight we have two applications
we are at this time going to move the case C which is the Ford planes Partners to second on the list so Mr pate if you want to come up I'll it into read it right now case number
ba20 d118 Ford planes Partners LLC use and B variants to construct One Flex warehouse and one self- storage building application of Ford planes Partners LLC as applicants and Ford plane partners LLC lot
6.01 and 1499 holding company LLC lots 15.03 and 15.04 seeking use variance and voke variance approval to construct one story Flex Warehouse with mag magazine office
space and one four story self- storage building and storm water management system on premise known as block 137 lot 6 .01 15.03 and 15.04 Ford Plains
Road this is a profic application as the applicant is only seeking use variant approval at this time this application was partially heard on August 26 additional testimony on September 9th 2024 the application was carried to
October 28th to 2024 when it was carried to December 16th 2024 with no further notice after more testimony on December 16th 2024 it was carried to February 24th
2025 with no further notice on February 24th 2025 with it had additional testimony presented and then was carried to March 24th 2025 with no further
notice eligible voters burillo caner Hughes odono Orosco Ryan scotson Koka rockus and Mertens yeah Mr merts has certified expiration is March 30th
2025 Mr Pete Mr chairman members of the board board professionals public good evening Kenneth Pape on behalf of your applicant and as read into the record this is the fifth presentation to the board on this application the at the
February meeting we were substantially complete there was an issue with regard to the design element of the building that the board identified and we asked for the opportunity to address it this evening Lewis zno who is the engineer
his credentials are on the record he's sworn he's under oath and um is prepared to make a a presentation on a revision to that one portion of the building that was up for discussion and then Mr chair
at the meeting of the last meeting there came a moment where the public portion was closed I believe that the public portion would have to be open for the limited purposes of examining Mr Mr Z's testimony yes it would only be for his testimony nothing else would be looking
for an opportunity to provide you with a summation and be asking the board to vote this evening okay with that Mr SAR I remind you that you're under oath and I know that you have a new exhibit that has been electronically loaded the name of that new exhibit it's a site
rendering it's an updated version of a a prior you gave me today yes John that says a47 in the exhibit F there was a safety and an aesthetic element of the discussion when the architect was presenting the the rear of
the flex building and Mr Mr zner has addressed that in in a modest redesign I remind the board that we're asking the board to consider this application for use variants that it is bifurcated and a
formal site plan that brings all of these issues to a conclusion and for the board's review would be forthcoming Mr P the exhibit list I gave you is missing the two exhibits Mr zner sent this afternoon a46 is an aerial
exhibit got it and a47 is the site rendering thank you you're welcome if you would if you could identify to the board what they are looking at and then take us through what you have designed good evening uh so
this is an updated version of a plan we've presented a number of times and the element of question tonight would come up previously was access or particular Ada access into the offices which are on this plan the lower half of
these buildings A1 and A2 this one particular topic so we were comfortable previously that uh designing that access could be done at site plan uh but because this was a question of safety we went back we took a critical
look at uh technical aspects of the plan one thing that became very apparent in doing that um is a relatively good solution and that's what we're here to show you because we're no longer bringing tractor trailers into the loading side of this building it's originally the
time where we were going to do that it's now more a flex bace or is a flex bace building with smaller size trucks we were able to shift uh these buildings in part 5T North or 5T up on the plan
towards Route n it's not North and by sliding those buildings that 5 ft uh there's no negative impact to the Loading side provide a real functional and aesthetic ability even in those 5T on this office side so how do we do that
A1 the building on the left is entirely shifted 5T then A2 the portion of that building fronting on the uh Fort Plains buffer that's shifted 5T in that additional 5T we're able to
build steps and ada8 ramps into each office door that needs them some are higher than others some of those offices are right at grade so would have just a door at grade some would have a few steps some would have more steps but in that 5 ft you can get in the Ada ramp and access in the original length That
Sidewalk runs right along the parking spaces so it works well and significant parts of it remain as just a 5- foot planting strip that could be landscaped um what do you mean by significant portions uh might be able to zoom in if
you could on building A1 oneing you can see here visually in green uh uh you know based on our initial study of how we would get access ramps and steps into each of those doors uh would leave you know I'm calling I
don't have a specific number but a significant percentage of that 5 foot strip is green that could be planted with Foundation plantings um and the rest would work as sidewalk ramps access can you just clarify when you
said you shifted the buildings 5T which way did you shift them so A1 is shifted before it was right on that sidewalk now it's 5 feet up on this plan away from Fort Plains Road and that extra 5T is
where we're able to work ramps and steps so did the loading Bays get shorter or did the everything just shifted 5T East towards Route 9 no the concrete loading space that's gotten short um because I don't need to bring a tractor trailer a
back of tractor trailer into that space What remains is more than sufficient for uh you know box truck or pickup truck but you haven't secured any tenants right no tenets there are no tenants okay so and so we don't really know
exactly what's going to happen with the loading we had agreed that we would restrict the uses um to strictly Flex uses and we had agreed that there' be yeah but Ken Define Flex uses like there's no def
like never mind just keep going so and I just want to clarify that too so for building A2 at the southeast corner where it does that kind of 45 degree turn so so that easterly facade is now 5et closer to that drive aisle so this
building we've stepped so the portion you can see uh sort of where the Middle Island in the parking lot is uh those sections with those offices which needed ramps that's been pushed uh further up on the plan but the rest of the building where it comes and narrows that remains
in the same place so you're telling me the easterly facade of where the not where you have the concrete loading dock but where you have the asfalt that kind of comes in from your two-way Drive aisle there that's not 5et closer towards the the
circulation drive that that one place that piece There is five feet closer do you have any ground level images of what all of that is going to look like and with the move with the shifting is did was there anything no the architectural plans were not revised
okay thank you is that it yeah I would just again this was prepared sort of for Clarity on how we would get ACC access um to demonstrate that this can be done without any safety concerns of course the final design would still come with site
plan that Mr chair is the additional testimony that the applicant offers to the board okay Charlie anything more to his testimony you want to I mean the reason I was asking the
questioning um you know obviously the concrete loaning area is you can see have some width to them off the back of the building but that Southeast corner where it's just asphalt that pulls into there there are two loading docks or loading doors to that building so moving
it closer we had had a question I think earlier in our report about like how does that function and uh vehicles coming in and out of there loading parking up to the back of the building you know obviously sticking into the drive aisle now shifting at 5T further to the east you know exacerbates that
that condition and that concern so that's why I asked the question okay Jen Nope I have nothing okay board members any questions one minute Sher do you have anything to add as far as okay
board members any questions Mike yeah Mr Zer just following up with this revision the length of distance between the ramps and the furthest office door would be how far now I mean the length of the furthest
ramp or because previously you had to go from in building number two if you were in the last door closer to building one you got to go all the way down to the right to get out so with the new steps and ramps
that are being put in how much has that distance been so um reduced the way that's constructed now is in compliance with Ada the ramp can only be so long before it needs a landing and the the ones that have the greatest length of ramp are each of the offices at the far
left from this plantet the building uh those ramps are about 30 feet uh in total okay uh but they also have steps so someone could walk right down the steps there's no length walk for that person but the ramp is I believe about 30 to 35 ft in in the way it was drawn
up okay thank you anybody else saying none um we're going to open to public but again this is only going to be for the testimony that was put on record tonight um if you're talking about something else that doesn't relate to
this uh I'm going to cut you off so at this time I'd like to open up to public do I have a motion I'll make a motion to public second second by Nick all in favor yes e if anyone has any comments or
questions regarding the testimony that was put on the record tonight please come forward hello member board good evening everyone else James Fields f l DS you have you provided testimony I think before yes I right so
you're still under Ro Mee you don't need to do it again I appreciate you're still under Ro I hope everybody's brackets are still good and not busted right um I do I understand we have to stay within the parameters of what we spoke today yes um but with that stated um just understanding that uh the ADA
compliance and and the ramps are going are we aware of what types of businesses I understand it was stated it was a flex space and she did ask and and mention you know what types of businesses would need this ADA compliance have we ever come up with those businesses that would
need the ADA compliance on the flex Bas and or which rich ADA compliance and the tenants totally different you have to comply with Ada regardless correct but I don't think they have any tenants as of right now so you would uh one would say that the Ada would be for the tenant
that's there correct I mean that's the proposal for a person who is visiting the the space correct that's the proposal so that's why I'm saying for those who are ADA Compliant for this revision do we know who might be visiting this space and tenants we don't
we don't okay that's what I wanted to bring up also um since there was a mention about it moving I'm assuming now we can talk about it actually moving about 5 feet it's away from for Plains um it does that make it more or I'm
assuming in parking you would say different types of vehicles now will be allowed to park there by it being moved away and what type of vehicles would that be there's no change in what they're proposing in terms of the use they osed the use they've claimed
there's no tenants the move 5T was to provide ADI access Lou right is that correct Lis yes so there's no change in your proposal for the tenants and the loading and all those other things it's just a shift to allow you to put a ramp in just that for ADA compliance access
yeah it wouldn't change there right so you know I appreciate I'm only here to make sure that we are heard um we're still here we're still your neighbors and this would be a affecting us I just wanted to let you know that okay all right thank you I appreciate you sir appreciate all
you uh volunteering to be on the board I know it's a hard decision thank you yes anybody else have a question for this witness seeing none I'll ask for a motion to close the public motion to
close the public second second all in favor yes okay at this time Mr P you want to give a summary and closing testim yes thank you this is a
an unusual property it's a 34 acre parcel in the HD1 Zone with very limited Frontage on the state highway the very limited Frontage is located at the southern end near the Home Depot the 34 acre parcel of property has considerable
Frontage on Fort Plains Road and Fort Plains Road is a road that is accessible to this property the property the is the HD1 Zone there are many uses that are permitted that are far greater in intensity than what your applicant is requesting the
testimony of Miss cfone at the last meeting recited that indoor Recreation health clubs fitness centers daycare facilities Home Improvement centers Retail Services retail sales restaurants restaurants with drive-throughs
hospitals and health facilities are all expressly permitted in the HD1 Zone if someone were to develop this property consistent with the HD1 they would have absolute right to use Fork Plains Road for their primary access for those uses
that would be consistent with the H1 Zone what your applicant has done is unique and it is because we're before the Zoning Board of adjustment they recognize that they need to do something to earn relief from this board amongst
the steps that they took early on was to purchase a right of-way out to route nine that right of way didn't belong to them they had to go out and purchase it from from the property owner who owned the KFC property so that a 50 foot wide
RightWay became available so that traffic from this property could exit without going on for Planes Road the second thing they did and they placed it on the record is they are prepared to vacate their right to use Fort Plains Road they are prepared to eliminate that
through an easement that would run to the township of Howell Howell would own that easement and the only penetration of that easement only penetration is the one that Chief proc now asked for and that was to have an emergency access
driveway at the Northern end and that would be a secure driveway a gated driveway with a nox a nox box and it would be designed the way Chief prau asked us to so you've got HD1 properties that have all of these intense uses you
have the absolute right to use Fort Plains Road and your applicant comes in and presents uses that are low intensity the testimony of all the witnesses identified that they are low intensity they're not asking for the high-intensity uses and they are giving
up the right to go on Fort Plains Road totally unusual your applicant took a very responsible step by doing that the buildings that are proposed the although we are aware and we've talked about it at length that a flex building
on this property is not a permitted use but we did visit the standards in the ordinance for Flex buildings the size the height the size of the spaces and through a give and take with the board and the board's professionals our client modified those buildings so that they're
now in compliance with those elements of the approval during the hearings there was a concern expressed by board members and by board professionals about safety and one of the points that was requested of the applicant can you separate these two
uses can you separate Public Storage Self Storage from the flex building and Lewis and his team went back with working with Scott Kennel and came up with a revised plan that separated those two they're no longer connected each has their own separate access to Route n the
only connection is again Chief Brock now asked for fire and emergency connection between again a lock boox a noox box again it would be gated the the property that faces Fort Plains Road is proposed to be heavily
landscaped not just heavily landscaped but heavily landscaped and burned the burms are undulating BMS that run the entire um length of the property all the way to the Woodlands that were identified by Miss spirro as worth saving the woodlands would be
supplemented with additional plantings or infill but the balance would have the tall burm with Landscaping we also were asked to add a fence a security fence as part of that element so on our side on the inside there's a security fence
there's a burm and there's Landscaping just to give a focal point Home Depot is our neighbor and Home Depot backs up to Fort Plains Road none of that except for a wooden seedar fence behind the back of Home
Depot separates Home Depot from the fort PL residential Community what this applicant has offered is very respectful and responsive respectful to the community responsive to the request that the board [Applause] made not as important but worth noting
is early on there were objectors to this matter that were represented by Council our client met with them to understand and address their concerns and they withdrew their objection there are there's a bungalow community on the property this is not
something that the board asked but this is something that the township of Howell directed that Bungalow Community which was 34 residential bungalows in somewhat poor repair is now down to eight residents and the trials to remove them are the next 48 hours tomorrow and the
day after so your applicant respected the request of the township at large to eliminate the Bungalow community that is on the property the applicant has paid careful attention to the questions that and the issues that were raised during the
hearing and has been very responsive to same the end result is a proposal that is a less intense use than your ordinance contemplates and a voluntary but Permanent Vacation of the use of Fort Plaines Road for Access thus
keeping the traffic on for Plains Road in the immediate neighborhood of the residential community at a minimum for all of those reasons we respectfully ask that the board consider the variance relief that is before you with the understanding that the applicants
prepared to come forward with a full site plan to address the remaining site plan issues and I thank you for entertaining the application this evening okay okay thank you Mr Pate anything further from anybody before we go to
vote seeing none I will entertain a motion at this time Mr chair would you like our opinion on what we just heard yes I said if there was any more comments from anybody I just I thought you met the board so no I'm sorry so you
included I stand behind the the testimony that I gave at the last meeting with respect to the particular suitability for Flex as I said at the last meeting you know we entertained Flex space as a permitted use in a number of zones
within the Township in our last master plan which I think was adopted in 2022 and then kind of implemented in 2023 so we're talking like a year and a half ago this is not dated it's not that we didn't investigate it and we did allow Flex as a permitted use in a
series of zones this was not one of them so you know it's not like it was forgotten I also take exception to the fact that there was a statement saying that this is less intense than what's permitted Self Storage is permitted if the whole site was Self Storage it would be far less intense than Self Storage
plus flex and absent understanding the tenants and we still don't have any tenants the impact and the implication is still relatively unknown so with that being said I still you know I I I appreciate the applicant's efforts to
mitigate the safety concern that we raised regarding the wall and the you know ADA compliance with respect to uh a fire or some kind of an emergency exiting the building so I do appreciate that aspect of it however it doesn't change my overall opinion on on the fact
that we still don't understand the tenants we don't know who's going to be coming in and out the frequency Etc and the site was evaluated as was all Sites specifically on Route 9 because we paid particular attention to the uses on Route 9 Flex was not identified as
appropriate in this location and so I still have the same opinion on the particular suitability and the potential negative impact from this type of use at this location I understand it's Zone HD1 I understand the size of it however this is not a typical lot that we see on
Route 9 it is limited access on Route 9 it's long and skinny impacts into a residential neighborhood and without understanding what exactly is going there it is the the UN the negative impact is still not resolved with when
it comes to uh my analysis so respectfully I feel like the site's not particularly suited and the negative impacts could outweigh any potential benefits from this particular development at this location okay thank you prepar to make
ation okay nobody else Charlie yeah and I just want to add I think uh the board over the period of the multiple hearings you know expressed some concerns with the multiple uses and then the scale of the development you know I think um 70% is permitted in the HD1 um which they're
well under when you look at the whole tract as a whole but there is a significant portion of the site that does have environmental incumbrances when you look at the portion that's just just subject to the development south of the sanitary easement that runs through they're developing largely to like the extent of what they can develop you know
they they got roadways with the retaining walls right to 50 foot buffers you know the roadway around the side of the building is right to the 50ft buffer to the residential on Fort Plains Road um you know certainly if the scale of development were reduced you know you could probably do away with some of the
retaining wall in the grading um I think that just gives some more context to there's a lot that's going into the site and one of them is not a permitted use and you're adding two uses on a lot and jamming it all into a tight space yes
okay Mr chair yes uh just to add uh with regards to the Bungalows uh just want to remind the board that these are the the application that's before you uh is a completely separate issue uh from the Bungalows that are being demolished the
Bungalows do not meet State housing code standards uh it was an option not a demand by the township to tear them down that was an option that the applicant had he chose that for whatever reason it wasn't uh in his best interest to continue with the Bungalows uh so as
such uh a separate case that started way before this application uh was put together an agreement was made that uh they would be vacated and torn down regardless of how you vote so uh just keep keep that in mind that they are two
separate issues I totally agree and everybody's okay okay at this time I will entertain a motion Mr chairman I'd like to make a a motion to he's not eligible not eligible okay sorry I'm I'm on I'm
written down on the list though for you're eligible but if there's nine we can only accept seven voters so unfor you don't vote Mr chairman yes after hearing all of the testimony it is my opinion that
the applicant has not proven to me that the positive benefits of this site would exceed any of the negative impact to the community of hell and therefore I make a motion that we deny the use and bulk
variances sought by this applicant okay do I have a second second second by Miss scotson can I have a roll call you want to explain to them the vote it's a motion to deny so they're
voting yes right so what is saying is a yes is a yes is yes okay it's a motion to deny so if you vote in the yes you're agreeing with the motion okay Mr burillo
yes Mr caner yes Mr odonnell yes Mr Orosco yes Mr Ryan yes Miss scotson yes and chairman Mars I agree with Mr Cantor and I agree
with the professionals there was not enough positive criterias to Grant this so my vote is yes as well motion carries application denied Mr chairman board members thank
you for your careful deliberation I would ask if we could take a five minute recess I have your next application and I need a few minutes to regroup okay sounds okay we will take a five minute break will be ba
23-6 Gateway industrial 175 LLC use variant application to Gateway industrial 175 LLC is applicant seeking use variance approval to construct a 13,940 square footage Warehouse with
Associated office spaces on proposed lot 30.02 Associated site improvements include trailer parking passenger car parking storm water infrastructure utility connections upsite water main
extension lighting and Landscaping on premise known as block 49 lots 30.01 31.0 45.02 and 46.01 Lakewood Farmingdale Road this
application was partially heard on January 13th 2025 when it was carried to March 24th 2025 eligible voters burillo caner Hughes Mertens odono Orosco Ryan scotson
and cavar rascus you got it that time yeah it was for real okay Mr Pete welcome back thank you Mr chair board members board
professionals and public looks like the public left public good evening this is a continued application as read to the record by the chairman the last time we presented to was January 13
2025 however we've been before this board since March of 2024 with some testimony in March and some in June some in September we were here in November I don't think we did a substantive presentation January
13th and we're again here this evening the testimony of Mr zner was placed on the record at the January meeting we did not reach the testimony of also the testimony of Miss rub the architect was
placed on the record I do not intend to call M rub again especially after M beam complimented her on such a beautiful building and I so I think we'll just rest on architecture but there were a couple of questions with regard to
engineering um and we also did not present traffic and we did not get to planning so I think with your permission Mr chair we'll begin with Mr zner and go to some of the open issues that were left at the January meeting for the
engineer was I have the applicant here and the applicant could be called to pray put on testimony they do own the building and they operate the building that is adjacent to this one and the use would be the same okay I mean as long as if
some available to answer any questions regarding operational that's fine terrific so what I Mr chairman merens if I could Mr Z's testimony Mr kennel's
testimony and then again a five minute recess operations followed by okay that sounds good Mr chair yes can I think it would be very helpful because you originally applied for a subdivision then it wasn't a subdivision now it is is a subdivision so like I just think
you need to provide the board a little chronology on how we got where we where we are sure thank you agreed so before Mr zner testifies I'll begin by reminding the board that this
is an unusual parcel of land in Howell this is the property that has no history this is the property where the buildings that are on this U site apparently had something to do with the federal government or the military decades ago and there's no history of approvals
what's there happened the buildings happened the parking lots happened and it wasn't until maybe sometime in the last 10 years as people bought those properties and became private owners and we actually came before the zoning board and the
planning board creating a history for those buildings we there was a small office building across the street we came in and we asked for approvals to use that office building for specific uses we created a drainage system in a parking lot but that was the very first time that that property had an approval
and we came in with a large building that is next to this one and we asked for permission to put shelters over the loading docks there were no approvals for the building no approvals for the loading docks no approvals for the shot for the parking lot none of that had ever been approved it just was and we
came in and we asked for certain approvals to put shelters over the over the docks and what you you have now there is this interesting property that has a large parking lot that is separate from the building that's in front of it but what we found working with our
clients is we found that there had been a master deed that had been created that kind of wo it wasn't a government approval but there was a private Master de that had been woven together that created access and a series of access throughout the properties and that
access system actually provides access from the roadway to the D to the parking lot that's behind the large existing building when we first came before the board we had combined all the all of the excess land into one parcel and after
working with your staff came to a conclusion that that was not the right approach we then came we then looked to separate some of the properties from the front building and the separation would have had this large parking lot this existing parking lot that Services the
other building become part of this site and as the planner report Miss beam's report pointed out we now had created another variance for ourself because we had doubled up the uses on our property when that wasn't Our intention so Lewis found a way to subdivide the parking lot
off so that it stands alone on its own lot we're not asking this board this evening for a subdivision approval but we're offering as a condition of the approval that we are asking for the use variance relief as a condition that we would subdivide and create that separate
parcel for that parking lot so we don't have two uses on our property Miss be is that adequate to address the concern yeah thank you that's how we got here and that's the most recent exhibit that was prepared by Lewis and filed shows
that subdivision to create a lot for that parking lot and not to belabor the point but it is most unusual to find an industrial complex like this fact I know of no parallel most unusual to find an
industrial complex like this as comprehensive as it is with driveways and parking lots and industrial buildings that has no approvals it just doesn't have any approvals and we we we kind of joked and said we have to make birth certificates for every time we come before you for whatever we're
presenting because there's none there and we've gone through this at length with the township and so with that I'm going to ask that Lewis begin his presentation on I think the one very
clean easy point to make is water we talked about bringing water we talked about bringing water thousands of linear feet to this location a private extension that would benefit the public our client is ready willing and able I think 2700 feet that's longer than that
okay long to bring a main waterline to the property and the first question is who would benefit from it and Lewis has prepared a waterline exhibit second there was a question that Charlie conliff raised and that was and another
application that this board heard on Fairfield Road after the approvals were all in place it was determined the water pressure in the line was inadequate and a modification was necessary to create an onsite pump
to have adequate firefighting water supply Mr cunliff asked that we address that as part of application I'm pleased that Mr zner has done the necessary research and can respond to that those are our first two issues then we'll progress into the subdivision we'll
progress into some of the remaining site plan issues if that is acceptable to the chair very fine Mr zner I remind you that you're under oath and the board I remind you that his credentials as a professional engineer have been accepted and made
part of the record if you would introduce to the board your water exhibit and take us through the proofs that I just outlined great uh so there were three uh 838 John and Mr Pape on your exhibit
list yeah the off-site water main extension was already listed as a38 but a39 Lewis sent in earlier today as the site plan rendering thank you and A40 is the subdivision exhibit thank you
so we'll get we'll do all of those but let's do them in sequence okay a38 the offsite water man extension if we could put that up and if you could explain what we're looking at and talk about the Improvement that our client is offering so a quick overview
and then uh we'll go through it a little bit the the question was sort of twofold what is New Jersey American sort of direction to us on where the water line would come from how far things like that and then there were some secondary questions about what properties might be
impacted if we could start if you don't mind in the upper right hand corner could we zoom in on the location map perfect so our route or where this water line come is coming from is from squankum Road and it's about 6,000 feet
so it's quite long and that's the direction they wanted to bring us uh New Jersey American has directed that the water line would come from they have a 16-inch Main in Squan Road uh if you don't mind zooming back out the rest I don't know is necessary
to go through each element but shows their number of properties of various different uses and they're all labeled and with information but a number of people who would be along that route who would have the potential to connect uh that's sort of the identification part of the
route uh You' also mentioned Mr P in terms of adequacy for fighting fires uh the simple answer is well it's not a a design yet New Jersey American is very specific that this as a new line would have to provide sufficient uh
adequate pressure and supply for not just our building but other buildings they essentially wouldn't let us build a new line that doesn't provide enough water uh and the other example on Fairfield Road that was an older existing line that someone was working
with and and that's why a fire pump was brought in it didn't have the flow or the pressure I could just I I want to make sure that it's clear to me I'm embarrassed that I said 2700 when it's 6,000 feet long but the Fairfield Road
waterline was an older water line that was and the applicant who came in with a warehouse tying into that water line but that line was in place that line was already in place and it was determined it was inadequate correct this had the
water line is not in place and you're charged with def designing a water line that New Jersey American Water Company would only approve if it does have adequate capacity for our building as well as all these buildings along the
Route that's correct so EXC all of the building or Charlie on fairf for Road didn't that applicant put that water line in yes yeah so they were proposing on that application a significant main
extension um you know Mr zner can maybe speak more to it but my understanding was uh there was as part of the application maybe an expectation uh that American Water was going to allow the main to be sized to also provide
adequate fir flow uh and that didn't happen after they uh received approval and then they had to believe get an administrative approval for a um separate tanks for fire suppression uh I guess for whatever reason either the existing infrastructure didn't have
sufficient capacity or pressure to uh you know deliver the the the you know amount of water needed for fire suppression purposes but I remember wasn't ex M Mr kend we we were the attorney and the engineer
on that application you certainly were the board members that approved proved it there was an over 7,000 linear foot sewer line brand new that was put in but the water line was in the street and it was just extended it was that it was a
real problem it was yeah yeah it was that sewer line that went and has the huge Pump Station that was all part of what you approved and it provided capacity for the whole region the water line was just an extension to
the site and it turned out that the pressure in the line that we were working with is inadequate and it had to be pumped at the side but here we have a 16inch line as the start and New Jersey mer we're doing ground
up thanks for that opportunity next sure that's what I have in terms of the water let's go to your site plan before we move off the water is there is there any fire hydrants along that route that we need to know of or will there
be um I so again it's not a designed extension at this point but I would presume that that's going to be part of the requirement with the extension yeah all those homes and businesses would then benefit from having a hydrate installed Chief Brock now I'm sure is
going to tell us that he wants hydrant every certain distance so we don't know that now no we it's not designed maybe I'll maybe I'll rephrase that there will be hydrant it's not designed we don't know where or how many
hydrants but there will be hyd okay so I would just note the same thing right so the applicant is making a representation that they're going to be able to upsize the main to 12 in to provide fire suppr adequate water pressure and volume to uh flow rate to where they don't need to
put in a separate tank on the site for fire suppression purposes is if American Water you know change or tune if the board were to act favorably you know either at time of site plan or after you know they're here for preliminary and final now no they they bifurcated they you bifurcated it out Ken yes yeah we
asked that we permitted to proceed with the new portion so I mean if that changed and then they wanted to propose infrastructure if it was above grade and things like that you know then they would have to come back to the board to seek amendment of any approval for that and what would happen if they said
no you'd have to site a tank on the site somewhere pump so I would presume since we're doing a new water line the way it would work is if they didn't allow us I don't know why they wouldn't a larger line
they restricted flow you would increase it uh with a pump there' be a pump house to pressurize it at the other end being on public water with flow I I don't understand why there would be a tank there might be a fire pump
okay I think the next issue that we were discussing with the board was that the fact that the sanitary sewer service area in which this property is located is something like swiss cheese properties that are immediately next door to us and
across the street from us are in the sewer service area and in fact when we went first to work with the sewer engineer here in town and the mquan River Regional sewage Authority everyone thought that this property was in the
208 sewer service area it turned out that it wasn't and it's almost illogical that there's a hole in the middle of the sewer service area and this particular property isn't served for that reason our clients Engineers designed an adequate septic system that would handle
the building the last meeting I'm not sure how it was phrased but I don't that it was brought up would the applicant pursue an amendment to the 208 sanitary sewer plan to allow sewer to the site for the uninitiated an amendment would
require first a permission from the township to proceed then to the count to Solid Waste Management at the county then to the Commissioners and then to the D it appears that there's no reason why sewer is not available so the
applicant as is willing to pursue a 208 Amendment we've designed it with an on-site septic system that works we would ask that you consider that septic system with the understanding that the applicant will pursue the 208 Amendment
and if the 208 amendment is granted we would then use the sanitary sewer line it happens that the sanitary sewer line goes right past the property we're just not allowed to tie into it and Lewis if you could help me with that that was an what is the reason you you're not allowed to tie into it not the SE no
okay but they can't it's a regulatory reason not a physical reason that prevents us from connecting to it there are times when you go to the state they say well the reason you can't tie in is because that's environmentally sensitive or that's a property that's being protected
there is AB this is right in the middle of an industrial park and all the other properties are in this one's out and when I say we when we sat down with your and utility engineer and we sat down with Mr Brock at the manisan River Regional sewage Authority at first
everybody said you're in and then there was head scratchy and said oh wow you're not okay there's no logic to it we're asking that you the our clients are ready willing and able to pursue a 208 Amendment as a condition of any relief
that is granted by the board but we'd ask that if that for any reason is not approved by the D or those other agencies that we'd be permitted to use the septic system as design that as part of the plan okay and I'm going to ask is there anything that you want to add to
that no I would just say that what you stated and how you stated it is accurate there's a process to uh making an amendment to the plan and putting us in but it requires number of steps and approval by other agencies and it begins with how Township would be would have to
allow us to make that to go through that process they it starts with how Township so just to give CL cl ity to that too so there is a trunk line immersive trunk line that runs along the west rear portion of the property but it runs through regulated severely regulated
areas uh what lands repair and all that um I think it's even a C1 water there is public there is public sewer available in proximity to the site um I've had discussions with the engineering department there is down at Mulligan in the corner of hurle Pond Road there is
sewer available I believe within an eement on the on the Mulligan site so um you know there is a process to go through to get an amendment and there is sanitary infrastructure and proximity to this site to make connection uh so you know while they may not be able to
connect because of environmental reasons to the trunk line you know at the rear of the site you know that doesn't preclude them from seeking Amendment and then running it in the public right away to uh you know sanitary infrastructure within proximity I just wanted to put that on the record I just want to say and Tom you might remember this when the
ice rank went in they were proposing to tie into the line in the rear and merca said no you have to run it along the road which was under a moratorium at the time so I don't know that they're going to allow them to tie in in the rear will whether it's the front or the
back we'll make the application to tie into sanitary sewer there's sewer available in the industrial park there's a line that comes outside of those environmental restrictions which we believe we could tie into okay
if you the question becomes we're still talking about it and honestly that's one of the reasons that you need a D3 variant so why are we still saying we think we know we may instead of having had those discussions to know that we can the issue came up at
the last meeting that the applicant was asked if they would pursue that the answer is yes we will that's right but it has not yet been pursued just came up a month ago it's not we've not started the process isn't that one of a condition so
it is a condition yes that's why I brought it up so Mr my condition for sanitary sewer to be part of the equation here Mr bur yes we knew that and we so you didn't know a month ago you knew way before we we knew way
before we and and we are before the board this board of adjustment for a D3 because of that if we had sewer we be for be in front of the planning board but we do not so that is why we're here and we're asking for a D3 variance but I
think what Jen is trying to say what Jen is saying is why wasn't this already done why wasn't these inquiries already you know done the applicant has the right to come before this board and request relief
it's relief that has to to be earned and we are before you asking for that relief we believe that it is Justified we the going for the senator sewer amendment is something that was raised for the first time by your staff
at the last meeting and I reviewed it with the clients and they said they would undertake that y I guess I I would have hope that some conversations would have transpired I mean I guess it's a month but it's been more than a month so I I feel like
I feel like these conversations should have been had already section 1889 98.6 conditional use requirements for warehousing and it's and it's number D on here and if you don't meet them if you meet them you go to the planning board
if you don't the Zoning Board of adjustment entertains it in the form of a D3 application and that's what we're asking you right but but your representation has been that you intend to comply and you intend to connect and I'm failing to understand why you know I
mean when the application was read into the record it was multiple months ago these are conversations that could have been had in advance of this hearing I mean warehousing has been a sensitive topic for this Township all
over and getting all the ducks in a row probably would have been advisable I would have expected at least preliminary conversation to have been made with an understanding of you know if you get your 208 Amendment this is how we anticipate you
tying in that's kind of what I'm suggesting with your permission we are here this evening we have an application before you the guidance that has been provided by the board and by the board's professionals was not on deaf years we have just started that process but with
your permission I'd ask if we could continue the okay but next meeting we're going to have that resolved because I mean I agree with my fellow board member and I I mean that should have been done so if you can we're not going to vote on
this tonight because I don't I don't feel comfortable until we have that taken care of understood Mr chair and board members may we proceed yes going to ask if you could identify the subdivision that's proposed and you
heard my opening statement about the fact that there was a parking lot that is existing sitting behind the large building next door to us and I would ask if you could do you have if you could show us that parking lot and identify the subdivision that
the applicant proposes so that the warehouse building that we're asking this board to consider is the sole use of the property that's before them I believe the this is exhibit A40 you're a call up A40 this is a diagram U where I've used
a little bit of color to express a couple of elements these are in all these colors multiple Lots at the moment um and the red lot which you can see underlying in the red there's a rectangle at the right hand side nearest the building that's
the parking lot everyone's spoken about that lot in its existing condition more or less fits that shape there's a dark green uh flag that extends out to the road that's part of that property at the
moment so in this configuration essentially we're removing the flag that's what's causing the subdivision we've gone through a few different iterations of how to Mr Pap described maybe combine Lots or do other things and when we were looking at this most recently what we discovered through
some deed research is that area in yellow is an easement that does provide access to this property so the property when we remove that flag still has access we haven't caused any other issues to it uh and we haven't substantially reduced it we've just
removed the flag that stays with the parking area uh one other element when we look at the green lot which is essentially the area we've talked about uh still larger than the 10 acres in the zoning uh we reconfigured and had to
move or relocate some grading and a detention Basin to keep it on essentially the green property uh functionally we could have zig the property but we thought this was the best solution to keep it simple in close Conformity to where that property line
sits now the green property exceeds 10 acres The Zone says that the this type of use is confined to 10 acres could you confirm the statements that were made previously and confirm that they remain accurate that the development of this
property and the intent all of the bulk conditions all the impervious coverage conditions building size all of that has been tied to a 10 acre maximum and does not take advantage of the oversized lot that is correct it's still based on the
10 acre element of the zoning we also looked at how a buffers impact these properties because there's a buffer imposed with the subdivision uh and that can still be maintained so the same criteria that you placed before the
board for the called the green parcel previously of complying with the bulk requirements um continues it does continue and but if the subdivision were part of the applicant's request for Relief the sub there would only be one
use on the green parcel and that parking lot that's affiliated with the building that's in the white space above the red space that parking lot would not be on this property any longer would not be on this property and just just make sure that the master deed that was found that
had all of the easements that were was created by a prior property owner provides access from a public road to that red parcel and all of that is in place albe it through an easement system and a master deed but it's it's in place
and provides access it's in place it provides the access now so essentially that lot is functionally not even changing it's losing the flag but the red lot remains with access how it's getting access now all in place and the purpose of this was to remove request
for variance relief for having two uses on one lot but now you're putting an accessory use on a lot with no principal use so that also requires a use fence and since you're bring the subdivision back it's back to a major subdivision which requires a 50ft
perimeter buffer and your setbacks are measured from the buffer line which also requires variance relief which we haven't seen because you haven't shown it we comp right we comply with the buffer and the setback from the buffer well I don't see it on the plans
so respectfully I taking you out your word but the plans have to be submitted for us to review it which we're not done and you need another use variance for putting an accessory use on a lot with not a principal use which is a D1 variance not a D3
variance noted so Mr Pape did you notice for a D1 variance we did not notice for a D1 variance we the original notice indicated that there was D3 variance and that we were
requesting the board to consider the subdivision approval as a condition of the D3 variant but the subdivision is going to create a D1 variance which is another use variance like I'd like to proceed with
the board and I don't mean to be difficult but if I could have a moment to confer with Mr Bayer I'd appreciate that if we could take just a 60 Minute 60c not 60 60c break we'll have a twom minute
recess the board will now take a two-minute recess okay Mr Pete yes thank you Mr chair after Consulting with your professionals and I think that being a prudent step is that Reen notice add additional relief as actual or potential
relief if you carry us to the April 28th meeting we will Ren notice and republish we'll provide an extension of time for the board to act and deliberate and we'll also begin the process of the 208 Amendment if that's acceptable to the chair and you did say Ren notice I have
to Ren notice yes okay I'm Ren noticing and republishing okay and we'll Grant the board an extension of time is that acceptable to yes it is um at this time anybody in the audience case number ba
23-6 Gateway Industrials will be carried to April 28th 2025 with further notice an extension of time and um we will have you on the
agenda first thank you very much so on the record the extension of time shall run through May 30th 2025 and such reasonable extensions that the board requires will always be granted okay thank you thank you good night thank you good night okay e our next meeting I believe
is May your next meeting is April 7 trying to jump to make yeah no okay April 7th yes okay and you have
uh three uh you variances on that night so no there's two others but one's an extension of time and one is just Turkish American for I have one thank you okay at this time before we close um
two things I wanted to bring up to the board um we are still working on getting the sessions for the training I just have to wait for uh Jennifer to get uh her company to give information to Mr Clark once that's approved then we'll probably be setting up the time
frames lastly on a sad note uh especially uh eight great years and I've been fortunate to work with Eileen not only as a member of the board but I also came
in here as an applicant too while serving on the board and I saw both sides of what she does both with the public and as far as professional and um how's losing a big big big person and um I just want to
thank Eileen for all her service thank you and we'll miss you it's been a pleasure and I really did enjoy working with this board so maybe I'll bring you back a cake one day yeah yeah that would be yeah those things are you start a side
business with that yeah side side let us know that would be fantastic you need to get an alcohol license red rose is open I understand so you can go in there I know she she only bakes with liquor you be a bad R and um also want
to thank Jennifer for requesting them tonight for our her last meeting so oh thank you anyway with no further business I'll entertain a motion to close I know I have back on all in favor thank you rich thank you