I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, 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 4th Jackson Township Planning Board meeting. How about now? There we go. All right, everybody. Welcome to the August 4th Jackson Township Planning Board meeting. This meeting has been appropriately noticed in all the proper places and forums according to the open public
meetings act. Mr. Chairman, I'll leave it off to you. We'll have a roll call, please. Mr. Bernstein, Mr. Marzo, here. Mr. Heler, Mr. Rogers here. Mr. Chamer, here. Miss Rose,
Mr. Weart, Mr. Sullivan here, Dr. Camp here. Uh we'll have a um motion for payment of voucher for recording secretary please. So move Sullivan second demorzo.
M uh let's see Mr. Marzo. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Treamer. Yes. Mr. Sullivan. Yes. Dr. Camp. Yes. And we have three resolutions this evening. Yes. Mr. Sh.
Okay. Resolution. Ready. Resolution 2025-18A of the planning board of the Township of Jackson, County of Ocean, State of New Jersey, granting approval amendment for the Jackson Woods residential
development for Jacksonwood Southeast section 1, block 4101, lots 20.001 through 20.005, 20.010 through 20.055, 055 20.151
through 20.219 20.319 through 20.386 and 20.466 through 20.470. All members are eligible to vote. Make a make a motion to approve the resolution.
Can I ask a question first? This has been bothering me for a while and I had a meeting with Mr. McGucken as per the mayor's resolution. When we vote on this, is there any way we can see exactly what this is and what
the application was? Yeah, you you received the resolution. No, they don't. The website and read it, I assume. No, I haven't been be able to get on the website for a little while. Well, and that you have to rectify. Okay. But how do the people know what
we're talking about, too? I think it should be on a slide and put up. So people know what we're we're talking about. This is a vote we already took. This is just the uh an amendment. Um it's the resolution, the formal
resolution to the vote we already took. I I understand that. Then we're at the point now where everything has been adhered to. Correct. Why are we doing that? Otherwise, the resolution is not valid. Right. How do I see the checklist?
Checklist for what? as per Mr. McGucken and I I have a whole bunch of stuff here I need to go over anyhow but each time we do a certain resolution and I talked to Mr. about this. We need
to be numbering it or lettering it or chronological order, especially in our resolution. This has created a massive problem which is a lot of what the township people have been looking at. Case in point, we had a house of worship that's
being built and we approved them using the other building with 22 members and there's video circulating around of 90 cars now in that place. There's also another one that we al we distinctly talked about. You can't park on a
certain road and they're parking on the road. So, we have some issues here. That is that is code enforcement's job. No, it's not. That's the problem. Code enforcement can't do anything. I went to Jeffora. Ray, it it's it's code enforcement. We
can't enforce those issues. I'm not asking us to enforce it. They can't enforce it because the resolution is not clearly. They can 100% enforce their own local ordinances. So
our our resolution do not impact their parking ordinances, their road ordinances, anything like that. Code can go out there and do an analysis of all of that. And our resolution does not dictate their ability to enforce their
own ordinances. So So you have you have parking standards, you have uh off streetet uh and on on site. Um and they have to be the ones to enforce that. The all the resolution would do in that situation is say here is the RSI
standard. You know, here here is how many spaces were approved if if we distinguish how many are approved or not. Sometimes it's just a standard and then code has to go out there and do a site inspection and do an analysis if something is like that. Our our
resolution does not impact their ability to enforce at all. Well, then you go need you need to go I think I think we need to have a a sit down with code. I've talked to code I've talked to Mr. McGuck get to the root of your what has come out of that conversation.
So so maybe me you you know code and and Mr. McGucken need to sit down and and address these issues because you have a local ordinance and code has to enforce the local ordinances. Our resolution does not impact that.
And we've talked about this and I understand what you're saying, but when you talk to that end of the world, they're saying the exact opposite. Yeah. I don't because it has to be clearly put out there. It's and it's no reflection on Laura or the board. It's the process.
It's your obligation to read the resolutions that are put forth. And if you're having trouble doing that, then you have to get in touch with Anthony and figure out how you can I'm a frequent visitor to Anthony when it goes down. I've been a little busy this this week. I didn't get a chance to we'll make sure
that they're properly about a resolution because they're not on the website anyway. Right. We'll make sure that they're properly circulated to the board members, right? Which I think you you do anyway, right? But he's saying they don't see the final, right? Like you don't see a final signed version, but it's always available if
you if you would like to see it. So, so I think I think what's happening here is that there's a distinction between what we approve the use for and and the parking spaces associated with that use versus what the on street and
off-site uh standards are for parking. So if you have a situation where you know something is a residential home and there the parking standards are based off the use of the property and if what happens is that if the if they somebody
comes in and gets a a use change, you know, to a commercial something in nature and the parking standards change, they they if they if they continue to operate the residential dwelling unit or whatever they're doing, um it that use
doesn't change till the zoning permit changes, you know, and then they have to get building permits and everything along those lines. So, so the if they continue to use even though they got approved for another use, if they continue to operate it like a residential use up until the point where they get another zoning permit for a
different use, then then the this the parking standards would change. So, so it's every situation is very very unique in nature. So it's difficult to to talk about things in general generalities because you have to look at like the facts and circumstances of each
individualized issue. But I think we're kind of getting far apart here and we need to have a discussion with code maybe with the township attorney and to and to kind of get at the root of what's going on you know
but for purposes of the board the board doesn't act in any enforcement capacity. So, it's up to those guys to enforce their own ordinances. We made very clear when we did these particular
applications exactly what the parking situation was to be. It is not taking place. We all know it. That's not our responsibility. That's the next branch of governance responsibility. Our responsibility is to hear the
applications, approve or disapprove based on what we've heard. Then we get a resolution that is affirming what we already voted on. And then if there's a problem, the township has to take on that responsibility, not this board.
No. Absolutely true. But you're talking about a perfect world and it's not working is my point. and it came back that we need to clarify and put clearer stipulations. We do not we already heard an
application. We already had a public meeting on it. People could watch. They heard what we said. They I'm not talking I'm not talking about this. I'm talking about in the future. I just asked a general question about in the future we will continue to follow the regulations as they come down to us
from and I'm asking for a change that that is not our responsibility. Yes, it is. We have to pen it. We have to initiate it. So, okay. So, it get when we approve an application, we approve it based upon a
certain parking criteria. If we're going to use parking as the issue that we're talking about, right? So, so a different use has different parking standards and and and sometimes different ordinances off offsite uh on property, you know,
they have different criteria associated with them. So every resolution that we put together has has a specified parking criteria in it. The maximum, you know, versus what was approved and that is in every single resolution for every single
use. So if if somebody is using a property for a use that is illegal that I mean for all intents and purposes is is illegal in nature then code has to go there and say hey you're basing your parking off of a use that you don't
currently have a zoning permit for you know should be residential in nature but you're using it for something commercial in nature when you think you you have a right to you and and here's a violation that that's that's how it's supposed to
operate in reality. We and that's I understand that crystal clear. I am not saying that. The problem is that is failing because we're not clear. Yes, we tell them you can only have 22 people in your congregation. We need to be more defined
in what we do. If we have somebody gives you a testimony and swears that the paperwork's not here, but I talked to this person and they didn't, there should be ramifications. You're taking an oath. Absolutely right. There should be not from us, right? But we need to start.
We have been super clear to with people. If if you want to go back and look at those tapes, we have been absolutely clear. Well, I know exactly what I say, Dr. Campbell. I don't need to go look at it. I know what I'm saying and I know what they're saying. Some of these people and
some people come here and they are truly honest. They they draw beautiful buildings and it's a pleasure to to approve something for them. And then there's other people that are treating us like we're a bunch of knuckleheads and it's very frustrating and that's part of what the meeting was about.
But I think we may be convoluting issues here because we're bouncing around from parking issues to to ethical credibility. if if there if if an expert is is not representing something um truthfully and and it's a question of
credibility to that point every every profession in the state has I believe a state regulated ethical board that you know theoretically they can be reported to so if if you know we get into a situation where you know you
don't believe that an expert's being truthful in nature. I mean, anybody has any right to, you know, report something like that to the ethical board that that governs and oversees their their licensing. That's one way of doing it.
But we don't have the ability of of doing of, you know, doing that in in our formal capacity. a board member would in their individual capacity where a member of the public would have, you know, the ability of doing it in their individual capacity,
but we can't, you know, unless it's absolutely reprehensible. I we don't have the ability of filing a charge like that from a quasi judicial standpoint. I'm not asking for charges. I'm asking for change.
The change you are asking for is not possible. We already go through the process. No problem. I'll take it up with the mayor and Mr. I think a good idea to take it up with the police department who can ticket people and should I have the problem is it's not
it's not working it's not clear it's not clear in our resolution this question is this because on the existing units
and they agreed not to do that so I don't want to get into specifics. No. Well, nothing nothing we're right. That's just a different issue I brought up. Right. Just just to be clear, nothing that we're talking about right now is
dealing with the resolution that we presently have in front of us to vote on. Just just to be just to be clear. I just want to be clear on that because I think this is the decks, right? What's that? No, this is this is this may this may be the decks. It's a different
I think. So, just just to be clear, all the issues that we're talking about have nothing to do with the with the resolution. I apologize to Laura for distracting her, but I look at things very differently than you do. Well, I I I think and but I'm out there and you know, I do
do my homework and I do see go see code enforcement. I go see the fire department and I ask questions and I get the same answer all the time. You guys screwed up. And that's the perception that the people have of it. So I think what we need to do if if code is saying if code
is putting back on us that our resolutions are are preventing them from enforcing their own ordinances and parking standards and and and use standards for that matter because I mean clearly somebody's doing something that
they shouldn't be doing on the property that they currently have it zoned for. Um, you know, I think we need to have a sit down with them and say, "Hey guys, what's going on?" You or maybe the township attorney should, you know, it's the township's responsibility, not
this board's responsibility. This board is doing its due diligence on every application. You do it. Everybody else at this table does it. We make stipulations. We have things that are
documented. We go as far as we can go. And I continue to get the videos and then I tell the people code enforcement, call the police, get them ticketed every single time. And that's the best we can advise. We cannot
enforce. This is not an enforcement body. Well, you see the videos. It's the same players pulling the same stunts. But it is and I see it and I live there and I drive by and I call the police. Come by and take it. That's the best I
can do as a citizen of Jackson, not as a member of this board. I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna reach out to Mr. McGucken and just make sure that we address all your concerns. Right. Question. Absolutely. I was with the member of the council and
when they had us go to the lawyer so I could come back and just point out things to us to this board and then I'll tell you my but that's fine. I apologize Laura. Thank you. Now, Sullivan had made a motion for
resolution 2025- 18A. So, we need for that for one second. Just say um I would like something of clarification from Mr. if that's possible as to what you know right he's telling us because I'm not
saying anybody can say anybody can say something I want to see something in writing stating you know what they think the problem is um and not expect us to
react react you know and if it's a matter of me needing to be clear in the resolution. I I can do that. You know, I I have no problem with that, but but it's at a certain point code has
to enforce their own ordinances, which I'll I'll reach out to Mr. McGucken um and make sure that we're all on the same page and we can get some kind of clarifications from him. Um you know, just so just so that it's kind of like we're babysitting them with the checklist, you know, did you do
A, did you do B? You know, we just look at it. We're under the assumption that's being done and there there are some failures in the system. Looks like it's us. We do set the the bar like we said. We we put these exceptions in there and
now everybody's not doing their job and it's coming back on us. But see, the the problem is right, in my opinion, we do do the job. We make very succinct um resolutions and then they don't want
to enforce them and then they and maybe somebody not mentioning names doesn't want to enforce them and then they throw it back in your face saying well you guys should have done a better job and and you know and you you're correct and there are certain groups like Mr. Shay was involved with the fire department six,
seven months ago. They're supposed to be getting a detailed set of plans and there are certain factions that refuse to give them the plans. They have, as per the fire official came to me, he's like, they have flat out refused to do what the board asked for, but the
problem is they haven't upgraded what the fire department looked at two, three years ago. So, it's kind of it's a loophole. So, in the end, it can't be enforced. So we have to be a little bit more we don't hear it. If someone doesn't
give us what we expect and what we require, they're at the bottom of the pile and we don't hear it. So we do have a certain amount of sway when it comes to hearing applications.
No, we are not hearing this until it's finished. And we do that. And I know I sit in Laura's office and there's a pile of plans and and Mr. Cle and Mr. Peters have them piles of plans and we do not
move them forward until all the boxes are checked. That's what we can do. But we cannot enforce, we cannot demand, we cannot fine, we have our lane and we should stay in it.
Well, but it's like I talked to Mr. Rogers and He's exactly right. If a man comes in here and swears to us that a certain official did look at this, oh, I just don't have it with me. We find out it's not true. Guess what? We're not going to rec we shouldn't be recognizing
their credentials and bench them for a little while. But e either way, like I said, we I look stupid here. I don't talk for the rest of the board, but I think I look stupid sometimes when people come to me and and they have a video. Why is this
happening? and I've gone and looked at it and I've taken my own personal time to address these issues. But I'll continue my quest. Just clarify my potent mislead.
That's absolutely right. And you said it a little while ago and I mean we all have that absolutely same feeling but it doesn't happen. It's very difficult to sit up here and call someone a liar. You have to do it through a process. And the process is if
someone lies and you can prove it, there is an ethical board for engineers, for architects, for attorneys. They those are the applicants. And you can go to a person on this board
went to an ethics board concerning a professional. We can do that. You can do that. But that's all we can do. We cannot hold up the process of resolutions so
that that other piece can go forward. Well, I'm asking us to be more proactive. has to get. So, we'll we'll make sure that fire and safety and everybody has all the documentation paperwork. You know, maybe
I'll I'll make a Outlook note or something like that to make sure that I call up about a month in advance and and just make sure they all have all the appropriate paperwork. You know, maybe we'll just we'll do it internally um kind of as checks and balancing system.
Do that. Um, alternatively, if if an expert, you know, goes up and testifies to one thing and we find out later on uh that it's another it's with C with an outside agency approval
issue, it's a little bit different because if we give an approval for a use, I'm sorry, if we give an approval, you know, for preliminary final site plan, something like that, um, and what they, you know, misrepresented
had to do with an outside agency approval, they still have to comport with the outside agency approval um or else they can't get their zoning permit. So, so you know, even though we may have unintentionally, you know, given them uh, you know, an
approval and and more often than not, the misrepresentation probably wouldn't have impacted whether we gave it to them or not. But, you know, they still have to comply with the outside agency approval or else they can't get their zoning permit. So if they if they lied about something or misrepresented
something and you know during the the um you know resolution compliance process they go to get something and they get denied you know because they misrepresented something they got to come back to the board and start the whole thing all over again. So, so there there's there's an external checks and
balancing system that that we as as the board I mean I see it, Doug sees it, Ernie sees it, but the board members don't really see it because once it gets beyond the resolution process, you're kind of out of out of it, so to speak, because it's just a it's a expert
process, but but they may get punted right back to us if they misrepresented something. I mean it may take six months, it may take a year, you know, but they won't be able to get a zoning permit for we we have often said we are just the first stop on the road. We're the first
stop. They are still our outside agencies. There's still the county. There are many checks and balances. We do our job at the first stop. That's our job. I don't disagree with that and we do it
to the best of our capability. But understand, I'm not criticizing the board. I'm trying to point out the advantage that some people take of the board. Like if a man comes here and says, "Well, the fire department looked at this in 22 and as per Mr. Shay, he's
correct." It goes on the whole application and in the end everything is as per what the fire department put or the police department or whatever entity. But the problem is that was in 22 and the building's been changed three times and that's where the system can't
catch it. So it's stuff like that that I am trying to work on. The system will catch it because they can't get their zoning until they have the recent documentation. So that does the system. That's the problem. If the documentation is from the first round in 22 and
they've never put in the updated paperwork because the fire department or police department only got to see a site plan, not a full engineered plan and it's missing these items. they do not get applied because they don't exist because they weren't detailed. Now, if
the resolution said as per the fire department's 2025 resolution of what this application needs, that's different. And then your system does work, but we're not clarifying stuff like that.
construction. Yeah, I I was just about the building. Yeah, but it's as per the paperwork they have. So, if they're going to have the latest paperwork in order for them to do the building, right? And if somebody sits here and lies and the application's going through with three-year-old documentation,
but but let's let's just let's discuss that for a sec. So, so let let's say theoretically somebody has an old application from 2020 and they come back before us in 2025 and they have a 2021
you know uh fire review letter. If we give them an approval in 2025, they have to get an updated post approval um the building. Yeah. you know, whether it be fire or traffic safety or whatever, um, letter
to satisfy the postresolution conditions of approval. So, so they they don't necessarily just skate by with the 2021. They they So, and Doug I mean Doug can confirm this. I mean, Doug does historic resolution compliance. So, so they have to get a postapproval letter with the
rubber stamp. So, so there is a safety net system that does catch some of these things. Um, I can't I can't speak from uh um the police department and their revisions, but there um was some dialogue between me and the um Bureau of Fire Prevention, and I can pretty much
guarantee that um the approval that the applicants submit from fire will match the latest revision on the plans. And I think that's where we're we're going that a lot of times there's been an approval um the plans have been subsequently revisions and the applicant
submits that um for approval on revision one. Well, we up to vision five. How is the plan changed? And I, you know, like I said, I can pretty much guarantee that the plan or the document that the applicant presents from fire prevention, the approval of those plans last revised
will match the um the approval or in the date indicated on the plans. And and again, you were you guys were really good with that and you agreed with the fire official. He needs a set of plans, but the fire officials have told me that there's a certain core group, there's a couple people that come
here and they are refusing to do that. And yes, there's checks and balances, but it's a lot of things have fallen through the cracks. And that's part of the what I'm talking about. We need to just clean it a little bit, you know, and the full set of detailed plans, like you suggested, they're going to stamp it, they're going to date it,
but that hasn't started happening yet. And that was I believe so. No, I do believe so. Inspect, Right. And in in theory, yes, that's the way it's supposed to work. But it's been
brought to my attention because I I do deal with this on the outside because I am a fire commissioner and they're being told flat out by some of these entities, no, we don't have to do that. And they've been told by certain entities, you didn't write it. We we don't have to
enforce it or we can't enforce it. It's confusing. It's mired down. And you know, that's why I was told, "Bring this up. Let's get this going." Now, I will go with Mr. Sheay and we'll do what we have to do.
And again, what we just discussed has nothing to do with the resolution that we're about to vote on. Just to be just to be clear. So, he's covered a lot of territory. Can we get back to the motion, please? There's a motion on the table for
resolution 202518A. I believe you made the the motion to approve Sullivan. Second. Demarzo. Okay. Mr. Marzo. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Treamer.
Yes. Mr. Sullivan. Yes. Dr. Campbell. Yes. Resolution 2025-21 of the planning board of the township of Jackson County of Ocean, state of New Jersey, adopting the 2025 master plan
and the fourth round housing plan element and fair share plan. All members are eligible to vote. I'd like to make a motion to approve the resolution and once again congratulate uh Chairwoman Campbell, Dr. Campbell and
the uh Mr. Marzo um Mr. Mr. Heler and Mr. Bernstein for doing such an excellent job on the subcommittee that made this possible. Um I think it will serve this town very well for the decade to come and with
that I make a motion to approve. Second de Marzo. Mr. Marzo. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Chamer, yes. Mr. Sullivan, yes. Dr. Campbell, yes.
And the last one is resolution 2025-22 of the planning board of the Township of Jackson, County of Ocean, State of New Jersey, granting preliminary and final major site plan approval with required variances and design waiverss for the construction of a one-story 4-unit
warehouse for Whitesville Holdings LLC, block 2211, lot 1.0. 01. All members are eligible to vote. I'd like to make a motion to approve Sullivan. Second to Marzo.
Mr. Marzo. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Treamer. Yes. Mr. Sullivan. Yes. Dr. Camp. Yes. Okay. Oh, Dr. Campbell may say one other thing, and I keep forgetting to do this. Mr. Shay, thank you very much for
working so hard on the subcommittee. I don't want anybody to think I thought you didn't do a good job. I'm good. All right. Um, we have no changes to the agenda schedule. Um, any board matters to for discussion, which is when this
discussion should have taken place. Nothing. All right. We'll move forward. Mr. Sh invite our guest. All right, I think we're ready. Good evening.
Good evening. The lights have not been changed. It's like It's pretty bright, man. They They put new lights. I think they're uh It was about 20 It was about 20 years in the making to change the light bulbs. It looks like Jesus is coming down on you. Yeah, need my sunglasses.
You look very authoritative. Thank you. Good evening. Uh this evening we have an application for preliminary and final site plan approval for construction of a proposed addition to an existing warehouse building which consists of approximately 61 square ft
entrance a 2,000 square foot uh first floor warehouse addition approximately 8,000t second floor office edition and a 8,000 approximately 8,000 foot third floor office edition. The property is located in the HC highway commercial
zone. Uh we will get through testimony that the uses are all permitted uses. Uh it's just an expansion of what's happening on the site. Uh we have four uh witnesses for you this evening. Our engineer, our planner, our architect, and our traffic expert. Um we will also
get to the point where you'll see a very pretty rendering. Um I know I'm sure as many of the board members have probably visited the site. The site is not the most pretty. Uh but I but I promise you once we get through this application uh and the renovations and additions are
built, it is a much uh much nicer site um for everybody. Uh the property is approximately 7.78 acres in size. There are some wetlands uh on the site and we will uh address those comments as well. Uh at this time, if we can, I'll call my
first witness, Mr. Ysei, the uh engineer. Well, good evening. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I affirm. All right. Please state name and spell your last for the record. Joseph Portoi, P O R T N O Y, licensed
professional engineer, state of New Jersey. My license in good standing. I've been before this board on several occasions in the past. Um, we accept your credentials. Welcome. Thank you. And I believe the exhibits have all been pre-marked and previously sent over.
Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, the history of this site um the site received um the background. It received um approval back in 2016 for a proposed warehouse for a
proposed building addition. Um, as noted before, the site is on um the site is on North North County Lauren Road. It's in the AC zone. Um, the it's occupied by a
printing business, 3D Rose. They were the applicant on the the 2016 application. They do custom printing on gifts, mugs, clocks, keychains, things like that. Um, and that they were the applicant. um on the previous application, the current
applicant has purchased the business and the property. So, it's a continuation of that. No, that's that same bis um that same um business is currently operating on the site. Um and we're proposing a a proposed a
horizontal and vertical building expansion for that. Um I would should maybe go through the use first because I know there was a question regarding um Mr. Peters had brought up some um question about the use the existing use.
I know it is printing um is printing on gift items um as as testified as as the same as was in the in the 2016 application and we propose to continue that same use um and with the proposed
addition there is proposed to um part of the proposed addition will be used as office space. So the ordinance does allow um professional offices, built um business offices, commercial offices, printing, lithograph, publishing or
photocopying establishments are all permitted uses in the zone. It also permits a combination of two or more of the above permitted uses um or other uses similar to those listed above. And I believe just just also to clarify
uh the footnote or the question that was raised by Mr. Peters was if there is manufacturing going on because manufacturing is not a permitted juice. Uh and I I will give Mr. Peters credit. He raised the same question in 2016 uh in his review letter in that report. Um
and the resolution specifically talks about that no retail sales are conducted on site. All operations are essentially receipt of product, printing of logos and the shipping of same. And that's reading right from the resolution of 2016. The same exact business is occurring today. Uh, and we'll get to
more testimony on that, but the general idea is they may receive a a a pallet of of coffee mugs and they print a logo on the coffee mug and ship it out. There is no manufacturing and and that could stay as as obviously one has to be a condition of approval because we're not
asking for that use. Um, but that was a question raised previously and that is the same use that's happening today. May I ask uh considering operations, will those offices be occupied by only by people who are involved in the business
of the warehouse? So, so there's more than one and we'll get to when we get to the site. There's more than one office space. I see that. So, so not all of them, but again, I'll leave out to the testimony, but the to answer you quickly, not all the office space is just for the the printing
business. Um, but we'll we'll get the testimony breaking out. um the different areas. Madam Chair, I want to thank um Mr. Feffer for the introduction. I know they have a planner as well. I just think it's important when you have in the HC
zone 70 permitted juices and you can have more than one in a building. I think it's important for the purposes of enforcement, for code enforcement, to simply indicate that you're going to have permitted uses
because then it becomes really simple. There's a list. It might be seven pages long, but there's a list. If you're not it, it's not permitted. So, I appreciate we didn't really get a we get sort of we get a lot of standard one-page statement operations prepared by nobody. It's just
a blank word document. So I always think it's important for this board a to retain jurisdiction and b to have a good record for code enforcement and zoning that they indicate in the statement of operations that in the particular zone they're proposing only conforming uses
that will be stipulated within the resolution 100%. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So let's just uh do you want to go back to that now or do you want to discuss it later with the planner? Let's go. We have the plan and
we talk about all the different uses on the site. I just wanted to get that out of the way because it was raised as a jurisdictional question. Yeah. I just want to make sure I specify it for the resolution so that it's it's absolutely clear. We have plenty of time to clarify Line Road. Um approximately 7.78 acres.
Um it's surrounded by um on the north side of that on the property across the street is under construction right now a commercial building with retail and office space. Um to the there's a commercial building to the east. There's
a self storage to the west is vacant. Proper behind is vacant. Um there are a couple structures on the site. There's a original masonry building in the front, a long narrow building. Um, behind that there was a small building. We'll we'll
get to plan. We'll show that more detail. There was a small like um building that was used for office space and there was a rear storage building in the back. The 2016 application was to construct this steel building that was
in between the um original um you know masonry building and the off and the office building in the back. Um so those are the ex the remainder of the site has some paved and gravel parking
areas in the rear. Um so it's proposed to continue that same use as noticed um just the 3D rose printing um there just about the operations they currently have
10 to 13 employees for the majority of the year in some peaks they have some seasonal peaks holiday times where they have more business where they bring in some temporary employees um so peaks around about 20 employees um their
operation Monday through Friday. Um, their typical hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Most most of it gets done in the morning. the afternoon they're they're pretty much shut down except for some peak times of the year where they're they'll be open till you know 5
6 and they may be open on Sundays but for the majority of the year it's Monday through Friday about 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. all of their sale. There's no retail sales occurring on the premises for the existing business which will continue. Um everything is either orders
online sales but there's no customers retail coming to the to the property. Um just to um to summarize some of the environmental conditions on the site, there is a stream running through the
back of the property. It's a south branch with Tiaank River. It's a category one water. Um any our project area is located well above any flood hazard areas. Um then we've evaluated that based on the DP's methods. Um
portions of the site are within the repairing zone. The back portion of the part area which we'll clarify in the plans. Um anything that we're proposing as an actively disturbed areas qualifies for DP NJP permit by rule. So, no
application to DP is required for any um activity in the repairing zone. There are wetlands located the rear in the in the rear of the property along the stream and there's a ditch draining from the county road which caused the
wetlands to form along the ditch. Um no disturbance proposed within any of the wetlands or transition areas. The project did receive a LOI. Uh the property did receive an LOI from DP confirming the wetlands limits which has
um the it has expired. We did have the wetland the the surveyor go out reestablish the wetlands flags. We had Dubo and Associates who was original wetlands um consultant inspect it and confirm that all original flagging um
that the original wetlands is is accurate um that there's been no change to the conditions um and the the LOI and and the and the Dubo a letter from Dubo have been submitted to the town um in our LA in our no in our last submission.
So we're requesting a waiver. This is in the conservation zone overlay which requires submission of LOI. So we did request a waiver from um providing a new LOI based on the no delineation and confirmation by Duboce and as stated nothing there's no activities proposed
in any wetlands or wetlands transition here. So no application to D is required. Um can we go to the proposed rendering the site plan rendering the the site plan? That's the architectural Yeah. color sipline. Yes.
Thank you. Okay. So this illustrates a proposed addition. There is a proposed um horizontal addition on the ground level which is about 2,141 square feet. And this what's what's
shown in white those are the existing buildings. Um what's shown in the yellow orange is is a proposed addition. So there's a horizontal addition at the end of the building. Um and what's shown over here I'm pointing to is a vertical addition over the existing main street
building. It's currently a one-story building. It's proposed to construct an additional two stories above that. So the ground story edition is approximately is 2,141 square feet and the second and third floors will wrap or
will be this L shape um will be 7,762 square ft per floor though the original architectural plan had a slightly higher number that was accounting for um this last 317 square ft. There's a porch on the second and third floor. So the first
floor goes all the way around. Um the second and third floor have a porch balcony porch area over there. Um existing use will remain on the first floor of the to Holton entire building and will be utilized in the proposed
addition. will the architect will go through the floor plans explain the use but the the printing use will extend into the first floor um and the second and third floor will be used for will be our proposed office space. Um there was
an existing um building that that was housing the office space associated with the printing um which is being relocated to the rear of the site. to the existing building um that's currently located over here is being moved to the back. Um
we're proposing to reconf figureure the parking area for more efficient circulation. Um we can look at the existing conditions plan but the the right now the circulation is pretty is you know not the most efficient. There's a building in over here loading is
against the back of the building. in order for for trucks to load. They they're blocking parking spaces. Um we're proposing to we're to reconfigure this a more much more efficient circulation, add additional parking and
add additional parking in the front. Um the building conforms with front um with with a front yard setback, the 60 foot front yard set back, rear yard setback. Um sideyard setback is 25 ft required. We
are we're more than 50 ft to the property line. However, we do require variance being that this is in the conservation overlay zone. setbacks um need to be um the zone requires setbacks to be measured from the wetlands limit
and mentioned there's a d there's a wetlands along a ditch over here um that those wetlands are um the ditch was formed by discharge from the county road there's a head wall over there discharging to county road um they've been determined by a DP to be ordinary
resource value no they're not there's no buffer on that because it's associated with the ditch so We're we our proposed setback to that um when measured to the wetlands is 20 um 21.65
ft. Um we're compliant with coverages again in the overlay zone coverages are met are we have to exclude the wetlands areas from our co in our coverage calculations we comply with the 30% building coverage and 75% um impervious
coverage. Our proposed building coverage is 18.4% our proposed impervious coverage is 53% excluding the wetlands areas. Um we do we are requesting a height variance um where 35 ft is permitted and where 38.4T is proposed
and that when the architectural plans will will show you the proposed um building and uh the height that the height is being proposed to get and the architect will go through the the building design and know discuss the
height variant the height no of the floors and the variance. Um it was noted a parking setback for from the rightway which will we will um 20 there's a 20 foot parking setback to the rightway. Um all all of our parking in front of our
parking space is 20 ft. We had slight encroachment by this turnaround area but we will reconfigure that turnaround area to eliminate that any any variance from there. Um we're proposing to maintain the same the existing access from north county
line road. This will be know there's a pending Ocean County Planning Board application. Um so we'll we'll we'll utilize the same know the same driveway. We have um pro provided a circulation
plan. Are we able to go over to the circulation plans? Um that up here I don't see that. um okay where it was uploaded but if not
then we could just I'll just illustrate on the plan on on the exhibit plan if you don't have that we can go back to the last exhibit yeah if we don't have that up here then we'll just go back to the last exhibit I guess isn't that the wrong that talks about
the edge what you just showed was the talked about something that the edge restaurant it's the not not the right address. That's not argument. Okay. That's not Yeah, that's not I didn't think so, but I just want to be clear. So, something got mixed up there.
Um, so the current loading um of proposed loading is right over here. That's part of the re part of what's being accomplished with this horizontal addition. Right now, there's loading to the middle of this warehouse of the the the steel building here which are
blocking parking spaces. Um we had submitted a circulation plan showing how you know trucks can circulate here and back up to this loading area. Um the their typical deliveries are are UPS
trucks. They're getting know um main most of their deliveries are they're getting infrequent deliveries of know some larger bulk items but then the regular deliveries of their stock is know as they're printing they're sending out they're receiving mugs or whatever
it may be they're printing it and then they're sending them out by UPS trucks. So the majority of their deliveries are small or box trucks and UPS trucks. So we've submitted a circulation plan showing the fire truck and truck circulation. We are also um we are
proposing um under we are we demonstrate a fire truck circulate around this parking lot get full access of full along the length of the building which fire trucks cannot do right now. Um, we are also proposing with this driveway along the front,
we're proposing a um egress uh grass pa egress onto County Line Road. This way fire trucks could circulate um through over here. We've submitted to the um to the fire official. We have um we addressing any comments he has regarding
some extra signage um boxes, things like that. But he did not have any concerns regarding circulation. um wanted now to discuss parking and this is something that we've discussed with Mr. with Mr. Peters. Um the existing use there are two uses proposed
here. The printing use and and the office use. The office use is more straightforward. Um the printing use is um not specifically identified in the parking ordinance. Um the parking ordinance does note that the parking space requirements for use not
specifically mentioned herein shall be the same as required for a use of similar nature as determined by municipal agency based upon that use enumerated herein which is most similar to the proposed use. Um based on our review the use that seems most relevant
of anything that listed in the ordinance is manufacturing. Even though this is as we say this is not a manufacturing use um but the there's there's a use manufacturing industrial establishments research or testing laboratory bottling
plant or similar uses even though this is not manufacturing no per se is no it's printing but there is no printing it's identified in the ordinance um and I note um this was in the previous the
2016 application Um the board did um know the the applicant the application was approved based on um using providing parking um based on manufacturing the manufacturing standard of one space per
500 square feet for the space in their building associated with the printing and um and warehouse for the storage space. So in the 2016 application they
just assume a 5050% of the building they provide parking based on one per 500 and 50% of the building they provide based on one per one and a half thousand. Um so so so just to clarify just want to make sure
the previous application again neither the previous application nor this application proposes manufacturing. However, printing which is a permitted use in the in the ordinance and in the zone does not have a specific specifically enumerated parking standard. Correct.
Correct. And is your understanding from review of the previous resolution from 2016 as well as your review of the current ordinance if you were looking for to try and match up a use for the parking standard. It's your opinion that the the
manufacturing would be the most um most similar to what this applicant is doing while he's not manufacturing just the printing use it would match up. Is that correct? Yeah. Printing mass is more with manufacturing that with any other use that I was able to identify. And just
want to clarify again that the the Jackson ordinance uh it suggests I know we'll get into more testimony later on but it suggests that if you don't have a specific parking standard you should look for one that is the most similar. Is that correct? That is correct. And manufacturing or
then the manufacturing standard specifically says or similar uses. So the manufacturing was not intended specifically for manufacturing its similar uses. And just to clarify one last time, the applicant is not seeking a manufacturing use. We're just
utilizing that for a parking standard. That is correct. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. If I might, I want to thank the applicant um actually the attorney and the engineer for their testimony and their explanation so it's clear on the record. I don't take any exception to it. However, I would like
two things. One is there should be a breakdown submitted to the board of the proposed uses that are getting these parking standards because obviously warehousing and manufacturing are much less parking intensive than
office space. So there are some of us here who are over the age of 35. How's that for a nice number? So we know that generationally buildings will will change. And what I want to make sure is that it's in the resolution
so someone can look it up that this and I'm going to take a a guesstimate a 35 or 36,000 square foot building can't be all office space. There's not enough parking for it. So the applicant understands that they're sort of painting themselves in the corner by saying we're going to have two floors of
office and what we have downstairs is A and B. It's it it's from parking perspective some manufacturing some warehouse. that parking requirement is less intensive than if it was just good oldfashioned office space. So if they wanted to do a tenant fit up and take
out 3D rose printing and put an office in they don't have enough parking. It just needs to be clear on the record. That's why if we put it in the resolution at least zoning officer or code enforcement can see it later that this is I mean they can see it if they pull out the site plan because it'll be on there. I think it's easier if we have
it in the resolution. This much square footage was set aside for this All that being said, for the purposes of making a record, I don't take any exception of Mr. Portight's testimony as it relates to the amount of parking being provided. Thank you. And we agree and I believe we have those calculations. We'll get to them.
And the applicant stipulates to that to submitting a uh Yes. Okay. Yeah. If you would go through those numbers here because I do have them by percentage probably be good. By percentage. What? By percentage. By have it calculated by percentage. Um
I have square feet and yes right but the okay the what we're proposing is the in the building um in the building and masonry building
an in addition about um 6,91 square feet of associated with the printing which is we're applying the manufacturing parking standard. um 11,796
square ft um is being used for storage which we're applying the warehouse standard. Um there is a the existing 1,332 ft office in the back which will remain
office. We are proposing 16,274 square feet of office. of that 750 ft square feet of of of is on the first floor of the building that just associated with lobbies, staircase, um
elevators to go up to the upper floors. And then we have 7,762 ft of office on each of the second and third floors. Based on that, the required parking is no based on those raw numbers, uh
required parking is 108 spaces. um we're proposing um EV parking spaces. So the adjusted requirement would be 98 spaces when we are proposing we have 100 and 101 spaces uh being provided
and we there was an exhibit I'm not sure if you have that here. We did prepare an exhibit showing the breakdown of the of the square footages on the first floor. Could we see that please? I'm because I'm a little confused. I thought you said 180 parking spaces. Did you
No, 101. 108. Okay. 108. Yes. 108 is a total required um before the EV credit. Um which is 98 after the EV credit. Um do we have that exhibit? It's not loaded here, but do you have that was
sent over this afternoon, so I'm not sure if you have that if you have that loaded in here. No, there was a different there was a different exhibit that was sent this half. That's the one that came I'm No, so that was that says the edge.
No, that's the wrong one. Yes, that's a different project. So, okay. Different block and different the wrong attachment got attached. I do have a I do have a um I do have a paper copy if you want to pass that around.
May I ask about the the office building in the back? How how much uh space is there and what's the use? That is that was originally used as office and that's proposed. How many offices? It's 1,332
square feet. Um how many Mhm. I don't know the that I don't know the floor plan of that. That was what that space was originally used as an office space for the for 3D Rose, right?
I I have one question. Does Does that make any change on our parking issue? Adding that building in that's accounted for in our parking numbers. Yes. All right. In your square footage. So,
correct. I'm sure that's part of the stipulation you're going to give us the list. Thank you. That's accounted for. Yes. Do we also have the exhibit showing the existing conditions? It would be help. I just want the board to see. Yeah, that was in the site plan that was
submitted earlier. Um, it was a site plan that was submitted earlier, but I don't see that loaded in here. Okay, that's Oh, here are the circulation plans. Yes. um which I mentioned earlier. Do you also
have the site plan um full set? So this is just once once this is up here. Let me just Okay, here's a full set. Can you go to the second sheet? Okay, this is our existing conditions
and demolition plan. So, and I think if we can just wait for one second on this exhibit, uh, I found it helpful because when I first looked at the application, I was trying to understand it that corner and Yseph, if you could just point to where the building that we're moving is right really smack in the
middle of the traffic, cars coming around. I found when I looked at it and I discussed with with Mr. Portoi, the flow of traffic and cars and fire um and deliveries, how they get in, it really blocks a lot of the traffic flow by
moving that to the rear of the site. Um again, just from not as as a professional, just looking at it, it seemed like the flow was a lot better and opened up the whole center for parking. Additionally, all the Y, am I correct in stating that all of the
containers that are on site, all those in the rear of the property, those are all uh to be removed. Is that correct? Right. Now, I suggest no exterior storage. Correct. Correct. And that will be stipulated. No exterior. That is stipulated. I just I know that a lot of the board members are very
proactive and visit the sites and so if you would go to visit the site today, you would see a lot of these containers and whatnot. I saw it tonight. Yes. And that's why I want to just be very clear on the record that what you saw is going to be removed um for this application. So just to illustrate that existing
circulation right now you're coming in and for truck these are are striped as loading areas against a building over here and over here. So a truck would pull in and to back up to a loading area. They'd be sitting in this parking aisle blocking um cars um while truck
would be loading. um addition because there's no circulation. These are deadend parking aisles. Here there's a dead end. Here there's a dead end. So there's no circulation. Any vehicles coming in need to turn around. So our proposed parking is a a lot more
efficient. Loops around. Right now emergency vehicles cannot get up to the building without like backing up. This will allow them to circulate around the building and also provide access to the front of the building as well where right now there is no access. Okay.
I think Mr. Sullivan has a question. Yeah. I have a question about the accessible parking. Uh do we have the five accessible parking spaces that are required? We do. We have accessible parking. If we go back to the the layout exhibit
the next one. Thank you. We have two over here, two over here, and one over here. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. The first level is is the the printing
business. Um so the printing business is occupying um primarily is occupying this um existing the masonry building. It's associated with the printing bit. It's it's labeled warehouse. Yes. I just
want to be clear. That's ex That's this existing building. Um that was a building that was approved what's labeled warehouse was a building that was approved in 2016. That's the roof that you're seeing over here. So that's just a singlestory That's nothing's going on top of that.
That's remaining. It's It's labeled second and third. Um there's no It's labeled second and third floor. They're identical as second and third floors. the within that the office base associated with the with that building
correct correct so I believe the the some of this office space will be utilized by the by the applicant directly and potentially some of it may be leased out. Some of it will be will be intended to be used by the applicant himself for his
own office. He's leased he's all he's right now for the for this business and other businesses that he owns. So he's leasing office space somewhere else where he tends to move it into here. Um and but some but some of it may be leased out separately.
Correct. No, I do not know that. It could be more than one operator for the office. It shows it on the architectural plans. Yeah. Mr. Rogers, you may want to um wait
until the architect listen to that. They may be able to partition and see it clearly. Yeah. Thank you. That that's what we plan. Yeah. Just just so we can Yep. Let me try to wrap up here if there's no um in regards road improvements that's
been submitted to the county. Um the county is requesting right now there's um curb and sidewalk along portions of the site. Um the county is requested to um finish up the curbing along the site.
Um the sidewalk ends approximately where that ends by the by the drainage ditch. Um there was a waiver granted um in 2016 from providing sidewalk along the remainder of the of the frontage. um
because of that because of that ditch. Um so we would continue that way. I don't know if that requires a new waiver or a continuation of that waiver um for providing sidewalk. Um it's the site is currently serviced
by water um public water which we would continue know continue to be serviced by water. Um there is right now there's no sewer service. There's a existing septic system. We propose to remove abandon the septic. Um there's a sewer main being
installed as associated with a development directly across the street. So we're proposing connection into that um proposed sewer main. Um I know there was a some confusion because of um the plans identify force a pump force main.
Um we could make a gravity connection into the site but it can't reach all the way to the building. So, we're going to pump from the building into that and then have a gravity connection. So, that'll be a private, no pump in the building, but it'll be a gravity connection to the to the new sewer going into North Carolina.
We'd want a stipulation that as soon as possible, you would transfer from the septic system to the uh municipal utilities and that would be stipulated so that you can't stay on the old system. That's important.
That's fine. I think the only condition the only comment I would have to that is we're at the at the behest of the other project. I'm not sure. Do you know where how far they're along? Is it in the road yet? They're in construction. The project's under construction. I'm not sure where the where the sewer is.
We're not against your So when when possible, yes, you will as soon as possible up to the municipal utilities authority. So basically when capacity allows for it when there's when there's when there's a connection available and the capacity
we're in agreement I just want to be clear we can't control yes okay eventually that street yes okay regarding stormware this is not classified as a major development um we we provide a stormware summary to the
boy engineer um but and it is under stormware review as well you know from the the county and the soil conservation district. Um we we have proposed landscape um landscape along along the
frontage along the eastern property line. We just received um reviews um some no comments from the tree expert and we will we'll address those and comply. We have we have new proposed site lighting on the um for the parking
areas. um want to discuss signage. I was not noted um the arch when we show you the architectural plans there are building mounted signs that were shown on the architectural plans. Um I'll just
summarize it over here and the architect will show them when she presents her plan. Um there are there are three the architectural plans submit do show three building mounted signage at at the top of B of the building there's a logo sign and an address sign as two separate
signs and then another um building logo sign and the ground level. Um so the total area of the signs is 45 square ft where 80 is permitted but there will our waiver is required based on that because
um the ordinance allows one sign only allows one building mounted sign and and at a maximum height of 25 ft. Um and this the sign is proposed to be um near the top of the building which is higher than 25 ft approximately 39 ft. Um
some other miscellaneous um there's a proposed trash enclosure in the rear of the site right near the loading zone is being um private picked up by private hauler. Um as shown there there's no
landscape around it but we will reconfigure to provide the landscape screening around it. We are requesting a waiver for curbing. There's a between enclosure and the parking area as there's no curbing proposed in the in
the existing and the proposed parking area. Um any roof any HVAC equipment will be roof mounted and screened. Uh there's existing generator located in front of the property bill. We will propose
screening around that. Um and we are will comply with the cre clearing grading and and those and the fill ordinances. Um just to summarize the the variances and waiverss
um you know there was a variance from side setback um where when measured from the wetlands were 21.65 with 25 ft is required. There's a height variance of of 38.45 45 ft where 35 is permitted. Um
just summarize some of the design waiverss that were noted in the professionals review. Um um there's a requirement to have curbing around the parking areas. We um we have cur proposed curbing around the front
parking lot. The rear parking areas are are are uncurbed now and we're maintaining that to maintain drainage patterns. It runs off now to the stream. We are proposing stone trenches around um the edges of it to catch a war,
infiltrate some of it and and slow down that runoff and we'll provide additional calculations for that some additional modeling. Um as part of that um there we have a a waiver where no parking stall should utilize required entrance and
exit drives or main circulation drives. We have parking spaces along um the main circulation drive. um well um a waiver for um planted islands where we have striped islands um as exists now
but in the reconfigured parking area we also have um striped islands um where the the previously granted waiver for for sidewalk along North County Line Road. um the sign variance which I noted
that were assigned higher than 25 ft and um multiple signs and the the curbing um the curbing um where there's no curbing in between the trash enclosure
and the park and the parking area. Mr. Peters, Mr. anything uh anything missed on uh your comments? I'm pretty much good u from the engineering perspective. Um um the applicants correct that the site is
impacted by the conservation overlay zone um uh for the for the wetlands. Um a LOI was previously secured um and a conservation eent was established and I have no problem with you know waving a requirement for any more D review.
There's a conservation easement already there. The applicant has provided documentation from the environment environmentalists that the um wetlands haven't changed. So, I have no issues with that. But we're going to extend the curbing along North Carolina County line. There is the county has requested
we extend it um along the rest of the frontage. There is no there are no wetlands along that portion. The wetlands start after the head wall and as I know that portion of the wetlands does not have a buffer on it. So there's no buffer on that. There's no wetlands
constraint by putting the curbing in. That's all. Um Mr. Porter, you had spoken about curing a variance request for parking along County Line Road in your testimony and I didn't quite follow along. Could you clarify that?
So the there's a 20 foot parking setback front yard parking parking set. um set back. So um right now this there's a there's a parking area, dead end parking area, and we have this turn around. So
to back up and turn around into the parking area itself, the parking stalls and the 24 foot wide drive aisle opposite the stalls are all outside of that 20 20 foot setback. So they all comply. This turnaround was aligned with
the parking with the 24 foot wide drive aisle. So due to the angle, there's a slight encroachment. I think if we go to the layout plan, um can we go to the the full set site plan? The last one, if we
go to the next sheet, um and if we zoom in over here, I think that's that's our area if we're able to zoom in. Um and your testimony was that you'd be able to reconfigure that.
Yes. So right now the um so anything opposite the stalls that's all complying with the 20 foot setback but then as this extends out it um encroaches beyond that 20 foot parking setback line. So we can adjust this geometry to put a little angle on
that won't affect the operation but then then we'll just get rid of that um that that variance that was noted. Thank you. That's all I have. Madam Chair, uh one of the things where we've been discussing on this board is the um
having two uh one in driveway, one out driveway. Is that looks like there might be a possibility to do that? Now I know it would be up to the county. But would that be something that you could do?
Have an entrance and then an exit on the where you now have your entrance and exit could become an exit and where your red line is right there. Could that be an entrance?
Well, I would have to review with the traffic engineer and also with the county. I understand that. But one of the things we're looking at is that for a safety feature that that might be a possibility. So we we can't review that. It would be subject to county. We also need to just
review. We'd have to make sure that and so that you know and I understand the county is not crazy about it, but Jackson is is liking it. Yeah. So we have no problem exploring it. But I would just ask again should the board uh vote in favor of the application it would be a suggestion
that the applicant would agree to explore but not be a condition that that we would have to come back to the board. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. I believe some of it is intended to be filled by the applicant himself.
about public. Well, so again, for the for the printing business, there is no we're not open for the public. It's a online. It just ships. There's no um no sales. There's no retail sales coming in. As far as the office, it's office use. So
again, could somebody have a meeting? Yes, they could have a meeting in their office that someone would come to, but it's not a a I'm sorry. Could you please use the microphone? Could you please use your microphone?
Use your mic. Pull it. Just pull it closer. I I believe we have no problem answering them, but I would like to have the architect answer the questions because she's the one who designed and could answer that better. Not a problem.
I think I think I understand. Um because there there is a cultural non-mixing of men and women in the same social area. In some cultures, in the culture of the people building this
building, they want to provide space for men to gather in like a room, a um maybe a a meeting room or a social room and women to have their own separate social room. That's why those two things exist
on that one floor. The question I'm going to have is I don't want to see those meeting areas made into other offices number one and the suite number one divided up and made into multiple
offices. That would change things perceptively. Okay. So that you're going to stick with this plan and that's going to be stipulated to that the plans you submitted are the plans that are going to be built
and you will not change the social areas into office areas. I'm just going to preface that with as long as it's IBC compliant. As long as it's IBC compliant. Okay. If the building department requests changes for IBC issues, they're going to
have no choice but to but to change it. And I just also not objecting, just would like to have the architect confirm any of those questions and and also the date of which plans we're talking about so there's no questions later on. All for clarity and clarification. Thank you.
I also just you know regardless of that the parking requirements are based on the square footage. Square footage understood. Right. So, it's not going to change any of those. Um, if anybody has any other questions for Mr. Foroy and then Yes, I do. I do. You want to go first?
No, go ahead. I'm going to build on what Dr. Campbell was saying, the proposed emergency access spot where you have your turnaround spot with the the darker brown.
What is that property there? Is that wetlands or protected or anything? There is a um there is a wet there's a ditch over here. So that ditch is wet land. So there's um from the county there's a
drainage system with a discharge here and there's a head wall and that creates so first with the topography it drops down to that ditch. Um and then the wetlands are along the ditch. It doesn't come up. There's no buffer on that. So
we can um explore this area. How many feet away is that from the building? 30 from the building. It's about about 22 feet away from the closest point on the building because
fire department access wise we we try to agree on 270 degrees and a little bit extra so the fire trucks can peek around the back. So, in my eyes, a double-edged sword to fix it all is we move that entrance slightly past the edge of the building. Get that
as an entrance. Now, you have full fire department access to all four sides and it corrects what Dr. Campbell was pointing as the dual flow in and out. I mean, maybe that would help you enhance it with the uh the county as a fire
department thing. So we can we I guess regardless of whether we able to put the access or not we can see how far we could pull this um in the building just based on the wetlands and topography but we can explore pulling that even if the
county won't let the access or it doesn't work from it but um but we will explore pulling that as far as we can. You can't pull it to the corner of the building but if you need to like move that I don't see that being a problem if if you could make it work. I mean, use what you got. If the fire department
part of that helps you, then that will kill two birds with one stone. Yeah, the topography does drop down there. So, we'll need a review how how far how how far we can pull that the uh parapit is that why you're going over height building?
No, the ar architect will testify to the height. No, to the building to the floor to the floor um heights and and the and the height variance. Where's your EV parking on at this building? The EV parking, if we go to the um to
that full set again. Um the last tab. Thank you. Um we have the EV. You could zoom in. Um we I believe we have EV parking over there and over here. We kept We know the fire department doesn't like it against
the building. We've um we've moved them away from the building. to have EV parking over here, which is not against the building and um on the east side. Yeah, it's the worst spot you want it because now you're behind the building and you're going to be jammed with fire trucks. I mean, you're better off in
that one corner or out in front or move out. We can we can move at least get it from the street with the fire. We have We have no objection to move it. Yeah. I mean, that's that's something I'm I'm suggesting a little bit more. So, yeah, something to consider with that. Okay. Um
why don't you want to do curbing around the parking lot in the back? Um well right now the site right now is is combination of pave and gravel know areas. Right now it's running off um off
the site. Adding curbing now we're we're sort of maintaining the existing grade existing drainage pattern. Adding curbing will be changing that pattern. Now you're now you're you know you're curving you're stopping that water flow. Now you got to collect it. Now you have to have a concentrated discharge.
Well curbing also keeps people from driving around further than they should too. Right. So we are proposing um we are not all here but we're proposing wheel stops along all all any parking that does have curbing. We're putting wheel stops along there.
We also along these edges we have these stone trenches. So the pavement's adding we have those stone trenches. So it's more of a visual that from doing it. Yeah. Okay. Very good. Um the uh existing building that's open the
the you going to use a warehouse. Is there going to be any petition? I know it's an architect thing, but do you know if it's going to be uncompartmented or I believe it's open, but that's the architect will give you that. Okay. Um the
out buildings single story that's a steel structure. Yes. Is there any um heat, air conditioning, electric in that or is just strictly storage? Just storage. Okay. Thank you. You
Hi. Um I I apologize because I I'm just still trying to figure out where the original business the the 3D Rose is located. It's located in this. This is a there this was an exist I guess if we could go
back one sheet on this. Let's go back to zoom in. It's a little it's a little unclear here because we have the hatching on some of the area disturbance. But this white square over here um you see this line down the middle. Yeah. Zoom in a little more
there. Um, thank you. Okay, so this this um outline over here, that was the original building prior to 2017. Um, that was where the printing
occurred. That was where the entire business occurred. And this this out this building in the back was used for office. Um in 2017 2018 they constructed this metal building. So there there multiple cross connections doors between
these. Um but this is where um I have not been inside. Architect has been inside and reviewed it so she could speak to that. I've reviewed pictures of that. Um but the printing is all going
on in this area. This area is used for storage. So they'll receive they'll have a stock of their mugs and keychains or whatever. All that's stored in here. When they get orders, they bring it in here. They do their printing and um and then it goes out for delivery. So it's
all occurring in this portion and the the business office parts in in that um in that office in the back. And then there are there are loading docks there right now. Right now these are loading areas over
here. So there's no docks per se, but that's where when trucks come for deliveries, they don't can't stop in the middle. They come in the back and they back up to in these parking aisles, which is not great. Now trucks dropping delivering there and no one could get in
and out of parking spaces. And then how will that affect when you have the office there? Um will was that has that been addressed as far as like circulations? Yeah. So if we go to can we go back um
the circulation that um that last the second the exhibit um before this one the the next tab over can you go to that one we didn't go through that one wasn't pulled up before so we didn't go through that in detail we could do that now or Anthony if we
could have the circulation plan one right before Yep. Thank you. This one, the circulation. Yes. So, this had this is a firetruck circulation showing this fire circulation around there and out. And there's a another sheet over here. Um
there's another sheet on this in the same set. This is a truck circulation plan showing the truck circulation here. A truck can pull in, go around here, and back up. And now as part of this, we're creating this um addition over here
extends beyond the original building um to create a loading area where Chuck could load up could load could back up to and there's a corridor which you'll see an architectural plan providing access to the storage and and and the
printing area. So that's the first floor edition over here is also providing more efficient loading then delivery and also more efficient operation because right now everything's passing internally in between.
How many um loads deliveries do they get every day? Um my understanding it's mostly UPS trucks. So I don't know how often but it's most their deliveries are they're getting you know deliveries of the merchandise less frequently their daily
deliveries are as they're preparing days are going out by by mainly UPS and but with office if you're not just going to be the owner right now or or 3D rose um other office people or companies
will have more deliveries you know Amazon or UPS or Staples or whatever. So, is that has that been factored into the circulation part of this? It's a typical for an office building it would be the same. Um circulation is
also not know maybe a few like you said a few times a day you have a UPS a FedEx and a Amazon know coming um during the day maybe maybe a second time during the day if they have a sep um but that's all they would all utilize
that same no loading area the same loading area okay thank you any other questions Yes, they will. They will. What? What was that?
I'm not sure what the name of the business is. It would be part of No, the printing business, but there's other businesses as well. So, I'm aware they have other office space. They're leasing now. I've met him in other office space. So, he would move that his all he intends to move his office into this
building. So it would be no no owner occupied um and anything leasing out there would be managing as well. Thank you. I was going to call our planner next, but it seems like you have a lot of questions on the architect. So I think I'm going to skip it. The board doesn't
mind and call up our architect so we can address those uh questions and comments. And and Mr. Marza, just to go back to your question. So uh traffic safety also looks at the the circulation pattern um as as well as Mr. computers does as well. So they they take a look make sure
that the the trucks are they they adequately have enough radius to come in go out. Um and typically if it's designed to be to satisfy the needs of the fire department and also satisfy the needs of UPS and um FedEx and all that
good stuff. There you go. Uh thank you. If we can have our architects sworn in, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Okay. All right. Uh, please state your name
and spell your last of the record. Miriam Davis, D-avis, licensed architect in the state of New Jersey, project architect at Gut Van Architecture. I have testified before this board before. All right. And the board accepts your credentials. Absolutely. Thank you. Welcome.
Thank you. Um, can we pull up the full architectural set? I believe this is the civil set. We need the architecturals. Uh, Anthony, if you can have them. I think it's identified. See us
that's that's uh that's just the rendering. I believe we submitted a full architectural set. Mr. This is the edge. That's not us. We have copies we can hand out. So, if you want, we can get started while
they're looking. I think we have Don't we Is it this? Does everybody have Yeah. Oh yeah. Yes, we have it. I need a copy. We have Well, here I have that came with our packet last month.
Does anybody else need You have We're good. Additional copies. Joe and I will share. I have more if anyone and these are in these are in color. No, no, no. You're good. Anybody else need She didn't pass. Does anybody else need a cop?
I I'll take a call. I remember back in the day when we had no handouts and no screen. I know just big boards. We had one big billboard and we Anyway, uh Miss Davis, if you can, you heard the questions uh and the comments.
If you can walk us through the architecturals and address whatever comments we have. Yes. Okay. So, the project is located um on North County Line Road. Project consists of an addition to existing singlestory building. The proposed addition includes an increase in floor
area on the first floor as you see on the right of the building as well as the addition of two more stories. Uh the total proposed gross floor area is 34,161 square ft. The first floor has an existing square feet square footage of
16,496 square ft. That's divided between two spaces. So, as testified to the um the existing what we're calling printing area has a square footage of
the existing production area is 6,91 square ft and then the area in the back which is used for accessory storage to the printing company is 11,796 ft. Um one of the comments on the review letter was to indicate the amount of office area on the first floor. The
office area is 750 square feet. You can see it's the lobby, stairs, and elevator in the front of the building. Um, as well as the staircase on the right side of the building. The proposed second and third floor area
is 7,762 ft. Um, if you see on the archite architectural cover sheet, it said 8,79 square ft, but that was including the two porches. If you could see on the second and third floor, we are not proposing any alterations to
the existing buildings. Um the only alterations are the inclusion of a new sprinkler room that will service the building as well as the lobby, staircase, and elevators. So the proposed addition on the first floor includes, you know, that hallway that was addressed by Mr. Poroy leading
to the loading area in the back. We also added new bathrooms and a lobby entrance with a steer at the back of the building going to the second floor. So the second floor is subdivided currently into six office suites. There are also public
bathrooms and storage utility spaces as well as the balcony and the third floor which is what we was designed as owner occupied space. Um the entire third floor will be used by the owner and it's includes offices, a conference room, bathrooms, um and a
balcony. The building height, the proposed building height is 38'5 1/2 square ft. We are requesting a height variance to be able to maintain adequate clearance between floors for an efficient structural and mechanical system while
being able to maintain 9 and 1/2 foot ceiling height that is appropriate for a class A office building. Uh can we pull up the rendering? I'll go over the materials. So, the current rendering includes a combination of ACM panels as long as as
well as some aluminum cladding. Um, we're proposing various shades of warm tones to create some contrast. We also have some aluminum trim around the windows as well as an aluminum clad canopy um which covers the entrance and allows some provides some weather
protection. We have some curtain glass spanning throughout the various floors. Um, and as mentioned, we have we are proposing building signage. There are currently three signs shown on the rendering. We have one hard to see, but
there's one over here, which is also the logo as well as the address over here. Uh, the total square footage of the signs is 45 square feet. And as Mr. report and I testified to we are over the one sign that is permitted and he's
requesting a waiver. The other question that was brought up by the review letters was about being solar ready and the building will be solar ready. Questions Mr. Trump the building is fully sprinkled you said right?
Correct. We it's it will be it's not currently sprinklered. We are proposing a sprint system. The warehouse I'm sure the warehouse um the um the height variance is that because of the power pit that you put
no parapits are not included in building height or zoning code. Um in order to maintain we're trying to propose a class A you know as you see by the rendering a very nice class A looking building. um in order to get the 9 and a half foot ceiling height that's you know typical
and you know expected in a class A building it's not feasible with a 35 foot height. So is there going to be any parap pit on this building? Yes. Yeah, we are proposing a parapit. Um I believe it's shown on the elevation
sheet. Uh sheet A6. Sheet A6 shows uh the three- foot high parapit above the roof and then the area right over the entrance goes up a foot higher giving a a four foot high parapit in that area.
So that'll make it 39 ft. Well, the parapit's not included in the technical building height, but yes, it will be taller. We're looking at the I I think we're looking at the concern about anything more than 40 feet in the Yeah, Madam Chair, I think sometimes
what the fire department wants to know is how tall is it from the ground to get over the top of the power bit. So, let let's stop worrying about whether or not it's a Dvarian or not. Let's give real dimensions. It's 38 1/2 ft to the se to the seal the roof of the building and then in certain areas it
would be four foot higher than that. Is that correct? Correct. Thank you. Good. That's what we needed to know. Yeah. The fire department wise power pits are a good thing. Yes. Because they they help protect people. So, it's a good thing, but we we have fire
equipment that only goes so high. Correct. Correct. Um, see one other thing I had here. The um warehouse is going to be fully uncompartmented.
Is it you have lines drawn on one of them like it's different? So it's existing as is. The lines I think are just grid lines where like the girders are above. Um there are a few walls if you see in the front space. Um we have a couple walls. Again, no changes are proposed to those areas.
So wide open storage. The back space is wide open storage. Correct. Okay. And the back two/3 is wide open. Yeah. The back building is the back area. the original building and most of the front building is also open space. Yeah. I mean, I like the numbers that
you put there. I think it's great. Again, what the fire officials and police have been very grateful because it's it's hard at night to see. So, the they're going to be back, but numbers I'm Yeah. Um,
going to what Mr. Rogers had asked, the name of the building, is that going to be in Hebrew? No. You see here again, you go back to the rendering, the 3D Rose logo is currently shown. You can see and I don't mind if it's going to be in Hebrew that's fine. I
respond in the on the colored one. Yeah, I saw the the one thing. But what I'm saying is if you do, I would request that you just come back and ask for a waiver on that to put duel because we need to start accessing that. I mean,
beautiful building, but 10 years from now, there's going to be 20 of them up and down the road. So, we need the address is very important. The address numbers little little English on here, too. Otherwise, said we need to change what we read, but that doesn't work.
But just something to consider down the road. Okay. And uh that's it. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Barza. Thank you. So the the ex the owner is going to be on the second floor or the third floor third floor.
You see the third floor is fully functions as one tenant space. The second floor is fit out for multiple businesses. Well, you have a bunch of offices on the third floor. So that's for some of the people that are currently supervisor. Yeah. You know. Okay. All functioning under the same company.
Okay. So could we go to the second floor then and speak about the suites? So you have suite three, suite four, suite five and then you have office spaces in those as well. Yeah. So what is the suite exactly?
The suite is one company would rent out one suite and you know utilize with those two dual offices. Is that that the intent? So we there just to be sure here. So we have one suite. Six suites.
There are total of six suites. Okay. Is there an elevator there? Yes, there's an a proposed new elevator at the front lobby. You know, I was noticing that you have the the
materials are coming in at that back corner to a staircase. If they're if if Mason is delivering um a pallet of white copy paper, that's heavy. Wonder
how that's going to go from that back corner to the elevator. I hope there's an agreement that they can use the open space to get their pallet to the elevator because that's going to be some walk upstairs
with their business materials. I'm I'm sure the owner would be okay with them using the, you know, the front to get to the front elevator. And as far as your um statement that 9 and a half feet is what is class A since
when? Well, in my experience, you know, doing office buildings, we typically never go below 9 and 1/2 ft. You know, you could have an old office building that was around for a while. You have 8 foot ceilings. that's not desirable for
tenant rent. There are a lot of office buildings and if it wants you want to have appeal um we try to design it as nice as possible and nine and a half is the standard in the industry of what's the the lowest that you would go but you could still you could go to nine feet you could stay under that height
variance. Well, no, because even the nine feet even the nine feet would gain you a foot and a half, which would still be over the building height and and nine feet is not desirable, but even nine feet, you wouldn't you wouldn't be able to get to that height.
There's spacing I think just to clarify, I think you're asking there's then in between each floor of the nine or nine and a half feet, they need additional foot additional space, mechanicals, um, air conditioning, heat. Madam Chair,
Miss Davis, could the ceiling height be lowered to 8 feet, which is I think what's in this building, and meet the height requirement in the zone? I mean, technically, but I don't I don't believe a new a new office building
would be constructed um and be able to to rent out suites with an 8ft ceiling height. Not the question I asked you. At 8 foot ceiling heights as the architect, would this building be less than 35 ft tall? Yes. Pardon? Yes.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mars. I think the point, and I don't want to speak for the applicant, but we seem to be parsing words here. If there's a standard for rentability or what we like, that's great. You can build an office building at 8 feet. You
can build it at 8 and 1/2, nine, nine and a half. You can build it at 12 feet. I guess at the end of the day, while the witness testified that's they call it class A office space, that's not a standard in the Jackson Township land use ordinance. I think
that differentiation is important. Do I think having 9 and a half foot ceiling spaces in offices is great? Sure. At the end of the day, our office doesn't our ordinance doesn't easily reconcile that when you get above two
stories. We've seen 38 feet five and 78 inches on literally handfuls of applications between the planning and zoning board in the last 10 years. So, it's not unheard of, but it's not a land use requirement in Jackson Township,
which is why we've asked for the variance. It is the industry standard, however. Yes. And and the buildings we have been doing in the last maybe four or five years, what they're terming a class A industry standard now is nine and a half ft.
Correct. Minimum. Correct. Correct. The int the entire the intent is that the entire second floor will be available for businesses to rent up to six businesses in these square footage.
All of that didn't matter if and it's not your question but just want to clarify. It doesn't matter if it's the owner applicant using it as as office or there are six individual offices. It's the same parking requirement that we have calculated for.
No, the he's utilizing the first floor for the printing business and the third floor for the for his own office for the business. Second floor is available for rent as a class A office space. I
have one more question. The occupancy, how many occupant load? Yeah, I wrote it down. I believe you said like 22 or something like that for You want to know for the warehouse or for the offices?
Total. Let's go with the offices. Okay. So again, I calculated per building code. So building code requires you to count the balconies as one per 15 square feet. The balconies here are only going to be used by the offices, but there's no exception to that building
code. So, the occupy load that I'm going to say now is going to be a lot higher than what it will function as, but the acute load of the second and third floors are 73, but 21 of those come from the from the porches. So, I think it was about 50 52
52 of office space and 21, which is it's never going to be 21, but 21 just per building code standards. So for egress purposes, we obviously designed it to go with the max occupant load. Practicality purposes, that balcony is only used by the offices.
So roughly 7073. If Yeah. If you want to go to the max. Yeah. And how many suites and offices are in this building? So we have the six suites on the second floor and then the third floor is one owner occupied suite.
Looks like a lot more when I look at it. Well, it's individ. It's fully fit out. So it's, you know, per his staffing requirements, that's that's what it's divided up for for rental purposes. It's difficult for somebody who owns a building to know exactly how large an
office is going to be at the end result because they someone may desire to have an office that's three of those together, correct? Divided into a waiting room, waiting area. So we never stipulate in the end
how many offices. It's the matter of the square footage regarding parking. That's the issue. We can't determine how many uh offices will be the end result there. That will depend on the owner and to
whom he rents or she rents. Correct. So, respectfully, Dr. Campbell, these plans really don't mean anything. They do not. except ex except I just would like to clarify
the testimony we've given on the third floor that this is what the applicant needs. This is what he's proposing. This is what he's using it for for his own business. The second floor where we're showing the six suites, that's a that's
a general layout. If that shifted, if one person said they wanted to take suite two and suite three for one business. So yeah, we could get rid of that that wall in between. It wouldn't affect the parking, wouldn't affect the the capacity, the load, all that stuff. I think that the the clarification I
think would what I'm in hearing the concern obviously would be the first floor, the printing business and the third floor because that's twothirds of this building. Um how that's being utilized and the testimony is exactly as we've given it. The one that's the unknown is
really floor two, which we've designed as six suites. I I don't think you'd be able to make much more suites out of it. I mean, they get to be pretty small. But down but down the road, if this building sells in five years,
all those walls make mean nothing. So then what do we need a second floor for at all? Why wouldn't we just have the one floor and the third floor and make it two twotory because again there's a whole part of the business part of it the ratables for
the township. Uh it makes it there's a a cost involved meaning again so we went back to what the existing site looks like today. It it's there. It's working. There's office space. Um we're trying to propose something much better and much nicer for the site for
the town. Yes. We're the applicants in it for business. He's not doing this. He's not so altruistic. Um but there is so m Mr. Mars just to answer the question. So, so what happens in reality is that um let's say they go to um get tenants for this facility and one tenant
says you know what I want to take two whole floors or the whole thing right um depending on depending on what they are looking to do they may need to actually reinforce some of the structure or knock down some walls whatever what they do is
that there there's an internal process within the building department where in order to they actually have to get a building department co to be able to come in and do what they want. So, every couple of years, the internal structure of a commercial building typically changes. It happens all the time. People
don't even realize it's happening because they they go into the building department, one lease ends, another lease begins, they go in um you know, one person may be taking over two of the spots or three of the areas and and they have a different need. You know, some somebody may be a call center, somebody may be a medical supply company,
whatever. and they some need tinier rooms or bigger rooms and they'll knock walls down as long as it's not loadbearing as long as it doesn't mess with the internal like infrastructure of the building. Um they go in, they get the CO uh and and they get all the permits that they need from building and
and that's kind of what happens. So what what they present to us is kind of just like a conceptual vision of what they view the building to be. But depending on the the end lease um of of who's taking it over. I mean one person could you know a radio company could come in and and take over the whole company
theoretically. You know somebody and they may have to reinforce some of the structure to be able to handle some of the stuff. They may back they may end up back before the board to do that but that's theoretical um you know where where somebody can come in and just you know do that and then change the
internal um structure of the building entirely. But but that happens routinely. I mean, that happens like monthto month, year to year, uh, all the time in in every commercial district of every township in the county. Um, and and the the building department is the one that that really regulates that. So,
as long as it's it's, you know, code compliant, um, parking, Yeah. then then it's good to go. Yeah. Any other questions? And just one more thing. So, when it comes down to the um to the the type of
building this is, so one of the reasons why they may be asking for this is due to the fact that I bump into this problem a lot up north. I've done a couple data centers myself. So, um they typically ask for for class A rated buildings because of the cabling that's
required that needs to go through the ceiling to get into some of the equipment throughout the building. So, so that's one of the reasons why. Whenever you have a company that is anticipating kind of a highly technological need, they typically need more radius in the ceiling areas to be
able to handle the cabling um for all the technologies that they have running throughout the building. So like they may have gigantic printers, they may have um data centers that that go back and forth between what they're doing on the floor
and and two floors up. And that may require some heavy duty cabling. So, so that may be why they're requesting the the class A building. I've I've personally seen that happen quite a bit in a lot of these these major commercial facilities that have a lot of cabling. They they specifically request a class A
rated building. Um, and that's why they they need that extra couple inches. Gentlemen, anything from you. We'll now call up Miss Cafone. All right. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. All right. Please state your name and spell your last for the record. It's Christine Nazaro. N A Z A R O KFone C O F O N E. Business address is 52 Reckless Place, Redbank, New Jersey 07701. I'm testifying this evening as a
licensed professional planner. I've testified here in Jackson and over 400 other planning and zoning boards throughout the state of New Jersey. I teach planning and zoning courses for the Rucker Center for Government Services and my licenses are current and valid. Thank you. Thank you. The board accepts uh planners
credentials. Um so good evening uh chairwoman and members of the board. Um for the record, Christine Kafone. Uh I did have the opportunity in preparing to come here tonight to review the 2016 planning board action on this property. When you
read the whereas findings in that two of them read that the applicant submitted testimony that the current utilization of the site is for the printing on demand of novelties, trinkets, coffee cups, etc. And then the next whereas reads, the applicant testified that no manufacturing is conducted on the site.
So, I can tell you that um as the applicant's planner, having had several conference calls on this with our project team, that is absolutely the desire of the applicant. I would imagine if the board is inclined to move favorably on this application, similar language could find its way into the resolution. I also in preparing to come
here tonight specifically reviewed section 244-57, the highway commercial zone of your ordinance. I can tell you that it does list out, as Mr. Peters um testified to earlier, 75 or so permitted uses. Um one of which is business offices, another of
which and at multiple times at at subsection 34 as well as subsection 68. It reads combinations of two or more of the above permitted uses in one principal building. But then it also allows things like contractors offices, showrooms, garages, warehouses, and
shops provided, however, that all materials and equipment are stored within a completely enclosed business or building. It allows for printing, lithograph, lithography, publishing or photocopying establishments, and then mini warehousing and self- storage. So, I find nothing about what the applicants
use program that they're profering to do this evening to be inconsistent or contrary to the HC zone. Um, I do agree that we need a certain variance relief relative to the setback. Mr. uh Port Noi testified as to that that we would not
be coming closer than the required setback but due to the fact that we have to take it off that wetland area it is non-conforming and then of course the building height which was talked about extensively um I think that in this application the board can grant bulk variance relief or
in any application under the C1 or C2 section of the land use law the C1 being the hardship the C2 being the absence of any hardship that's the flexible C or if you find one or more purposes of the land use law would be applied here. I think we could look at both simply
because this is an existing developed property, right? One of the hardship criteria we know is in addition to physical features of the property, we have the wetlands, but the lawful pre-existing structures there on this is certainly a lawful pre-existing structure. So, I think that that
certainly will impact the setback variance. As far as the height variance, I don't see a C1 argument, a hardship argument for that, but I certainly do see a C2 flexible C argument for that. We talked um quite a bit tonight about um why we need that height, why we think
it makes it a better project. I think that that's exactly aligned with the C2, right? When you look at the C2, the flexible C, you have to find that you think it's a better zoning alternative. I can tell you that I did look at your ordinance to see if you do allow a height of greater than um what we're
proposing in any of your zones and I can tell you that there are multiple zones here in Jackson Township that allow for a height of up to 50 feet. So I would certainly think that the firefighting apparatus um are appropriate in town as you have other zones that allow for much taller structures. Um, with that being
said, I I think that when you're evaluating this, right, you have to find to grant the C2 that one or more purposes of the municipal land use law would be advanced. I believe there are three purposes advanced of the land use law by this application. Criteria G talks about sufficient space in
appropriate locations for a variety of uses. Um, we are at or below the required coverages for this HC zoning district. Criteria I of the land use thought talks about creating a desirable visual environment. If you had the opportunity to visit the subject property, which I'm sure many of you
did, one of the first instincts I had when I visited the subject property was that it was a bit lacking in curb appeal. And I think that certainly that it will be improved with this application. And then criteria M, which talks about an efficient use of the land. And what that really means to me as a planner is the whole purpose of
that that purpose m of the municipal land use law talks about um policies and and procedures and making decisions aimed at reducing urban sprawl and degradation of the environment in order to have an efficient use of the land. And when you have a site like this that's an existing deserved site
disturbed site and you're sort of enhancing and improving it I think that the board can rely on criteria M. So that's the positive criteria for the grant of the variance. And then we shift our focus to the negative criteria, right? And statutoily the negative criteria doesn't ask you to hold this or
any other applicant to a standard that there be no detriment just at the benefits of the grant of the variance would outweigh any detriments. And as I've been sitting here tonight and I listen to um our other witnesses testified and as we discussed on our numerous calls to prepare our team to come here tonight, some of the things
that when we focus on the betterments, we focus on the fact that you have enhanced circulation through the site. You avoid some of those dead ends. You can now circulate uh fire apparatus properly through the site. The building will be sprinklered. It is not currently sprinklered today. Um we increase the
curb appeal. We have a formal landscaping plan along County Line Road now where we don't have that today. The container removal which as I understand it have been there for a very long time. When I asked my client about those and why they were there and would they be going um I was told that they've been
there for a long time and that they would be going in conjunction with this application. So I think that those are all things that the board can take note of in the negative criteria. The impact on your zone plan and the impact on the public good. And there's a case called the pulland. a pull len case out of
South Planefield. And what it tells us as as planners again is we don't have to cherrypick out each individual variance. We can look at the project totality as a whole and we can balance, right? We balance the positive and the negative. And here I don't get to a level of substantial detriment if the um the
board were to move favorably. Uh the last thing I'll close with is that you last re-examined your master plan just this year, right? It was done in 2025. And one of the objectives in that plan is to provide for commercial development to serve both local and regional needs commensurate with the demands of the
market and based up on both reliable and innovative market strategies. And I think that the testimony from our architect tonight can help the board come to the conclusion that this is a a class A office space that will perform well in the marketplace based on her
testimony of what the the types of buildings that she's developing. So from a planning point of view, I think we meet our statutory burden of proof um for the grants of the variance relief. We satisfy the both the positive and negative criteria and it's my professional opinion that the relief can
be granted with no substantial detriment to the zone plan or the public good. Congratulations. You're the first person who has uh quoted the 2025 master plan. We like to make sure we're current. You you certainly Oh, I'm the first one. That's exciting.
very quickly and got that. Very good job. Thanks. Any questions? I think we probably got all the questions out. I think you did. The rest of our team took those, but then you were able to respond to them. Thank you.
You're welcome. Anything, gentlemen? Well, Mr. Peters does make himself available to us prior to the hearings and I did speak with him. I emailed him over the weekend and called him bright and early this morning. So, he was kind enough to return my call and speak with
me today. Smooth everything out in advance of tonight. How thoughtful. We try. Okay. I have one more witness. I know the boys dying to hear from. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Kennel. Thank you. Oh,
we got to do him again. Come on. She should get a cut. You swear affirm tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. Scott Kennel, Ke Nel with Mcdana and Ray Associates, located at 1431 Lakewood Road, Manisquan.
The board accepts his credentials. I think we might. Thank you. Welcome. Um, our office prepared a traffic study for this application. It's stated February 27, 2025. And the initial phase of our
investigation was to conduct uh traffic counts which we did in January of this year at the intersection of Bartley and County Line Road. uh they were done on Tuesday, January 28th and Wednesday, January 29th and determined that the peak hour
occurred from 8:45 to 9:45 and from 3:45 to 4:45 p.m. Uh the two-way traffic volumes on North County Line Road in the vicinity of the site approximately, 1100 vehicles
two-way during the peak hours. As far as the um expansion to this site, we developed traffic generation uh in accordance with the Institute of Transportation Engineers uh trip generation manual for both the
additional warehouse and office space and determined that during the morning peak hour, the site would generate approximately 32 trips and then 31 trips in the afternoon. From there, we then um extrapolated the existing traffic volumes to a design
year of 2035 consistent with the Ocean County Planning Board protocol utilizing traffic data growth data uh developed by the New Jersey Department of Transportation. And therefore, we had a growth rate of approximately 10% over
that 10-year period. In addition, we included sight specific traffic from two recently approved developments that are currently under construction on the westbound side of County Line Road. The one directly opposite this site and then slightly to the east there's another
commercial development under construction right now and they were included in our um future traffic volumes. It was determined that at the site driveway this the driveway would operate at at a level service B is in boy
meaning that the average delay is approximately 11 seconds for each vehicle exiting the site which is well within acceptable ranges. And as far as the intersection of Bartley and North County Line Road, it is currently operating at overall level service B is in boy and will continue to operate a
level service B with this future development uh expansion to this site. Uh as far as the site design, as was requested earlier, we will discuss with the Ocean County about um opening up a second
driveway uh to serve the site. Uh other than that, we're providing positive on-site circulation not only for the passenger vehicles, but also for the large wheelbase vehicles that'll serve the site. And as was testified, the park and provided is um satisfies the uh
municipal ordinance. That concludes my testimony. Any questions, Mr. Trauma? Are they going to do an acceleration deceleration restriping there, you think, or No, that that the threshold for Ocean
County to require XL del is 200 parking spaces. We're well short of that. The other benefit we have is obviously to the west there is the traffic signal over by the shop right that in my opinion helps the um egress from the
site by platooning and creating gaps in the eastbound direction but basically the th threshold is 200 parking spaces and we're at 50% of that threshold. It's a little bit of a bend there. That's why I was asking that. Uh based on my observations, um
you know, the sightelines are uh meet the the recommended standards. Um and again, based on my 20, 30 years with Ocean County, unless you hit that 200 parking spaces, we know they won't deviate. I was just curious. Thank you.
Okay. You're welcome. Anything else, Madam Chair? Yes, sir. Mr. County, you had an opportunity to review the circulation plans that Mr. Fortnite prepared? Yes. You find them satisfactory for
single passenger vehicles? Passenger vehicles. Yes. Emergency service vehicles. Yes. Garbage trucks? Yes. Articulated vehicles? Yes. Up to what size articulated vehicle
would safely circulate around this site? Based on my review of plans, you could do WB50. um based on the width of the drive aisles and also the on how we have the loading zone set up specifically the
larger building is parallel to the south side of the building so that can easily accommodate an articulated vehicle. I appreciate your input. There was a a confusing point during this evening where we said we currently have loading docks and we have loading and then we
said we're not going to have tractor trailers. are going to have box trucks and single unit vehicles. And I just wanted the board to hear that you find that the circulation is satisfactory for the testimony that was given with regards to the types of vehicles that
are going to utilize the site. That's all I had, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That is our application. Would you like to sum up? You can open it to the public first. Yeah, we we could do that. Is there I don't
think there Well, there might be. Yes, open. Go ahead. Open. There might be. I make a motion to open. I make a motion to open to the public the uh cross-examination of witnesses on this application and this application only.
Second. Demarzo. All in favor? I I. Seeing no one come forward, I move to close the public crossexamination. Second. Demorzo. All in favor? I open the next.
I make a motion to open public comment on this application and this application only. If you wish to make public comment, please come to the microphone. Motion. Second. Demarzo. All in favor? I. I make a motion to close the public
crossexamination on this application only. Sullivan. Second. Demarzo. All in favor? I. All right. I didn't see anyone. So I I formality of my luck somebody files an appeal later on and then there's the
record doesn't talk about opening to the public. It's it's a formality. Um thank you uh board. Thank you for your time. Um I believe as you could see the applicant uh did take the time um to make sure that he put together the best application forward. Uh I believe it's a
big improvement to the site. Um the building once it gets built uh will get off of the septic system. It will get tied into um the the sewer system. It will be a much better um nicer, beautiful building along County
Line Road. Um the testimony you've heard from our engineer, our planner, our traffic, our architect, I believe we addressed all the concerns of both of your professionals and the board. And I would just ask in agreement with the stipulations and comments that we previously agreed to that the board
approve the application as presented. Anything gentlemen? Yes sir. It's a suggestion. It's a requ It's a suggestion. It's a suggestion because those things have are based upon the county's um
right now the county does not uh allow for two uh driveways per um business and and we're making that recommendation quite a bit now. But that's not something that they cannot uh
attest to and we cannot demand is it so there's two two different things going on. So um so with the driveway with the ingress egress um it's the county that that that determines whether or not they get that or not. So, what we're basically saying to the applicant is that, hey, uh, you know, in
gesture of good faith, uh, make the request. Um, if if they get denied the request, then it'll it'll basically fail safe back to what they proposed to us. Uh, but they're as a gesture of good faith and as a condition of approval, they're going to make that that two uh
exit entry exit way uh request to the county to see if they can get it. The Yes. So, so if the county approves it, they'll they'll go with that and then and Mr. Cle will do the engineering and and work with that for the resolution compliance and then with the uh 360
access um in a perfect world, we would love it due to the incumbrances on this prop property is a little bit impractical, but the legal standard for it is 270°ree um radius. So, I I work with that with the with the township engineer, Mr.
Kunliff. Um, we went over all the different uh standards and codes and administrative guidelines and the end result of it is that 270°ree radius is pretty much the the standard now for for fire suppression. So, as long Yes. So,
as long as we get 270 or or close to it, you know, the best that we can do it based upon the encumbrances on the property, that's that's kind of where we want to fall. That's why I asked if they can just go a little bit past it. It gives us It's a good suggestion. It's an excellent suggestion and and they have
agreed that they will research that. Correct. It will not it will not keep them from going forward. And the applicant agrees again to explore both again as indicated by the engineer before there may be some topography issues that do not allow us
to do that extra circulation but we will happy to explore it and that can be you can see the effort stairs. Yes. Yeah. We have no problem. Again, it it if it if we can get it, it makes the it makes the building better. So, we don't have an objection to it. Just we don't want to have to then come back to the board if the county says no or it's
or it's not feasible to get the turn um the circulation. That's all we'd ask. Thank you, Mr. Rogers, for that clarification. All right. We'll uh accept a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve the application
for block 8401 lot 51 141 North County Line Road LLC with the variance requested as a C2 variance level uh section G NJSA40 col 55D-2 stating to provide sufficient
space and appropriate locations for a variety of archite uh agricultural residential recreational commercial and industrial uses and open space, both public and private, according to the respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New
Jersey citizens. Section I, to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. and section M to encourage coordination of the various public and private procedures and activities shaping land development with a view of lessening the
cost of such development and to be more efficient for use of land. And with that I make a motion to approve. Second treamer have a vote please Mr. Marzo. No. Um,
I'm not convinced on the height variance, so I'm not approving. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Yes, Mr. Treamer. Yes, Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Dr. Campbell. Yes. Congratulations. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll accept a motion. I'd like to make a motion that we close the meeting. Sullivan. Second. Demarzo. All in favor? I. Thank you. Have a