Exactly what I read. I heard you say when I heard it read I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. All right, everybody. Welcome to the August 3rd Jackson Township Planning Board meeting. This meeting has been appropriately noticed in all the appropriate appropriate places and forums according to the Open Public Meetings Act. And I will leave it off to Madam Chairwoman.
>> Good evening everyone. We'll have a begin with a roll call, please. >> Mr. Brezie >> here. >> Mr. Marzo >> here. >> Mr. Heler, >> Mr. Parks >> here. >> Mr. Rogers >> here. >> Mr. Tremor. >> Mr. Sullivan
>> here. >> Dr. Campbell >> here. Uh, we need a motion for payment of voucher for recording secretary, please. >> So move. Sullivan. >> Second. Demarzo. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Brezie. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Marzo? >> Yes. >> Mr. Parks? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rogers? >> Yes. >> Mr. Sullivan? >> Yes. >> Dr. Camp? >> Yes. Uh, we need a u motion for approval of the minutes for July 20th. Please. >> So move. Sullivan. >> Second.
>> Mr. Brezie? >> Yes. >> Mr. Marzo? >> Yes. >> Mr. Parks? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rogers? >> Yes. >> Mr. Sullivan? >> Yes. >> Dr. Kim? >> Yes. Any engineering or planning matters, gentlemen? >> Any legal matters?
>> Uh, none at this time, unless you want to. We have uh no resolutions and no changes to the schedule. Happily, >> there is one board matter I'd like to bring up. Um we have had a uh motion for
reconsideration of an application site plan for block 1102, lot 24.02 and 1101, lot 3401. Uh this is an unusual uh activity. In
the 10 years I've been on the board, I I've never been involved with this kind of thing. However, my legal counsel tells me that this is something that uh I will make a decision about. However, um we're aboard and and I want to make sure that you all have the opportunity
to read the information that Mr. Sheay will send to you before I make a determination just so you're all aware. Thank you. We will circulate it to the the board. >> Good. Okay. So, we have application 23108.
Mr. Doyle, you're not Mr. Doyle. I've known Mr. Doyle for 50 years and you're not me. Use your microphone, please. Thank you. Hello. All right. Good evening. My name is Abby Tobber and I'm an associate at
the firm car diamond Doyle Company of Petra. We are here on the application. Do we have it as >> you just speak into the mic? >> You have to speak really into that microphone because we're recording and
we're also on Zoom. So, it's important. Okay. >> Thank you, >> Anthony. >> I think Anthony is pulling it up right now. >> He's working on it. We had some issues earlier. >> Um, it's the site plan for Mark Properties LLC
>> that street >> out on the Manchester border. 23108, lot 14. >> That's it. >> Okay. All right. So, we're here on an application tonight. That's a 5 acre lot on B Street. That's in the RD1 district.
It's also in the Pinelands. We are seeking to subdivide that into three and all three lots are going to be a full conforming lots not withstanding any other information. Um, a little backstory before we begin on this property is that this property was
actually approved with a resolution back in 2010, May of 2010. Um, due to complications, the subdivision map never got filed. So, we're back here today, but it's essentially the same application. Nothing has changed much in the area. Um, and like I said before,
all three lots are going to be fully conforming for the area for the zone. So, with that, I'd introduce my expert, Graeme McFarland. >> Please raise your right hand because we have no idea who you are. You swear affirm truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> All right. Please state your name. Spell
your last for the record. >> Uh, sure. It's Graham McFarland, M A C F A R L A N E, Professional Engineer and Professional Planner. Uh, yes. Yes, as indicated, this is an application for a minor subdivision for a partial located on on Bat Street. >> Just the board accepts your credentials
since >> we've seen this space. >> Heard them many times. >> Thank Thank you. >> Yes. Located on Bat Street and within the within the jurisdiction of the New Jersey Pine Land. You can see exhibit A1 is an aerial map showing the subject property which is currently vacant and
wooded. Uh contains a land area of of uh of five five acres. uh located in the RD1 zone. It's proposed to subdivide this property into three conforming lots. Each of them having an area of about 1.65 acres. Uh lot frontage lot
width of 133 feet and change will be provided for each of the each of the three lots. Uh the lots are in full conformance with ordinance requirements not seeking any variances or waiverss at this time. Uh this is an application just for the minor subdivision. Anthony,
just go to A2 for me real quick. That's the uh this is the minor subdivision plan that was submitted in in support of the application. Shows the three lots proposed identified as lots 14.01, 14.02, and 14.03.
Uh you can see the setback lines proposed for the three lots. Um interest interestingly uh Pinlands required a front setback of 200 feet from the center line of Vat Street. So that is
what's depicted on this plan even though the the standard setback within a zone is is 60 feet. I couldn't confirm what the um impetus of that was, but that was also a condition of of this original approval when it was done a few years back. So I think Pine Lines just stayed
with that requirement of having the homes. I'll bet I'll bet money that it's because that's what the setback is on almost all those properties and it's probably in consideration for widening of roads. My guess
>> possibly, but um that street is a is a is a lower order uh residential street only a 50- foot rideway. Um it's actually under size right now. Now, we do have to provide a 5ft runway dedication. But anyhow, pine lines
require the houses to be set back 200 feet from the center line of the street. So, that's what's depicted on this plan, which is in excess of the of the zone requirement. Uh, but anyway, fully conforming application. No improvements proposed at this time. Simply the subdivision of the property. They would
be sold to individual buyers to build individual homes. Go through the whole plot plot plan process. Uh, comply with RSIs for parking. Of course, we have to have advanced uh septic systems to get the 1acre zoning in the RD1 zone. Uh we
do have review letters from both uh the engineer and the planner. We don't take exception to any of the comments outlined therein. Um Doug just has a couple of technical comments items to be addressed on the plat and we would agree to comply with all of those comments.
Mr. Peters issued a letter on July 13th where he outlined the uh outlined the application confirmed that there are no variances required. There w it was one discrepancy on our plan where the lot width was uh improperly indicated. 125
ft is the required lot width. Our plan did say 135 just a frankly just a drafting error. Uh so these lots do conform with all of the uh all of the requirements. Um, Pinelands made a condition that only the
minim minimum amount of trees would as absolutely necessary would be cleared and we would agree with that uh condition as well. And again, we don't take any exception to any of Mr. Peter's comments. We had also submitted the plan to Bureau of Fire Prevention to have an approval
letter from them from February 24th of 2026. And we got got approval letter from the uh traffic safety unit in uh July of 2026. And that pretty much sums up what we're
looking to do. Again, fully compliant with with all applicable sections of the ordinance. >> Mr. Peters, Well, I get to go first. >> It's your day. >> Thank you. Um, Graham, building Heidle
comply with the ordinance requirements? Yes. Um, what's going on with curbing and sidewalk in the area? >> Uh, there is none along Bat Street. So, the plan indicates contribution to the uh pedestrian safety fund, but that is entirely up to the board. Um, do have a
note that the survey is a few years old. To the best of your knowledge, have any of the site conditions shown on the old survey been changed? >> They have not changed, but we will agree to submit a current survey as condition of approval. >> And how will the subdivision be filed?
Be filed by Matt? >> That's all I have, Madam Chair. Thank you, >> Mr. Clay. Ju just one just one quick one. Um, in addition to the um, uh, payment into the pedestrian safety fund, um, would the applicant be willing to clean that existing storm drain in front?
>> I'm sure they would agree to do that as part of it. >> Um, could we include that in the estimate for the pedestrian safety fund number? There'll just be another item, a line item for cleaning existing storm stream, x amount of dollars. >> If the ordinance allows for that, we would
>> I don't I don't think it it it may not. It's a It's a pedestrian safety fund ordinance, not a storm drain cleaning >> ordinance. So >> So you >> I'm going to leave it to the attorneys to tell me if that's okay. >> All right. So stipulate to the pedestrian safety fund >> and the cleaning of a sewer
>> and clean. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Anyone from the board questions, comments? >> And just to be clear, there's no variances, no waiverss. >> Correct. >> Sure. One more. So, sorry.
>> That's fine. >> Will the Plancelands Commission be issuing a no callup letter on this on the subdivision? >> Yeah. Yes. That that we we had actually obtained one from them for the county approval, but they will also have to issue one for the local plan of approval as well
>> in addition to looking at the individual lots as they're developed. >> Correct. >> Okay. And we can stipulate to that, right? That'll be part of Yes. public. Now, >> I'd like to open uh this meeting uh to
the public for cross-examination of witnesses only. Sullivan >> second de Marzo. All in favor? >> I would like to come. >> Yes. >> If anyone would like to uh ask any
questions of Mr. McFarland, please come forward. Now >> seeing no one come forward, I move to close the public portion of the cross- examination on this uh application. Sullivan >> second. Demarzo. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> like to summarize.
>> Just briefly again, this this application has been here before. It's back here in the same form. It's three fully conforming lots in the RD1 zone. >> In the in the microphone, please. We're recording. >> Three fully conforming lots in the pro development zone. Again, Um, we agree
to, you know, do any of the conditions that were set forth today and we're going to submit. >> I'll accept a motion. >> Public? We did. Oh, second. Public comment. >> Yes. I'd like to make a motion to open this application. >> Comment.
>> General comments. Anyone would like to come forward to make a comment on this application? This is your opportunity. Seeing no one come forward, I move to close the cross or the public comment portion of this application. Sullivan >> second to Marzo.
All in favor? >> I I >> I'll accept a motion now. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve this application as it is completely conforming. Um Sullivan >> second. Dear Marzo, >> I'll have a roll call vote, please. Mr.
President. >> Yes. Based on our professional reports, both of them concur that is 100% conforming. and I vote yes. >> Mr. Marzo, >> yes. >> Mr. Parks, >> yes. >> Mr. Rogers, >> yes. >> Mr. Sullivan, >> yes. >> Dr. Camp.
>> Yes. Congratulations. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Now, we'll go to Mr. Feffer. Block 5101, lots 20 and 21 on Cook and Victoria.
Good evening everybody. Adam Feffer attorney on behalf of the applicant. Uh what we have this applica what we have this evening before the board is a minor subdivision but really just a lot line adjustment as a technical item. Um we're not creating any new lots. We have two
single family lots that are back to back. Uh you'll hear testimony in a minute but combined they're approximately two acres in size and we're basically moving the backyard line so that each lot is a little bit more
give or take an acre. Um the the part where it gets a little technical, one of the properties uh is currently um tied into sewer to the MUA while the other property is on septic. Uh Jackson
Township, there's an ordinance that talks about when if we're creating new lots as a technicality, if we're not tied into sewer, then we have to comply with the R3 standards. Um, R2 properties are right now in the R1 and the R20.
Obviously, the R3 standards are much more strict, restrictive. Um, so again, as a technical a technicality, we're creating new lot numbers, but we're not creating any new lots. There's the two lots there. If you drove past them, you
wouldn't know the difference, but for the backyards um are moving. Um there are some existing variances that go along with that. But again and and we'll go through it and and Mr. Peter's report is is correct in stating we have to look at the R3 standards. But I just will ask
the board to keep in mind that it it's technicality because we're not really creating that new lot. Uh with that I ask Mr. Portoy uh to get sworn in. We'll get his credentials accepted as an expert and then we'll proceed through the reports.
Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or form affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I affirm. >> All right. And uh please state your name and spell your last the record. >> Joseph Portoi. P O R T N O Y. >> All right. And your credentials?
>> Licensed professional engineer and professional planet of state, New Jersey. Um licensed in good standing. Um bachelor's a master's degree in civil engineering. I've been before multiple boards including this board. Is it the board accept the credentials?
>> Uh, are you a a planner tonight, an engineer, or both? >> Both. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yes, we accept. Thank you. >> Mr. Poy, you heard my my opening remarks. If you can just give the board confirm some of the information, give a
little more technical and then we can walk through the reports. >> Okay. So, there's no, we are dealing with two lots. lot 20 which is 431 Cook Road which is in the R1. Um just to orient over here this is the aerial
Google Earth aerial with the parcel lines. This blue sort dash line is the zone boundary line. Um to the left to the west is the R1 and to the right of this line is R20. So, we have an
existing lot um lot 20 block um block 5105. Lot 20 is 431 Cook Road which is an R1 is currently approximately 1.76 acres. It does have
an existing um variance for lot width and frontage. We are in uh R1 150 ft is required and it existing is 101.0 09. The the second lot is lot 31 um which is
for Victoria Circle. It's in the R20 zone and it's approximately 29 acres. So this one has existing lot area variance where 12,500 square ft with a lot is 12,500 square feet and 20,000 square
feet is required in the R20 zone. Note these lots are backto back. Most of the rear property line is a line, but the zone boundary does run along that rear property line between the lots. Each lot contains a single family home and the
surrounding uses are also single family residential. So, the owner of lot 31, which is a smaller lot, which is to purchase a portion of the rear of lot 20. So, um, they would like to adjust
that lot line between the two of them to leave approximately 1.01 acres for 430 for lot 20. Um, so that in a in R1 zone, one acre is typically required. However,
um, there is no public sewer available. So an existing law is conforming but accordance with um section 244-47 um D new lots created by subdivision after days the section shall comply with the R3 zoning standards or less
connected to public sewer. So while it is an existing lot and the developed area is all staying within that acre it and technically now being a subdivision it's a new lot. is in the lot number.
So, it falls under that as as noted. Um, lot 20 though, um, lot 31, I'm sorry, will now actually become conforming because right now that's deficient in lot area. Now, that will become 1.04 acres and will now become a conforming
lot. Um, so it is not it's a technicality. Um there are no additional variances proposed. Um there the owner of L20 will in the future apply for building permits for
either a new house or a garden pool or whatever they may want to do in the additional backyard. As noted, there is no um no they will stay single family residential. No existing variances are proposed. The variances are required. Let me just go through them. um in for
lot for lot new lot I guess third lot 20.01 on Cook Road. Um we are under the R1 where under R1 for lot area. We are
proposed 43,871 square feet. We are 43,560 is required for R1 but under R3 would be 130,000. Um the lot width as noted was 101.09
where that was existing nonconformity for R1 but as looking at R3 standards is a 200 foot requirement um lot frontage sim similarly in the R1 that was conforming at 75 ft require I'm sorry
the frontage is conforming um front yard setback for the existing house is 54.8 8 which would be conforming to the 40 plate in the R1 but it's not conforming to 80 ft required in
the R3. Um side yard setback is existing is 21.4 which is conforming with the 20 ft required in the R1 but is not conforming with the 50 ft required in in the R3. Um
coverages are all compliant. Um there is also an existing sideyard setback variance. There's a um shed I believe that has existing sideyard setback of 10.6 um where 20 ft is required in the R1 and
and 50 ft is required in R3 and the pool as well the existing pool which is 29.2 2 feet which is conforming with the 20 ft in the R1 but not with the 50 ft in the R3. Just know as a R as a as
R3 as this lot's only about 100T wide with the 50 foot wide setbacks that would not you cannot comply with with anything with building anything if we would apply R3 um R3 standards to this lot. Um
>> Mr. Portoy. >> Yes. >> One you can take a big deep breath. >> Yeah. Before we move on to lot 3101, uh just a correction on new lot 20 20.01, the lot that fronts on Cook Road, the
accessory sideyard setback that you spoke about was actually for a garage and not a shed. Correct. >> Um I believe so. I could confirm that, but I will accept that. Yes. >> Okay. Uh the only reason I ask is because there are accessory sideyard
setback requirements for both garages and sheds, but they're different. >> Correct. >> So I want to make sure that Mr. Sheay Yes. >> under proposed lot 2011, the lot on Cook Road, that the accessory sideyard setback is for the existing garage. There is not an existing shed that
requires a sideyard setback. Correct. >> Yes, that's correct. Yes. I'm sorry. That'll >> So now we're I think we're done with 2010. I apologize for interrupting. Thank you. Okay. And now moving on to um
onto lot um 3101. Um so now this is actually getting larger. So the everything complies besides that that the shed which was noted um the sideyard
setback there's existing shed at 1.7 ft which is existing nonconformity and um and the pool there's a existing set side setback of 10 ft to the pool which would not be
conforming in either the R20 or R1. R20 require R I'm sorry not compliant in R20 which requires 15 ft. Um this zone this lot now would be in two zones. Um the front portion would be in R20 but the rear portion would be in R1 because that
zone boundary would be running through that lot. So anything that there any improvement in in R1 would need to conform with those R1 requirements. Um so those are the conditions um over
there on the lot. So as not this is more of a technicality. This is uh you know anyone going driving by would not realize that this lot line was adjusted. There's no impact to you know to any
neighbors or any you know no any impact to the zone. There's nothing you know nothing anyone would know about this the technicality with this subdivision with the slot line adjustment being a subdivision. So now we fall under that
section and now um this new lot in the R1 on septic would need to conform with the R3 requirements. So we're seeking variances to continue to apply the R1 standards um as they do right currently. >> So Mr. Port, I guess my question is when
I drove by both lots the other day, I'm saying to myself to what end? like why why why is this happening? >> Well, again I think the if I can answer >> that'll be fine.
>> You have two property owners. One who has a oversized lot that and if you look I believe the fence is somewhere close you can see the area that's disturbed the ground and the rest is green trees. He doesn't really utilize it. Um it's underutilized and you have a property
owner who backs up who would like to have a larger property and be more usable. will be able to to eventually in the future expand his house or his backyard to that area. >> And being that lot is already undersized, he cannot even, you know, do
what you can typically do in the R20 zone. So, this would actually be correcting that lot size, >> right? If that person had come, if they didn't have an understanding, right, between the two owners of of an agreement to sell the property, if that
lot owner, if lot uh 31 would come before the board and ask for a they'd have to come before the board for any expansion, they would have be required to write by sell letters to to the contiguous properties. So he would have to do this and then if the if the
neighboring property owner says okay I'm I have excess land you'd be able then that whole conversation and process would be happening then anyway but again so when you say to what end I understand we're not looking to to squeeze in a
third lot trying to get away it's you have two homeowners who made a deal I have excess you know you're undersized we could work something out here um and sell it and that's what we're trying to do here and make two 1 acre plus, you know, a little more than one acre size lots back to back.
>> Mr. Cle, any thoughts? >> Use the microphone, please. >> Thank you. >> Curban sidewalk exists, so there's no contribution required. Um, and two lots existing and two lots are proposed.
>> Mr. Peters, >> in no particular order, Mr. important. How would the subdivision be filed? >> But I think by the intent was by map. >> By map. >> Yes. >> Okay. Well, one or the other. So, to have it so it can be in the resolution.
>> Um, and I guess to our attorneys, I think it should be noted that we're creating what would be referred to as a split zone lot. So, new lot 3101 would be located in two zones. Um, and
again, to the extent that we're not setting precedent or zoning requirements, when the owner of lot 3101 wants to do something in the back, he's going to need to go to the zoning officer, get a permit for a fence or for tree clearing or to put an accessory
structure. Um, so this board's making no determination other than to say by adding lot area from existing lot 20 to proposed lot 3101, we're making the lot larger in size, but we're not commenting
on the land or the requirements that are in the R1 zone. >> And then we wouldn't want to hear that it's a pre-existing condition. Uh, we won't be hearing that, nor will the zoning board. Correct. >> Not all. So, and actually I've had this exact issue with the Jackson Township uh
zoning board and I'll just I can just tell you how they dealt with it when someone came in. Basically, if the structure was in the front, which would have been R20, they said you have to comply with R20. If you're looking to do something in the back, if you was going to do a pool, you know, expand the pool
into the uh into the back area of R1, you'd have to comply with the R1 standards. And again, and I'm not telling you that that's what we have to do, but that that's how we generally would rule upon it. Um, anything that's proposed in one area versus the other area. And if they're in both areas,
usually goes to the more restrictive one. But again, they'll deal with that if and when they propose to do something more than just having a larger and is not commenting on that. >> We're not we're not commenting on that. Exactly. >> I was just making the comment.
>> Right. So, it would be restricted to residential use. that would be part of the uh resolution. Um and it would be a deed condition. It would go along with the deed residential use only. I so I I think I think what Madam
Chairwoman is saying is um would the applicant stipulate to a deed restriction as to the residential nature of the property? >> As to single family residential >> and that's their intent. Their intent is to construct a you know they're both
owner occupied. uh our intent is to just build a new house and more have land more land available >> and it will remain that way but we want to put that as a deed restriction in the resolution. >> Okay, >> Mr. Shay, this should have one house on
each lot. I don't want to see somebody coming in for a flag pole and try to go behind because it's deeper. >> I got to remain one house on each lot. >> That's the intent of one house. I know what the intent is, but I can see you written in the >> We like it in writing. We're funny that
way. >> We were gonna do that. I would have kept it at 1.78, but the larger one that not a problem, >> right? >> Any other comments from the board? >> Madam Chair, >> I just had a um a question. You were
talking about a I think you need a a variance for the R3 requirements. is out. >> So, as a as a techn as a technicality because the the lot is not tied only one of the lots is tied into the sewer. So, Jackson Township has an ordinance that
any new lot any new lot created again because we're going from two to two. We're not really creating a new physical lot, but there's a new lot number. uh we technically would have to com tie into sewer or comply with the R3 standards which are much more restrictive and we
couldn't comply with uh and there's no sewer available on one of the lots so we couldn't even if we wanted to tie into it at the moment. >> Oh um so on Victoria Circle there's no ability to hook in. Is that what you're saying? >> No. >> Victoria has sewer there's no sewer on
>> Cook. Okay. So again, if we had it would be a much stronger argument on that township end if we're creating a third lot and then we'd say, "Okay, I understand we have to comply with the R3 standards." But that's I just wanted to point out there's nothing different that's going to be created here in terms
of the lots. But for the lot, >> anyone else? >> Uh yeah, we can open to the public. Yeah. like to make a motion to open to the public cross-examination on this application's witnesses. Sullivan >> second de Marza.
>> All in favor? >> I. >> Anyone who would like to ask any questions of Mr. Port at this time, please come forward. We don't fight. Come right up. >> Hi. How are you? >> Good. your name and and we will be sworn in
>> your right hand. >> Yep. >> That's your right. >> Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> All right. Please state your name and spell your last for the record. >> Sure. Robin Whites we ei s e l e r g. >> Okay. And your address? >> 126 Piccadilly Drive. >> Okay. Now you can cross-examine the
witness. Yeah. >> So I live on Piccadilly Drive which runs up that blue line to Cook. um on one of those houses that are that are over there. So, one question I have is did everybody from Victoria to cook
on Piccadilly get the letter? Were they sent the letter? >> Use the microphone, Mr. >> Sorry, >> please. >> Sorry, I apologize. Uh we request a certified list from the township. Everyone within 200 feet of these lots, we get a list and we send notice and
yes, I did send notice to everybody on that list. Do you know how far it went up to what address on Piccadilly closest to Cook? >> The town tax they have they usually have a program that gives it everywhere within 200. >> Okay. just because I know just in
speaking to neighbors that um I believe 128 didn't get a letter which would be that third house and from Cook in and then I believe I'm not sure exactly which house but from Victoria Circle closer
>> if you look at the plans just a second Mr. Poro you have the plans there in front of you and it does list who did get letters and those people >> well it it lists probably theoretically 200, >> right? >> And ju just as a matter of concern
though, so just to be clear, ma'am, so what what happens is that you can you can have personal testimony as to your own knowledge. What you're what you're indicating on the record is what's called hearsay. So you you can't have personal knowledge of somebody else's
situation. They would have to show up. And I it's just one of those >> well I just want to know then how far the letters went >> just to make sure >> people had the opportunity not speaking for them but just to make sure that everyone was aware.
>> We read these we have the you can read the letter I >> I can confirm that one if it's 128 you're asking a certified letter was sent back was sent to them at 128 Piccadilly drive. >> So again I have the certified receipt that was provided to the township. >> Okay. Okay. I'm just one That's a good
question. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um, and it went all the way to that first house on the corner on Piccadilly. I don't know what the address would be all the way down. >> It went to everybody that was on the certified. >> So, so just so you know, what happens is that the the process for notice in the
municipal land use law. Um the applicant, any applicant has to uh submit 10 days, at least 10 days prior to the application um certified mailings and those certified mailings have to be sent in to the board's office for everybody to take a look at and the
certified stamps and um are are on that evidence. And that's how we determine whether or not the notice is jurisdictionally appropriate to make sure that like all the so if they if they send in um the appropriate forms
with the certified stampings, we have to assume based upon the post office's stampings that that those letters have gone out. >> No, I totally understand that. I just want to note that they were sent. I mean, people cannot pick it up. people can refuse it, but the attempt was made,
so I understand that. I just want to know where address did it start at. Did it start at the corner house on the corner of on the Piccadilly side on the corner of Victoria and pick >> whatever the tax list that was produced by the township for the 200 feet? >> There there's a we have a map if you'd
like to take a quick look at it. It looks like it went from 118 to 132 Piccadilly. It also appears to be 112 and 114 Piccadilly. Then on Victoria Circle, it went to even numbers from two to 10 and the odd numbers from three to seven. >> Okay.
>> So, I don't know if that if that helps. >> No, no, that does help. >> But you could certainly take you take this map and take a look at it. >> No, I trust it. That's what you said. You know, I I trust um my only real other question was you said, you know, coming from the street, no one's going to see it.
Depending what's going to get cleared, we're all going to see it. So just because you say, "Oh, if you drive by, no one's going to notice that the, you know, the plot the the lots were split or new lots were made or expanded or shortened."
But looking out your back window, being in your yard, I'm assuming if they're going to build a new house, a new structure, who knows how large. Well, they they just said build a new house as long as there's one house on each lot. >> So what happens is that this application before us is just for the boundary line
change and the subdivision. So, if they wanted to build a new house, they have to file another application for site plan approval. They have to come back and vet the whole thing out. So, so they they can't they don't get to build anything as a result of this. They just get to subdivide the property if the
board votes in the affirmative. >> Clearing trees, >> right? And and the the township gets involved with clearing trees. There's a forester involved. Um township professional has to, you know, give the permitting, whole nine yards. So, uh, if you want to actually call the zoning
officer and and ask her the the process via what every applicant has to go through for the for clearing of trees, she can give you a whole rundown of exactly what the the township processes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, then I guess my only concern is it's just not the fact of
driving by and you don't see it. There's a lot of We're gonna see it. So, if you split the land and things get clear for one reason or another, whatever plan is, it isn't. I'm I understand that that's a later issue,
but we're going to see it. So, you can't say no one's going to see it because we're going to see it. >> So, respectfully, either property owner could take out a permit subject to the township's clearing um requirements and clear their lot. Nothing to do with this line, >> right? They could because it's theirs,
but they're not changing anything. They own it. It's theirs. But if you're looking to make changes and you're looking to sell off part of it now, you're you're changing more. >> That's just my point. You have to take it into consideration. >> You know, if you'd look at that distance
between the blue line, the back cuz I see piccadilly the blue line and the yellow and red line that buffer will still remain there. That's not going to change. That's still going to separate
those properties. Nothing in within that triangle will be changing for you. >> While I understand that in all spots, it's not as dense as it looks. >> Oh, okay. Understood. >> You know, you can look out your window
and barring winter when things are bare and you can see straight through. Right now, you can look and if you look towards this way, it might be really thick and I have no idea what's past it. If you look on this side, nothing grows evenly. you
know, and you have all the deer and they may eat more over here, so it's flatter over there. So, it's just not as dense as it looks from an aerial view. >> And of course, anything they're going to anything they're going to do there, they will have to get proper authorization to
do it >> and then we can come back >> and it will come to you. You'll know it. >> Okay, that was just my question. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. >> Anyone else like to speak on this uh to ask questions of this applicant?
>> Seeing no one else come forward. I move to close the public cross-examination portion of this application. Sullivan >> second to Marzo. All in favor? >> I I >> Any general comments on this particular application, please come forward.
I'd like to make a motion to open for the public uh comment section of this application. Sullivan >> second de Marzo. All in favor? I >> I. >> Anyone want to speak on this application? >> Seeing no one come forward, I move to
close the public cross-examination on this application. Sullivan >> second to Marzo. >> Oh, sorry. Public comment on this application. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Um >> just just to be clear, this is a confusing one. So let me just put this
on record for you guys. So what's happening here is we have a we have a boundary line. So boundary line change. Um there's three different ways in which something like this could happen. Um number one, if the uses are not permitted and there's a boundary line
change ends up going to the zoning board. That's not the case here. Second way in which townships typically operate and and handle these type of situations is that sometimes they they'll use the more restrictive um zone standards that are involved. Typically that happens via
ordinance. We don't have an ordinance on that in this township. How we do it in in this township is that if if one area is more than 50% in one zone, we use that zone standards. We've done this a couple times over the years, but it's kind of a course of conduct thing that
we do in this township. Um, so in this situation, you have the first lot which is zoned R1, but because of the fact that there's no septic, I believe that we're using the R3 standard. So that would be the first variance relief would
be based based upon the R3 standards. Um, and that's for lot 3101. And then the second situation is um the property that's picking up the bulk of of the additional property. Um that
standard or that that zone is being changed from R20 to R1. Not changed but we're using the R1 standards in place of the R20 because the bulk of the property of the new boundary is now in the R1
zone. So uh all variances that have been requested are um are existing. So all the structures and everything like that are existing. There's nothing new proposed, right? Um, so when you're taking your vote into consideration,
that would be the affirmative vote for um for both lots having two different standards um in in varying zones just to make sure that everybody is clear on what's going on. >> Yeah,
>> I hate to disagree with >> or did I have that backwards >> at least on on lot 31.01. Again, I just want to clarify not, you know, In theory, the the front of the lot because 31 is currently tied in to sewer. Um the
front of it is still goes under the R1 standards. The re I'm sorry, the R20 standards. The rear of the lot again, it's just being added in. Anything that nothing's being proposed on that side, if they were ever to come back, whatever standards they
oppose imposed would be fine. But as far as you were saying 50% changing it to a different zone, none of that is is occurring. A lot it'll be split zone and we're not proposing any change. So whenever they come back, however the zoning officer deems >> what they have to comply with, they'll
have to comply with before the board. I just want you 50% rule. I that I don't believe that that's I haven't seen that. >> It becomes a whole new line. But >> right, but the the >> just to be clear, the
3101, the one that's picking up the additional property is going to be this could be a new lot. >> So there's going to be a split zone. >> It'll be a zone, right? The tech you're creating, we're going from two lots to two lots, >> right? >> We're just moving the lot, >> but the zone standards that will be in
place from here forward will be that of R1. Oh, I thought it would be a split line. I believe that that's what >> I I don't unless the uh our our planner wants to correct me. I think I think the standard that we use is that if it's
greater than 51% it then becomes the entire property gets zoned according to what the greater zone is. Unless I'm >> I haven't seen that and I don't
>> Mr. Peters, your thoughts? >> Well, all I can give you with regards to that are my thoughts because I'm not sure that our ordinance has a specific standard, which is why I reference the zoning officer going forward. It's the zoning officer's determination. If
there's case law that wants to be made part of this application, that's wonderful. I offer the applicant's attorney to put that in. Otherwise, it gets done by our zoning officer based upon the ordinances that we have currently which don't specifically state
how to deal with what zone this is in. So, yes, you could make the common sense approach. There's an existing house there. The existing house is on sewer. They could make the argument they could appeal the zoning officer's decision if the zoning officer doesn't agree with them. But you would think as from a
common sense perspective that the addition of land to an existing 20,000 square foot lot hooked up to sewer would follow those standards. >> But that is not for this board to determine. That's for the zoning officer to that's my only
I think I was overthinking it. >> I wasn't we weren't asked to pick it. So we're just saying it'll be the zoning officer's decision. We're just looking to move the line. Otherwise, I always agree with what Mr. Shay says. All right. Any other comments on this uh
application? >> Want to summarize for us, Mr. Uh? >> Yes. Thank you. Again, I think it'll be very brief. Um application is to move the lot line between the two neighboring properties. We'll create two little bit more than one acre property lots. Um
they'll comply with zoning officer and the zoning standards um as they may as they come into play with what they're going to be proposing. But as of now, you have two single family houses that are going to be on two single family lots. And we agree to the other conditions that the board had asked for,
and we'd ask that the board take a vote as in approval. >> I'll look for a motion. I'd >> like to make a motion to approve this application. Uh Sullivan, >> do we also need to um vote on the
variance? So, so the the vote would be encompassing the variances um you don't really want to separately, you know, separate them. So, if you want to deliberate upon the variances, then
you're more than welcome to. Um so, I'll let Mr. Sullivan think >> withdraw yours. >> I I withdraw my uh >> So, do we want to discuss >> MRZO the variances
>> that didn't exist previously? >> I'm okay with it. I just wanted to make sure that we were clear. >> And that's all me. I should have made that clear. Um, so I'd like to make a motion to approve this application with
variances solvent. >> Second de Marza. We'll have a roll call vote, please. Mr. Brezie. >> Well, I want to note that um most of these variants are pre-existing non-conforming. So there's nothing you could do with them anyway. So I vote yes. It's only moving a lot line.
>> Mr. Marzo, >> yes. >> Mr. Parks, >> yes. >> Mr. Rogers, >> yes. >> Mr. Sullivan, >> yes. Dr. King, >> knowing that uh any changes forthcoming will be appropriately handled by the
appropriate boards, I vote yes. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Have a good evening. following the IBC regulations. for >> facility height. >> This is >> Yeah, that's
good evening, Miss Jennings. Good evening. For the record, I'm Donna Jennings from the law firm of Willen Skullman and Spitzer. on behalf of the applicant. As the board is aware, the applicant is here this evening seeking preliminary and final major site plan
approval with no variances to construct a two-story building with a basement consisting of approximately 32,955 gross square feet to be used as a child care center and related site improvements on approximately 1.92 acre
lot located at 33 South New Prospect Road and designated as block 5902, lot 53 on the township's tax maps. In addition, the applicant proposes to remove the existing single family residence and commercial building along with related accessory structures to
construct the proposed child care center on the property. The property is located in the neighborhood commercial zone, a non-residential zoning district under the state statute NJSA 4055D-66.6. Child care centers are permitted uses in
all non-residential zoning districts in the state. Accordingly, because the NC zone is a non-residential zoning district, the proposed child care center is a permitted use and is not subject to conditional use standards otherwise applicable within the NC zone. Although
no bold variances are required, the applicant does require several design waiverss with respect to one, the minimum length of entrance drives where 100 ft is required and 40 ft is proposed. Two, the minimum length of exit drives where 60 ft is required and
43 feet is proposed. Three, no parking stalls shall utilize required major circulation drives as parking access aisles whereas the parking assesses the main circulation drive. And four, no structure shall be permitted within the buffer area,
whereas a retaining wall is proposed within same. The record will reflect that the waiverss may be reasonably granted because they present a better planning alternative and safer design. In support of the application, the applicant will rely on the following witnesses. Uh Ellie Halpert, the site
engineer sitting to my left. Nali Gut, the architect, and John Ray, our traffic engineer. As a matter of recordeping, the applicant is in receive the following review letters from the board's professionals. Uh the board engineer review letter dated July 29th, 2026. the board planner review letter
dated July 30th, 2026 and the tree specialist review memo dated um August 3rd, 2026. So with that, uh we'd like to have Mr. Halbert sworn in and we can begin our application. >> You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
>> I do. >> All right. Please state your name and spell your last in the record. Eric Halpert, HAL PE RT, licensed professional engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey. I have um testified before multiple boards, including this board, multiple times, and these plans
were prepared under my supervision. >> And Mr. Halpert, you're testifying as both a planner and an engineer. >> Both a planner and an engineer. >> Thank you. We accept your credentials. >> Thank you. >> So, if you could, Mr. Halbert, uh, if you're going to use any exhibits, if we
can identify them for the record, and if you could start by describing the existing site and the area around the site. >> Anthony, could you go to the second sheet of this um set? Can you mark this um aerial exhibit as exhibit A1?
The site um is located along South New Prospect Road. It is located um in the NC zone. The NC zone is um as the name suggests neighborhood commercial um pockets um throughout um the township of
um areas either at intersections close to intersections um for commercial neighborhood commercial uses. The property um is surrounded by uh residential zones and residential development, a combination
of R1 zone and R15 zone. Um the applicant um is proposing to construct a daycare. The existing um property is currently improved um as mentioned a moment ago with uh a not
currently in use um animal hospital and a single family residence and other accessory structures with parking area. The proposal is to demolish the existing structures and improvements and to
install the applicants um proposed improvements that I will go through shortly. I'll go through first um the statement of operations and also discuss um the conditional use
requirements that would govern um a child daycare and other properties. um that are non-commercial um and discuss how it is different um the proposed improvements differ from
the conditional use requirements. The applicant seeks to construct a child care center with a basement floor and two stories above ground encompassing approximately 32,955
gross um square feet to provide services to children ranging in age from infant through five years old. The applicant proposes um
indoor play area and outdoor play area. There will be approximately 53 staff members, a maximum of 400 children, 23 classrooms. Classrooms range from 12 children to 22
children. There are lunchrooms proposed for the children. Food will be provided via delivery and I'll go through the site plan. Um there will be no food preparation on the
premises. However, um lunch will be served to the children. The hours of operation will occur between 8:30 and 4:15 p.m. with staggered start times and pickup times to accommodate different um
people's schedules. um between 8:30 and 9:15 a.m. will be the morning drop off typically at three separate slots. 8:30 um uh 8:45 approximately 9:15.
Pickup will be between 3:45 and 4:15. There will be no um activities in the evening or on the weekends to administer pickup and drop off. And as will be shown on the plan, um parents will pull
into the parking spots in the front of the building and enter the daycare to pick up or drop off their children. Deliveries would include daily deliveries of um of lunch and every two
weeks or so of paper goods, toiletries, personal goods for the children. A typical delivery vehicle would be a large van or a small box truck. >> Can you just confirm there'd be no buses coming to the site? >> The there are no buses coming to the
site. Loading and unloading of the children is via parent drop off where um the parents will be pulling into extra parking spaces designated specifically for drop off and pickup of the children.
>> Mr. Uh Rosie has a question. >> Room at one time as something to 23. What was your numbers that you gave? >> The um architect will go through the plan, but they're uh depending on the age, the number of children per classroom ranges from 12 to 22.
>> In the statement of operations, I'm reading 15 to 18. I just want to get it clarified. >> That will be corrected. the architect will go through the plan. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. I also have a question on the statement of operations.
Um, you indicated and well, the one that I have in front of me says that it's from newborn to four years old. Is it is it actually newborn to 5 years old? >> Five years old. Five. I'm sorry. Five. So, we're you're amending your statement of operations.
>> Yes. >> And this is on the architect plan. Um indicates um which classrooms are designated for uh which age children. >> And what was the total students per classroom again? >> 22. >> They range from 12 to 22.
>> Are we going to have testimony on statement of operations by an independent witness or >> No, Mr. Halbert was hand. >> Okay. Got >> that's then it's good we're asking these questions at this time. Um and you you've stipulated Monday through Friday.
>> Correct. >> Correct. There are no weekend or or no weekend or week night >> and there will be no afterchool daycare. >> Nothing beyond the 4:15 uh beyond the
4:15 um uh pickup time. And there will be no other uses for this facility, no rentals or anything of that nature. >> This is for a daycare and um the applicant is is a daycare operator. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And is familiar with uh the state
licensing and operates daycarees? >> Uh one question. Uh I didn't clearly hear you. Did you say there's no buses? >> Correct. There are no >> correct. There are no buses. >> Okay. And they're all going to come at the same time. the um drop off and pick
off will be staggered. That will come generally between 8:30 and 9:15 with three designated. >> That's a that's not a significant staggering. You're going to have a lot of cars in a 45 minute period, say an hour.
>> Correct. >> What's the basis for the staggering? Is it going to be based on age of children or location or how do what how would you know who would come and when? the the basis is generally the um uh customer um
desire based on their own schedule. So the facility has different uh drop off and pickup times and uh each as each each um individual parent will be picking a slot that works with their schedule when they need to get to work,
where they live, what works with their schedule. >> With 400 children, that seems like a lot. So, how many would you anticipate since there is there already a daycare facility? I think there is a cocoon in Lakewood already.
>> There is a the applicant does um operate a daycare facility and is therefore familiar um with um the operations of the of of a facility. Yes. >> So, what would the staggering look like for 400 students >> in in terms of actual traffic? I think
it'll be best to allow the traffic expert to discuss um what that would look like. Level of service I think is is is what you are looking for. I I think that would be best to leave for the traffic experts. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Please continue. Thank you. The applicant um is proposing um indoor there are indoor play areas and a smaller outdoor play area. And um I will go through before going through
the plan just to discuss some of the differences between um the conditional use and um the current proposal and the ability for the site to accommodate uh the proposal. The um conditional use requirement,
which has been determined does not apply and is indicated as for reference only in the board planner letter, required 100 square ft of outdoor um space per rated building capacity.
The applicant is complying with over here the state statute which does not provide a specific requirement um per uh rated building capacity. Rather the state statute provides for 35 square ft
for intended um use of children at a time. The applicant is proposing a 1397 square foot outdoor play area which would accommodate approximately 30 children at a time which would be one to two classrooms at a time depending on
the type of classroom. That would be in addition to indoor play areas that the architect will demonstrate within the building. Um there are two indoor play areas. Um, additionally, um, the
conditional use requirement is for a one sto for uh, interior facilities that are used should not be more than a half story above or below. The applicant um is proposing a basement and two stories
above. The applicant did work um with the unique uh topography of the um property where the slope the grade rises steeply
toward the back as I'm sure the board members saw upon their site visit. So in a way that um the children are making use of the basement but there are two uh ramps that um need to
uh change grade of approximately 3 to three and 1/2 ft to get outside without needing any steps. Um so the applicant is proposing to um I'm talking in terms of operations. We'll go through the actual plan but
just in terms of the conditional use the basement is being utilized and there is a 3 to three and a half um grade difference from the entrance to where the ramp will come out outside the building.
>> Mr. Calvin. Yes. >> You said there would be um staggered play areas out times outside with 30 children at a time. >> Correct. >> How long would that period be?
>> The play time would be approximately 20 minutes at a time. >> Because I'm looking at I'm doing my math here on uh there's an eight hour day. There's an organizational time drop off in the morning which reduces that from
eight hours. You've got 400 children that there are >> you almost need a 10-hour day here. You know >> there are 23 classrooms and the applicant um is providing outdoor area
um where there is no um state statute requirement to provide outdoor area greater than 350 um square feet. Um the applicant will be utilizing both the indoor and the outdoor area. So between
both the indoor and the outdoor area, the applicant is going to have >> and I guess that's weather dependent. >> Certainly it's weather dependent. Likely infants won't be utilizing too much the outdoor area, but the applicant is
looking to provide um to comply with the state licensing laws and to provide a very um various play options. But correct, not necessarily will all children be utilizing the outdoor area in one day.
>> The architect will go through the floor plans because there is about 750 ft playroom in every floor. So we have that in addition to the outdoor. >> So I apologize for interrupting. Um Miss Jennings, I appreciate Mr. Hopper's
testimony about complying with the state regulatory requirements. at some point whether it's him, yourself, the project architect, could we spell out what that standard is so that it can be in the resolution so that is part of resolution compliance someone gets whatever they
need to verify these standards because while I don't discount sworn testimony, it's simply not part of the record just for board members of the public to digest what that standard that was referred to is. So while you might understand it, I might understand it,
just for the purposes of making a record that says we're going to comply with those standards, if someone could specify them and then put them in as part of >> I can give you the regulation right now. It's NJAC 3A 52-5.4A
7i. It's called outdoor space requirements for children over the age of 10 months. So the young infants don't require any outdoor uh space. >> Thank you for that specific. The general standards that Mr. Halper keeps
referring to the state standards. >> That is the state standard >> must cover more than just recreational area. There there is a state standard for the entire project, >> not just the recreational area. >> Okay. Understood.
>> Yes. Okay, we'll we'll we'll get that. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, >> Mr. Peters, anything else there? >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Herp. You may continue. >> Okay, I will go through the plan. >> Thank you.
>> Anthony, can you please pull up the site plan? That's a different file. This is um a a different file is the uh this is the third page of this file. Could you pull up um the civil set?
Thank Thank you. Can you go please to um page three? Thank you. The applicant is proposing to construct a daycare center with a basement and two
stories as was discussed um before discussing the on-site improvements. Um, I like going through first outward and then in as part of the application because the site is situated along South New Prospect Road, which is a county
roadway, the applicant um is required and did submit um to the county for site plan approval and received comments. what is depicted upon on the plan are complying with uh generally complying
with what the county is looking for. As uh the board is aware, the the county is in the process of restriping South New Prospect Road into a three-lane section per their master plan. Um those improvements have not reached yet this
section of roadway. As part of this application and approval, the county is requiring the applicant to stripe in front of the property um and with a taper both um before the property and after the property the three-way
section. So um upon the installation of the site of of the improvements that are proposed, the applicant will be providing in front of the roadway um the three lane section master um plan uh per
the county master plan with that center two-way left turn lane. Um the county requested that the taper for the three-way section begin beyond marginal to the east of the property.
Additionally, as part of the offsite, as part of the um outside agency approvals, um the property is currently on septic. Um there is sewer nearby and uh the app within marginal road and the applicant
applied to JTMUA to connect the site to the public sewer system and received preliminary approval. Um and the applicant will continue to >> I think Mr. Brazie has a question concerning that. >> Has the MUA indicated they have enough
flow for you to hook to that line? >> The MUA has we have received preliminary approval. That is when they >> they have enough flow to supply in that line. They're not overcapacitated there. >> Correct. This section there are different sections of their system and this section of the township is
generally better um capable of handling more flow. >> I would not use the term generally can do that because they're having problems out there. But you said they committed to you on this and is in writing. >> We have we have received a approval from the JTMUA, a preliminary approval. they
um are require they require applicants to go through three steps preliminary, tentative and final and preliminary is where they give the general overall approval that the um application can be um accommodated.
>> But now if you don't get a final approval and then you come back in front of us >> the the um these improvements can only be proposed with sewer. So the applicant needs to connect to sewer. If the applicant would be um would only be able
to propose a septic system, the application would not work. >> So simply stated, if you can't get the sewer service, you cannot do the application. >> That is correct. >> Thank you. >> And that will be part of the resolution. >> That's part Yes. >> I think that's part of every one of your resolutions to get outside agency
approvals, which we will do here as well. >> Great. Thank you. and and physically the project would not work without the sewer connection. And that was one of the first pieces we reached out to JTMUA to confirm. Looking um uh al on the site, the
applicant is proposing two one-way drives. A one-way drive for ingress along the easterly side of the property and a bifurcated to uh left turnout and right
turnout. Um egress along the western side of the property. The applicant is proposing a fullway um full movement around the building. 86 physical parking spaces. Six of those
parking spaces will be EV ready parking spaces which would be considered to be providing 92 spaces. Um per the township ordinance 66 spaces are provided one per 500 square ft of gross floor area. There
are 5 53 um staff members and the applicant will be utilizing the excess um parking spaces for as mentioned earlier for the parent um drop off and pickup. >> I I'd bet money Mr. Brazie has questions
about those egresses and ingresses. >> Well, I have more from Mr. Peters already. Um on the egress coming in, if you look at the first parking space there, it's just at the mouth of where they're coming in. Is that should be eliminated there? I mean, somebody
backing out be hitting the incoming traffic. >> Mr. Ray will be providing testimony regarding traffic. I mean we are significantly over parked so certainly lose a parking space. >> I understand. I'm just looking at the safety point that understood the curve
coming in the car's backing that right there actually wouldn't happen. >> We'll have Mr. Ray address that. But I think everyone feels that >> he can look at he can look at the same situation on the other side. >> I too right. I didn't get there. >> But you didn't get there yet. All right. and and uh I think there there are some
I have some major concerns about marginal road. That's a big uh opportunity for um stopping and lining up. That that worries the heck out of me as far as uh
I'm ve I lived on that area for 30 years. I I know that roadway extremely well. and marginal is an interesting road. Unusual. Um I I certainly would not want to see that used as a lining up
area. Um I don't know, Mr. Brzzy, could the township maybe consider u not I the the residents have a right to park there. I'm talking about stopping and standing. Maybe a stopping car could be a problem. >> Stacking cars might be a major problem
on marginal. >> Okay. >> Okay. We don't have an issue with that and great. >> Really more traffic. So we'll have Mr. >> Understood. Just as long as we were talking about that area. >> Terrible name for a road too.
>> Marginal. Well, you know, if if you're used to other towns that in the south, they do that. They call those side roads marginal roads. So that's why it was called that when they built the Brookwoods. >> Just to be clear with stipulation wise.
So, the the applicants be going to be agreeing to putting a a no stacking sign or something to that effect. >> No stopping, no standing. >> No stopping or standing and can apply to the township for >> correct >> an ordinance. >> Just so we're clear, that approval has to come from the governing body because
it's in a public rightway. >> Exactly right. And that's why I asked Mr. Brezie, >> Mr. Shay, >> and the applicant agrees to make the request. >> Uh Mr. SH uh just for a legal opinion, would there also be a possibility of
signs that say uh non uh restrictive for non-resident parking? >> Restrictive for non-resident parking. >> I think we'll have Mr. um Brezie discuss that with the council. >> Yeah. >> Signage the the way we want that
signage. Thank you. The applicant is proposing um parking uh and drive areas throughout the site. The applicant is proposing a refuge storage area for both solid waste and recyclables.
It would be anticipated that um twice weekly pickup should suffice. This will be serviced by private hauler and can be adjusted as needed. The applicant is um proposing a loading area as discussed
previously. The applicant will be providing food for the children and will be receiving um daily deliveries um of food typically in in a large van
in a in a large van. Um in addition to um paper goods, office supplies, uh replenishments or personal supplies, toiletries for the children, um which would be more once every several weeks
again via a Amazon or UPS type uh large van or small box truck. Um and a 12x35 loading area should suffice for that type of delivery. Um
the applicant previously um submitted um the previous site plan um that was previously submitted to the board prior to um where there was no um driveway in the rear and received um the
approval from the uh fire official. In terms of the site plan, there are comments from the fire official regarding uh hyrant location, fire connection. The applicant will be required to resubmit the plan to the
fire official for the approval. And this proposed um revision to the plan improves upon circulation by providing the circulation around the building uh throughout the sites.
>> Mr. Halpert, did you get a review from the fire official for this revised layout? To be clear, we have we did not receive a review letter for this revised layout and that and >> we did not >> but that will be forthcoming and required >> that will be required because the fire
official has comments and we need to resubmit plans to the fire official. I was pointing out that the revision is an improvement upon the previous plan in terms of circulation for fire.
the applicant um proposes uh in terms of the site the architect will go through the uh building in terms of the site as mentioned previously. Anthony could you zoom into the building to this area a
little bit more. Thank you. The applicant as mentioned previously is proposing several means of egress. Thi this area and this area are means of
egress from the basement floor. Approximately 3 to 3 and 1/2 ft of rise from the basement level to the outside will service the basement means of egress.
An additional ramp again because of the unique topography of the site. The um basement floor is approximately 3 and 1/2 ft below grade. The first floor is approximately
3 and 1/2 ft um above grade and a ramp will provide a means of egress as well for the first floor in addition to other means of ingress and egress uh with uh steps. Anthony, could you go to the next page,
please? and and could you uh zoom out to show the extent the applicant is proposing um storm water improvements to comply with NJ D storm water regulations a combination of
surface basin and subsurface basin inlets throughout the site will direct surface runoff to the surface basin, subsequently to the subsurface basin in order to comply with the NJD storm water
um regulations. >> Will will that area be fenced? >> The area of the ba of the surface basin above ground will be fenced with a 4ft high chainlink fence. >> Thank you.
the applicant. Um, Anthony, could you go to the next page? Could you go uh two more pages? >> We can use that as a reminder to silence your phones, ladies and gentlemen, please. The applicant
the applicant is proposing um landscaping um for this size um building of 32,955 square ft. A 25- ft buffer is required.
The applicant is proposing a 25- ft buffer. There is a short 1.5 um foot tall landscape wall that is proposed um to ease the grading. I do
believe that that um is uh justifiable. It is a short wall. The um grading in the existing conditions is steep and this is a better uh this is a a a better way to ease the
grading. It can be accomplished without the wall with the parking area being sloped slightly more. Um, but I do believe a 1.5 foot wall within a 25- ft buffer and referred to as a landscape
wall, a short wall um would be acceptable. The applicant um did receive a letter today from the tree expert and the app and um I had a brief call uh with the tree expert uh subsequent to
the letter and we are able and willing to work with the applicant to provide um more various species and to work with uh the forester to comply with the ordinance and provide uh buffering and
screening alongside and the rear and I will discuss the uh front uh as well. Um >> just I want to state for the record though that the tree specialist review letter actually dated August 4th for tomorrow, not today. So just so the
record's clear, that's a letter we should rely on. We >> we did receive the letter this afternoon and I had a brief call with Sherry and I work well we work well together and we are able to comply with her comments. Um
I will go through the um review letter shortly. Uh the applicant is proposing lighting as well and I will go through um the review letters. >> I don't know if you actually address
parking. Did you go through the parking calcs? The parking calculation for child daycare in the Jackson Township Ordinance is one space per 500 square ft.
And as mentioned pre which would um come to a total of uh 66. And as mentioned previously the applicant is over supplying the parking in order to provide the loading and unloading um areas um extra parking spaces for parents to pull in, drop off, come out
of their vehicle, bring their children in. And again there is no um busing or van or any other means of providing transportation for the children except for the parents bringing their children. >> So there would be no um
no personnel from the school coming out to pick up a child from a vehicle. The parent must park the car, take the children from the car into the school. no personnel would come out and pick up the child
because I'm I'm concerned about lining up. You know that that's an issue. >> The the the parent will will pull in will need to be buzzed in in terms of will need to be buzzed in and we'll bring their child in. >> Fine. Thank you. to go through the um comments from the
board planner dated July 30th regarding um the comment uh on page number seven. Comment two regarding the maximum height.
The applicant seeks no variance from maximum height. The average grade can be adjusted and the actual maximum height of the top floor can be will be lowered as needed for those six inches. The
applicant seeks no variance and uh a couple inches can be um shaved from the building height via some grading and the applicant will lower and the architect will discuss the height of
the highest floor in order to ensure that the building height is below is not greater than 35 ft. The applicant, as discussed, is providing a site to accommodate 400
children with approximately 53 staff members in the neighborhood commercial zone. As mentioned, per the state statute, allowing for um daycarees within commercial zones.
The applicant is providing a four um a 4 foot chain link fence around. Um Anthony, could you please go to the third page of the set? The uh play area that was mentioned
previously is across from the building and across the driveway. and the applicant will place pavement markings and stop signs to ensure safety. The um the children will always be escorted
with the staff members, but in addition to that, the um applicant agrees to provide both pavement markings and um stop sign for traffic to always stop. crosswalk
>> and and crosswalk for um safe uh uh for safe passage to the >> you know there might you might consider signage on that uh corner where there's a turn >> uh you know slow down or or some kind of
marking to indicate that there's there are children crossing there. >> Yes, the the applicant agrees to place pavement markings to stop Madam Chair, um you have a a chainlink fence around that. Can't you make it a different type of fence?
>> The um a a vinyl a vinyl fence. You're looking for a solid a solid fence. The applicant would agree to provide uh more aesthetic. A a solid fence. Yes. Was that a visibility issue though?
>> That's what I was thinking. Like what if a kid climbed over the fence and nobody would know >> the the the people watching the children from the inside of that area would have difficulty seeing to the outside of that area. Where with chain link there's
visibility on both sides. So there's observation from the the street and the school and the driveway to the play area. >> I'm concerned about somebody running into that chain link fence >> because you're in the parking lot. >> So
>> yeah, >> the plastic fence won't do any better. >> No, but maybe we could put some ballards around the the driveway entrances in and out. Maybe that would be helpful. ballards uh on the because of where the
driveway is coming in and around >> right at that curve area might be good to have ballots. So safety >> but to have chain link then you can see >> safety first. While I I don't often
recommend the board debate or negotiate issues of design waiverss or variances with the applicant in this case I think the point that Mr. Marzo was making had to do with safety and so certainly we can do something that doesn't look industrial
okay that provides visual safety. So, if we put up the the concrete filled steel ballard similar what you might see in front of a Waw Wa um gas and convenience center, something to that end. And then behind that, put
chainlink fence so the kids don't get out. Um then we will have done we may have accomplished both tasks that were set forth. >> I think that would be an excellent solution. >> How do you feel about that, Mr. Barza? >> That's fine. Good. Thank you. Good
suggestions. The applicant is proposing um signs only building signage less than 80 square feet. >> No, there's no waiver on signage. >> The applicant seeks no waiver on signage. We will make sure that there will be monument signs for the sake of
the police and fire departments. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> I will leave most of the um traffic um comments for the traffic expert. Uh there is one comment regarding the slope of the egress uh drive and the applicant
is able to lower that 12% to 10% um on the egress drive. >> That was comment number nine on page nine. Um correct. The um regarding um the landscaping, the
applicant will work with the landscape with the uh tree expert. Uh regarding the um front the frontage of the property, there is an approximately three-foot grade change. The applicant is able uh I
did take a look at the grading. the applicant is able to burm up a bit, not the entire 3 feet before coming down, but the applicant would be able to create a burm um immediately beyond the
surface basin of approximately 2 feet um beyond the surface basin. So there is not that great a difference in grade change and we'll work with the tree expert to provide sufficient uh buffering within the frontage in
addition to the side and the rear. >> So that's addressing comment E2 at page nine. The applicant would not need a waiver from that comment. >> The applicant see would not be seeking a waiver from providing the buffering and the screening.
The applicant will uh provide will adjust lighting to ensure that there is no spillage into the adjacent um properties and will remove storm water from the lighting plan for uh more uh for a
clearer plan. And uh regarding lighting, um since the property is only going to be used until 4:30, which means in the winter, maybe 5:00 for the staff to leave, could there be a shut off time with nothing but security lighting uh
after 8:00? >> The applicant would s would agree to that. Again, there are no activities. >> That way, the neighbors would not have to be concerned about lighting in the evenings. The activities are only for daytime. Yes,
>> correct. But it still at at 4:00 in the winter, it's dark >> and and there and that's why there is lighting proposed, but the >> but nothing but security lighting after 8:00 p.m. >> Yes, the applicant would wish to have on security lighting throughout the night, but nothing more than that.
>> Agreed. >> Um just You said 8:00 p.m. >> 8 p.m. >> 8 p.m. >> Regarding the general um impact of the uh project, the um site will bring some
more noise from the vehicles entering and exiting and the children playing. However, it should be noted that um again the activities are all during the daytime hours. Uh there is nothing on the weekend or on the
on the weekend or um on week nights and therefore these impacts that can um are unavoidable are not great impacts. And in terms of noise, uh, more noise would likely be coming from the vehicles along
the roadway than from the added extra vehicles from the sites. I'll go through the board engineer. Uh, >> Mr. Peters, did you have anything else from a planning perspective as long as we've just finished that section? Um,
not as it relates to the letter, but before we're done with his direct, I have a couple of questions. >> Fine, Mr. Clay. We'll up to you now. >> And uh to to go through the um board engineers letter dated July 29th, 2026.
Some of the comments um are are um similar regarding um soil removal. Likely the project will require soil removal and will be required and will apply for a permit per chapter um 266
244-166. The applicant is proposing um 66 parking spaces which would be the equivalent of 92 with the ED spaces. The applicant agrees to address the storm water comments um detailed in the
review letter regarding the offsite um lighting. A note will be placed on the plan indicating that the site lighting will be adjusted as may be directed by the township engineer. The applicant will be again um complying
with the uh buffering and screening and will provide the safety island shrub planting. A 25 foot buffer is pro is provided. the um a note will be placed on the plan
to indicate the loading zone area. the applicant is able to comply with the technical revisions and has made the outside agency uh submissions and has received comments from Ocean County
Planning Board, uh Ocean County Soil Conservation District, J Township MUA, Jackson Township Bureau Fire Prevention, uh Environmental Commission, uh traffic safety, tree removal, uh recycling, the
applicant, uh typ speifically we will do as part of resolution compliance. That would conclude my direct testimony. >> Mr. Clay, before we uh take a break, do you have anything uh to comment about Mr. Halpern's response to your letter?
>> Not response to my letter. >> Not at this time. All right. Um I'd like a motion to take a 10-minute recess, please. We've already been um meeting for several hours. >> Can I just just address a couple of Okay. Um so I'll I'll be quick and then
we can take a recess. So just because of the fact that the conditions are are no longer in the mix. Kind of went on a deep dive as to the state standards, right? Because a lot of these things now default to state standards. One of which we addressed via
recreational area use, right? So, another one I just want to touch on is NJAC 3A52-5.3. Um, I think it's M1. Children under 2 and a half years old have to be in the first floor. So, I just want to make sure that the applicant's going to be
stipulating that, you know, I I we don't really have a breakdown of how many um the age range of of the children, you know, um per infant to four or five years old. that that wasn't broken down in the statement of operations. Um,
which leads me to my next um NJAC with 3A col52-4.3, the staffing child ratio. Um, and this is kind of where it gets into the employment um wise. I think the applicant may want to um put more
information on the record. Any anything under any child under 18 has got to be a 1:4 ratio. 18 to two and a half's got to be one to six. Two and a half to four has got to be 1 to 10. >> Yeah. >> Respectfully, we're getting into licensing which is really beyond the board.
>> As long as the applicants is going to >> we're going to comply with the state regulation we have, >> right? The state, you know, um and and that's factored into the employees that are going to be coming to the site. >> Correct. That's why there's so many employees. >> Yeah. Um and then just the the parking we have
how many parking spots do we have? >> We have 92 >> physically vers 86 physically. >> 86 physically which per ordinance is considered 92 because of the EV >> and 66 are required.
>> Right. But then we have 53 staff members. Each one may be taking up one space. Correct. That is correct. Uh typically some staff members will carve but but there are 53 staff members and they could take up um >> right. So if the applicant just wants to
reconcile how there's going to be 400 kids worth of cars coming in and 53 spots may be taken out um of the equation. you know, um I don't know if the applicant wants to
consider a some kind of staggered drop off plan, something that affects >> you already indicated there is a staggered and most of the staff people's children actually go to the school. So that they'll be bringing their children with them. >> But just just for reconciliation
purposes, if the applicant wants to put more testimony, >> we'll have Mr. Reagan into that his testimony. >> Yeah. Uh that is it. >> We'll take a motion to take a 10-minute recess. We've been meeting since 6:30
and uh we've had two others before you. So, >> um so move Sullivan, >> we need a second. >> Second, Demarzo. All in favor? I >> I All right. 10 minutes means 10 minutes, ladies and gentlemen.
I'd like to make a motion to reopen the meeting. Sullivan >> second. Demarzo. All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> All right. >> Okay. So, I think we finished the director of Mr. Halbert and I'm not sure if there were additional questions. >> Are there additional questions from the professionals
at for Mr. Halpern? Um just just a couple with the staggered um drop off times. How is that insured or guaranteed or um it's customer driven? But what happens if um the first customers all want the early drop off?
>> The the um applicant is an operator and typically there are varying times that are desired. And um how big is the largest delivery truck? We anticipate
>> it would be a large a small box truck would be so that >> large van small box truck. >> So the 12 foot by 35 foot loading area should should suffice. >> Enter the microphone please. Thank you. >> And there's there's an excess of
parking. So, if the board felt they needed to um enlarge the wreck area or uh provide for additional um entrance drive length, there's the ability to do that. The applicant could lose one or two spaces, but the applicant is seeking to
keep that excess parking area for the unloading of the children. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. um had an opportunity during the break to speak to Mr. Halbert with regards to the um
building access points and the grading associated with them. And I was wondering if I could ask Mr. Halpert to just explain to the board what the grading
to the access points on the sides of the building will look like and what what will be provided in terms of safety um for those areas. >> Thank you. Mr. Hopper, you go ahead. Thank you.
Anthony, could you zoom into the building so we have a better view of the building itself and the ramps? I'm I'm sorry. Could you go to the next page which shows the grading and do and do that? Um, could you do a little zoom in a
little bit more? Okay. Um so for example um to discuss the basement and the first floor. So the basement elevation is shown as 145.15. Maybe I could ask this question. Is it
the intent of this design, and I know you're not the architect, that all drop offs are meant to occur along the front of the building and that these access points on either side are not meant to be drop off
locations. >> The correct those those access points are meant for emergency are not meant for the drop off. >> Thank you. So, generally speaking, people would drive in wherever they parked. They would walk in the
southerntherly entrance or the entrance closest to South New Prospect Road. We expect 99% of folks to walk their children through those doors. >> Yeah, that that is correct. >> And that's pretty much at grade. There's not a lot of grade change. It's not real steep, anything like that. >> Correct. >> Now, could you explain the grade changes
and the safety provisions for the accesses on each side of the building, please? certainly along the side of the building. So these access points are servicing the basement floor.
The purpose is to provide um access without the need for steps for cri for cribs. Um, and that is both of these doorways that the board is looking at are located within the basement uh floor
and a um child can go out of the door and out up the ramp. The grade for the basement level is noted as 14515. The grade where the where the child
comes out is as noted earlier approximately three and a half feet higher exactly at where the um entrant the access point is. The floor is 14515. The outside grade is approximately
151.5. So meaning that it is a uh the access point is located approximately six feet below grade and in order to make sure that um there is no safety issue similar
to any um basement wall. A rail will be placed uh on top of the walls to ensure that nobody will be jumping over down >> good plan >> into the um basement floor area.
Um similar uh could you scroll so that we could see the top uh higher on the page. Similar um as mentioned earlier the this ramp is servicing the first floor as noted on the plan slightly
obscured but the first floor is approximately 157.65 65 and the grade over here is approximately 152.5 and again there is a wall um that would
be higher uh the the access point um is going to be higher than the um area outside the access point and a wall will be placed in order to prevent I'm sorry
a rail will be placed in order to prevent um anybody from jumping over or falling over. Similar to any basement access with a wall where a rail is required to make sure that um people
walking along the upper portion are not um have no safety hazard. Do you do you think it should be a double rail? Something um adult size and then another rail below that
uh to accommodate smaller. So you'd want a double >> a three rail. >> Yeah. >> Kind of like you have a post and rail fence is normally two rails perhaps three rails. >> Perhaps three rails because that would really impinge upon a child falling through or
walking through. So, is that what you had in mind, Mr. Peters? Is >> Yes, it's somewhere in between the site engineer to set the grades and the building architect to make it building compliant. Somewhere in there was the answer. I just thought it was important
because of the grade change of 12 feet between each of the floors. If I asked the architect and he says, "Well, I I'm not doing the grading. I just wanted to start the conversation with Mr. Palpert. They have the the the archite the site
architect confirm that that's in fact what they're going to do to provide safety for the users of the building. >> All right. So we'll stipulate that three rails. >> Yes. >> Understood. >> Yeah. Stipulates the three rail system. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And the last question I had for um Mr.
Halper, you talked about the county improvements for striping. Um I normally wait for Mr. Raid asked this question, but is it anticipated by the applicant or you that these striping improvements will be installed prior to the opening
of the building? >> Yes. Yes. As part of the uh county approval letter, the county is requiring this three section striping to be um installed as part of the uh county approval
>> prior prior to uh anyone occupying >> prior to co. Yes. >> Thank you. That was all. >> I think Mr. Brazie might have had a question. >> I I'm sure if I ask it, Miss Jane is going to tell me wait for Mr. A to come up for traffic, so I'll hold it for him.
>> All right. Anyone else for Mr. Her? >> I think we should open public. >> Yeah. >> All right. We're going to open this to uh cross-examination by the public at this time. >> I'd like to make a motion to open the uh cross-examination portion of this
application for this professional uh only. Uh Sullivan >> second to Marzo. All in favor? >> I. >> So, anyone wishing to uh ask Mr. Halburn. Questions uh regarding his testimony at this time, please come
forward. >> Seeing no one come forward, I move to close the public cross-examination of this witness and this witness only on this application. Sullivan >> second. Demarzo. >> All right. So, we'll withhold general comments then until the end of all uh
testimony. Thank you, Mr. Halper. Don't go far. >> Okay. Okay. At this time, I'll call our architect, please. Okay. Upgrade. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm, tell the truth, the
whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> All right. Please state your name and spell your last for the record. >> Now, G, principal of Gan Architecture, Lakewood based firm. I have testified before this board and these drawings were prepared under my supervision.
>> We accept your credentials. Thank you. >> Thank you. So, if you could, Mr. got um just walk us through the uh floor plan and layout and again just for the record could you confirm that the applicant the proposed building is going to meet the maximum height requirement of 35 ft.
>> Yes. And yeah Mr. Al will work that out we won't be over 35 ft and just to mention that's 35 ft plus the parapit which you're going to be using to screening the mechanicals on the roof. Ju just one question when it comes down to the height right so uh under the IBC
child care centers are categorized in different use groups one use group I think it's like4 has a 20 is a 20 foot height restriction do you know what use group this is going to be categorized in
>> use group of child care centers are are categorized into use groups um and I believe 14 is has a 20% height restriction when it comes down to childcare centers. Um, so my question for you, the architect is just what what
use group are we categorized in for IBC purposes? >> It is I4 I believe it's a sprinkler system and it is allowed to be 35 ft. Again, it's two stories. >> All right. So, so the >> two two stories is is >> it's the grade. I I think it's the grade
that's the issue because this is a what we used to term an English basement. It's not a totally underground basement. So, we're talking about um height from grade, correct?
>> It it's height above grade. So, it's 20 feet in height above grade. Um for a child care center, it's limited to 20 feet. I think it's it's IBC statute 308.5. So, the reason why I
delved into that was simply due to the fact that, you know, now that the conditions are removed, I just wanted to see what what it would default to. And I just need some testimony as to how that wouldn't apply to you or if it does
in in what way as to the use group. Again, it's the two stories which we're going to be complying with because um the basement is considered a basement being it's not six feet above grade. So, we will be complying with the two stories. I not familiar with the 20 foot
max. Is that is that something that that you Well, it's it's IBC statute 308.5. So, I just want to be clear on on the
use group it's associated with in case because we're now we're defaulting to different state statutes and use groups and everything like that. So, I just wanted to clarify that issue. >> Okay. So, that'll be clarified. But as far as I my understanding is it's two
stories is the max and um 35 ft would be uh the zoning would be 35 ft. Um, not not the building. As so long as it's sprinkled, then it would be allowed to to be over 20 feet just not more than two stories. But we'll get back and make
sure that's >> this speak into the mic. Yeah. >> Yeah. We need this being recorded and heard by the public. So, you really need to speak up, please. >> We'll do. >> Thank you. So, you're testifying that
you will stipulate that you will abide by all state standards. >> Absolutely. >> Right. And if the IBC use group comes back and indicates that this child care center can only be 20 ft, you'd have to
come back before the board pursuant to the IBC. Right. Yes. Understood. Right. Okay. >> Thank you. Anthony, can we bring up the architecturals? Next page, please.
Thank you. Okay, so this project consists of a new construction, two-story days care with a basement. The total gross floor area is 32,955 square ft. The building entrance is over here and this leads you to either the basement
or the upstairs through these stairs. The basement is the entire basement is servicing kids under 2 and 1/2 ft under 2 and 1/2 years old. And the plan includes nine classrooms, a base, a playroom, teachers room,
a lunchroom, a reception area, office spaces, staff bathrooms. Being that they're all for young children, there's no bathrooms needed for the children. We have utility and storage space, and a supply room. We have two exterior ramps as discussed
earlier. This leads from the basement straight up to the front of the building. We have besides that we have the main stairs and two other stairs leading upstairs. All the all the classrooms are served with windows. In the back where the
grading is higher, we have window wells. Anthony, if we go to the next sheet, the first floor is serving children of all ages and the plan includes six six classrooms, each with their own bathroom. We have a teachers room, lunch room, playroom, reception area, and
office space. And we have utility and storage space and supply room. On this floor, we have exterior ramp, one exterior ramp leading outside. This is the second means of egress and an elevator. Can we go to the next sheet?
The second floor serves children over 2 and 1/2 years old. Land includes eight classrooms, each with their own bathroom. Again, a playroom, a lunchroom, staff bathrooms and storage space. There again, two interior staircases
and elevator. Um, just to run through the the size of the classroom. So, for the basement, we had younger children. Um those classrooms are servicing 12 to
18 children per classroom. The first floor was from 18 to 20 per classroom, various sizes. The second floor are larger classrooms and those are serving 20 to 22 kids per classroom. Again, the ratio is always going to be 35 square
feet per child. Um and being that these are larger, they have accommodating more kids. I believe it was mentioned already the ratio, the staff ratio. But again, it's baby till 18 months is one staff member per four children. 18 months till 2 and
a half years old is one staff member per six children. And two and a half year old till three-year-old is one staff member per 10 children. Fouryear-old, one staff member for 12. And 5-year-old is one for 15. Right. And just just to be clear, just
so the record is clear, the applicant's got to be complying with 3A52-5.3, which is a children under two and a half years old can only be in the first floor. >> Well, yeah. So, the Well, it's it's
first and and B it's it's it >> I don't have the the actual language here, but what the requirement is that it needs to be on a level of exit discharge. And being that we have the two ramps exiting from the basement straight to the grade that that would
comply with with exit of of >> I think the the level of discharge would be the first floor though. Correct. I I think within within that statute there's exemption language. You have to seek approval from the state if you're doing anything other than the first floor. >> I mean the first floor is no is no more
than the basement. This grade is somewhere metal. So, >> so we'll make it clear that you will comply >> absolutely >> with the state standards again and that should cover us all happily. >> Absolutely. >> Right.
>> I I'm always concerned and I've mentioned this uh I'm I'm sure Miss Jennings will recall about um medical facilities. Of course, I see there is no medical staff, there is no nurse. Um, however, um, having been an educator for
30 years, I know children and they get sick and they get injured and they have medical issues, maybe need an EpiPen that needs refrigeration. Uh, so there should be a designated medical area on
each floor somewhere. either the teachers room which is on two floors um some place on each floor should be um designated as medical equipment.
>> That sounds good. >> Thank you. >> Um as mentioned earlier the outside play area would not suffice for all the required open space. So hence each floor is equipped with a playroom. On the basement the playroom could accommodate
20 children. On the first floor it could accommodate 18 children. On the second floor it could accommodate 25 children. So that combined with the outside area would should suffice for staggered play areas for all the children. Anthony, can we bring up the I think
it's exhibit A1. That will be the color rendering. So the exterior is playful exterior um that would go well for daycare and the material is primarily light stuckco with a white side with wood siding that we
see in the inside of that canopy. Um, we have colors around the windows in some areas with trim and that canopy around the building entrance continues as as a design feature at the front of the building and actually will be wrapping on the side of the building. As
Mr. Hap mentioned earlier, the building signage at the entrance will comply with audience. It will be less than 80 square feet. That canopy area will uh be over the um ramp area. >> Will be over
>> on the side of the building >> on the right side. Yes, I know it's not showing clearly on the rendering. >> Will there be canopy on the left? >> No. >> Will there be some kind of overhang or some kind of structure to protect those
uh sidewalks from ice and snow and rain? Not not in the design, but it can be >> I think maybe you need uh some type of overhang protection >> you worried about >> over the uh wall over the uh stairways.
>> Okay, >> thank you. >> All the mechanicals will be on the roof and it should be screened by a 4ft parapit. Um the mechanicals will be inside the center of the roof and and should not be
visible from the street and the roof will be solar ready though the applicant is not proposing to put them down. Um just a couple of general comments. Uh the full building will be sprinkled. There will be fire alarm throughout the full building. There is an elevator that
connects all three floors and the plus the primarily entrance area which is in between the basement and the first floor. We have a minimum of two means of egress on each level and we have more from the basement. Um again all classroom servicing children under two and a half years old
have two exits from the actual classroom. As Mr. H mentioned food will not be will be delivered no cooking on site and food will be stored in storage room and served in the lunchrooms. again, the building will comply with the
35 foot height. And that I believe I did address all of Mr. Peter's comments. And that concludes my testimony. Could you repeat that last condition please? >> What you just said? Just repeat what you
said >> about the building height. >> Yes. >> Yeah. We will comply with the 35 foot building height. We will make sure work out Mr. Halper that the average grade um to the top of the roof will not be more than 35 ft plus the 4ft parapit.
So just to be clear, so a class four structure under the IBC if this is a child care center can't be any more than 20 ft and one story. So if again >> if that's the case, >> right? So if you get if you get the
building and you submit for building >> and and that's the use group that you're looking at, then you guys will be coming back. Understood. Okay. >> Please continue. Thank you. >> That concluded his direct testimony. >> All right.
Mr. Clay or Mr. Peters, anything for this witness? >> Anyone from the board? >> I >> just one comment. I apologize. >> Oh, thank you, >> Mr. Good. Thank you for your testimony. Um the site civil said that there'll be
compliant signs for the site. Can you indicate that the building will have compliant signage? >> Yeah, we will comply with the 80 foot max square foot signage. >> Thank you. >> I just have a couple questions. Um Mr. God, the elevator, will that be open to
the public or will that be keycarded or a key system? >> Yeah, key system probably. Well, not not it's not it's not meant for the children. >> Only for staff. >> Only for staff. Okay. >> Emergency. >> Not for parents. >> Correct. >> And also I'd like to make the suggestion
possibly since you won't have nurse uh on premises that you have a first a kit in all the classrooms. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> I have >> Mr. Rogers. >> I have a question on the uh lunchroom. Would there be any cooking equipment in the room?
>> No. All the all the food is brought on site and just served in the lunchroom. >> Everything's going to be delivered either refrigerated or >> Well, usually it's like a caterer that pulls up and just brings the food ready and it's served just like that. >> No, it's it's but it's prepared. >> Correct.
>> Right. >> Heated everything. It's just just ready to go. >> Okay. So, now it's on the rear right hand side of the site, the loading area. >> Mr. Rogers, would you pull your microphone a little closer to you, please? Thank you. It is your loading area is on the rear
right hand side of the site. Am I correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. Now, what door would the product be going into on your plan? >> What door will that food product be going into?
>> Well, likely be going into the right that door adjacent on the side. >> Okay. >> Maybe we can pull a site plan up so everyone knows what we're talking about. likely be going over there and maybe to the basement. They'll bring it down. Either these stairs or these ramps to
the basement. >> That door is on grade. >> No, the that door is is there stairs there and that that door is is a couple of stairs off to the first floor. >> Okay. >> Um this ramp is at grade and that could that could be wheeled straight down.
>> Okay. So, how far is it from the loading zone to that stairway? >> I'm sorry. >> How far is it from the loading zone to the stairway? >> Site engineer that. Hold on a second. It would it would be approximately 50
feet. >> Okay. So, from a food safety perspective, you're going to have 400 meals plus or minus. Okay. That are going to be to be transported in the open air
without protection from any elements uh into the building. and then brought it into the lunchroom on the first floor. >> You see that as an issue? >> Well, it always comes packaged really nice. You know, caterer prepares it and
puts it in some kind of packaging and and sends it in boxes, >> right? Ready to eat packaging. But it's you're now transporting it in bulk. Right. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, is it going to be ex if they unload the
truck and leave it on this loading area? How long is it going to take? >> Well, they're going to bring it directly in. It's coming during during active hours of of it's not it's not coming in the morning. It's coming during like at lunchtime it gets delivered like at lunch. >> That's what I'm asking. So, lunch
>> and they will bring it right in. >> And it's not it's not like it's a your lunch is open. It's in a warming container. So, it's >> that's what I'm asking. covered by the elements. So, it'll be brought in with these warming containers and then once you get to the room, you pull out the
lunches from the warming containers. So, they're never exposed to the environment. That's what you're concerned about. >> That's what I'm concerned about is if they're not in warming or or cooling cabinets. Okay. That's why he asked,
but they still have to need to be brought in uh quickly. They can't be sitting out in the sun. I can't be sitting out and >> again that won't happen. They do this all the time. They bring it right into the building. >> Mr. President. >> Yes. Uh I hope it's the right person.
Security cameras inside and out. >> Correct. There will be cameras and um there's no security guard but the doors stays locked at all times. >> Stay locked. Now stays locked. Do you give access to the police department to access that in emergency or can you cross with the police department so they can have access to the cameras and so
forth? >> Okay. >> And that's inside and outside, correct? >> Well, there going to be cameras inside and outside that could be connected to the police department. >> Thank you. >> And and where who is monitoring these cameras? >> There's there's someone in the whoever's in the office will be monitoring them.
>> All right. So, you have office personnel monitoring monitoring cameras. >> We live in a dangerous world. Security is crucial and having been involved in school security for decades. Uh we want to make certain that
>> your staff and your school is safe and monitored at all times. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Another question. Thank you. So, if there is a um a fire, I'm I'm still having a hard time understanding
the children that are going to be in the basement and how they get out. So, there's a fire and now no elevators will be working. Where are my kids going? >> Can we bring up the the architecturals
again? >> Thank you, Anthony. Um, that'll be the second page, I think. >> There we go. So, again, we have the the classrooms around the perimeter right here and right here. These are ramps that read directly to the front of the
building. >> So, there's no stairs there for them. They just walk out. >> Well, they walk out to this area. At this area, they're out in open in the open element. They're out of the building footprint. This is exterior there. They make their way up ramps,
stairs. Besides that, we have a fire enclosure. A fire enclosure steer here and here. So essentially, there's four means of means of eress and and once you're in this area, you're you're you're in a rated
>> area until you until you actually exit the building. And the same applies for here. >> So are they going up the steps? >> Well, these are going up the steps. This leads to the first floor. This leads to the first floor. This is only a half a stair and it leads to the front entrance
which is in between the basement and the first floor. And these two exits once you get here, you're you're not at grade yet, but you're right over here. You're at grade. So you're you're outside of the building and and you make your way up the ramp. We have that on both sides
of the building. >> Okay. And there is a classroom number nine in the basement. That's 0 to 12 months. Is that And that says it's going to be 12 children. Is that the the most 0 to
12 that you're going to have? >> Well, again, the ratio is is 35 * 12 is 420. So 12 would be the max allowed for that classroom. But will you have I don't see any other classroom within any of your plans that
say 0 to 12. Is that the only >> Oh, understood. Yeah, there's not that many adults, children that age sending. So, there's just one class dedicated for that. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?
Let's we'll open this to the public for uh Mr. G, please. >> I'd like to make a motion to open to the public cross-examination of this witness on this application only. Sullivan, >> second to Marza. >> All in favor? I I
>> please come forward. Thanks. Carlos Martin, hang on. Carlos, please raise your right hand. Swear >> the other one. I do it and they say no. >> You swear. Affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> All right. Please state your name and spell your last for the record. >> Carlos Martins. M A R T I Ns.
>> Right. And you're here in your individual capacity. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Not not as a representative of the zoning board. No. Okay. nothing to do with board. Um, Anthony, could you bring up that um the pretty one where you can
see the the front? Yeah, right there. Okay. So, as a non-engineer, right, I look at this and I see three floors, right? One, the basement one.
So my question is um what is what's the definition of a basement versus a floor? Like what's that key? >> Not that it's underneath, but what's that key? >> This is what we used to term we used to call an English basement. That means
that six feet of it is below grade and that's the standard. So, it's really not it's a it's a half ba half of it is in the basement and that's because for safety and light ambient light windows.
So, there's >> if we could have the applicant answer the question that that'd be >> well you said it right. >> It's less than six feet. It's considered a basement. So, even though it's partially above grade, >> correct? So long as there's no more than six feet above average grade, that
that's that's considered building code as as a basement, that's considered a story, >> right? As long as long so as long it sounds like six feet, but as long as there's a section that's below grade, it's a basement. >> Yeah, it's the average grade. So you have to calculate the average grade around the whole building
>> and if you're six feet below that, that's considered basement floor. Correct. >> Okay, that clarifies. Thank you. That that's very helpful. Um just another thing that based on Lisa's question um so in the basement there are going to be
um infants for example correct so in in the case of a fire infants can't walk out and run out themselves to climb those stairs right so let's say there's 20 infants down there will there be 20 people that will carry
them out >> well there's a staff members in each classroom plus additional staff members throughout the building. >> Yeah. And >> those uh regulations are partial to certain that during emergency everybody gets out safely, >> right? And that's per regulation, right?
Regulations. Yeah. You know, Yeah. So, if I'm down there and I only carry two, which two do I pick, >> you know, I mean, I I just, you know, you see those difficult situations, but if that's regulation, that's fine. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Um, that was it. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing no one else come forward, I move to close the cross-examination of this witness on this application. Sullivan. >> Second. Demarzo. All in favor? >> I. >> M. I have a question for him. >> Mr. Brezie has a question.
>> I just want to take off where Mr. Marzo left off and you indicated that uh from the basement, staircase 2 is a way out for the basement. And the only way I see stairs case two being a way out isn't quite an accurate description because
you got to go up to the first floor and then to the sides. There's no direct outside. I don't think you should be counting that as an exit from the basement. >> That is true. >> I know it's true. I'm looking at it. >> Right. Again, it is a way out of the basement. And once you get to that second floor, you have less than the
allowed. >> Once again, coming out of the basement, they don't have another access outside. It's only the three, not the four you mentioned. True. >> Thank you. >> And these are all compliant with state standards. >> Absolutely.
>> Again, it's building plus plus a child. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Hey, >> at this time, I'm going to call up uh the traffic engineer, John Wright. >> We we need to close out the cross-examination part.
Oh, sorry. Motion to close the cross- examination. >> I'd like to make a motion to close the cross. We did that. Cross-examination of this witness. Uh, Sullivan. >> Second, Demarzo. All in favor? I I think we did.
>> All right. >> Senior moment. >> Senior moment. Only I am allowed up here. Oh, maybe Mr. Well, maybe two of us could have a senior moment. >> I'm over 50. I might be due as well. >> All right. Okay. Mr. Ray,
>> please raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Since you're such a stranger here, why don't you give us your background? >> John Ray, REA, professional engineer with Mcdana and Ray Associates specializing in traffic engineering. >> All right. >> Accept your credentials, Mr. Ray.
>> Thank you. >> If you could, Mr. Ray, just for the record, your office has prepared a traffic impact study last revised July 23rd, 2026. Correct? >> Yes. And if you could, could you just describe your traffic impact study, what factors you considered, and your
conclusions, please? >> Okay. Uh, the traffic impact study, as Donna indicated, was last revised July 23rd, 2026. Um, what we did in order to develop design year 2036 traffic volumes. I know
the board remembers that the Ocean County Planning Board requires us to look at a 10-year horizon when we do our traffic studies. So, we have to project traffic volumes to a design year of 2036. In order to do that for this project, we
looked at several other projects that we had worked on in the area and specifically there were four other projects that are either approved or under construction that are in the vicinity of the site along South New Prospect Road. We added the traffic from
all four of those projects and in addition to that we did add the NJ DO's background traffic growth rate for the area. So if anything we probably double counted the u you know looking forward to the 2036 design year by using four
specific projects that we uh were familiar with and including the DOT's background traffic growth rate on top of that. And when we looked at the size of the project and we looked at the IT data for a daycare center with 400 children,
it became apparent to us that we needed to make some improvements along South New Prospect Road. Mr. Halpert uh discussed those uh improvements. We are going to have to do some widening on the opposite side of South New Prospect Road so that we can install a two-way left
turn lane along the property frontage. That has been uh discussed with the Ocean County Engineering Department, this is what the county wants. And uh since South New Prospect Road is under the county's jurisdiction, that's what the county's going to get. They're going
to get their two-way left turn lane. And quite frankly, we need that in order to make the access and the egress to and from the property work properly. One of the other things we did and one of the other reasons why the traffic study was
revised uh was we did add a separate left and right turn lane at the exit driveway. I discussed that with Mr. Halpert. We need that for safe and efficient egress from the site. So, we do have separate left and right turn lanes exiting the site out onto South
New Prospect Road. Uh, with respect to and there was some discussion about losing a couple of parking spaces which were close to the uh entrance driveway and exit driveway. We can lose those two parking spaces. We
have uh a little bit extra parking spaces as has been testified to and I want to go over the parking numbers in a little bit more detail so everybody understands why we're providing the additional parking spaces over and above the 66 spaces that are required by code.
Couple of things. The uh 53 staff members that are going to be at the site uh that doesn't necessarily translate into 53 cars being parked there. There'll be some absenteeism. There'll be some car pooling. My expectation is
there will probably be no more than 45 cars associated with the 53 staff members any one particular day. And that would leave us physically approximately 40 parking spaces left for the parent
drop off and pickup procedures. And there's a reason why we came up with that number. In our experience doing daycare centers, and we've done quite a few of them over the years, we have typically found that we need for every hundred kids that are in the daycare
center, we need 10 parking spaces for drop off and pickup. So, if we have 400 children, we're looking at 40 spaces that are necessary for the parents for drop off and pickup. Now, that's probably an overestimation of what we really need because
at least it's my understanding that approximately 30 of the staff members are going to be parents that are working here that are also going to have several children at the daycare center. For argument's sake, just if you wanted to take a look at what we expect, if 30 of
the staff members each have two kids in the daycare center, that reduces the number of kids that will be dropped off and picked up by the other parents. So that'll take 60 kids out of the 400. you're looking at probably 340 in terms
of what the um actual drop off and pickup procedures will will need to take care of uh from the parents that just are of bringing kids to the daycare center not including the people that work there that already have kids at the daycare center.
>> Mr. Wright, does the staff have designated parking places? >> We can designate parking spaces for staff. My recommendation would be, you know, putting the staff to the rear. These are EV spaces. The the staff should be we should probably keep the
spaces adjacent to the building and the ones closest to the building for parent drop off and pickup. >> Closest to the front. >> Closest to the front. And put the staff members to the rear and toward the back of the two aisles on either side of the building. >> Could we Could we stipulate that, please?
>> We can stipulate that. Yes, that that's always a good idea. >> Can I just ask a question? Uh is the plan to rotate the teachers every five years because they may have two or three children that qualify now. >> Yes. >> But in five years they may not.
>> That's correct. >> So now you got to be back to the 400. So would you >> uh probably but there will be new people working there every year. Things are going to change Mr. Rogers and and the state the state is going to look at this every
year in terms of actually and that's the other thing that I didn't mention you know we're looking in doing the traffic study I'm looking at a maximum of 400 students realistically when the state comes in and looks and gives us you know what we're going to be allowed to have
it's going to be somewhat less than 400 it always turns out to be less than what you're originally expecting. So, but the state's going to look at this every year and and and make adjustments. >> That's on our approval process because we're going to be asked today to approve based on 400.
>> Right. >> Okay. So, now to me, you show 169 trips in the morning and 147 in the afternoon. Do I have that right >> now? If I look at it and say, okay, there's 400 children and they're going
to come within a 45 minute drop off time. Go from 8:30 to the quarter after 9. Okay. So, if I put two children in each car, that's at least 200 cars. >> It might it might be more than two
children car based on our experience. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> It's more than two. >> Okay. >> Okay. I won't take it any further than that. >> Okay. So, I don't see how uh generation could be at the numbers we talked about.
>> Okay. Well, well, let's let's back up and take a look at those numbers because I I I think they're they're pretty accurate. Assume for the moment that, you know, 30 of the staff members will have two kids. That leaves 340. That will be
>> Why are you going to give them two kids and not the others? >> They could They have one kid. All right. So you got you got 370, >> right? >> And and if you have two and a half kids per car, you do the math, it comes out to just about the numbers that we expect in the AM 167 cars coming in. Two and a
half kids per car or even two kids per car. Even if you look at two, Mr. Rogers, you're up to the uh you know, roughly about what the capacity uh of of the building's going to be. Roughly a little bit more than two kids. >> I want to go back to you. That might be good if they have mothers
with two children or one ch child in the car. >> They don't. What happened to five years that they never do again? >> I I >> they people want to work to 25 years, get a retirement 401k. Well, then I would suggest if if you're uncomfortable
with the amount of parking that we're providing, the town should probably change their ordinance because we are providing substantially more traffic than your ordinance requires. Parking spaces, excuse me, because we know we believe we know what we need. And so,
we're telling you, we need 30 more parking spaces than your ordinance requires. >> Right. your parking and your your standup line for navigating the site is two different things, >> right? >> Okay. According to the ordinance, we may
need 66 parking spaces, but you're going to have another 100 carts that are going to be on site. Okay. And they're going to have no place to park and they're going to be standing trying to drop off the kids. That means the cars that are in the parking space, they going to be able to pull out. It It doesn't sound
like it works to me. I'm not saying it does. I'm sure you guys are smarter than me, >> but I'm just asking how. >> No, you're asking good questions and I ask the same questions of the applicant because I want to come up here and make sure that when I testify in front of this board that I'm giving you guys the,
you know, the information that I think you need to get in terms of is this going to work or not. And that's why we're asking for the extra parking spaces. So, I agree with you 100%. It's a concern that needs to be taken care of. I think we've done that by providing
the additional parking spaces and also as Mr. Halpert indicated staggering the drop off and pickup times in 15minute intervals. Uh it's my understanding that the applicant runs another daycare center in Lakewood knows how to run the
operation. This is how that operation is run in Lakewood and that's how it's going to be run here in Jackson. It's going to there are going to be staggered drop off and pickup times and we're providing the additional parking spaces. >> In all due respect, without knowing the condition of the Lakewood site, this
site's a little tight and it's on an incline. It's uh above the roadway. Now, you're talking about every 15 minutes if there's 200 cars. >> Well, 200 cars every 15 minutes it'll be
>> No, I'm not saying >> 40 or 50 cars. 75 might be better. 70 75. But I'll go with you. >> Numbers, the numbers come out to more like 40. >> Mothers and fathers getting out, dropping the kids off at door, making sure they get in and the next group's
coming. How do they get out? And how do they get in? It's what I'm concerned about is the amount of traffic, not necessarily how they park. >> Okay. Well, typically based on our experience looking at some of these daycare centers that are in the area,
the staff members do during the drop off and pickup times, the staff members are out in the parking lot helping control traffic. That's that's a part of the situation, too, that we haven't discussed, but that happens. >> Respectfully, I think we decided we didn't want that. >> Yeah. We we're we don't want parents and
we don't want staff picking up children out of the car, but to be out supervising drop off. That's what I'm talking about, Dr. Campbell. >> Yes. >> Yeah. There's We We just did a a daycare center in Howell at Kent Road and Church Road. You may be familiar with it.
>> How many students there? How many children there? >> It was less than this, but they just they just got an approval to expand to I forget the number pretty close to 300 students. They just got an expansion. >> I know the cocoon in Lakewood there's 150 students. Okay. Children,
>> right? >> So, this is like more than double. That's why we're providing all the additional parking spaces. I agree. >> May I ask you another question? On your your table one trip generation daycare center, you have 270 children. Is that a typo?
>> That's a typo because if you look back up um in the earlier part, it's 400. We just didn't change the two. Originally, it was 270. That's one of the other reasons why we revised the traffic study. We did the additional the trip generation numbers are based on 400. But
that >> do you know why they increased it from 270 to 400? >> I don't know why that's the number that was given to me. I think we decided originally we were I think the 270 was only going to use two floors of the building and as the architect and Mr.
Halpert uh testified to there's going to be three floors now. I think that's why the uh capacity was increased to 400. You do recognize the concern that 400 students once approved can't be
unimproved. So if it doesn't work well, it doesn't work. >> Again, Mr. Rogers, you know, we're we're asking for a maximum of 400. When the state comes in and gives the total approval for what, you know, we can have, it's going to depend on the ages
of the, you know, the the kids as far as what the capacity of the building can be. It's not going to be 400. I've never seen the state come in and approve a daycare center for more children than we've asked for it. It's never happened.
>> And uh by the way, the state I believe comes in twice a year to inspect. >> I knew it was at least once a year, but >> I believe it's twice a year to inspect. >> Okay. I I did want to mention something else about the marginal road because that was something the police brought up
as well. The marginal road has three points of access to South New Prospect Road. There's the one that's adjacent to our driveway, our entrance driveway. There's another entrance via New Mexico Street in the middle of the marginal road. And then there's another entrance
to the far, I guess it would be east end of Marginal Road. There's another. So, there are three connections to South New Prospect from from the marginal road. and the the one connection that's close to where our entrance driveway is, it serves a relatively limited number of
homes. So, I think, you know, given those factors, and I know the police were concerned about it, there's not a lot of traffic that's going into and out of that particular location. So, in my estimation, it it it's not going to be something that's unsafe. >> You know, Mr. Ray, it was not the
traffic emanating from uh the Brookwood there that concerns us. It's the lining up of parents' cars for accessing that daycare center that that's the concern. >> Correct, Dr. Campbell. And and I I
listened to the testimony and I think there was some discussion about having the elected officials pass a no stopping or standing regulation. I would only suggest that if the elected officials do that that it be limited to the hours during the week when the daycare, you
know, 8 to 10 in the morning or whatever the numbers may be, whatever the hours may be. You don't want to have the residents that live along the not being able to park there. >> It's not no parking. We we would not ask for no parking. We're asking for no
stopping or standing, right? That's a different uh >> it is a different regulation >> regulation. So that it's it's only during drop off and pickup time will be the issue. >> Correct. I'm I'm just saying rather than inconvenience the neighbors by having be
a 24-hour regulation, just do it during the hour the drop off and pick up hours during the week. >> Mr. Brezie wrote that down. >> Okay. >> Question two. >> And he has a question. >> Uh how close is the exit from Romeo's
Plaza to their entrance? I have to look at an aerial. It's quite some distance. >> It's a ways. >> Yeah, it's quite some distance. It's a Romeo's is up at the corner. >> Corner, right? But he has one side of South Prospect on the other end of his property. >> Give me a second. I could take a look at
an aerial. >> It's a considerable way, but the the really good part is the uh uh county improvements >> going to make a huge difference because at that spot it narrows when you when
you go down that road when you're coming from Romeo's it's more lanes as it >> and it narrows it >> and it narrows perceptively. So that will improve things a great deal at that intersection. >> The county doesn't let us get away with anything. They want they want the
threelane crosssection and you guys do do the same. So we you know >> I'm here testifying because I talk to my client. I tell them what they need to do. Sometimes I get push back. If I get push back, I stay home. I don't come here. They didn't push back. They
understood that this is what they needed to do and we worked it out with the county. There's going to have to be widening on the opposite side of South New Prospect to provide the center turn lane and that's what we're going to do. The county is going to require it. >> Can I ask a question on that, please?
The the widening. I already heard that uh the applicant is going to take care of the restriping of the road. Yes. Does that apply to the widening as well? the applicant will do that, not the county. >> It's shown on Mr. Halpert's plan. If you look at his plan, there's a shaded area on the opposite side and it says, but
you know, new new pavement and new edge of pavement. So, there will be a widening that the applicant will be required to do as part of the county approval. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes. I have one more. >> Yes. >> The entrance, would it be of any benefit to double the
two lane entrance so that you can get the cars off you prospect faster? Now, but the exit is good, Mr. Rogers, for too late. But, but the entrance, you don't want cars pulling in too a breast. That'd be like, you want them to come in one, you know, one at a time so that
they can find an open parking space. Bringing cars in two at a time. >> You got a lefthand turn and right >> because if you look at the plan, there's only one receiving lane once you get into the site. Yeah. >> There's only one receiving lane for entering traffic. You don't want to
bring two cars in at once. Yeah. And you can see from the aerial how far we are from Romeo's Plaza. We're at least 5 600 feet, maybe a little bit more from that driveway. >> Mr. Sullivan? >> Yes. Um, do you have a time frame as to
when the county will be doing the um turn lane in there? >> We're going to have to have that in before we get the county, you know, before we get a CEO. That's going to have to be done. >> Okay. So, that's all right. I wanted to make sure. >> Yeah. >> And Mr. Brezi.
>> Yeah, I'm and and Mr. Ray, I told you a lot of years. I have all the respect in the world for you, but I'm having a hard time with Mr. Rogers with the parking. I understand it sounds like a lot of parking and extra parking. And it don't parking standards don't go by how many
people, it goes by the square footage, >> right? But now with 400 and you got x amount of cars for employees and then every 15 minutes you got another couple hundred cars coming in to pull in and park and take their children out. You
still don't have enough spaces like that. How are they going to pull in, get their kid out, take them to the front door while the other cars are pulling in. You're talking 45 minutes and 15 minute increments for over 200 cars. >> Well, it's going to be let let's go back and look at the trip generation numbers.
the 167 that entered during the morning peak hour. Some number of those cars are going to be um from the staff >> and most likely they will enter a good half hour prior to the building opening. >> So of that 167 maybe 45 of those
vehicles will enter before 8:30 before the other parents start dropping kids off. So if you back up and do the math, you're looking at roughly 120 to 130 cars in 15 minutes in three 15 minute increments. You're looking at roughly 40
cars every 15 minutes, more or less. 40 45 cars every 15 minutes, which is manageable. It It's not 200 cars. It's 40 to 45 cars every 15 minutes. And we know from experience that these cars will often
have not two children in them but four or five children in them as as mothers carpool. Um >> that's been our experience. >> That's been right >> our experience as well. >> It's at least two that's why I said maybe two and a half three uh you know
children per car roughly >> and and the staff the same issue happens at the end of the day. The staff members who are there will be bringing their children out after the main that is correct group has parents have left.
>> So that also changes your >> that's how it operates >> ratio because those staff members will bring their ch the whole place will be empty of parents and then the staff members will leave that will that will like another 40 cars leaving. So we can
make that a requirement then that the staff has to leave after all the children are gone. >> Sure. >> Believe me, no principal or is going to allow the staff to leave before the parents are all out of the building. But we can stipulate that. Why not?
>> And what happens when those >> teachers don't have any more children? >> Yes. >> I apologize. I was going to wait till everyone was done um to make a comment and and ask a question or or make a statement. Um but Mr. Mars
sort of hit on the making it part of the application or making it part of the resolution. All of the board members here this evening asked a question about safety as it relates to traffic parking. Um so to
that end um as we've done with other applications where we have unique drop off and pickup times whether it's a daycare facility a new school um I think it's probably prudent to have some sort of whether it's a condition in the
resolution a deed restriction that says this approval is conditioned upon them utilizing this schedule because we're relying on Mr. Ray's expertise that he gleaned from his applicant that those three 15minute periods are going going to accomplish this. And quite frankly,
as a professional, what we we can weigh Mr. um Mr. Ray's testimony, give it credence, make a decision from that. However, at some point in time, this thing's going to get sold.
five years from now, 15 years from now, 30 years from now. But 30 years from now, the operator that's here probably won't be here in 30 years. That's when the questions start. We're going to have a capacity for 400 students or we're going to have three floors of a 33,000
foot building. Did it one per 500 require a certain amount of park? And the use of the building is going to change. So, I would suggest or I would I would ask Miss Jennings as the attorney for the applicant, is a deed restriction
as it relates to the pickup and drop off times um over the top? >> Yes, it's over the top. It would be a restriction in the resolution that they'd be okay with because if there was any change in use, for example, or change in the user that you're going to
have to get a zoning permit and the zoning officer would flag it and say, "You got to show that you're going to be following these requirements. If you're not and you're going to be a different use, you'd have to come back to this board." And the reason I ask to what level we have we set enforcement is because on
this site there's no safe overflow. The safe overflow for this site's a county road. We didn't ask what the speed limit was, but it's a county road. So there is no safe overflow. And so our concern is that we need to
make sure the two attorneys come up with language that's specific to this application and enforceable out in the field. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Very very well put. >> The applicant will agree to such a condition
>> as a condition. Yes. Y >> I still question the uh detail of the plan to create a restriction. I can't understand how we could say in perpetuity there's going to
be 40 staff members with the kids that are going to be uh coming early and leaving late. >> You know, Mr. Rogers. I spent um almost 40 years uh administering schools and I
can tell you that much of that time I spent hiring staff. They change annually so that when someone's children are getting older, they move on to a different position where they are
available to those older children. and parents who have younger children will come in and work in the school where their age children attend. So it's an interesting uh circular motion. Um when
when I taught first grade, I had younger children and my children attended those schools and when I taught high school on and administered in high school, I had moved on to high school to work. So parents are like that. They adjust to
schedules and schools are like that. And I don't know about this school, but there are some places that give tuition breaks to staff. So that the staff may find that they have uh
financial interest in working in a preschool when their children are in preschool. That's that's how the system works. >> Well, I admire that and but as our planner said, there's no safe >> there no guarantees.
There are no guarantees, but there are standards and there are and there are experiences. Mr. Ray and people who run schools understand that there these are experiential. >> Thank you.
Any other questions, Mr. Morza, >> Mr. Ray, um, in Mr. Peter's, um, review letter on page nine, he brings up that there are several, um, waiver requests,
um, in connection with the entrance drives, um, the exit drives and >> right, >> no parking stalls. So, did you you took all of this into consideration when you were creating getting your study revised?
>> Yes. And the reason why we need waiverss from those specific uh items is that in my opinion, I've testified on this before, those requirements, I believe, were typically put in for shopping centers that have a lot of uh in-n-out traffic
all day long, traffic coming and going. Not for a situation like this where you're going to have traffic arriving in the morning, departing in the afternoon. It's going to be they're going to be repeat users. The parents are going to be the same people that drop off and pick up. I believe those requirements
were put in to basically take into account something like a shopping center, very high turnover like the Walmart out on Route 9 and Howell or the Shopright on County Line Road. uh where you have a lot of traffic coming in and out all day, different users, not
the same people every day. That's what that requirement was put in for in my opinion. >> And the board's granted these variances, design >> w these waiverss have been granted quite a few times before when when when the situation warrants it. >> Correct. Thank you.
>> Right. >> Anyone else on the board with questions? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I do. and we're happy to hear them. >> Uh, Mr. Ray, thank you for your testimony. We really didn't talk about
levels of service. Um, we sort of stopped at the parking. Um, so we didn't talk about levels of service at the site nearby, any of that stuff. So, >> okay, let me go let me go to the report. I believe we have a C during the one peak hour and a During
the other. Give me a level of service D as in David during the AM peak hour and a C during the PM peak hour because the morning peak hour volumes are actually a little bit higher. So a D during the morning and a C during the afternoon >> and both of those are acceptable levels >> acceptable and and that's one of the
reasons why we need the two-way left turn lane. Without the two-way left turn lane, we wouldn't be able to achieve those levels of service. >> Thank you. Um, is there a need to review the levels of service at the
traffic lights to the north and south of the subject site? >> That is something that we haven't done as of this moment. My expectation based on what the county has been asking us is that the county will ask us to do that. That's my expectation based on past
experience with the county. They've been asking us to expand our traffic studies. Uh we just got a a review letter from the county on a project off of Heisen Road and they asked us to expand it to
include the signal that was adjacent to the site and that that's my expectation. They're going to ask us >> could we make that uh requirement >> to do that? Yeah, >> let's uh that um Mr. Ray will check the traffic lights um on at the north and
the south end >> and Aldrich and >> Bennis Mills and Aldrich and County line. Oh no, at uh Brewers Bridge and uh New Prospect. >> Okay. How how should I articulate that?
>> Actually, Mr. Halpert just indicated to me that in this particular situation, the county did not require it. >> But we're going to ask the >> Okay. But you're going to require it. >> We're going to require it. >> Okay. >> So, let's just go back to the phrasing of that.
>> Let's go back how how will we phrase that? >> Going to check the levels of service at the adjacent signalized intersections >> both north and south. >> Got it. And again, the reason from from this board's perspective is that there
are really just two peak hours is the morning peak hour and the afternoon peak hour. morning peak hour may coincide with the AM peak hour for the neighborhood. I I doubt the afternoon peak hour is going to match up, but again, we don't know. And so, I think
we're entitled to ask for that information to make sure we have an understanding. If there's a significant degrading of the level of service at the intersection, what's the county doing or requiring?
We all know that traffic is the bane of Jackson. So, uh I think >> we can ask lots of questions. >> Yes. So, so we we >> okay >> have to depend upon the county and Mr.
Ray and you to make sure that we are alleviating traffic as much as humanly possible and maybe if that means staggering their timing or whatever the heck they do uh to make uh level of
service as good as possible. >> Um Mr. Ray, the left turn lane in um I didn't see a I see the individual level of service was either the left turn in or the left turn out was was in
excess of I think 35 seconds. So it was individually a level of service E. >> Right. >> Yeah. The D level of service is a weighted average. Uh the left turn is an E. the right turn as it be.
>> I'm wondering if if we have any idea about the stacking that would be necessary on South New Prospect to make the left turn into the site. And similarly, if we're aware of any stacking
for left turn lane on the way out, I guess we'll do them one at a time, I guess. >> Okay. Well, as far as prospect into the site, >> as far as the left turn in, we have the whole frontage of our site. There'll be a two-way left turn line along the whole frontage, and that's going to be in between the two driveways. We're looking
at 150 200 feet. That's going to be good for >> we're just crossing one lane of traffic there, right? >> Uh yes. So, we're we're going to be fine with respect to the stacking coming into the site. As far as the stacking exiting the site, it's all going to be contained
on the site and it really won't have an impact on South New Prospect. Whatever stacking is exiting the site, it's going to be contained on the site. And what will happen because of the signal up at uh Aldrich and Bennett's Mills just to
the north of us by Romeo's Plaza, there will be, you know, some gaps that the signal will create um that will permit that traffic to get out of the exit driveway a little bit easier than what >> than the model actually anticipates. That was the nexus of my comments was
that does there need to be a gap analysis from Aldridge Road heading south on South New Prospect to make sure the lefts can get out of the site. Uh if if we had a level of service that usually
when we get a level of service F for a particular movement that's when we do the gap studies we have an E not an F. I don't think it's necessary, but certainly if we had an F, we would have to do it. >> I I I just had to do something up on Red Hill Road in in Homeell. We had an level
of service F coming out of our driveway. We had to go out and do a gap an analysis. And uh if anybody's familiar with where the U Memorial Sloan Ketering Cancer Center is on Red Hill Road, that signal created gaps for us. And >> thank goodness >> even though even though the calculation
was an F, we had plenty of gaps. So sometimes you have to do it. >> And lastly, um just so it's on the record for our application, we often get questions from the police department about traffic exiting the site, crossing
double yellow lines that will now be part of a dedicated left turn lane. That is permitted, correct? >> Yes, it is. Yes, >> we we've had testimony on that on so many applications. Yes, that is permitted.
>> Right. Thank you. That's all I have. Madam Chair, >> Mr. Clay, any thoughts? You're good. Mr. Brezie, >> I'm just looking at what's in front of me, so it could be wrong. God knows. But on a map with the county
>> to the microphone, Mr. Brezie, thank you. >> The county plans are showing a from your exit coming out directly across from your left and right coming out, >> right? It shows an arrow going in in the lane there.
>> Well, that's just uh that's the way the two-way left turn lanes are striped, Mr. Pressy. They just have the arrow just to show people that when you're approaching the left turn light, you can make a left. >> You don't you don't make it at that specific location. >> I I can understand that. But what I'm approving here shows it goes right into
the people coming out. >> We could we we could we could revise that. That's you know, that's not an issue. know the county will probably make us, you know, relocate the arrows on the pavement where they want them. >> There are occasions when people follow
the arrows, you know, >> and try to enter the exit driveway. I got you. >> Yeah. >> Oh, I'm here. I have one other question. >> As long as you're here. >> This is more from Miss Jennings. Um, I know you haven't received an envi environmental uh letter from the
environmental commission yet. Uh would you be stipulating that if you get a letter of concern, you come back in front of us? >> Well, come back here. >> We have a letter of concern, you come back. The letter of no concern, you don't have to come back. But if >> I don't know what a letter of concern
is, what is that? >> They have an approval and no problems. But if they have a problem, even though you gave an EIS, they may have a question on that. >> Well, they don't really have jurisdiction. They're allowed to comment. So, I I wouldn't come back here.
Right. So, >> right. So, just to be clear, environmental commission is advisory in nature. Um, with that being said, the board can request a condition that if they um, if the environmental commission
does find something, I I guess they would come back and why don't we just say we'll comply rather than coming back? Why would come back to the board for a hearing? >> I would want the same thing for the fire. We don't have the updated fire.
>> I have that next. >> Yeah. >> Right. So >> is an outside agency. Fire is an outside agency. They have to comply. >> So technically what we do is that we all right. So we have a list of outside agencies pursuant to the municipal land use law. The outside agencies um they
can be deemed compliant during resolution compliance. With that being said, they have to comport with the outside agency's recommendations. Right? If they don't, then there's typically, you know, a appeal process involved in that. Um, if anything within
an outside agency's recommendation changes a site plan, that may trigger an appearance before the board via a waiver or um a variance or something of that nature if in the event things are
changed in the plan. Um so we're if they agree to comply with the environmental commission um >> findings >> letter you know findings finding of of
no interest or or finding of interest um and they comply with everything in there um then and there's no there's no triggering mechanism for them to come back. technically they wouldn't need to come back. If if something does get triggered, it doesn't matter if it's
fire or traffic or or environmental or whatever, then they would have to come back, right? So, so there has to be some kind of triggering mechanism in which the board obtains jurisdiction again to have another hearing on that. And that typically that typically happens via
variance or waiver um where like you know plans are changed during the resolution compliance period and and they have to seek board review again um if that makes any sense to the board members
>> and you agree with that miss? >> Yeah we will um stand on the record that we will comply and obviously if they come up with some crazy condition we'll probably come back here and tell you why we don't want to do it. Fair enough. >> All right. Now, we we >> I do have one more question for Mr. I'm
sorry. >> No problem. >> I'm sorry. On page three of your report, you have design year 2036. No build am PM peak street hour traffic volumes. >> Okay.
>> Um what about the build? >> Build is the U. Okay. Are you talking about the figures that are in the appendix? >> Sorry, I'm actually talking also about the the trip generation that you have on
page three. Is that only no build or is that include build? >> That's added to the the way it works. We we developed the no build traffic volumes which if you go into the appendix there on figure three that includes the other four projects that I
mentioned that are along the South New Prospect Road Carter that we're familiar with those four specific projects plus the growth rate. That's how we develop the Nobel uh volumes. And then on figure five, we searchcharge that table. That
traffic that's in the table that's searchcharged onto the no build volumes and that's what we call built traffic volumes which are the following figure. So they're searchcharged onto the no build volumes. >> Okay. Thank you. I'd like to make a motion to open to the
public for cross-examination of this witness and this witness only for this application. Sullivan >> second. Demarzo. >> I >> I >> If anyone has any questions for Mr. Ray, please come forward at this time.
Seeing no one come forward, I move to close the public cross-examination of this witness. Sullivan >> second demarzo. >> How about general questions? >> I' like to uh make a motion to open uh
for public comment on this application and this application only. Sullivan >> second to Marzo. All in favor >> I >> I >> You got a race. Yeah. >> Okay. Just um a general Oh, I got to do it again.
>> Yep. Yep. You swear affirm. Tell the truth the whole truth. Nothing but the truth. >> Do. >> All right. Please state your name and spell your last for the record. >> Carlos TS. >> All right. >> And um yeah, I'm here as a a resident although I belong zoning board. Okay. Um
just a a general comment for your consideration. So a few um experts I brought up the fact that this applicant already operates low built um a school
>> daycare center. >> Thank you. Daycare center in Lakewood. Okay. Um, but there's no testimony here saying that it's operating correctly, that there's no issues with the
neighbors or anything like that. So, when you consider that what they their experience has been, I think you should take into account that there's no testimony given to certify that they're doing it correctly.
>> But that's all I want to say. Ju just to be fair, every application's got to stand on its own and it can't take into consideration enforcement perspectives from other townships. >> Right. Right. I I just bring it up because the applicant or the um experts
brought the experience that this and they took that into account >> when they came up to the expert opinions. So I I just want to bring that out. That's all. Thanks. 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. >> Deb Jones. J O N S. Um, it's really just a general comment. >> I think you have to just move over a tad because you're getting feedback from that mic. >> Okay. >> Or that mic.
>> All right. I'll step back. >> That's great. Thank you. Um, my general comment is when we were talking about fire safety and evacuating the building, I just wanted to make mention that kind
of scares me when we talk about people just grabbing two kids and going. I mean, you can say there's other staff members, but you don't know where a fire is breaking out, who can get to your room, who can't get to your room. They
make cribs that are designed for evacuation. They're made out of metal. They're on wheels and you put multiple kids in them. I just wanted to put that out there for I guess the owners because
I don't want to see anyone's baby or a staff member getting hurt during a fire. And if they're required to do fire drills, then they would be using these for fire drills and it would become second nature
to them and it would just be safe for everyone involved. That's all. >> Yep. The state has very very very stringent checks, balances, and and drills all built into these systems, especially
>> but they don't always build into crips. I think something like that. I never thought of something like that, but especially that they're down in the basement and they have her the applicant. They got one room for >> I think it was an excellent suggestion and uh >> in 30 months they got one room they could put, you know,
>> perhaps we could get some testimony on that. Two >> uh two cribs in there and cover it. You swear, affirm, and tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> Yes. All right. Please state your name and spell your last of the record. >> Fear Pearl. P E R L S T E I N.
>> All right. Your address? >> 802 Mars Avenue, Lake, New Jersey. >> Are you the applicant? >> He's the applicant. >> Okay. Do you want to >> And would you like to answer?
>> Yeah. I just have one one comment to make. um in our in our daycare that we operate which I am an owner operator not an investor so I'm actually on the floor firstly we have fire drills monthly with
the login sheet we have to log in my staff need to do that with the times we make sure it's kept to the state minimum of under three minutes per evacuation secondly the state requires to have the two ramps on the side as evacuation
at grade level and they consider the ramp grade level. We have evacuation cribs so no one's taking out two kids as they go out. They have evacuation cribs which are you can go online, you can see them on Amazon or any school website, Scholastic or anything like that. And
they are made and manufactured commercially specifically for this situation. >> And you'll stipulate as to having those cribs. We will stipulate that we will have those cribs adequate quibs cribs per room when we have inspections. Um Miss Mrs. Chamble had mentioned many
times she seems to have a lot of experience in schooling and I appreciate that and it's it's you you sound very knowledgeable in this area. Um they when they come down to the classrooms they count to make sure that there's adequate cribs, adequate staff in order to be
able to do these evacuations under three minutes. >> Thank you. We appreciate that. >> Okay. And I hope that answers your question, Miss Jones. >> Good. Thank you so much. Anyone else like to come forward at this time
for comments? Do you swear or affirm? Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth. I know you got to do it every shot. >> All right. Please state your name and spell your last record. >> Eric Jones. Jes. same address. >> Oh, 722 Heist. When I look at this plan,
the only thing that concerns me is um where the dumpster is. This the corner of that lot jets into that person's property. I don't know if you looked at the outside, people,
but that dumpster is right next to somebody's swimming pool. Now, let's say it doesn't get picked up. We're talking dirty diapers, food, all that kind of stuff. And you guys were talking about eliminating
perhaps some parking spots. I know a lot of times you don't like to put a dumpster by the street, but I think the better place to put the dumpster would be by >> on the left, >> by the exit on the bottom. >> Oh, I don't think we can put it by the
exit on the bottom because that would be on the front of the property and we don't do that. However, how about um >> putting in parking spaces where the dumpster is now and moving it over to the left. >> It's still the way that the corner of
that property jets have to look at it on a map. I don't know if you guys can blow that up or anything, Anthony. I don't know if you can back that up or >> Can we Can we go to the um >> aerial? I think there's an aerial of this property. just the weird weird shape of that property where it jets
into the corner of somebody else. Their yard actually goes around the point. You know what I'm saying? It's like and then their swimming pool's like right there next to the dumpster. >> Uh the swimming pool is is uh right next
to the >> the section that is not >> not that house. The other house has a swimming pool. Yeah. Right there. Right next to the bank. Right next to it. >> You're looking to the right. >> Not the blue. Not that pool. There's
another pool there that you really can't see. It's right on the property line almost. >> That would be what over 30 feet from the property line. It's this location. >> You know, dumpsters. >> Plus, how about how about screening? Maybe.
>> There's a 25 foot buffer all around the perimeter. Plus, the dumpster itself is probably 354 feet away from the property line. >> And then how about putting maybe uh additional um fence or planting?
>> There's plantings all around the dumpster as well. >> Tall. >> Yeah, they're tall. We have >> Okay. >> I don't know why you would want to have your dumpster next to your play area. That just >> Well, I think it's a matter of the truck coming in and backing up. But I'm saying the play area, the children's play area
is like there and there's the dumpster. >> It's also an enclosure. Correct. >> Doesn't seem >> correct. It's enclosed. >> Okay. It is enclosed. >> I don't know. That's the only things that I was thinking about. >> Of course, these are not >> I'm just surprised there's no neighbors. This this application get a
notification. >> Yeah, of course. >> 100%. 100%. >> Has this been carried and nobody else was renotified? >> No. >> I'm just surprised nobody's here. I wouldn't want this in my backyard, honestly. But anyways, and uh I'm
assuming by the size I'm assuming by the size of this is going to be another clearcut operation >> where they're not. >> Oh, I believe that there was testimony there was testimony from the forester. There's quite a lot, but things change. >> There'll be a lot of trees planted.
>> What's that? >> That they'll be planting a lot of trees for buffer. >> I don't know. just doesn't seem like there's much property left to have a buffer. >> You know what what's between the parking lot? >> Yeah. The color rendering >> and the property line.
>> Anthony, can you bring up the >> 25 ft? >> Can you bring up the um >> colored site rendering the landscaped exhibit? >> Yeah, >> the lands there's a landscape exhibit. >> I know just around this town it's just like you everybody talks about
character. It's colored >> and we're just totally losing the character when we're clear cutting everything. >> I think we're I think we're getting away from the general comment nature of >> Yeah, I get what you're saying. >> There it is. >> There it is. >> It's just some thoughts that you can
>> Yes. You see the >> the landscaping >> landscaping and the planting that's going to take place. >> What's what's what's that distance? I thought somebody said 25 ft. >> 40 >> 40 feet >> from the edge of the parking lot to the property line. >> That was from the edge of the parking
lot would be about 30 ft. >> I think somebody said 25. >> The buffer the double staggered line is 25 ft. >> 25 ft doesn't give you any privacy at all. Zero. >> Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
>> 25 parking. Yeah. >> Anyone else? Seeing no one else come forward, I move to close the public cross-examination on this application. Sullivan >> second. Demarzo. >> All in favor? >> I.
>> Miss Jennings. >> Sure. I'll just be brief because I think that we had a very good discussion and a lot of good comments from the board members as well as the board consultants. And uh I counted over 30 agreed upon conditions for an
application that is variancefree and with the three design waiverss that are typically given by this board. So I would respectfully request that the board granted approval this evening subject to all the conditions. >> If we could just summarize the the three var waivers just for the
>> So they're in Mr. um Peter's report on page nine and they are specifically number five, six and seven. Good to go. >> Thank you. >> And there are no variances. No
variances. Mr. Peters, any comments for us, please? Just a reminder that one of the many conditions that was agreed to um is that the building height will comply with the ordinance requirements and they're not asking for a variance for building height.
>> Correct, Mr. Clay? >> Um just just really briefly, um there was some discussion about outside agencies and the need to come back or whatever. Um I'm pretty much the curator, the gatekeeper of is the outside agency approvals adequate? are
they um proper and I can assure the board that they will be. >> And members of the board, any comments before we go to vote? >> I would I would am concerned about the fact that you know we have to put our
ordinance that we had in place that had specific conditions aside for state um because the state law governs. But I would suggest to Mr. Brezie if the town council would take another look at this
and that this is this is an unusual one and we approve tonight that this doesn't necessarily mean that this is going to be what happens in the future if we can get an ordinance that has more design standards to it. >> Thank you.
>> And you're absolutely right demarzo because each application stands on its own. There's not precedent here. And and to make the point, ultimately the arbiter of this will be the state because it is a daycare facility and ultimately it will have to pass the
regulatory requirements of the state. >> And no matter what we put in, we put anything in the state overrides us. If we fight that, the only people that win them. So it's worth looking at, >> right? And just to be clear, so what the
board is going to be voting on is number one, all the conditions that have been imposed. Uh number two, um if the board wants to deliberate as to the nature of the waiverss, they they feel free to do that. As indicated multiple times, a
test for a waiver is that it has to be reasonable in nature. It's got to be within the purpose and intent of the ordinance provisions. uh little literal enforcement of the ordinance provisions is either impractical or will ex exert undue hardship. So that's the legal
standard if the board wants to deliberate upon that standard in light of these three waiverss but there uh there are no variances in this application um and it is a permitted use. So, so the
three waiverss are that of uh all entrance drives shall extend to a minimum distance of 100 ft from the street right away uh or parking aisle. Um per 244 197 J2. All exit drives shall
extend a minimum distance of 60 ft from the street curb uh or to a parking aisle. Uh per 244 197 J2 uh A2C, no parking stalls shall utilize the required entrance and exit drives or
major circulation drives uh as parking aisles. Uh whereas the parking access to the main uh circulation drive. Um those are the three waiverss that are in front of the board. >> There's actually one more I forgot about. Um Mr. Halper testified to it.
There's no structure shall be permitted within the buffer area and there's that one small retaining wall that's uh >> the retaining wall, right? >> Yes. >> Mr. Brezie has a question. >> Yes, that was decided. One space on each
side will be removed. >> That was agreed upon. Was one of the 33 agreed upon? >> Correct. >> Correct. >> That is it for me. >> All right. We'll uh accept a motion, please.
I'd like to make a motion to approve this application with the stipulations and the design waiver. Sullivan, >> we have a first we have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Mr. Brazie.
>> Yeah. I'm I'm basing my motion on one the amount of stipulations and complying with them. Uh no variances. The county improvement on that road is tremendous. And for the owner to come testify of something I learned tonight after many years up here about cribs that could be
used for fire evacuation was was eye opening and it's nice to know about it. And I think with all the stipulations and all the uh professional testimony from ours and their professionals, I vote yes. >> Mr. Marzo. >> Um unfortunately
I don't agree with Mr. Ray on this um with the waiverss this goround. Um I understand that he feels that it's for shopping plazas, but there's going to be a lot of traffic here and so I'm I'm denying a no um based upon the waiverss.
I'm not going to grant any. Thank you, >> Mr. Parks. I vote yes for the re mostly for the reasons that have been previously stated. >> Mr. Rogers, >> I'm conflicted on this application
recognizing the applicant's right to develop his property township and communities right Mr. Sullivan. Uh, I'm going to vote yes because of the stipulations that they agreed to, because of um the fact that
they're willing to work with the arborists to make sure that there is proper um plantings that will make this uh project more tolerable for its neighbors. Uh given the fact that they've been willing to work with us on
this, I vote yes. >> And Dr. Campbell, >> there are no variances and we've had a great deal of agreement on a number of issues, very sensitive issues. Um, and I vote yes.
>> Thank you so much. Have a good night. >> Congratulations. Have a good night. We'll accept a motion to adjourn. >> I'd like to make a motion to adjourn this meeting. Sullivan. >> Second. Demarzo. All in favor? I. I. >> Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for
your time.