Good. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Welcome. Welcome. Welcome. Welcome. Glor. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it
stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Uh, he was just right there. He may have went in the back room. All right, everybody. Welcome to the Jackson Township Planning Board. May
18th, the year has gone quick. Uh, this meeting has been adequately published in all the appropriate places and forums according to the Open Public Meetings Act, and I will leave it up to Madame Chairwoman. >> Good evening, everyone. We'll have a roll call, please. Mr. Brezzy >> here.
>> Mr. Marzo, >> Mr. Heler, >> here. >> Mr. Parks >> here. Mr. Rogers >> here. >> Miss Santoro >> here. >> Mr. Tremor >> here. >> Mr. Weingart. >> Mr. Sullivan >> here. >> Dr. Camp >> here. Uh, a motion please for payment of
voucher for recording secretary for May 18th meeting please. >> So moved. >> Second. Sullivan. >> Mr. Brezie. >> Yes. >> Mr. Heler. >> Yes. >> Mr. Parks. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rogers. >> Yes. >> Miss Santoro. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tremor. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Dr. Sullivan. >> Yes. >> Dr. Camp. >> Yes. Uh a um motion please for approval of the minutes from May 4th. >> Like to make a motion to approve the minutes of May 4th, 2026. Sullivan.
>> Second. >> Mr. Brezie? >> Yes. >> Mr. Parks? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rogers? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tremor? >> Yes. >> Mr. Sullivan? >> Yes. >> Dr. Camp? >> Yes. And we have one resolution. Yes.
Resolution 2026-13 of the planning board of the Township of Jackson, County of Ocean, State of New Jersey, granting preliminary and final major site plan approval with design waiverss for an office building and warehouse for 510 Whitesville LLC, block
22401, lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Eligible to vote are Mr. Brezie, Mr. Heler, Mr. Parks, Mr. Rogers, Miss
Santoro, Mr. Sullivan, and Dr. King. >> Like to make a motion to approve resolution 2026-13. Sullivan, >> second. >> Mr. Brezie, >> yes. >> Mr. Heler, >> yes. >> Mr. Parks, >> yes. >> Mr. Rogers, >> yes.
>> Miss Santoro, >> Mr. Sullivan, >> yes. >> Dr. Campbell, >> yes. Thank you. Um any um engineering or planning matters, gentlemen? >> Any legal matters, sir? >> Not at this time.
>> All right. Okay. Mr. Alfuri, you're on. >> Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. Salvatore Alfuri uh Clearary G Kobe Alfuri Jacobs on behalf of the applicant and this being on I'm assuming
we're on Star Capital. That's the first one we're doing. >> That's fine. >> Great. Okay. Thank you. Um this application is a uh daycare facility conditional use. Um you'll hear testimony that we meet all of the conditions of the ordinance and
therefore we're properly before this board. We've received reports from uh the the board professionals, police, fire, etc., which we're prepared to address. Uh we have three witnesses uh traffic, engineering, and
architecture. And we're going to start with engineering, planning. >> Thank you. >> All right. Do you swear affirm tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Please state your name and spell your last for the record because we don't know who you are. Eric Halpert Halpert,
licensed professional engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey. I've appeared before this board multiple times and I prepared and these plans were prepared under my supervision. >> We accept your credentials, Mr. Halpert. Welcome. >> Thank you. Good to be here. Thank you. And Mr. Halper, um I know we submitted
exhibits in advance of the this hearing tonight and I we're going to start with an aerial. >> Yes. Anthony, can you please pull up the exhibit set? >> And you're going to be testifying as an engineer and a planner. >> Correct.
>> Both. Correct. >> This uh exhibit is an aerial exhibit. It could be marked exhibit A1. The exhibit depicts um the area surrounding subject property. Subject property is shaded in yellow. Subject
property is located on the southwesterly side of South New Prospect Road, a county route 641 near the intersection of Woodlane and it is highlighted in yellow. The subject property is located in the R1
zone. Near the corner is the NC zone. The subject property is surrounded by R1 zoned residential um properties and uses and across the roadway there are our 20
properties as well. Anthony, could you please um pull up the um site plan? the there's a separate file uh not not not in the same set there's a separate file for plan sets Thank you.
Could you go to um the third sheet of this set? The next sheet, I'm sorry. The board is viewing the submitted um site plan and I'll go through the operations. Uh first the applicant is
proposing to construct a daycare center. The footprint will be 18,338 square footprint with a floor area on the first floor
of 17,663 square ft. A second floor attic area of 9,450 square feet. The applicant is proposing a daycare with 95 parking spaces,
recreational play areas, landscaping, lighting. The hours of operations of the daycare will run Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 400 p.m. There won't be any weekend or evening operations planned.
The number of students enrolled per the late per the recent resubmission and the statement of operations will be revised is 282 children with 49 staff members on
the main floor and 20 additional staff members in the attic floor. The facility will be staffed um by teachers, teachers aids and administrative personnel. The range of activity, the range of the
care will range from infant care to toddler. There will be indoor play area, indoor play, outdoor play. Drop off and pick off and pickup schedule will generally occur in the morning between 8 am and 9:30 and 9:30
a.m. and in the afternoon between 300 p.m. and 4:15 p.m. >> That would cover the operations. >> Uh could we make it clear that um no weekend or evening operations
not just say are planned will not happen? The applicant agrees to that. >> Thank you. >> Now, can we run through the conditional use standards, please, before we get into the site plan related details just
so we can confirm that we meet all the conditions? Certainly, the applicant is proposing to construct a daycare under ordinance 244-114, a a permitted conditional use.
Going through the conditions, the condition number one is to provide a statement of operations and a statement of operations is provided and will be revised per the testimony just given. The minimum required lot area is 1 acre
and the proposed site after providing a dedication to the county is 2.81 acre and therefore the applicant complies. Condition number three is regarding accessory buildings and there are no accessory buildings proposed. Condition
number four is regarding all interior states. All interior facilities and areas to be used by the children shall be located on the principal entrance floor and any other level which is not more than half story above or below the finished grade at the location from which pedestrian access is provided to
the building and the applicant is complying with that condition. All area to be used by the children is on the ground floor and the attic is meant for administrative and storage and the children will not be using the second floor and the architect
will go through the architect plan in more detail. Condition number five, a minimum of 100 square feet paraded building capacity of outdoor space devoted to recreational use shall be provided and shall be entirely fenced or otherwise protected from hazards traffic and driveways.
and the applicant is proposing an outdoor area of 35,920 square ft to comply with this condition. And as I go through the site plan,
I will uh demonstrate where this where the um outdoor recreation area is in the rear and along the uh one of the sides. Basement app. Um condition number six, basement is regarding basements and
there is no basement proposed. So the applicant complies all loading. Um, condition number seven, all loading and unloading shall take place on site and not in the right of way. And the applicant is not proposing any loading or unloading in the right of
way and is providing pickup and drop off in front of the building with the extra parking spaces. And as we go through the site plan, this will be um discussed in more detail. Note. Um, condition number
eight, no temporary or permanent residential dwelling facility shall be provided in a child care center, nursery, school, or daycare center. And the applicant is complying with this condition. None of those are proposed. um condition number nine requires the
facility to be licensed and the applicant will be um receiving a license will comply with this condition and will receive a license for the child care center. >> Madam Chair,
>> if I might since Mr. Alfier took the time to talk about conditional use so we can continue the hearing. >> That would be great. It's our position that they do indeed meet the nine conditional use standards under 244114 for daycare centers and that the board
correctly has jurisdiction to hear the remainder of the application. >> That's a help. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So Ellie, let's get into site site plan details, please. I'll go through the site plan and then go through um report the reports and um comments
first. um discussing the um improvements associated with the project um before getting into the property along uh the county roadway. As part of the project, as mentioned earlier, the project the property is located along County Route 641,
South New Prospect Roadway. And as part of the um project, the applicant um has received approval with conditions from Ocean County Planning Board. And as the board is aware, uh, the county recently
provided the threelane, um, striping up to this up to this intersection and as part up to the intersection of Wood Lane at the traffic light, which is
approximately here as part of um, subject project um, application to the planning board to the Ocean County Planning Board. The applicant will be continuing those improvements to stripe three lanes in front of the property
which includes some roadway widening to accommodate the three lanes and will continue the taper beyond the subject property as per Ocean County Planning Board um requirements. Additionally, as part of um the general infrastructure
improvements associated with the project, the applicant um will be extending the sewer which terminates currently at the intersection of Woodlane and South New Prospect. And the applicant seeks to construct um the
structure and connect to the public sewer system. The applicant has received preliminary approval from the Jackson MUA to extend the sewer to the edge of the property in order to provide public sewer to the facility.
Additionally, there will be curbing sidewalk as part of the um as part of the project discussing the actual uh site plan within the site. The applicant seeks, as mentioned earlier, to construct a two-story building with the children uh
facilities located on the first floor. First floor um area is 17,663 square ft. There the main access is in the front. There are multiple doorways additionally
along the sides for additional egress. The architect will discuss the um architect plan more in detail. The applicant um has provided a play play area in the rear and has coordinated with um the fire official to to ensure
that um there is fire access. The applicant has um received approval from the fire official that has been submitted to the board regarding the circulation. The fire official has provided his standard comments regarding
placement of um hydrants, fire department connections, but the applicant seeks to um provide a play area in the rear and parking as depicted. The applicant is providing um
95 parking spaces per the um calculation on the cover sheet. Um 54 parking spaces are required. The applicant is proposing extra parking to aid in pickup and drop off. The applicant um in dealing with uh
child care um prefers uh extra spaces for pickup and drop off will be you utilized as opposed to a school type uh loading um unloading area where the car pulls in and the child gets out. The parent will be able to get out of the
car with the child and bring the child um to the building. There is a refuge enclosure in the rear of this drive aisle. There are walkways connecting the parking area to the building
connecting the building to the to the sidewalk that is proposed along South New Prospect Roadway as well. Is there a plan for fencing >> the as part of as um as um part of the
uh one of the conditions um requires it to be uh fenced and the applicant is providing fencing along the uh recreation area and I'll go through the landscape plan more clearly to depict the landscaping and the play
area and a Anthony can you please um bring up the uh first exhibit set um the second sheet please of the first exhibits. Thank you. the the applicant is proposing
um the board is looking at and this could be marked as exhibit A23 because the site plan >> okay the site plan will be A2 and this sheet will be exhibit A3. The legend shows the area in dark green
is the play area for the children and the area is fenced in to for for safety of the children. The children have access to the play area directly from the building without needing to cross over any parking area.
Um, and the there's buffering along the sides, some shade trees within the play area to um to for for for shading. Good to run around also. And this is um the depiction of the play
area to comply with the conditional use number um five. >> How how high is the fencing? >> 4 foot fence. >> 4 foot. >> Correct. And it goes all the way from
the edge of the buildings on the back all the way around the back of the property. And what about fencing around the um >> the fencing is not the fencing will go to the edge of the building.
And there is a fence additionally the the basin there is a basin in the rear and that regardless would require to be fenced and that will also be fenced separately. Is there fencing where you're showing now? >> Yes. >> And across the parking lot area,
fencing. >> There is fencing. This yellow >> Anthony, could you zoom in a little bit, please? There. There is fencing from the rear of the parking and all around. And Anthony, could you uh keep it zoomed
in and uh scroll up to see the other part of the page? This is direct access from the building and there is fencing as well. And this fencing could be will be connected to the building and there is fencing along
the entire um area >> en could you go down to the very bottom and to the left, please? >> Over here. >> Yes. And to the left >> farther Anthony see the fencing behind that
>> behind the basin. >> Yes. >> Anthony, could you uh zoom into this area? Is it depicted on this plan? The applicant the applicant will be providing fencing around the storm basin standard
>> and and around the entire back end of the property. >> Yeah. And could you zoom up again around the entire back end on the other side here? The buffer here are the buffering plantings and then this is >> fencing. >> Fencing.
>> All right. I I'm concerned about there that fencing being extended to the back line there. on on the left. To the left >> over here. >> No, to the there. Over there. To the left in the back of the buffering. Yes.
Because that looks like that open area might be unsafe for uh anyone locally. So if there might be children coming from another area to where that could be there needs to be a
fence along that entire property line. this fence. You would like to continue this fence >> continue along the entire property line >> in addition to the fence. Correct. Directly on the >> correct. >> The applicant would be willing to do that.
>> Great. >> Okay. Yes. The applicant would add a second fence in addition to the fence that would be required to surround the basin. Uh, can you describe how the storm water management will function?
Anthony, could you go back to the um site plan to um sheet number five, please? The next sheet. Thank you. The applicant has provided um storm water management system consisting of
inlets, piping to a stormwater basin that we just discussed and piping to a underground subsurface basin. And as um was pointed out prior to the hearing, a corrected uh cover sheet will
be submitted. A stormwater report has been prepared for this property and a corrected um storm water management report with the correct cover sheet will be resubmitted to the board professionals and to the environmental commission.
Um Anthony, could you go back to the previous sheet? I'll go through the comments um the reports. The report May 12th from the board planner. >> I think you you're up to page six on this report that signing
>> correct. Yeah. Yes. The applicant is um not proposing a monument sign and is only proposing a facade and the architect will discuss the square footage uh the requirement of the wall sign.
>> I think we've been asking for an address monument. >> The applicant is willing to provide an address sign >> for the sake of the police and the fire department. the applicant is willing to provide >> nothing fancy just to provide something small >> there there is room there is room within
the safety islands to provide >> Mr. China >> the um I'll discuss some of the um uh traffic and circulation comments and the traffic expert will discuss more um in detail. Um
there is uh regarding the comment um the possibility of attempting to provide a direct access through the adjacent lot. Um the that would the uses are uh different uses.
The applicant did reach out to the adjacent owner. the adjacent owner is not so amunable to having the child care um uh traffic go through their property, which I understand. Um but the applicant
did speak with the adjacent owner. The um traffic uh expert will discuss more queuing and circulation regarding parking um setbacks and design waiverss required. The applicant um
requires a design waiver for providing parking within the buffer area along the recently approved um place of worship on the adjacent lots 19 and 20
as well as a design waiver for providing parking um within the front setback. And along the adjacent property is a commercial use And I believe a 15 foot 15- foot buffer
to the commercial use is acceptable. The board often grants the waiver to for for providing um parking adjacent to a commercial use. These are two commercial uses and buffering should um be not as
should should not be required to as great an extent. The applicant is providing buffering in the front and it is sensible to design the parking in the front with the play area in the back. >> Would that buffering include a burm
perhaps a burm style buffering so that it's raised property? >> The the the grading is soft grading. The applicant has the ability to provide a burm if the board >> might be a little safer and more
attractive. The applicant has the ability to provide a burm. >> Any thoughts from the board on that? A burm little more attractive and from the road. >> The applicant could do that and could work with the board engineer for the
height and width span. >> Sound good? >> There is um regarding a loading area. The applicant is willing shall provide a loading area shall remove a parking space in order to accommodate a loading
area measuring 12 ft by 35 ft. There is room where um I am showing over here for the applicant to provide a loading area and the applicant does not require a waiver from providing a loading area. That's a sensible thing to provide.
The traffic expert will discuss the rest of the traffic comments. EV ready spaces, I'm EV ready spaces shall be provided to comply with the requirement regarding landscaping.
Anthony, could you I'm sorry. Go back to the landscape exhibit the exhibit set. That's sheet number two. The um regarding landscaping per 244193B1 there are buffer areas required of um 25
ft. The applicant is proposing the applicant is proposing um is utilizing as part of um is utilizing the play area in some of the um buffer area. The applicant is providing significant landscaping and screening.
And it should be um pointed out um as well that uh the um master plan refers to the outdoor recreation area requirement um does actually greatly exceed the state requirement. The applicant is
complying with the ordinance. Um however from an operations perspective the applicant will be not utilizing um the entire play area. The um state requirement allows for more pract allows
for um stages uh of different classrooms utilizing the same area at different times. No applicant would uh no um child care operator would have the entire um
facility utilize the recreation area at one time. The ordinance does require um a recreation area per the entire facility which the applicant is providing. Um however practically the applicant would you be utilizing
generally an area less than 10,000 square feet and I believe the um design waiverss from providing um the buffering um because the play area is in that area is justifiable because essentially it is
lawn in a um in a buffer area. The applicant is agreeable to provide plantings that are six to eight feet tall at the time of planting in order to achieve a solid screen as quickly as possible. And the applicant would be
willing also as well to provide a um solid fence along the edge of that um 10-ft landscaped uh screening area along the rear and the side. Regarding um the front buffer area as
discussed the applicant is providing a buffer area and will provide a burm to work with the board engineer. The applicant will work uh with the um landscape expert and end islands and dividing streams dividing strips shall
be provided with the required um landscaping per 244197K and does not seek uh any waiver from from that section. the comment you just made about working with the landscape professional that's
the um >> that is the >> aron which used to be CME April 27th 2026 report will address those comments >> correct >> okay >> regarding lighting the applicant um will
be providing as indicated cutoff shields and we'll be providing um uh uh to ensure that There is no glare to the adjacent property. The applicant is willing to provide lighting on timers as previously
mentioned. There will be no weekend or or week night. There will be no night uh use. >> So, everyone is leaving the property by about 5:00 p.m. So, we could have a 6:00 p.m. No lights. >> 6 p.m. It's a child care facility. It
will be empty at that point. Refues. I know Mr. Peters has cons indicates he has concerns with the location. I'm not sure if you looked at that. Regarding refues, we are currently showing the refuge location over here.
This is a private hall. the applicant has the ability to provide uh to change that location behind the front setback if the board would wish. Again, as mentioned earlier, there is
extra parking over uh generous um extra parking to aid in the drop off, but losing a space or two and adjusting the refuge area if the board um would want is something the applicant is able to do
without requiring any variance of front setback or um side area. Um, >> did you have a location, Ernie? >> Um, weren't happy with the
dumpster in the rear because quite frankly, it's part of the play area. So, at some point, the correct design for this is there's going to be a sixoot fence with landscaping around it. And now someone who's standing outside won't be able to see down that chute parallel
to the parking area. So just put it in line with the front of the building someplace a garbage truck can get at it. Pull in, pull out, lose two parking spaces over there. The daycare center is the paramount design standards safety right for the students. >> Correct.
>> Having a a six foot tall fence in an area where unless someone's standing guard along that long thin area, you can't see past it. So moving that up to the top right or or that that
>> any place in the parking lot where a garbage truck can easily >> pull in. >> I think Mr. Cle Mr. Cle can discuss that and decide on the best location for all involved. >> Yes. >> All right. Any thoughts in the board on that?
>> Agree. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> And I will go through the um >> I just Mr. Peters does ask about lot consolidation. We would um do a lot consolidation because there's separate lots presently. And then utilities, you indicated already. We're going to connect to we we will as part of the um
project there will be a sewer main um extension and the applicant has received uh preliminary approval from the MUA already. um going through the um >> engineer engineer um review letter dated
May 12 the applicant um the conditional use standards >> well I don't know if you need to go through point by point since many of the items were duplication so is there can you stipulate that you would address all of the comments
>> yes and uh specifically regarding soil removal the applicant doesn't anticipate there will soil removal. There is no basement and it is uh very soft grading. However, the applicant would comply with uh ordinance 244166
um if need um if it should come to greater than a thousand cubic yards. >> And you already indicated that there was a fire um report that dated December 17th, >> correct? >> Um and you comply with all of those
recommendations and comments. >> Yes. Um, and and you didn't say it, but I'm assuming other than the items you testified to, you would also agree to address the technical comments in Mr. Peter's report. >> Yes. >> Um,
just make sure I I think that's all we have, Madam Chair, for M. >> Mr. Tremor, you had anything on the fire issues? >> Uh, yes. Actually, thank you, Mr. Halpert. I just do I do have one quick question. I noted that Jackson Police traffic safety and the fire official from district 3 noted that they were
particularly concerned about the rear access for the fire truck. Um I'm quite familiar with that fire truck. It is pretty large and um I know you touched on it briefly. Is there any chance of a possibility of maybe
eliminating either those last two or three spots or even giving additional access because the rear access is super important when it comes to to fire access, especially with that kind of emergency vehicle. If there's any way we could just make the rear slightly more
accessible without impinging on the on the play area, is that a possibility? >> And you so to cl Yeah. To clarify, you're asking to remove a little bit uh so there could be an opening where there will be no cars parked in order for fire
to access. >> Yeah. Because I'm thinking in the in the worst case scenario, if if perhaps th those parking spots are all filled, if that truck needs to get in there, even if it was to come to the very end of the fire lane there on either side, that truck needs it has outriggers that need
to come out and position to get the aerial apparatus up. And what that does is just if we could block off those those last few spaces, I think that would alleviate to I would be satisfied at least. I don't know if uh fire official Gman would agree with me or not, but I think it would in my opinion
it would alleviate the access problem and let the aerial apparatus for the fire district be able to have access to the rear and that way we're not impinging on the on the play area as well. >> The um the applicant would be willing to do that. And just to clarify also the um
fire official, Mr. Grossman did approve is is okay with the plan. >> Okay. >> Um maybe >> but we could do >> but we but we could do that. >> And you're looking at two spaces on the on the either side. >> Yeah. those the last two on the on the far side, the last two and then on the
near side, the last three. Basically, leaving where the building ends, leaving that o space open >> and just striping those off for fire access would would alleviate that problem and give and give fire access to the rear >> and just stripe it to say fire lane.
>> The applicant striping. Yes, >> no parking. >> No park fire zone. Yes, that's a problem. >> I think that would be a great design. the chain link fence being a problem with you guys trying to get there to the rear >> chain links chain link fences usually aren't too much of a problem but
>> I think that's yeah I think that's the provides access for students and access. >> I think it's a great idea. >> The applicant would agree to that. >> Any questions at this time from the
board? >> We're going to call our architect. >> Oh, sorry. I thought I got you earlier. >> Sorry, Doug. >> Mr. Clay. Um um thank you. Um from an
environmental end, I read the EIS and um I don't think there's any environmentally sensitive, you know, >> correct >> concerns. Um the letter from the D heritage. >> Yes. I'm just curious as to why you would get that kind of to took an extra step property that didn't.
>> That's part part of the EIS is to request that and they provided um that letter indicating onsite there are no threatened endangered species and offsite that there are about 800 feet away. >> Mr. Hopper, I'm not sure your microphone is on
>> or you have to get closer to it. Thanks. >> Yes. Um um uh as far as the driveways go, there is a design design exception for the two driveways that are proposed. Um but in my mind, it's a county can jurisdiction. If you can get the county approval, then I'll take no exception to the to the waiver. You um you had
indicated that um there's part of the reasoning behind the extra parking is for the drop offs. Are those drop off areas going to be signed? Meaning, you know, the the front will be signed as drop off. So employees are parked
>> employees will be parked off of those spots. >> Um yeah I think you indicated that the age group is infant to toddler >> six weeks to five years old >> infant toddler and preschool age uh child care.
>> Okay. Um and how old how old child? two-year-old >> five years old, I believe. >> Um, >> six weeks to >> six weeks to five years. >> Could that change? >> Not unless they come back here. >> Yeah, I think. Yeah, because this is
preschool. It's not school. >> It It just speaks to if that was the age group, do you really need that much? I'll say playground area. >> No, we don't. >> But if it's going to change, then maybe the playground area is fine. It's fine the way it is. I just need a clarification. >> We're only providing it because your
ordinance requires it, not because we need >> and there is no afterare. >> No afterare. >> Not after four o'clock. So there >> So would there be after six? >> Would there be anyone uh say an
eight-year-old coming at for afterare? >> No. No. We looked I looked into the client. He said no. >> I I I saw the I saw the head. >> Okay. All right. >> Are there any recreational amenities in
the play area? Again, it kind of speaks to if it was just toddlers, I don't think you'd need much and you got a nice park. Then if that's going to change, then maybe we should look at the um act I'll call it active recreation. >> The applicant is willing to provide a play set, a slide area,
>> although he may not need it. >> Although it may not be needed, the applicant will be willing to provide that. >> And we can confirm that this is a a single use. daycare only. >> Day. Yes, >> correct. The entire building. >> And um um lastly, the um there was some
um brief testimony regarding um I think the applicant approached the adjoining property owners looking for some type of cross access and the adjacent property owner didn't have any interest. >> Correct. >> Would the applicant be willing to provide easements, cross access
easements on his property? So if in the future somebody wanted to do something, things change, at least the ability to have a cross access, keep cars off the county road may not be a bad idea. May never need it, but >> not sure. I guess we could. I don't know
what it does to the design of both properties. >> You might lose, you know, I'm just spaces. You might lose a couple spaces, but you got plenty of them. And I'm just thinking though, the front Yeah. the front access driveway, >> the front up and down. Yep. where those
those um where it intersects the sort of circulation aisle right there. Now come down >> the other way the um along >> come to the bottom of the page >> adjacent to the property next door. extend that to the new property more.
Let's match your front aisle up with adjacent properties and just an easement >> and then we could put parking stalls there into >> now. But if somebody wanted to develop just like a joining they we know there's enough parking to know that they can lose three spaces or whatever. So, so
like so an access easement extending 15 extending 15 plus 8 30 >> whatever it takes to get that property. >> Okay. Um both uh both property lines. >> Oh both and then the >> There we go. >> Um the northerly property line
>> up at the very top >> this property as well. >> Well, why not? >> We could certainly provide the easement whether it's ever used or not because that's a house I think. Yeah, Madam Chair, Mr. Cle and I are from the Toms River Township School of
>> Limited the number of access points that have direct access to a traffic light. So, when you're in downtown Tom's River in their village commercial or historic commercial zone, they don't want parking sparking lot access points every 65 ft.
So, you think about that in downtown Freelold on on Old Route 33. In this particular case, while the county doesn't require it, to the extent that if there was a future need, we'd be able to keep all of these vehicles from
accessing county road. They'd be slower. They'd be safer. Quite frankly, the piece of property to the east or south of this, which is the which the the owner said no thank you to, has direct access to the traffic light. It's
a house of worship. I don't know that the house of worship and a daycare center conflict in terms of uses. That being said, if if we do the proper planning now, who knows how things change a decade, a generation from now,
and at least we put this in place. Mr. Cle and I have found this very useful and successful in downtown Tom's River. And while this certainly isn't downtown Jackson, it's an area where we could limit access points to a county road, one piece of property away from a
traffic light. So that's our >> I often ask myself as I'm driving, why I can't go from one piece of property to the other without going back out on the street. So I think proper planning, >> we could do that. That's >> proper planning. >> We'll bring put it right to the property
line and they could connect if they if it ever is worked out. Correct. >> Sounds good. Mr. Rogers, >> I have one question on a traffic circulation. I see that we have let's say we deducted
a couple of parking spaces, but you got 90 say plus or minus and I notice you got 49 teachers. Is that total staff or is it another? >> No. But the state of operations indicates 49 teachers plus 20 upstairs.
>> Okay. So said at least 45 spaces. Now those spaces are only going to be used during drop off and pickup. >> Correct. >> You also said we got 482 students. >> 282. >> Oh 28. Oh, thank you.
>> Big diff. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Even >> projects just got hald and and they're staggered. The times are staggered >> and they're okay. Thank you. That's what I was trying to >> Yes. >> Uh that that upstairs will only be used for school personnel.
>> Administrative school. No separate offices. >> No third no third party uses >> at all. No. >> Thank you. >> There's no basement. So they that's basic storage. >> We were happy. Anything
more? >> Okay, we'll call the architect. >> We'll move move to the architect. If you could just wrap up just the waiverss, just what waivers that we currently have after all that. >> Just summarize >> the waiverss that the applicant um seeks
um would be 244197J 1 C. >> The driveway design. Yeah, >> the driveway design. Correct. 244197 II1
>> the handicap stall >> the parking at the in the front the uh traffic expert hasn't uh just uh hasn't spoken to yet but the applicant will be is seeking the 244197G
uh regarding the entrance drive uh and exit drive and uh utilization of the uh of the um required entrance and exit drives regarding landscaping as discussed. 244193B
regarding the buffer area. The applicant is not seeking a design waiver from a loading area 244193C related regarding the screening with those are the um design waiverss that the applicant is seeking.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. One more time architect. >> Well, try again. All right, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth? Nothing but the truth. All right, please state your name and spell your last for the record. >> Miriam Davis, D- ABIS, licensed
architect in the state of New Jersey. These plans were prepared under my supervision and I have testified before this board before. >> Okay. and the board accepts your credentials. >> Welcome. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. And and you um submitted in advance of the hearing uh colored renderings, I believe,
elevations and then the floor plan. >> Yes, we have the full architectural plan set as well as the building rendering. >> Okay. So, which one do you want, Anthony? >> We could start. Anthony, could you pull up the architectural plan set, please? >> And we're up to A4 according to my notes.
Anthony, it's the third page of the exhibit set. >> I think that's the rendering. We could pull up the plants at first. >> I give up. >> So, um I don't know. There's a You have the architectural set there, Anthony.
>> So, pull up whatever you have architecturally and we'll work around it. >> We have the handout. >> While while we're waiting, may I may I ask a question? Sure. I was looking for a nurse's office. Is there one?
We have two offices. Um I think we have two offices shown on the floor plan. I'm not sure if the applicant wanted one designated as nurs's office, but if that's something that they're going to include in the program, we definitely have the office space for it on the first floor.
>> Is that required by the state? >> I'm not sure from a last. >> I'm not certain either, but it seems that it I was a teacher for a long time. I also have five children and 13 grandchildren, so I know about kids and sick. Um
>> I don't believe it's a licensing requirement. Um based on the daycarees I've done and the um chapter 52 requirements from New Jersey, I haven't seen a requirement for a nurs's office. Just wondering, but I think we can provide if that's
>> Yeah, if it's >> designate one and then you know if you need it, you have it. Okay. >> Okay. We have A4 which is the architectural plan set. Correct. >> Yes. >> What sheet do you want? >> Well, we'll start from this one. So, just to give a brief overview, the
project consists of a new construction twotory slab on Great Daycare on South New Prospect Road. The gross floor area of the first floor is 18,338 square feet. Um the area of the attic second floor area is 9,450
ft. Uh if we could skip two sheets to the first floor plan. So we have the main building entrance located at the front of the building. We come into a vestibule and a double height lobby with the admissions office located right over here. Um we have 18
classrooms on the first floor. Each classroom has two emergency exits, a closet, and a sink. Um, one of the board, one of the questions in the review letters was regarding the extra doors that you see on the front. So,
each classroom by building code is required to have the two doors. Any door that is located um in a parking area will have a hardwired alarm for safety for the kids. We have two indoor play areas, a small
teachers room, staff bathrooms, uh children's bathrooms, we have supply closets, and then there are the main access points to the play area. We have the three double doors that lead to the play area as well as the classrooms that are
located adjacent to the courtyard have the direct access from the classrooms themselves. Additionally, we have the two staircases leading to the second floor as well as an elevator. We have some sprinkler room and some
mechanical space. Uh we could go now to the next sheet, the second floor. So, as testified by Mr. Halper, the second floor will not serve the children. It will only be used for staff and storage purposes. We have three
offices, a teacher's room, break room, and the rest is used as storage and mechanical spaces. There are also four staff bathrooms as well as two stairs and an elevator. If we could go to the next sheet, the roof plan. Thank you. So, the roof is a
mansard roof. We have two depressed flat portions that will serve for the mechanical rooftop units. The mansur parapit will continue around the flat portions to shield the rooftop units from the exterior. >> Yeah,
it's a little light. >> Yeah. Uh we could go to the next sheet which is the elevations. >> But wait for the roof. Can will it be built to accommodate solar if it's if it's if it's feasible? >> Yes, the roof will be solar ready. >> Thank you.
>> And this is the same plan set the elevation. Yeah, same plan set. The proposed building height measured to the um we actually it's a I'm going to revise it. It shows 21 ft on the elevations which we measured to the average roof line, but considering we're
using that space for an attic, we actually gave a revised building height of 28 ft measured to the top of the attic roof. Uh the first floor has a floor to floor height of 14 ft and the second floor has a floor to floor height of 14 ft. The ceiling height will be about 10 ft. Uh
if we can now pull up the exhibit with the building rendering which I think is page three of the exhibit set. So the exterior of the building was designed to complement the neighboring sites with the use of traditional
materials and roof lines. We have a mix of brick veneer, two different color brick veneers and a stucco. There's a stuckco trim that separates the brick veneer water table from the uh stucco above.
The front elevation also includes decorative columns as well as dormers with windows that will bring light into the second floor area. Uh the building signage which is the address sign located at the main building entrance complies with the ordinance side sign
size. Um some just some general information. We have the proposed building will be type VB which is an unprotected wood building. We will have a sprinkler system and fire alarm system throughout the building. Um there's an elevator that connects the two stories. There are a minimum of two means of
egress at each level. Um and the amount of children will be 282 children with 69 staff members spread across the two floors. >> That's all we have of the architect. Madam Chair, >> any questions from the architect from
the board? I have one question on the food prep area. >> What's going to happen in that room? >> Which area? >> Food prep. >> Second floor, attic floor. >> Yeah, I think we were just Yeah, it's all staff areas. Um,
>> a lunchroom for the staff. >> A lunchroom, >> right? Correct. It's >> different than a prep room. >> It's not a kitchen for preparing. >> No, it's not a kitchen. I think it was just I mean we could >> do we get definition on that >> we just got to confirm the food prep.
Yeah. >> Right. >> Right. >> So there's no food prep, just warming lunch. Food is delivered on site >> and warmed up in the food prep kitchen if needed. Stored more for storage, but
if needed to be warmed up. So, you're going to have equipment in there? >> No. Commercial kitchen equipment. >> Warm it up. >> Warmers. Refrigerator. Refrigerator warmer. Okay. >> Thank you. >> And the applicant will stipulate to that. >> Yes.
>> Yeah. >> Mr. Peters, >> Miss Davis, thank you for your testimony. Um, I get to ask this question all the time. >> Your design was for a single user daycare only. >> Correct. >> That's your understanding of the intent of the applicant? >> Yes. >> Thank you. That's all I have.
>> Mr. Clay, >> thank you so much. Thank you. >> And West is Is John here? >> Oh. >> Oh, he is. >> Here we are. >> John sleeps here. >> There's not there's he has a room in the back. >> Yeah. >> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear, affirm, tell the truth, the whole
truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> All right. Please state your name and spell your last for the record. >> John Ray, REA, professional engineer with Mcdana and Ray Associates. >> Think the board can >> I I'd say welcome as usual. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, Mr. Ray, you know what to do. Uh we prepared a uh traffic impact analysis for the project. Uh as Mr. Halpert testified to, uh South New Prospect Road is under the jurisdiction of Ocean County. We've applied to the Ocean
County Planning Board for approval for the access uh that you see on the uh plan, which is a two-way access, full turning movements at the north end of the property and a right turn entrance only at the south end of the property.
Uh the county has conceptually approved the access subject to us doing some minimal widening on our side of South New Prospect Road so that we can extend the three-lane crosssection which uh I believe is shown on Mr. Halpert's plan. So the county is ultimately going to
restripe uh South New Prospect Road so that we have one northbound lane, one southbound lane, and a center turn lane for turning movements onto and off this property. and um if there's any driveways across the street uh it would
function as a benefit for them as well. Um as far as the levels of service are concerned, we did our usual we projected traffic volumes out to a design year of 2036. That's in accordance with the county planning board protocol. We
included the NJ DO's background traffic growth rate data for the area. And there were two other projects in the area that we were familiar with. We did the traffic studies. There is a shaw that is under construction right now just south of us. I think Mr. Halpert mentioned that there was a at one point in time
the possibility of maybe routing our traffic through the shaw out to the traffic light. Unfortunately, that didn't happen uh for the reasons that Mr. Halpert testified to, but we did include the traffic from the shaw. There's also a mikvah that is under
construction on the diagonally across the intersection where I believe the dental offices used to be. We did that traffic study as well. We included the traffic study from the mikvah, the shul and we did the NJ DO's background traffic growth rate data to project
traffic volumes to a design year of 2036. Considering all of that traffic, the offsite, the signalized intersection at South New Prospect and Woodlane will operate at level of service C for the morning and afternoon peak hours. The
exiting traffic from our driveway north of the intersection will operate at level of service D as in David during the AM peak street hour and C as in Charlie during the PM peak street hour. And that's primarily because the uh
morning peak hour traffic volumes on South New Prospect are a little bit higher than the afternoon peak hour traffic volumes. One of the things that we did have to do in order to prepare for tonight's meeting was uh Mr. Michael Angeloststro from Mr. Peter's office. He is their
traffic engineer at Remington and Vernick. He had called me last week and he looked at he was reviewing my traffic study and he said, "Uh, John, it appears as though you did your traffic generation numbers for 228 children instead of 282." I went back, I double
checked. He was absolutely correct. So, I had to go back and recalculate the traffic uh generation numbers for 282 students instead of 228. And uh as it turns out, there's some additional delay associated with the
exiting movements out to South New Prospect as a result of the increase in enrollment, but we still will operate at an acceptable level of service During the morning peak hour and C during the afternoon peak hour. With respect to the
parking, uh we do have a substantial uh surplus of parking as far as what the township requires. If I'm not mistaken, the township requires 54 spaces and we're providing 95. Although it appears as though we're going to lose a few
parking spaces to provide better access for fire vehicles. And uh I I never argue with a client when they want to provide some additional parking spaces. So uh if we have to lose a couple of parking spaces for Mr. Halper to review
the uh revise the planes, maybe relocate the uh the dumpster and also provide a turnaround area for or a larger area for the fire trucks to put the outriggers out. We can do that. We can afford to lose a couple of parking spaces and we
will still have adequate parking. So on balance, um if I'm not mistaken, we've been working on this plan with Mr. Halpert for probably two years now. Um we've made some changes to the plan. Uh we've tried to respond to the
professionals reports to the best uh ability that we could and I think we've succeeded in doing that and I think the plan that is in front of the board is a safe and efficient plan. and it's got adequate parking, proper circulation,
and uh with the county improvements doing the widening to provide for the three-lane crosssection, uh I think we will be able to operate safely and efficiently for that 2036 design year that the county uh makes us take a look at.
>> One follow-up question. You heard the suggestion from the board professionals about providing the access easement on either side of the drive aisle. Does that in any way impact your testimony? >> No, that's a good good suggestion. I always like the easements to connect
properties. Um I just went back and started thinking of everybody knows where the Costco is on Route 70 and brick. You can get all the way from the Panera which is down by the Wawa. You can get all the way out to Shurac Street because the parking lots are all interconnected. So we don't have a
problem with that. >> That's all we have. Mr. Ray, >> any questions from the board? from our professionals. >> Um, Mr. Ray, thank you for um going over the trip generations between the two reports. I appreciate that. Um,
the two-way access on the north or west side of the project, um, given that it looks like 60% of the traffic would make a right coming out, is there any cons any thought given to having a designated right turn lane out? Because the only
way to make a left is out of that intersection. Correct. >> Correct. >> The county that access the county hasn't asked for it, but I will turn to Mr. Halpert. >> Can we do a little widening on that driveway at the north end, Ellie, and and provide maybe a separate right and
left turn lane? It looks like there's no reason why we couldn't do it. Uh it would be subject to the We're looking at uh right in this area right here doing a little widening. >> Trip distri distribution shows 40% going. Yeah. >> To the top of the page. 40% going to the
bottom of the page and 20% going over wood lane. >> Yeah. Right in this adding a right turn lane in here. >> Yeah. We just add eight feet there maybe. >> Um >> eight or 12. >> I think we can do that, right, Ellie? >> Subject to the county's approval. >> Yes. >> Okay,
>> great. Thank you. >> Excellent. Hi. >> Like to make a motion to open this application to cross-examination from the public. Sullivan. >> Second. Hela.
>> Now for this portion uh we have two public portions. The first portion is you come forward and you ask specific questions of the lady and gentlemen who gave testimonies
and receive those answers. Then we close that portion and then there is a portion for just your opinion generally and general questions. So, if anyone has any specific questions
for the applicant at this time, please come forward. >> Carlos Martins Jackson. I'm on the zoning board. >> Oh, sorry. Okay, guys. >> Do you swear? Affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> All right. Uh, and your name and
information for the record. There you go. >> Okay. Yeah. So, Carlos Martins, Jackson, New Jersey. Um, I'm on the zoning board, but I'm here as a resident. >> Just just to be clear, you're here in your individual capacity, not as a representative >> of the zoning board. >> Yes.
>> And if this for any reason would ever come before the zoning board, you must recuse yourself from the zoning board. Just so you're clear. >> All right. Then I'm not Yeah. Okay. I don't care. Yeah, that's >> because if you're asking questions here
>> Okay. that could prejudice your opinion when you get there. >> Right. >> I just want you to be cautious. That's all. >> Okay. Okay. I over recuse myself because I came up anyway. So, okay. That's fine. >> It's just a thought that >> Yeah. No, that's good. Thank you. I don't want to get in trouble.
>> Trying to help you out here. >> Yeah. Thank you. I don't want to get in trouble. Um, okay. So, I understand this is question time, right? So, and basically, I'm going to piggyback off two things that you mentioned. So, the nursing office, >> we checked Yes, the nursing office, right?
>> So, if you want to cross-examination time if you want to ask them questions. >> I am. I am. So, that nursing office. Um, so the way I see a nursing will it include any kind of medical supplies, you know, will you have a nurse there? >> We whatever the state requires is what
we're going to provide. I'm not sure what the licensing criter. So the um the department uh the DCF uh does not require nursing facilities in daycarees that the state regulations. With that
being said, the applicant has stipulated as a condition of approval that they're going to supply one uh that they're going to have a nursing room. Um and I'm assuming that that stipulation is going to be subject to them having the the requirements to treat children, you know.
>> Yeah. So my thought is my question was because office you think you know >> well my thought is you know band-aids and a refrigerator for epi bends and that kind >> we're not going to have a full-time
nurse on staff unless the state requires it. They'll have a room with the supplies and the admin the the staff is trained to handle anything other than serious issues which they'll have to call first aid for. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Great. So, that was clarification. Thank you. Um, and the
other question was really again to piggy back. So, um, the workers that they're going to they're probably some of them are going to work overtime and they'll be there. The 6 6 pm shutting off the lights just seems a little early to me, especially in the winter time. If
anyone's going to work overtime, >> it closes the facility closes at 4:30. Oh, so even the workers can't be there and and um work overtime or whatever safety >> till 6. Yeah, >> six.
>> Okay, great. Thank it. I just >> Anyone else specific questions? >> Seeing no one else come forward, I move to close the public cross-examination on this application. Sullivan, >> second. >> All in favor? I >> I
>> Okay, let's >> I'd like to make a motion to open the public uh comment section on this application and this application only. Sullivan. >> Second. Helen, >> anyone like to come forward and make any
comment at all about this particular project? Seeing no one come forward, I'd like to make a motion to close the public uh comment section on this application. Sullivan, >> second, Hela. >> All in favor? >> I.
>> All right. Would you like to conclude? >> No, just um I think we've this is a really great plan. I think we've worked with everyone to come up with a better plan. We'll address all the comments we've indicated and we request that the board act favorably on the application subject to all the conditions we've
stipulated. any comments from our professionals? >> Yeah, I'll just I'll sum up um what's before. So, uh this application is uh permitted conditional use. Um as the experts have indicated, the conditions have been met, but they're seeking uh
for design waivers. Um just so the board is clear, the design waiver standard is 40 col55D-51. You can grant waivers couple of different ways. First, uh, if it's reasonable in nature and consistent with the intent of the ordinance. Second, if
the enforcement is literally impractical. Uh, or third, if the undue hardship exists because the of the condition of the land itself. So, that is the legal standard. And that's what the board has to weigh. >> All right. We'll look for a motion then,
please. I'd like to make a motion based on our professionals concurring with the applicant that they met all the conditional uses without no questions. I think that's important. The various stipulations they've gone through with fire and everything we asked. I think
that's plus plus the waivers I think are very minimal and and more than required as as our attorney described. So with that, I make a motion to approve. Uh >> I'll second that motion. Sullivan. >> We'll have a roll call vote, please. Mr.
Brezie, >> yes. >> Mr. Heler, >> yes. >> Mr. Parks, >> yes. >> Mr. Rogers, >> yes. >> Miss Santoro, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremer, >> yes. >> Mr. Sullivan, >> yes. >> Dr. Camp, >> yes. Congratulations. >> Thank you. Thank you.
And our next application is block 1102 lot 24.02 with block 1101 lot 34. >> Hang on. Vinsburg. >> Yeah.
>> Oh, did I do the one? Oh, I did next week's next month's. Take me back to this one. Oh, okay. 8901. >> We'll take a couple minute break and then we'll >> We'll take a minute. We'll take five minutes. Five. Only five. Thank you.
I think we have to make a motion to come. >> I'd like to make a motion to bring the meeting back to order. Sullivan >> second. Hello. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Mr. Albury, >> which one are we starting on?
>> Uh, well, let's see. on the agenda. It's uh Willow Drive. >> Willow Drive. Okay. >> But if that's not convenient for you, feel free to start with Magnolia. Really doesn't matter. >> Doesn't matter us either. We're same people, same >> Yeah. Right.
>> So, um Okay. So, this is a a minor subdivision application. We have two witnesses to present. We have our engineer, Mr. SAT and then we have a planner since there is variance relief associated with the with each application but particularly the willow
one. So we're going to ask that Mr. Sant be sworn in. >> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm and tell the truth the whole truth? Nothing about the truth. >> I do. >> Please state your name and spell your last for the record. >> Charles Sant. >> Okay. Testifying as a fact witness.
>> Yes. Mr. Sam, would you place your credentials on the record, please? Uh certainly um I'm a um licensed uh professional engineer and land surveyor. Have been licensed as both for uh over 30 years now. I've uh been in my own
employee for the last 26 years. And um I used to come to this board. I haven't been here in a while, but 15 20 years ago I used to come here. >> Where where is your >> My office is located in Allenhurst. >> Okay. Thank I do most of my work in
Mammoth and Northern Ocean County. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And Mr. SM, your office prepared the subdivision plan that's before the board this evening? >> Yes. >> Okay. And um I guess are we going to start with the aerial exhibit that's up
on the screen now? Is that >> Oh, that's not yours. So, where's your plan? Let's get >> Anthony. Is there a second sheet or exhibit? Okay. >> Okay. Miss, so A1, this is the
subdivision plan that you submitted in support of the application, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. Describe for the board how this property is being subdivided and proposed. >> Okay. The subject property has an area of just under two acres, 1.97 acres. Um,
presently existing as a single family house favoring the left side of the property. Property has 209 ft of frontage and a depth of about 800 ft. Um, we're proposing to subdivide the
property into two equal lots, relatively equal lots. Um the lot one lot is to be an even acre the other lot is to be just about 150 square feet short of that. Um
the um the existing house as I mentioned uh on the left side of the lot um is proposed to remain under the current application and we've crafted the lot line in such a manner to respect the sideyard setback of 25 ft for that house
and then still provide enough of a building envelope for the proposed lot to the right. Um the lot to the left will have 100 feet of frontage. The lot on the right will have 109 feet of frontage. And um
obviously this these properties are uh pretty remote, so there is no uh public sewer. Uh they'll each be served by septic and well. >> The um existing home does have variance relief associated with it, does it not?
the front yard. >> It does. You want me to go through each one? >> Yeah. Well, just just to orient and Mr. Tina will do that more detail, but the the the existing home, whatever front yard variance relief associated with
that would remain, but the >> well the existing home actually does comply to the front yard back. It is 84t 85 ft back. the proposed >> it'll have a sideyard setback u relief and uh other relief related to the uh
size of the lot. >> Okay. Um and we'll leave the balance of the planning testimony to Mr. Tyena. Um I guess that's there's really no engineering other than Mr. I I'm not sure who it was. Mr. Peters raises a
question about a an apparent gore that might exist. >> Yeah. along it's interesting and we and we we fought with this for months to try to figure out what was going on. Along the left side of the property is a gore about 15 feet wide. Um basically an area
where neither our property or the property to the left has title to that property. It's evident from the location of the driveway serving our house that that gore has been utilized by
um the subject property for for a considerable amount of time. And um I am going to recommend to the applicant we have already that he seek whatever the most appropriate legal means maybe a quiet title action um or some other
means with which to obtain uh clear title to that property. It's an additional it's about 12,000 square feet. Um so it would increase that lot from one acre to about uh about 1.2. And is it that gray area that I'm
highlighting here? >> Yes, that's that that's that hatched area running all the way up the left side of the property. >> And that area is not counted in your lot classifications today. It's not correct. So that would just add additional square footage if legal title wherever obtained.
>> And if we cannot and if we cannot get clear title to that property, we would then uh relocate the driveway. >> All right. I think that's that's all we have from the engineer, Madam Chair. >> So So just just to be clear, the
application is going to be conditional upon getting clear title on that >> or to relocate the driveway if we can't >> or to relocate the driveway. >> Okay. >> Where would the second home be located? Where?
>> Where on this property? >> Right there. 40 ft back the road. Back to the right way. Any questions from the board about this? >> I'm just curious about the timeline for
that driveway. You able to get clean title on that? >> Well, we would move on it as soon as uh as soon as we resolve this application. >> Yeah. and and and the municipal land use law requires that we perfect the subdivision within 190 days of the approval. So the goal would be to have
that resolved before the expiration of 190 days or we'd have to come back here for an extension. >> Thank you. >> The uh ordinance requires a threeacre lot in this area. >> Yes, >> we're proposing two oneacre lots. >> Yes.
>> Is there a compelling reason for us to consider? >> That's the planner's job. >> That's the planner's job. Okay. We'll save Mr. Sant from that one. >> Madam Chair. >> Yes, sir. >> Mr. Shant, thank you for your testimony.
Um I I see for the existing utilities um at house number 156, we show the existing well up front and clean out and a couple utility vaults in the back. >> Yeah. Um,
I guess just I need it to be part of the record that should the board approve this subdivision, it does not in any way grant you relief from getting the outside agency approval of the Ocean County Health Department as it relates
to the existing location of utilities on lot proposed lot 502 for house number 156. If somehow when when you go out there and we figure out where the actual septic system is and it's too close to the property line,
you're come the board's not authorized to grant that relief. So without that information, I think the best the board can ask for is that assuming the board were to act in the affirmative on the application, make it a condition of the approval because we
don't show the offsets from the well. We don't show the actual limits of the septic system and we don't show an approval from the county health department for the location of either as it relates to the proposed subdivision line. >> Yes, I understand that. And if the
existing septic system does not lie within a conforming location on the proposed lot, that septic system would be reconstructed, relo. >> Thank you. That's all. Madam Chair, >> Ju just to follow up on the whole um septic system um issue. Um the existing
dwelling that's connected to a septic system and the new lot's going to be connected to the septic system. >> I'm sorry, that the growth going to be on septic systems? >> Yes. >> Right. Any thought on why um that if you had public sewer, you could go down to
an acre? you know the reason and it might be more for the planner but you know the reason >> I'm sorry >> is that a general question or I'm sorry >> if just your thoughts on why in the R3 um it's 130,000 square foot but we if
you were connected to public sewer you could go down to an acre why >> well we or you can look at the alternative we we're actually in the R1 which permits an acre but not having accepted requires three um
I I I I I don't know. Um we've we've done a considerable amount of lots in other towns on properties less than one acre. >> Sir, excuse me, sir. Could you speak into the microphone? >> And been able to obviously comply with
either county or local board of health regulations. Um I I mean philosophically I I I suppose that the um that the township perhaps thought there was a w water quality consideration or perhaps just
wanted to control density and obviously focused higher densities in areas that were served by sewer. >> Okay. Thank you. I I would agree with the the water quality. I think that that requirement um has to do with it's more pilings related that we're used to. um
nitrogen nitrate dilution at the property line in the pylons and this is not pelands um you could go minimum is 3.2 two acres for a for a lot unless you have an alternate design septic system that lets you go down to the to an acre
>> which we intend on >> installing the new lot as well as you're going to redo the >> well if we have to reconstruct on the existing lot it would be >> okay so both lots are going to have alternate design septic systems meeting
the pin standards >> if if if the existing lot needs a new septic it would be >> but if How would you decide if it doesn't need a new septic? I mean, I'm saying you have two acres for one standard septic system. Now,
you're proposing two lots, an acre a piece. Um, but one is going to have an alternate design and one's going to have a regular. I think they both should be regular. I'm sorry. Both should be special design. >> Okay. I I I could sense that's what you
were trying to say. So, that's fine. I think that might help the planner as far as um positive criteria. >> Understood. Thank you. >> Thank you. That's >> Mr. Alfuri. Could you give me an idea of the um properties that are uh adjacent
and existing around this area? >> The planner scenario, he'll do that. Yes. >> Okay, great. That'll help. Thank you. >> So, just just circling back to that uh septic system condition of approval. Uh let's let's figure out how to word that. So, we're going to provide the alternate
septic design septic system for both lots >> regardless of whether it's conforming or not. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> But they'll both be conforming obviously. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Further
>> and you'll contribute to the pedestrian safety fund for the waiver of curb and sidewalk. >> For the sidewalk. Yes. >> Thank you. >> If the board grants the waiver. >> Okay. >> Okay. We'll bring the inter. >> Yes, please. Thank you.
swearing in. Long time no see. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> All right. Please state, name, and spell your last of the record. My name is John Tyina. T is in Thomas. Ai, K is in Kelly. I N is in Nicholas A.
I am a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey. I am also the principal of all things planning and development at 900 Main Street in Balmore, New Jersey. The one in Mammoth County, not the one in Canton County. Um, I uh been licensed
since I finished my studies at Ruckers University in 1992. Last 33 years I've been doing this, testifying before planning and zoning boards around the state and across the country on behalf of applicants just like this. I was last here in 2024. It's nice to be back. >> Welcome. >> Thank you.
>> Welcome back. Thank you. >> The board accepts his credentials. >> We do. >> Thank you. So, John, you understand there's um various bulk variance relief um associated with the proposed subdivision and I'd like you to show the and you're going to bring up this exhibit which is Can you identify before
you begin your testimony? >> Certainly. So, um we have uh an exhibit that consists of two pages. The first page is a 300 foot radius map overview. Um this would be A2. >> Yes. And then we have a second page to that
exhibit. If you could please, Anthony. I'm sorry. You need to go to the third page. Oh, no. That's That's the right one. Nope. I'm sorry. That was the right one. Thank you. Um, page two is the uh 300 foot media radius map overview for
uh lots four and five >> at 156 Willow Drive. >> Correct. >> That's what we're doing now. Yes. >> Okay. Make sure we got it right. >> So, um, so which exhibit we doing first? >> Uh,
we can we can stay on A3. >> Okay. Thanks. >> I like it. It's more specific to this uh to this application. >> So explain to the board the variance relief and the justification for the C variance approvals.
>> Certainly. So um we do have a uh it's nice working always nice working with Mr. Sant. He gets the facts uh gets the facts on the record very well for me. Um, so we do have a 1.97 acre lot located in the R1 residential district.
Um, it is on the uh kind of the west side of uh Willow Drive. Um, we have a con a preserved uh we have a a farm qualified property uh to our northwest kind of towards the top of the exhibit. And then the balance of the properties
surrounding us uh on the uh to the east and then to the south are uh single family homes uh that are located on lots of of different sizes. Uh, and uh, Madam Chair, I'm
I'm going to answer your question, but it's I'm going to answer it in the context of the negative criteria. So, it's a little further into my presentation if that's okay. >> That's fine. Thank you. >> Um, so, uh, we are here for, uh, two different two different types of bulk
variances, if you will. Um, there are two types. We have a C1, we have some C1 variances and they are um variances that relate specifically to the uh size and shape or or specific conditions uh of of the property and the
structures that are legally established thereon. So in this case they're um what I would call the existing condition variances. And we do have existing condition variances that are there um based on where the house is today and
where it relates in rel where it is in rel relation to our side lot line. So, um, for example, our side lot line to the left of the house, um, is is deficient at, um, let me get the number right.
Is deficient at 11.1 I Yeah, I have 11 at 11.1 ft uh, for the for the sideyard for the um, for the house itself. And then we also have an existing nonconformity for the detached garage
um which is uh at 37.5 ft and then where it exists and then we're also reducing that with the subdivision line to 23.9 ft. So in terms of the existing conditions they only relate relate to the sideline to the left of the drawing
or to the left of the plan. If we go back to A1, um the new variances are are what we'll call C2 variances and they're going to be the the flexible C or or where the benefits of granting the variance outweigh any detriment that may
be imposed. Um so the board has some certain findings they need to make first and foremost um that they relates to a specific piece of property. Um granting relief on this property doesn't relate to any other application. there's no precedence that carries forward. So,
it's only the unique uh conditions that are present here. Uh secondly, um we'll want to be advancing some of the purposes of zoning. Third, we will we will want to talk about either um there being a hardship in terms of the existing conditions or
that we have uh the benefits outweighing the detriments u overall in terms of the plan. And then finally, as with all of your relief, um you have the negative criteria. Are we having a substantial uh negative impact uh to to the public good or to our neighbors to the surrounding
area? And are we having a substantial impairment to your zone plan and your master plan? Um and that's where we start to talk about what's around us, okay, and how it relates within the R1 district. Um
so first and foremost um this does uh relate specifically to um to 156 Willow Drive. It's no other property. Uh it's it's only this property, no other. Um in terms of purposes of zoning that we're advancing, I'd submit to you that uh
there are three. Um, purpose E to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that contribute to the well-being of persons, neighborhoods, and communities and the preservation of the environment. Um, we believe these single family homes
are uh consistent with the R1 residential district. Um, they're consistent with the R1 density and they are consistent with the prevailing neighborhood characteristics in terms of lot size and lot frontage. um by creating conforming building envelopes
uh that could be uh reasonably developed without overburdening the site and uh or overburdening surrounding property. So in general we're providing for compliance setbacks uh for everything else. Um, in terms of the R1, uh, we for
the exist for the new home, uh, we are not complying with the R3 standard. And again, that's kind of we're bouncing back and forth between the two because in the R1, uh, where we don't have water and sewer, we're required to go to the
R3 standard to the larger 3acre, uh, and 80 foot front yard setback. Um second one is purpose G to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses um in according to their respective environmental requirements to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens.
Uh we think by utilizing existing residential lot within res within the developed neighborhood rather than expanding out into the uh into the hinterlands uh it's more environmentally sensitive by continuing a pattern of residential infill development in an area that's already characterized by
similar uses and uh I'd submit to you that this pattern is much more consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and we are maintaining adequate space for on-site improvements including well septic systems and any storm water management. that is necessary and as we already talked about
Mr. Peters and Mr. Cle appropriately pointed out this board doesn't grant any relief or any waiver from the uh health from the county health standards. So we need to provide for compliant septic systems and we need to provide for uh
wells that are in appropriate and and in appropriate locations. So having a 1acre lot doesn't uh obviousate us from any of those requirements and we believe they can be accommodated on the lot as Mr. Sant testified. Um particularly not
being in the Pelands areas. There's more than enough room on the lots to be able to have these improvements. Um, again, it's just a little bit of a a policy decision that was made um within your R1 district where you don't have sewer to
kind of go against what the uh prevailing development is. Um, and and then finally, purpose M to encourage the coordination the various public and prov private procedures affecting land development with a view towards lessening the cost of such development to the more efficient use of the land.
So again, we think it's more efficient to use an already developed parcel with access to Magnolia Drive. Uh this is going to require the extension of new infrastructure into undeveloped areas. And um again, we have to uh still comply with all the various requirements,
whether it be county subdivision or uh or county health in terms of uh water and septic. >> Did Did you say I? Which letter was that? >> E, G, and M. M. Okay. Gotcha. Um
so in terms of uh in terms of the the variances that we have again we let me um okay we're on we're on uh A3 right? So looking at A3, um we did an analysis of
the uh 18 lots that that surround us um in terms of uh in terms of their overall development. And uh what we found is that um more than uh more than half of
them uh do not meet the uh the three acres. Um there are actually only one, two, three, four that do uh out of the 18. Um and uh they range in size from.3
acres uh up to um up to 6.2 acres. And then we have one uh 37.81 acre lot. That is the lot that is the farm property that is up to our to our northwest. Um but when we look at at the properties
that are immediately around us um they are predominantly 1.5 uh there are primary uh one to 1.5 acres in size. Um we do have the one at 166 Willow Drive
that's on.3 acres and that is lot I have my wrong list. I apologize. That is lot 18 across the street. It's all the way up the top. Yeah. the corner lot right across the
street. I'm sorry. It It's right on the corner there. That lot is only.3 acres. That is immediately across the street kind of at the at the um at the intersection of of the street and the lot line to the adjacent uh foreign
parcel. Um so that's the the very small one is actually right uh literally right next to us. Um so again by by showing this range of lots um that is there uh it is uh very um prevalent in the area. The prevailing
neighborhood pattern is more accurately reflected as as 69 acres to 1.96 acres and uh to the average lot size across all parcels is 1.74 acres. So, um, especially when you take out the
outliers, the 37 acre and the 26 acres, um, we get down to lots that are really 1 to 1.5 acres. So, there was a question that was asked before about if something is done here, doesn't that cascade down to everybody else being able to do it?
And first and foremost, every case stands by itself, but there really aren't other 2 acre parcels that are in the neighborhood. There's a a 37 acre parcel, there's two six acre parcels,
and then the rest of the parcels are, you know, 1.69 acres and 1.5 acres, etc. So, it's really not uh leading to uh you know, opening the Pandora's box, if you will, to a whole bunch of more
subdivisions. Um, again, these these this lot is really the outlier on Willow um being at 2 acres. Now, we recognize that it is is a a bit of a strange shape and because of its strange shape, um
we're asking to place it um closer to the street at 40 ft, which again is a conforming setback in terms of the R1 and a setback that is consistent with some of the um some of the homes that
are along the road there. So the homes that are along the road there, the older homes, which are probably 25 or 30 years old, are closer to the street at the 40 or 50 foot setback. And then the newer homes that are somewhat
larger uh are set back significantly more um you know, they be back at 100 feet or 125 ft even. Um, so there's definitely a range in uh in setback as they go across the neighborhood based on when they were built. So if they were
built, you know, 30 years ago or 25 years ago, they're at 40 40 or 50 feet. Uh the newer homes are set back uh much more from the road um than would be there. Um so in terms of in terms of our negative
criteria um again we we think that because of the uh prevailing neighborhood pattern uh there isn't going to be any detriment to having uh these homes there. We'll make sure that we meet the environmental requirements in terms of our our wells. We'll have our new septics is the new enhanced
enhanced septic system. Am I am I saying it that the right way? the new enhanced septic systems um to be able to be there so that we meet the highest environmental standards. Uh and again, we have the ability to provide for uh new homes on the street um that'll again
uh help to spur uh hopefully some additional investment uh by folks in the neighborhood. Um and then finally the uh the second prong is no variance will be granted if impair the intent purpose of the zone plan. So in terms of your 25
master plan, um you talked you actually talked about the R1 standards and one of the things you talked about is that the uh se the sections in the landous development regulations that deal with bulcan area standards for the R1 um caused some confusion. uh for example
that 24 section 244-47 of the regulations indicate that all new lots created by subdivision shall comply with R3 uh unless connected to a public sewer. Additionally, in addition would have to comply with the R3 standards.
This can lead to homeowner confusion and expense. The standard should be reviewed and streamlined for ease of understanding by the general public. That's the recommendation out of your master plan that kind of recognizes this juxtaposition between an R1 zone that
has R3 standards um that leads to kind of a disparity of land use treatment across similar properties. Um and that's it's a challenge that's recognized in your master plan because it becomes an issue
on the street. you know, how come, you know, how come that guy got to build the 25 feet and I have to build a 50 feet or whatever the case may be. Um, so your masculine recognized that and said, maybe we want to, you know, take a look at this. Um, now again, that was only in
2025, so it's only 2026. You haven't had necessarily uh had a chance uh to be able to do that. Um so um again I think the basic premise is we have an R1 district that provides for
1acre lots. Uh the septic system the premise in 2010 was that um if you're not going to have sewer you're going to have a bigger lot. And that might have been a broad policy of thinking I need
more land for a septic system. And in 2026, now the answer is an enhanced septic system that has the ability to again be new and improved technology that wasn't available in 2010. Um that gives us the
ability to have oneacre lots that are more consistent from a land use standpoint with our surrounding neighbors. Give us the high quality water quality treatment that we need. um but allow us to provide for a neighborhood that is somewhat cohesive in terms of how it is addressed from a
land use standpoint. Um so I think overall we have the ability um to to uh make the requisite findings. It relates to this property only on on Willow on Willow Drive. Um with this surrounding
land use pattern that is prevailing at one to 1.5 uh acres in terms of lots has a disparity of uh diversity if you will of front setbacks. Um and again we have the ability to address the environmental
conditions in terms of the enhanced uh standards of the county health department in terms of an enhanced septic system. Uh so with all those things I think we have the ability to provide for a more coherent land use policy and again your land use policy
should be consistent across across uh relatively consistent properties and again we have because we have as I said 13 of the 17 approximately 76% within the 300 feet are consistent with this one to 1.5 acres uh we think it's it's
appropriate and the board can make the requisite findings to grant the relief. I'm available for your questions. >> Um, Mr. Ralph Ferry may remember that uh Mr. Mr. Heler and I are highly uh
involved in the master plan and uh our concern in the R1 and the R3 requirements were that we're concerned about density and we're concerned about septic systems
uh no matter how advanced they are. Plus, we're concerned about the size of the homes that are being built. And if you could if you could say to me, "Oh, well, we're going to build homes that are similar to the homes that are
on Willow," I might feel a little more secure. However, these days, we're not building ranches and by levels uh on these pieces of property. So, we're building homes that have
eight, 10 bedrooms, big homes. >> Agreed. Um, I'm sorry. Did I cut you off? >> No, that's fine. That though I just wanted to express my concern, the concern we had. >> Yeah, >> I I know I'm usually pretty good about
waiting. So, and I only want it because I'm like, "Oh, wait. I can answer that one." Um so again the size and shape uh can we I'm I'm sorry Anthony can we go back to A1 the size and shape of the property that
we have here um ends up Could you zoom in on the bottom please? He does such a good job because I I'm like I never let anybody touch my exhibits. Um, so because of the unique shape of the property, we end up with a
very restricted building envelope. So, we can't build a 10 we can't build a 10-bedroom house. We're proposing a house that is uh 2600 square ft uh in terms of footprint. Um, so again,
it's it's not a very large home. um the home sizes in the area and and we had them off the tax records. They do range from uh as small as uh 780 square feet um all the way up to uh you know 2600
square feet. But again, because of the limited building envelope that we have, we can't build a big home. It just we can't build a big enough rectangle. >> And the the home I I'm just very familiar with that area and that street.
the home. It says it's a one-story dwelling, but it's really not a one-story dwelling. It's really a a first floor and then the back is level with the ground. So, it's really a two-story building. It's not
really a one-story building. The the driveway, the garage goes down and underneath. >> Oh, the existing home. Yes. >> Yes. The existing home. >> Oh, no. Absolutely. It takes >> a two-story dwelling. You call it a one story, but it's really a twotory. >> It's one from the front, two from Yeah.
>> two from the back. >> Yeah. Two from the back. >> And And you would look at possibly a twotory dwelling. >> I would I would expect it'd be two stories. >> I would expect I just wanted to explain and for the board to understand that our the we
specifically did that with the R1 with the requirements for R3 for two reasons. One was the density, a concern that we have in town and the other is for the septic the situations where there are no city
water, no city sewer and that's in that area. >> Just to make it clear, >> it's just it's just so disongruous with the existing development pattern. Uh, I'd like to jump in on a conversation about septics in the R3,
probably going back a little further than Dr. Campbell just went. Uh, I was involved in 2010 master plan. I was involved in the master plan before that. I was involved in master plans in town when you're going with tier levels before. So, we're going back a few
years. The R3s were kept specifically one for density, but more importantly for the nitrates in the ground from septic systems. That's why we kept them where there was no 208 possible. They were not part of the 28 208 system in the MUA. We kept them all threes for
those reasons. That's why the septics have been a big consideration. I do realize these new systems are different and can do more. But that was the original way for the last 30 or so years. These all three stayed in. They don't if you look at the maps, the 208
by them. They can't hook up the sewer and that's why they're done. >> Understood. And and I and I just like to say I I think um once again I want to applaud the master plan committee and and the two members of it that are here with us
tonight. Uh and and thank you uh Madam Chairwoman for bringing up uh a very good point about density about the what will happen with the uh nitrates in the land as as Mr. as he
said. And when you look at it, um, what are we going to have here? You're going to have a two-story house possibly with a finished basement. When you add that kind of square footage on a lot that is not conforming to R3, I
have a lot of concerns here or R1. >> I have a question. Are these homes to be rentals? >> I don't >> Are they these homes to be rentals? >> I'm the new home. No, I don't know what the existing home the intent is on the
existing home. >> So, the property owner lives in the existing home. >> No, the property own. It's currently a rental, the existing home. >> Okay, that's what I'm asking you. So, potential is for two rental homes here. >> No, no, no. The the intent is the new
home would be built and sold. >> New So, be one rental and then sale. >> Yeah. and they may sell the the new the old the reason it's rented now is because the the owner wanted to try and get a subdivision. So was it didn't you can't sell it until you know what you're
doing with the property. Ultimately it'll probably both be sold. >> Okay. >> But it's really not a it's not doesn't affect >> No, I think I got the idea. >> Yeah. uh as far as your uh statement about it being in a unique two lot and
it couldn't uh present a precedent going towards other property in the area. Why couldn't the 37 lot uh developer come in and say I want 37 1acre lots because it's in compliance
with the rest of the area. He could make the case. >> We >> good good luck. But >> good luck, but he's got a good argument as you do. >> Um, yes and no. >> I agree. Yes or no?
>> All right. Any other questions from the board? >> I just have two other things if I may um that may help with their comments. Um number one is um one of the reports indicate that the survey is greater than
12 year 12 months old. So if the board would have granted this approval, we'd have to update the survey. Second comment was do we intend to perfect by plat or deed and it would be by deed. Those are two questions raised I think in our news report that I just wanted to
respond to. I'm sorry now. It's up to you. >> Sorry Mr. Cle, anything from you Mr. Peters. >> Well, as the chair of the master plan subcommittee, you really took all my planning fire away. So, you can send an
invoice for that. >> Um, I guess the only comment or question to Mr. Tyena is um I guess two the proposed plan lists specific bulk requirements for the R1 zone.
Correct. Yes, it list it lists them as as R1 following the R30 the R3 standards. >> I'm sorry. You want to say that again? I didn't quite get that.
>> It for the required it lists the R3 standard. >> But you're proposing R1. We're proposing uh we're proposing the R1 the 40 foot for the um
for the propo for two um because that's where the building envelope fits best. >> Okay. >> Trying to figure out how this isn't tantamount to resoning. If you're asking for a 40 foot front setback, which is
the standard in R1, where 80 foot's required in the R3, sideyard setbacks of 20, which are the R1 standard, where the R3 standard for side setback is 80. We're sort of picking the the zone we
want to put this in. Um, >> we're we're acknowledging that the established development pattern is much is much closer to the R1 than the R3. And it doesn't appear that
accessory structure setbacks are listed in Mr. Serman's plan. for the new lot. It just says not applicable. Um, correct. There's got to be a standard in there because quite frankly
>> in the R3 zone, nothing fits on the property at all. Correct. >> Correct. They're listed. They're listed correctly in your report. >> So unless you're asking for variance relief or different standards for the AR for
the proposed lot 5.01, 01 the correct accessory structure setbacks would be the ones prescribed in R3. Correct. >> Correct. And I don't believe we're seeking an accessory structure for the new home. >> But would you agree that when you apply
the R3 accessory structure setbacks regardless of what the accessory structure is, and I think four of them are listed, none of them would fit on proposed lot 5.01. >> Agreed. So, anyone who came in for any accessory structure on proposed lot 501 or for that matter any expansion on
proposed lot 5.02 would require a variance. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> But but they don't need a variance right now for that. >> Correct. >> Correct. Because an accessory structure is not proposed. >> It's not present. Okay. >> Any other questions from this board?
I I have a bunch to go over with them, but if nobody else has anything else ready for you, I just have one. >> Um, how many >> if you were to if you were to use the R3 standard,
you don't meet any of the criteria for that. Correct. >> For the new lot. >> Yes. >> Correct. Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. I have a question going off of what Ernie just said. So basically, if this
did get a subdivision like this, it very much could create variances needed by the new dwelling >> if they wanted to put a pool or something else. >> A lot of variances created. >> They'd have to go to zoning board for bulk variances.
>> Thank you. All right. If you could just articulate to the board because I think it's getting a little bit confusing right now is it's an R1 zone but you're using R3 standards. Just explain that please
>> or I'm sorry R3 zone >> right? No, it's an R1 zone, >> but we have to use R3 standards. >> Under right under the under the provisions of your ordinance in the R1
zone where there is not public water and sewer available, the R3 standard >> standardy. >> Okay. Um, and just to be clear, so, uh, you're requesting two C1 variances. Uh, one sideyard setback,
um, and the other one is sideyard setback for the existing detached garage, >> right? Um and and just if you can point out the C1 variance uh on the map as to as to
why you think it's a hardship variance based upon the condition of the property because the existing home is 11.1 ft from the um existing sideyard plot line, right?
>> That's an existing condition. it would be a hardship on the applicant to have to move their house. Um, and that is a C1. And then likewise for the detached garage in the rear, um, our existing
sideyard does not meet the 50 ft. Um, not which the proposed is is a C2. You can't I can't call us I can't call a self-imposed condition a C1. Um, but the two existing additions are C1 variances.
Gotcha. And then the C2 variances are minimum lot area, minimum lot width, and minimum front yard setback. Correct. >> Yes. All >> right. And then the positive criteria is E, G, and M that support all three. >> Correct. >> All right. And there's no detriment that
you see to the zone. >> Correct. Because it is consistent with the prevailing devel development pattern in the area. >> That is the only questions I have. I think we'll open it to the public now, please. Mr. Sullivan, >> I'd like to make a motion to open uh this application to the public for
cross-examination of the witness or witnesses. >> And then again, only cross-examination at this point at this time. Then we close this section. We'd open it again for general comments. So, does anyone have any specific questions for the two
gentlemen who on this application? Please come forward. >> Seeing no one come forward, I move to close the cross- examination portion of this application. Solivan. >> Second. Hello. >> All in favor? >> I
>> I like to make a motion to open this portion of the application to uh public comment on this application. Sol. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I
>> All right. Please come forward and you'll be sworn in. State your name and address. >> Just a second. >> Yep. Hang on one sec. Uh, do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? All right. Please state your name and spell your
last of the record. >> We're having trouble hearing you. You have to get really close. So, thank you. Joseph Ramasugis, last name R O M I S O U K A S. I live at 136 Willow Drive. >> Okay.
>> The 1.96 acre property that you said didn't exist. Um I'm really concerned about the septics. That's my biggest thing. I mean, right up the road, the new septic system
that's three years old runs off to the neighbor's property. you just speak into the microphone, please. >> I'm doing my best here. Y I've just worked 12 hours. >> Understand with me. >> Um and and the proposal, there's a well in front of the house that just showed up
one day. The prop the old house had uh stickers on it from not make not passing code for two years. I just have a lot of concerns with the property and the management of the property beforehand. Do you understand
what I'm saying? Like it's not like it was following any rules before, you know? I mean, the whole area over there is just a very quiet, low-key neighborhood. And now we're adding homes and it's really, I'm looking at this,
it's going to be really close to the road. I mean, it's going to be right on top of the house that is.3 acres. You know what I'm saying? So, I I just have a lot of general concern of the prior things that they they did already
and it just doesn't make sense. Be honest with you. I I've been living there for 10 years. You know, I know majority of the neighborhood and I have 1.96 acres. So, you're telling me I have 0.1 less
than them? I could subdivide and my property is perfect for that. You know what I mean? Like the guy brought up a case that that 37 acres that the Boy Scout camp owns behind us, they can start doing one of their lots, too. So, I'm just a little bit below that. I can
separate it and then make two lots out of mine. And I don't know, it just kind of destroys the neighborhood in my opinion. >> The whole feel of it. >> Just wanted to come up here. It's my first time ever doing this. Thank you. >> Appreciate it. Thank you. >> So,
>> yes, please come forward. >> Take your time. >> Yeah, if you want to take the microphone out >> and you have to get really close to that one, ma'am. >> Let's take the microphone out and speak into it.
>> May not be on. Yes, S, if you want to give her yours. >> Carlos, just give her the hand mic, >> please. Uh, do you swear or affirm? Do tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> All right. Please state your name and spell your last of the record. You just have to speak.
>> My name is Karen Pakasinski. P A K A S I N S K I. I live I I live at 150 Willow Drive right next door to 156 for 35 years. >> Okay. >> Okay. There has been nothing but headache since this gentleman bought the
property next door. He rents it out. He put it in a well. Okay. Without a permit, which is in between where they want to build that house. So that has a well there that is not by permit. Everything that they have done by code, I've had to call. They have not done
anything by code. The code took somebody came or when they first built the house and built a staircase up to the back porch and it was not up to code and the code officer came made them take it out. Then they had illegal people come in and rent the house out for two years that
were renting to people that had a babysitting service underneath in that downstairs where you're referring to the underground cellar. And they after I guess somebody in the neighborhood because they were parking their cars on the lawn, dropping babies off between 9
7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. in the morning and picking them up at between 5 and 9:00 a.m. at night and they finally shut them down. Okay, those illegal people were there for like a year and a half and then in the middle of the night they they absconded and left. They had to
pick 30 yard dumpsters, three of them, to get all the their stuff out of the house. Every time somebody comes there, it's in the dark. Nobody has any kinds of licenses on their equipment to build, to do anything else. It's been a heck of a light nightmare for me in the past
year since this gentleman bought the house. I don't want to have to do that at the house next door either. And if you come and look, that well that they put in is on the property where he wants to build the house and it's not by permit. >> Okay. >> Thank you, ma'am. >> Uhhuh.
>> Anyone else like to come forward? All right. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> All right. Please state your name and spell your last on the record. >> David Bar is in Frank. A R R. I live with Karen next to that house and all
that stuff that she's saying is true. But I've lived on that street since 1989, I guess. And as far as everyone there, all the old-timers I buried, took care of and buried a few of them, that
whole street was just little block buildings with no running water, of course, no bathrooms with no running waters. And at his house for example,
the little part of it was the original part of the house. And down the other side was another the same thing. Another tiny little part was the original house with no bathroom, no running water. And they put big addition on it. It's just
and it's and our house is what 50 years old. our houses. So the way the the street kind of developed was like just patching here, patching there. And from what I was told, people came to that street for the summer to go down to Lake
Eno, which we know is where the Muggra started. And it's just it's just a quiet little street that over the years that I lived there, it got twice as wide. It's become a cutthrough so people could miss
the light up at Cooksbridgeidge and Venice Mills. And I mean I had animals that just horses and goats and dogs that just wandered around up there and it was no problem. Now they just want to keep like you're talking the high density housing. They just want to keep
squeezing another house here, squeeze another house there, more traffic, more and there's all traffic around Jackson as we know. And a lot of it comes through there and it they cut down our street
at whatever speeds 25 mph speed limit. And I don't think anybody knows goes 25 miles an hour. But what concerns me about this house is the septic I was under the impression that they couldn't put any more houses with
septics on our street. And the house that he's talking about is when that came up. And who knows, he'll say wherever it came from, but like he said, the septic is it's an above ground, so to speak, septic. It's a big bump. And
the runoff, they made this little tiny swale and some kind of wall. And the runoff from the rainwater goes into the poor guys. Uh I don't know his name. I don't really know him, but my friend is the next house over. And you can see
right from his shop up into the back of the house, the water just comes down across the one guy's yard and then into my friend's yard and it goes into the swamp where, you know, you can't stop mother nature. That's the way it goes, you know. I
mean, you can They didn't give it much. They didn't put a whole lot of effort into it. And and their their backyard is like a raised septic. It's just a big pump. And the pump goes to the property line. And then where's the water go? It goes into the neighbor's yard. And now I
mean Dave from the zoning board was out there because the poor guy right next to it, his whole backyard stinks from septic because it's leaking because it's a basically above ground. It's not in the ground. So what kind of septic are
they going to put in this house? It's going to be 40t off the road. Look at the picture. Our house, we could look right in their back whatever they do in their backyard. And there's no uh I can't
I there could be I wouldn't swear to I don't think there's any houses that are 40 foot off the street. If they are, they've been there for over how many years, you know? It's just like and they were probably a little tiny block
cottage or whatever with no running water and no bathroom and then somebody bought it and and I don't have to tell you about what went on around Jackson years and years ago. Everybody did whatever they wanted to do and that's how it happened. It was a but
like I said, it's a quiet little street. Don't we don't need sewer. We don't need water. Just leave it alone. Why keep squeezing all these little houses in that make more for other people down the road, the
town, whoever have to do some, you know, have like you were saying variances if you want to put in a pool or or a shed or something like that. And like I don't know, I didn't know it was three acre zoning there, but if it is, it is. you
know, why why cut it in half and like I said, stick an eyesore right there. It's definitely going to be a giant eyesore from my and like you said, he who knows if they're going to rent they
rent the sewer that's leaking. They whoever built it, I think lived in it for a little while and then they rented it out and then it was empty. And there's so many houses that these people have bought on our street that are empty, you know, and who knows who's
running in and out of these. And like my wife says, they came to the house next door to give estimates or or looking at it to rent it and they come at 10:00 at night in the car. I called the cops a couple times and cops told them, "You can't come here
at 10 o'clock at night and walk around a flashlight and don't tell anybody what what you're doing there, you know. I don't know. I I don't know. I just think, like I said, the setbacks, it's going to be an eyes sore and sewer. I
don't think our street needs any more sewers. And like I said, you don't have we don't need a sewer. We don't need water. Just leave it alone. Don't be sticking all these other new and like you were somebody was saying about how big is the house going to be? You know, it's going
to stick out like a sword. It's not going to look like the the street has been always, you know, there's a couple giant ones. They're kind of like back in the woods and you don't see them that much, but look how close it's going to be to the road.
>> I don't know. >> Thank you, sir. >> Anyone else like to come forward on this application? >> Seeing no one else come forward, I move to close the public cross-examination on this application. Sullivan. >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> I. >> All right. So, Mr. Peters, I I have a question. I've been sitting here looking at while we've been talking at this property. I if if we have a divide this lot and we
have a variance, um they'll be undersized lots. Correct? >> Yes. That's a consideration then. It has to be a consideration. >> All right. So before we uh actually if
we want to have uh Mr. Alfuri um conclude do a summation and then I can get into board >> um we presented our planning testimony that we believe sufficiently addresses the variance relief and we'd request the board vote favorably. You don't need any
more time from me. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Aleri. Um, Mr. Peters, any final words for us? >> Mr. Clay, >> board members, and how about our attorney? >> Any last questions uh from the board
members or >> No. Okay, this is this is a little bit of a complicated one, so I'm going to break it down to everybody. So, we have it's a subdivision. There's two lots being created. Um first lot with a home on it um requires four variances. Um two
for C1s. So sideyard setback uh for the home, sideyard setback for the garage. Um and then also would require uh and I believe that's lot 5.01. Um no, I'm sorry, that's lot 502. And that
would uh additionally require minimum lot area variance as a C2, minimum lot width variance as a C2, uh minimum uh front yard setback uh as a C2. Then moving on to lot 5.01,
um it requires all the same variances except for the detached garage sideyard setback variance. So you have four on one and five on the other. Okay. Um now lumping that all together let's talk
about the C1 variances. Okay so uh there's two different grounds in which to grant the C1 variance or the legal test that you have to analyze to support whether or not it should be granted. First one is that the shape of the property causes the practical difficulty
that the applicant proposes. That's the first um way to either approve or deny a C1 variance. Second one would be the zoning ordinance itself causes an undue hardship based upon the shape of the property. Okay. So, when you're looking
at the C1 variances, that's the legal test that you have to consider. when looking at the C2 variances that the applicant brought um you know just like we do all the time you have to weigh what's called the positive criteria which are the um the letters that they
indicate that they uh propose which are which advance um different measures of municipal land use law. So in this case they're indicating that the minimum lot area, minimum lot width, minimum lot front yard setback um is supported by uh
E, G and M. That that would be the positive criteria. Uh E is the design of the application itself is a contribution to the well-being of the neighborhood. Uh G is that the application uh provides sufficient space for environmental for
environmental requirements, regulations, all that good stuff. and M is that the application is a more efficient use of the land. I think it's kind of abbreviated, but you get the point. Those are the positive criteria that the applicant indicated. Um the again when
it comes down to the C2, it's a balancing test. You have to weigh the positive versus negative. The negative is, you know, are there any detrimental impacts to either the ordinance itself or the master plan as a result of what's being proposed? Uh in this case, the applicant indicated that there are no
detriments. It's up to the board to analyze and weigh and determine if there is or isn't. So, uh, based upon the five variances that we have in front of us, it would create an undersized or two undersized lots in the zone if the variances are granted. But before we get
to that point, you need to deliberate number one, whether the C1 variances are warranted based upon those legal standards and and whether or not the C2 variances are warranted based upon the C2 legal standards. So, it's a lot to keep in your head. It's a lot to kind of
juggle around both right now because we got competing variances, but that's what you guys have to uh deliberate upon and analyze and deliberate and make a decision. All right. >> Thank you. Given that, are there any questions from the board?
>> Uh Bobby, can you go over the C1s again just briefly? >> So, what happens C1 is it's called a hardship variance, right? And there's two ways of uh determining whether a C1 is granted or not. First is that the shape of the property causes the practical difficulty itself. Right?
Second is that the zoning ordinance itself causes an undue hardship based upon the shape of the property. Right? So it it's there's two different methods of getting to the same place. But but that's the legal test, right? Um so so
you have to take a look at, you know, the shape of the property. You have to take a look at the practicalities of the zoning ordinance itself. See if a C1 is warranted based upon hardship, right? Um C2 totally different. It's got a balancing test, positive versus a
negative, and you have to weigh the two uh depending on what was presented and uh testimony the applicant provided and the uh purposes of municipal land use law that they indicated they they advance first. any detriments to the zoner master plan that you guys foresee.
Right? So, two different standards, two different legal tests for different uh variance relief they're requesting on the property, but the sum total of it would be the creation of two undersized lots in the zone. >> So, >> all right, we'll look for a motion, please.
>> I'd like to make a motion, >> please. >> I'd like to make a motion. complicated to follow and maybe because too many years doing this stuff. We've tried to reserve the R3 zones especially with the septic problems. Um when as the
attorney read off how many variances are needed, it seems a little little much. And then to add the fact that anything the new house would want to do would need a variance. I think we're going the wrong direction of what all the master plans over the last 30 years tried to
do. So I make a motion to decline. I'll second that motion, Sullivan, and concur with Mr. Brezy's reasoning. Um, I don't think that this application passes the test for C2 variances.
Um, and C1 are questionable. Uh, and it is just it is trying to reszone basically. >> We'll take a roll call. Madam Chair, before roll call, could the attorney explain what a no vote mean?
>> Yes, a no vote one, everyone would have to say voting against this application. >> Well, so so it you can just indicate yes because it's a it's a it would be a >> um >> yes would be a denial.
>> Yes would be a denial. But but if if the board wants before we get to that point, board wants to deliberate as to the specific reasons. >> I'm not I'm not hearing what you're saying. So if you vote yes, you're denying the application >> because the the um the motion has been
and seconded to deny. But this is what we would always prefer to hear when you make your vote on what standard are you basing your vote? So why are you if you're voting yes to deny, why are you voting yes to
die? >> Right? Well, do do you do you not believe it meets the the test for C1 for C2? Does it does it not? That's the purpose of deliberation. Um, so with that, wait, was there a second?
Okay. All right. So, there's a there's a motion on the floor >> and a second. >> Um, so a >> roll call >> during the roll call, a yes by a board member would be a vote in support of the vote of denial. >> Okay. But again, deliberations.
>> Mr. Brazie, >> I want to add also to my previous statement that I feel that the hardship is self-created. Um, I just try and divide it and get a little too much use out of the land. I vote yes to deny. >> Mr. Heler, >> I vote yes to deny. I concur with what
Mr. Breie was saying. And as Mr. Riker used to say, I think there's just too much house here for too little land. So yes to deny. >> Mr. parks. >> I vote yes to deny. Um I don't believe that any of these properties can support
an adequate septic system. >> Mr. Rogers, >> I vote yes to decline. Uh I support the master plan's intent. >> Miss Santoro, >> Mr. Tremor.
>> I also vote yes to deny and I I concur with every statement that's been said between the septic systems and the too much house on the property. >> Mr. Sullivan, >> I vote yes to deny. Once again, I believe that the C2 variance um
qualifications were not met and it is too much for that size lot. >> Dr. Camp. And I also vote yes to deny and uh I understand that the septic systems are better now. However,
I just think there is too much going on on that size lot. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And then, Madam Chair, since the second application is identical, um, I'm going to need a chance to discuss with my client whether he wants to withdraw or move forward and that
>> or maybe make it not quite as dense. >> I'm not a consideration identical as to this one. So, it's pretty hard to change it. So, we're going to ask that that one get carried. Since my client is out of the country, I can't even communicate. >> Think that might be wise.
>> So, we just need a date. If we carry ma'am, you'll have an opportunity at another time to discuss this. If they even come forward to to apply, they may not apply. >> Yeah. >> Yes.
>> Yeah. >> Right. So, let's finish this application. So, we have denied this application. >> It's done. >> Now, you wish to withdraw this application for Magnolia at this time? I can't withdraw it without my client's permission only to carry it so I have a
chance to discuss it. >> All right. So, you will now carry this application. >> Whatever date you pick. >> What's a good time? We're very busy until about October. We have July 20th. We have Mr. Alfieri is here for a warehouse. I don't know if
you'd want to try. >> It's a consideration. Mr. Alfuri, you're here anyway. >> I don't know. I'm >> And will that give you time enough >> to Yes. >> meet with your client? >> Plenty of time. And yes, that date is fine. >> All right. >> We need a mot.
>> We need a motion, please. Mr. Sullivan, may >> I'd like to make a motion to move uh the application for block 8901, lot 19, Yosesephim Minsburg, from tonight to July 20th, 2026.
>> Second. All in favor? >> I I >> opposed. All right, Mr. Haly. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good night. We'll take a motion to adjurnn. I'd
>> like to make a motion to adjourn this meeting. Sullivan second. Hello. >> All in favor? I