That's it. in existence. >> That's That's what Me too. Pledge to the flag >> of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all. All right, everybody. Welcome to the Jackson Township Planning Board. It's June 1st, 2026. Year is flying. >> It's going real quick. Uh, this meeting has been appropriately published in all
the proper places and forums according to the Open Public Meetings Act. And I will leave it off to Madam Chairwoman. >> Good evening, everyone. Uh, we'll have the roll call, please. here. >> Mr. Marzo, >> Mr. Heler
>> here, >> Mr. Parks >> here, >> Mr. Rogers >> here, >> Miss Santoro, >> Mr. Tremor, Mr. Weart Mr. Solomon >> here. >> Dr. Camp >> here.
We'll take a uh motion for payment of voucher for recording secretary for June 1st. Please. >> So moved. >> Second. Sullivan. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Brezie. >> Yes. >> Mr. Heler. >> Yes. >> Mr. Parks. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rogers. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Sullivan. Yes, >> Dr. Ke. >> Yes. And uh we'll take a motion for the approval of the minutes from May 18th. >> So move Sullivan. >> Second. Hela. >> Mr. Brazzy.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Heler. >> Yes. >> Mr. Parks. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rogers. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sullivan. >> Yes. >> Dr. King. >> Yes. We have three resolutions tonight. Resolution number 2026-14
of the planning board of the county of the township of Jackson County of Ocean State of New Jersey granting administrative approval for Six Flags Great Adventure for 2026 capital improvement programs regarding boardwalk improvements block 3101
lot 1101. Just a note that Miss Demarzo has joined us. >> We'll take a motion, please. >> So move. >> Second. Hello. >> Mr. Brezie. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Marzo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Parks. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rogers. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sullivan. >> Yes. >> And Dr. Camp? >> Yes. Resolution number 2026-15
of the planning board of the Township of Jackson, County of Ocean, State of New Jersey, grantsing administrative approval for Six Flags Great Adventure for 2027 capital improvement programs regarding block 3101, lot 11.01.
>> Make a motion, please. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve Sullivan. >> Second, >> Mr. Brazy. >> Yes. >> Mr. Marzo, >> yes. Mr. Parks, >> yes. >> Mr. Rogers, >> yes. >> Mr. Sullivan, >> yes. >> And Dr. Camp, >> yes.
>> Resolution 2026-16 of the Planning Board of the Township of Jackson, County of Ocean, State of New Jersey, grants and minor subdivision approval with required variances for residential use for Aaron and Schiffer Stern, block 6801, lots 31 and 43.
>> Motion, please. moved. >> Second. Sullivan. >> Mr. Bresie. >> Yes. >> Mr. Marzo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Parks. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rogers. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sullivan. >> Yes. >> Dr. Camp. >> Yes. And just a a note to thank our
attorney for getting these resolutions to us in such a timely manner. Thank you. We have a change to the agenda schedule to carry application lot 210001 lot 1 for COJ Holdings LLC from October
5th 2026 to November 16th 2026 with notice required. We'll take a motion on that please. >> So move Sullivan second. Hela >> any discussion on the motion then roll call vote please.
>> Mr. Fres. >> Yes. >> Mr. Marzo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Parks. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rogers. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sullivan. >> Yes. >> Dr. Camp. >> Yes. >> Any uh engineering or planning matters, gentlemen?
>> Any u attorney matters, sir? >> Um just that a a letter of objection was sent to our office regarding uh 510 Whitesville. Uh I will be reviewing it for sufficiency and we'll go from there. >> Thank you. >> Are there any board matters for
discussion? >> Okay. Then we have block 1102 lot 24.02 with block 101 lot 34 WB Ocean 26 LLC.
Traffic impact analysis revised. >> You ready? Anybody? >> It should be. >> It's not It's not on my um >> Oh, that's right. Okay. It's not on here. All right.
It's over there. Um block 19501 lot 21. Pile Najes AOS Inc. 26 Whitesville Road one-year extension. Miss Jennings. Thank you. For the record, I'm Donna
Jennings from the law firm of Wend Goldman and Spitzer. on behalf of the applicant >> as indicated by the board chairwoman. The applicant is seeking a one-year extension of its approval that was granted um by resolution dating September 8, 2025.
I have Mr. Bordon with me to the left if we can have him sworn in and we'll just explain why the applicant needs the extension and the difficulties that we were having um mostly with connecting to the sewer which there's apparently no capacity. So, Mr. Bording could be sworn in. He can give you a little bit more
detail. Please raise your right hand. You swear, affirm, int, tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. >> All right. Please state your name. Spell your last for the record. >> Yes. Good evening. Ian Bordon, the president of professional design services, licensed planner. >> Been here a few times. >> I've been here a few times.
>> Welcome. >> Hello. It's been a while. Nice to see you. >> It's been a while though. >> It's nice to see you all. U Yes. So this is the house of worship that's located at the uh northern end of Whitzville Road adjacent to East Veteran or West East Veterans Highway. Um
the the site is in the RG2 zone in Pinelands and we've been working diligently on a number of items u with the Pinelands Commission who have basically signed off on the project as well as the county planning board and so conservation and we're very close. That
includes the subdivision as well as the site plan. So that's the reason we're asking for the extension is for those regulatory agencies that have taken longer time than the approval period has been so far. I do want to point out for the record one important fact which just
for the record as Miss Jennings noted one of the issues we've confronted is lack of sewer capacity. I think the board's all familiar with that with the Toms River sewer capacity. Uh in this case uh we are proposing a sewer extension to the project. We're working
with JTMUA on that. Uh but in order to build the shel in the interim basis until the sewer capacity is available, we are proposing a septic system actually on adjoining lot owned by the applicant. It's lot 22. It's just a temporary septic easement uh that would
only suffice to allow the site to operate until the sewers connected or capacity is available. Once that capacity is available, it would connect in the sewer. The septic system would be abandoned and that has been approved by Pinelance. We've gone through all the
vetting with Pinelance. >> What's the what's the timeline that we're looking at on that? The the timeline for the sewer capacity is the same answer for every project in this area and that is that there is an agreement between the JTMUA and another developer.
In order to get capacity for for this uh central sewer service area Pinelands region of Jackson, there needs to be a second uh sewer force [clears throat] main constructed from Jackson all the way to
the end of five uh 27 >> 27 all the way to the Boy Scout building if we know the area. So, it's five and a half miles and my my office is doing that project and we've are involved in the permitting of that. We we just
recently received the Caffer permit which is for the Toms River portion and we're we're submitting soon to OCU and D. So, uh, the the agreement has has, excuse me, the agreement between the developer and the JTMUA has a projected completion
date of two years. >> But we're not voting on that. >> No, no, no. You just asked the question. >> You're just putting it in our head. >> You just asked the question. I'm giving you an answer. That has nothing to do with this project. >> How long do you think you'll need for the uh extension? >> One year. >> One year.
>> One year. >> That look okay. And that will uh still require um notice. >> No, >> no, no. It's a statutory >> Okay. >> request for time extension. >> All right. Then um
>> we'll we'll look for questions from the board. >> Mr. Mr. >> We've heard this is about the fifth application of the year. So we're aware of no flow problem. However, as the MUA said, they'll go along with you doing a septic in the meantime. Normally,
they'll give you a preliminary and you do the septic and you commit to hooking up once it's done. >> Oh, yes. And we've already committed to that with the MUA. You got that? We have committed to that because my client wants to connect to the sewer. He doesn't want to. >> No. And >> so, it's just an interim basis. We will connect >> and the second part of this pipe is
almost a loop that they have to do. And you're right. Until they do that, there'll be no flow. So, there'll be a lot of applications coming in like this. the microphone. >> There'll be more a lot more applications coming in like this in the next year or two for sure because uh until that loop is put in or that extension is put in on that line going out through Whitesville
and out to Thomas River that way um there is no flow available and there won't be none for a while. >> That's correct. And in the design I can tell you that in the design of that downstream pipe and system every we've we've considered my office I have
estimated the flows for consistent with the master plan. Um so >> that would be increased pipes compared to what used to be used. >> Yes. And that has been vetted through the MUA engineers as well as MUA. >> Madam Chair, I'm well aware of this problem and and and is a true problem
and I think we're going to have to face this more. Uh some people think well great the MUA turns them down you turn down the application they have a right to put a septic uh system in then with the governing agencies involved the EP or puns whoever it is they have a right to do that so I see no problem with it I
know it's factual >> uh engineer anything from you on this >> may not be so agreeable um at any rate it's time extensions that you're looking for one year to file the subdivision
plat or in addition to the site plan. >> In addition to the site plan >> in addition to the site plan. >> So whatever the site plan hasn't really the protection period hasn't expired yet. >> I understand. >> So you're looking for another year onto what you have and a year to also file a
subdivision plan. >> Yes. And your request tonight is for the extension or for the extension and to modify the approval to allow SE temporary septic system. >> I I personally don't believe a modification of the approval is required
because sewer septic is not regulated by the planning board. But if you feel a modification is required then I would ask for that. >> Absolutely. their representation to the board at the time and the public was this was going to um connect public sewer >> and it will we're not changing that >> but it wasn't this is going to connect
public sewer unless the capacities in there and then we want if that would have been disclosed to the board and the public I really wouldn't be understand >> being difficult but the extension I have absolutely no problem with um I agree 100% there is a problem with the pump station capacity that nobody really
anticipated um but I'll push back on the modification to the approval to allow a septic system which I think would have brought up a whole another issues had that been presented to the board and well I believe we're also bringing in another property
>> for the an easement on the adjoining property yesterday you're bringing in another property for the subject >> so Mr. Clay, you're you're um recommending that we we hold off on any discussion of the septic system until the year is passes and
>> absolutely >> we'll take care of it then. >> Absolutely. Unless you know the board feels you know we can amend that approval as long as there's public notice. Um but >> there's my push. >> I just want to answer my good friend Doug. We never disagree but here we're
going to disagree. um on the other property. Let's let's dig into that a little bit because this is no different than every project we do deals with other properties. This board may not see it. For example, every time we do a county road improvement for
every project, we have to acquire property from adjoining rightaways. This to me is no different than that. It's just a temporary easement on another property. It's not it's not the we're not we're not building anything on it related to this project. No parking,
no no drainage, no anything. So I I humbly uh disagree that >> but you will be building a septic system. >> Of course. >> So this is not the time we we don't think >> we don't think this is the time to have that discussion. >> Well, that's that's your right.
>> The uh the discussion will take place when the public has been notified. >> That's fine. >> Um and tonight we will only vote on the time extension. >> Okay. That's fine. >> Okay. Yeah. So, so basically there's two different things at play here. One, time
extension specific type of application to modification specific type of application. Um, they don't overlap. They can be simultaneous, but but as of right now, it's just statutory right for the extension that's in front of us. So, that's what the board is going to be voting on
>> and we'll make a separate application for the modification as a field change. >> Thank you. >> With notice, >> Mr. Peters, >> from a planning perspective, the zoning of the property has not changed, so we don't have any concerns. >> Thank you. Anyone else from the board
with any concerns? All right, then. We'll accept a motion on carrying this for one-year time extension. >> I'd like to make a motion, but before I do, I wish it was more public here tonight to see how it works. We approved an application one way. When the outside agency couldn't meet it, they had to
come back in front of us. And we said it all the time when it were only the first step. The outside agencies control everything be the pilots or anybody. I make a motion to approve the time extension. >> Second. [clears throat] Sullivan. >> Take a roll call vote please. >> Mr. Brezie. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Mart. >> I'm going to abstain from this. Thank you. >> Mr. Heler. >> Yes. >> Mr. Parks. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rogers. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tremor. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sullivan. >> Yes.
>> Dr. Campbell. >> Yes. Welcome, Mr. Tremor. >> I didn't see you come in. [laughter] >> All right. Thank you very much. So, >> I get to see you at the next meeting, too. [laughter] >> Lucky us. Two for two. >> Lucky for you.
>> All right. And but we get the pleasure of Miss Jennings moving forward. Block 102, lot 24.02 O2 with block 111
lot 34 WB Ocean 26 LLC. >> Thank you again for the record. Donna Jennings from the law firm of Orland Schoolman and Spitzer on behalf of the applicant. As the board is aware, the applicant is here um this evening seeking an amended preliminary and final
major site plan approval for property located at 1020 Farmingdale Road and identified as block 1102, lot 24.02 2 on the township's tax map and also uh involves property across the street also
owned by an entity of the applicant at 1050 Farmingdale Avenue identified as block 1101 lot 34. As the board will recall on by resolution dated June 19th, 2023, this board adopted a resolution approving the development of three high
schools on lot 24.02. Uh that approval did not require any variances and provided for the green banking of parking spaces at the request of the board rather than build out the parking that was in excess to the needs of the schools. Since the 2023 approval, the applicant has been working with the
county to obtain the necessary approvals for the project. And during those discussions, Ocean County requested that Feister Road, which runs north south in the vicinity of the property, be realigned to create a four-way intersection at Farmingdale Road with new Prospect Road. So that that triggers
us coming in for um the preliminary and final major subdivisional approval to subdivide lot 34 to allow the realignment with the small remainder of the subdivided portion to be added to what is now lot 24.02 and the app is also seeking to subdivide
lot 24.02 so that each of the previously approved schools is on its own lot. With respect to the amended plary and final major site plan approval, the applicant is seeking to modify the septic system uh with which currently the approval has one septic system and with the three
lots each school would have its own septic system. That's the only other site modification uh other than extending some of the access drives because the road was realigned and it creates more property on the side where the schools are. Um,
with me this evening I have uh three witnesses. Uh, the site engineer Hoody Back who is sitting to my left, traffic engineer Scott Kennel, and Christine Kbone is the professional planner. And we did receive two reports. One from the board planner last revised April 20th,
2026. And the board engineers report dated May 22, 2026. So with that, we can have uh Mr. back um sworn in and he can go through the changes from the original approval to what we're looking at now.
>> Yep. >> All right. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> All right. Please state your name and spell your last for the record. >> Yehuda Back. B A C licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey in good standing. You want you want the background?
>> We're we're having a little trouble. I don't know if you're quite on might have to get closer to that microphone because we're recording. So, it's important. Thank you. >> And does the board accept his credentials? >> We're happy to see you. Thank you for being here. >> Thank you for having me. >> And just for the record, Mr. Bach, your
office prepared the amended plans that we're going to be reviewing today? >> Yes, under my direction. >> Okay. And if you could describe the site and the surrounding area, if you're going to rely on any exhibits, make sure they're identified for the record, please. >> Yes. So, I have five exhibits tonight. Exhibit A1 is our prior approval layout.
Exhibit A2 is our new subdivision plat. Exhibit A3 is our new cover sheet. Exhibit A4 is the proposed layout now. And exhibit A5 is our utility plan. Um I'll go through the site. Anthony, can you please pull up um let's go with A3.
That's our new cover sheet. Okay. Okay, so the site is identified as block 1102, lot 24.02, and block 1101, lot 34. I'll try to point those out for you. The lot 34 is this portion on the, let's call it the southeast, bottom
right, north is up on this exhibit. And lot 24.02 is the entirety of this west side. We are located, the address is 1020 and 1050 Farmingdale Road. We are in the R5
zone. Lot 24.02 contains 7.73 acres and lot 34 is approximately 3.91 acres. The site is located in a relatively rural area on the northeast side of Jackson Township and north of I 195. The lots on
the east side of Fister Road, which is this road that's currently running north to south. You can see sneak peek on our new proposed alignment, but the lots on the east side are uh single family homes in the R5 zone. To the north are farm
properties and the Bell's Farm, which is a large equestrian facility. Um to the south, the Cross Farmingdale Road is Shaone Farms all the way on the bottom of this exhibit, which is a plant nursery in the R3 zone. Uh properties to the west are in the R3 zone as well. And
immediately to the west is Arla Kennels. Um so the properties in the area are a mix of single family homes, agricultural uses, and small commercial BS businesses. As was mentioned on June 19th, 2023, the board granted preliminary and final
major site plan approval to construct three two-story high schools on the property, all of which were on one tax lot at that time. Schools are listed as a permitted use in the R5 zone. perhaps flip to exhibit A1 so they can see what it was originally approved.
>> Yes. Perfect. Okay. So, as you can see on the original approval, there was no no lot 34 included. This is the current rightway of Fister Avenue and we were proposing um some curbing and sidewalk along there in the original approval
[clears throat] um of all >> and one large septic system in the back there. Correct. >> Exactly. So all three schools um have between a footprint of between 9,000 and 11,000 square foot square feet each and total
building area between 27 and 29,000 square feet. That's for each building and that's that was what was original keeping it exactly the same now. Um, as was mentioned at that time, the board did allow green banking of the parking spaces because it was believed that the
parking required by the ordinance would be excessive was testified to then there's no students driving. There's more than sufficient parking for these schools. Um, additionally at that time some design waiverss were granted. Um mostly the entrance and exit driveway
lengths of 100 feet is required and at that time we had 48.5 ft and additionally another design waiver that was granted previously was to permit parking in the front yard >> and they uh approved access drives all
come in and out of Feister Road today. Correct. >> Yes. So, we're seeking approval firstly for a subdivision. We're looking to subdivide this lot on the west, lot 24.02. Um, as you can see on the previous
approval, it's this guy item. There you go. Yeah. Um, it's one big lot. And in the previous approval, Anthony, if you pull up, please um A2, that's our proposed subdivision plat.
Thank you. You'll see, I'll try to point them out. Oh, nice. Two proposed new lot lines right there and there, which subdivides this one big lot into three lots. Um, additionally, we're looking to subdivide
lot 34 over here on this on this plat. You can see right north to south almost a straight line is the original Fister Road. per Ocean County, numerous meetings with them, they requested that we go with more of an alignment that curves so that we can meet North New
Prospect Road over here and create an intersection as opposed to having the intersection joged to the left. So that's for with regard to subdivision. Um, obviously the township would vacate this portion of Fister Road
and that that area would go towards the new school lots. Um, with this with this subdivision, we actually uh reduced the effect of the uh previously approved uh design waiver
where the driveways weren't long enough. We're actually making them a little bit longer now since the road in order to meet the road, they'd have to get stretched all the way to the east to hit the road. So, that waiver is reduced slightly. Um, that's for subdivision. For the site plan, there's no changes
proposed to the schools as they were approved. No changes to the parking lot that was previously approved, including the green baked spaces. No architectural modifications. Um the the the differences to the site plan are limited to as as I discussed the alignment of
the road and a separate septic system for each school as opposed to the previous approval had one large state septic system. Now we would do three individual ones that look very typical. They're they're a regular septic system.
Obviously that does limit the schools to to be confined to a regular septic system. Now, each school would individually need to be confined to that, but that is our proposal. Um, >> and then on lot 34, there's a large warehouse building that's going to be removed. Correct. >> Yes. Yes. Because otherwise, we would
have a setback, a front yard setback with the new alignment. So, the new alignment is going to come in over here. This is an old warehouse which is now to be removed. >> And if you could just touch on the variances that are required. >> Yes. Yes, respect to the subdivision.
>> So with this with this proposed subdivision, there are some variances that are created. Minimum lot area for proposed lots 24.03. And just for reference, the bottom one is 24.03, 24.04, 24.05.
Um, and then all the way to the east is going to be 34.01. So minimum lot area required is 215,000 square ft. Lot 24.03 proposed is 136,061 square feet. Lot 24.04 proposed is
112,52 square feet. Lot 24.05 proposed is 109,824 ft and lot 34.01 proposed is 147,371 square ft. Now the reason why we now
have a variance as opposed to the previous approval is pretty obvious. The previous approval was one big lot which complied with lot area and now we're proposing to split them all up. Additionally, there's a minimum sideyard setback variance proposed for lot 24.03.
Anthony, can you please pull up A4? That's our proposed layout and dimension sheet. There's a sideyard setback variance created on lot 24.03 and that's between this bottom lot and the next one above it. side setback of
60 feet is required whereas 50.48 is proposed. Additionally, there's a lot depth variance required for proposed lot 34.01 and that is generated by this new alignment of the road. So the lot depth in this direction required is 400 ft and
we have 314.07 ft. Additionally, a variance is required to allow schools on a roadway that is not a collector or arterial road. Um, this this variance is needed as a result in the change in the ordinance and as a
result of subdividing the lots. Whereas the original approval had all three schools, you can say, fronting on Farmingdale Road to the south, now these top two northern schools have their sole frontage on Fister Road.
And lastly for parking on proposed lot 24.03. Um also this is a change as uh this is a result of a change in the ordinance. Um the current ordinance requires 88 spaces and we have 74 total which includes EV and green bait spaces. I'll get to the
breakdown of parking a little bit later. There are two design waiverss required for this application. Again the minimum entrance driveway and exit driveways. Um we're making them a little bit better, but a variant a design waiver is still
needed. Um and secondly, uh landscaping strips between the proposed lots. So the sidey yards of each lot required landscaping strip is 10 feet and we have about 9.5 or 9.48 over there.
Other than that, we will comply with all the uh buffer and landscaping requirements. With regard to utilities, there's no changes to the original approval with regard to water and fire service. Water portable water service will be supplied via wells. Um, and fire service was also
a well that then uh discharged into a sistern which serves as a holding tank for in case of a fire. All these wells will obviously require permits from the NJT. Sewer as was mentioned that changed slightly. The original approval was for
one large sept state septic system. We're now proposing three separate septic systems, each one in the rear yard of their respective schools. Um it's typical flows for a school uh a school like this that doesn't have uh
dormitories or or food prep. That's 10 gallons per person in the school which includes students, teachers and again they would be limited in their number of student of total people count based on these septics which have a max uh gallon
flow of 2,000 gallons per day which is a septic that you'd have in the new age let's call them McMansions those they have a 2,00 gallon septic it's not unheard of um and obviously we would comply with the required separations between septic systems disposal fields,
uh, storm water recharge areas, and any wells. >> Mr. B, could you could you just uh explain to the board why you wouldn't just um come forward with a subdivision
instead of going through all this? Why why uh staging? Why can't we stick with the same plan and not have to look at these variances? My my concern is the future and we've already, you know, as you've pointed out, things have changed. The roads have
changed. We've been that down that road, excuse the expression, before um lately. Uh why the need for this um drastic change. >> So, the there's two reasons. Number one is, and the applicant can testify to
this, is just with regard to selling these lots as opposed to one big lot and trying to I don't even know how they how they do it. I'm not an attorney. How do they how would they carve off each individual school? Um, but what I can testify is just from the septic standpoint.
A normal looking, let's call it septic system and each school has their own and nobody's relying on each other for the septic is >> well that that could still be done with a staging, couldn't it? I mean, couldn't you stage it? >> I I I think that the board chair is
talking about a phasing plan. But why no why no phasing plan instead of um subdivision >> in order for the septic you still would need regulatory wise you still would need them to be on individual lots in order for it to be a standard septic system.
You're you're limited to 2,000 gallons per day per the lot. So if we have them all on one lot then you have the 2,000 gallons get split between all three schools which isn't which isn't practical at all. I mean it limits you severely. [clears throat]
>> You're saying that a common area septic system wouldn't be adaptable in the existing layout. So if you ever subdivide it, wouldn't have the one system be a common area to the three schools
and the three lots. >> Right. If we would do that, which is why we have to subdivide and then do the three. No, I'm not saying I'm asking you why do you have to have three? Why can't you just have the one main as approved today, >> right?
>> And have it as a common area for all three lots. >> So, just contribution to a management uh >> right so that type of septic system is let's call it non-standard. You'd have to go to the state. You'd end up with a
treatment system essentially on site. Um, it's very not typical. >> Typ not typical, I agree with, but it's done. >> It It is done. It is done. It's >> And the subdivision also helps with financing. So often times when you have
properties like this and you have several buildings on it, you do a subdivision because at the end of the day, it's an imaginary line. And if you look at the original approval, this is essentially exactly the same layout other than the reconfiguration of Fister Road, which was required by the county
in changing the septic system from one large one to three separate ones. No one's going to know the difference. It's going to look otherwise exactly the same. The buildings are in the exact same location, the exact same size, and the parking is the same. The parking variance is triggered because the township ordinance changed. There's the
same amount of parking spaces that we originally proposed. No change. So whether the board were to grant the approval or not, this is exactly what you're going to be looking at. And so from a financing perspective, you know, you have you could have three different banks giving you a loan on each of the different buildings. Um it makes more
sense. Otherwise than one person has it and then who decides which bank loan goes in first and it just is a lot better that that way. >> You're going to need more variances. >> Technically, you need more variances, but at the end of the day, it's the same thing. This is how it's going to be.
Look, no matter whether the board wants to grant the relief or not. >> Mr. Brozie. >> Yeah, I I I think I'm following this pretty good. I understand the three separate sector systems. I would guess that the one big system would cost you more than three separate ones. Am I correct?
>> Probably. >> Yes. Much more. >> I would imagine. >> And the biggest I mean I understand you have to come back to us because the county wanted you to change a road. I I understand that. Once again, you got to come back because the outside agency changed something. I understand that. But the thing that I I have a hard time
digesting is the fact that we're going to three separate lots now requiring a bunch of variances. Um I I got a hard time. It's almost like this makes it easy for you to buy and sell and and all that. And my concern isn't buying and selling. My concern is
staying within what we really wanted from the beginning. I can understand the three septic systems. I almost think that might work better. I'm not an engineer. But uh uh the variances created by the other lots there's a lot of them all size setbacks and stuff like that where originally it was kind of the
same but it was in one big lot and it qualified. So I have a problem with that. I understand the road I think the road is a good move by the county. Um and I understand that's a lot of expense to you and it wasn't your decision and that's why you're back here. So I still need a little more from professionals on the uh
>> as a matter of fact >> variation. I remember very well we were very concerned about that dog leg uh from from what's now North New Prospect used to be Brookke North New Prospect to
Fister. So we're very pleased. I was I've been out there three times this week. I haven't seen any uh anything that looks like anyone's moving anywhere toward making these changes. But I just
is there some reason you cannot just continue with the original plan and put in three separate septic systems for three separate buildings. >> And I I got a question at that point too right off that if if you did it like that.
>> Yeah, >> I was first. >> I was first. I agree with you and it it it the code I wish it did go per building the septic code, but they don't. They go by per the lot and and it doesn't make any sense.
It should go by whatever's going to each septic system. That's how you should count the flows. But you want to call it a glitch in their code or I don't know, maybe they'll change it, but it goes by the lot which requires us to do the subdivision. >> Mr. Peters.
Well, I don't have the septic rags in front of me, but my recollection is that you were allowed one septic system per realy unit or tract of land. Um, but if the board's not comfortable with the number of lots or the variances
associated with the lots, I don't think the septic systems have anything to do with it. They can come back and get two conforming lots and two buildings and have a lot on each build. or alternatives. So I'm not sure I want to intertwine
number of septic systems with the variance relief for the individual for the three lots. >> Make a clarification to my comment. I just want to clarify what I was saying about using the common area septic
system was if they built according to the existing approval they would need to do that and if they came back and subdivided later it would always be uh wouldn't be any other than a legal uh
agreement to share the course you >> [clears throat] >> the common area >> isn't needed and you can go to one for each lot as it exists. Well, they may if it's cheaper, but if it's not and you
have to put the uh large single use, it's not a waste of money. That's all my point was. >> Mr. Clay, what do you >> think? I I agree. It's going to be a lot easier
and cheaper to have three individual septic systems. The only way you get that is to have three individual lots. By doing the three individual lots, you induce variances. Um, but I don't know if the reasoning that it helps with the
financing is in the land use law. And I'll leave it to Mrs. Cone to, you know, get into the into the weed so to speak. >> [clears throat] >> um but I don't know if that's a justification for um the financial benefit for the applicant that that's why it's it's okay to induce these
variances. So they do it all the time. So you think about a mall almost every anchor tenant it's on its own lot for financing purposes. So they own the land generally under them and somebody else owns the main part of the mall. So I've worked on
several of the malls in the area and a lot of the industrial parks you go in and you'll put five industrial buildings and we go in and we do financing subdivision so that the person who owns the building gets property just underneath it. So it's a very similar
type of situation because at the end of the day what we're looking at is what's going to be there and we're just drawing imaginary lines basically to create >> the opportunity to finance them. And the other thing with a septic system is we have one septic system and it fails that affects all three schools instead of
having separate septic systems where if we have a problem which hopefully you never do but we can't control everything then it just affects the school that has that that one septic system. So I think from a practical standpoint it also makes a lot more sense to have each of the schools on their own septic system
regardless of the cost involved >> in spite of the testimony in the beginning of the original approval that one septic system was fine. it'll work fine. We'll get all D permits. Now, it sounds like, well, I know there could be an environmental issue. This is better
to have three. If one fails, and let's hope it doesn't, like you said. Um I I just don't see the the positive for the applicant um getting helping with financing is something the board really needs to consider. Um but
just another point, couldn't you just develop it as one big piece, get rid of all the new variances and just condo off or lease off the individual schools properties? >> Sure, you could. That's another option. So >> then if you did that, then all the variances, new variances would go away.
>> That is correct. But then we stuck with the one septic system, >> which is what originally approved. >> Mr. Tremor, any thoughts from the environmental commission on this? We didn't see anything uh prior to the meeting, but about now.
>> Um I mean obviously this one was this one was de approved before my time. So I wasn't too well verssed on it. Uh in the catchup plan it's at this time I don't have any official comments on it just because I haven't had the the the time to really catch up on it. So no, not at this time.
>> Uh can I have one question that you may be able to answer, right? Um, environmentally speaking, what would be better, a single plant or three different septic systems? That that's kind of a loaded question
because environmentally you're talking about three separate systems, three separate occasions for failure, three, you know, three different systems. Obviously, the bigger system is also a concern as well, you know, based upon the land. So, >> to be fair, this actually a question for
the engineer. Yeah, I was say this is more of a Doug and Ernie question, not me. >> Then then I passed that on to uh Doug and Ernie, >> but just just uh time out for a sec. So ju just so the board is clear, there's different ways in which property can be
subdivided, right? So if you keep a lot, right, uh you want to break it into multiple buckets is the way you want to look at it, right? So if you keep a lot, you can put it into what's called a phasing plan, right? They they develop one at a time and it staggers the cost.
It makes it more cost affordable for development, right? See that all the time. That's customary. We we haven't seen a lot out here because there's a lot of land out in Jackson. U but in other townships sometimes you have overlapping situations. They they do a lot of phasing. Um second way would be
what we're seeing in front of us, which is a subdivision, right? You take the property and you chop it up a couple of ways and and you subdivide it, right? and and based upon whether it comports with the bulk standards is when you get the variances and and everything like that. Uh, another way to do it is condom
minimization, right? Which is um I I believe for a commercial you have to go to the DCA. Correct me if I'm wrong on that one, but you you basically you file um an application with the DCA and what it is is that instead of subdividing the property, you're subdividing the
buildings. So, it's another way to subdivide. you're just doing it with the buildings instead of the prop the underlying like real estate. Um, so we we just touched on three varying concepts of that and we don't see a lot of that at at this board. I just want
the board to understand that those are different ways to accomplish the same goals. Um, and that's what we're referencing. I think Miss Jennings referenced it. Uh, Mr. Cle referenced it. I just spoke about it. It's different uh different ways to get to
the same point is all I'm trying to say. >> Madam Chair, I guess sticking with the septic systems and the first one we we did approve was pretty severe, pretty detailed workable system. That's a whole totally different system. I realize it's more expensive.
The other small problem I have is every lot with the subdivisions are 100 foot short in width, which puts your three septic systems pretty close to each other. And that concerns me with the leech fields and stuff. So I I I I don't know. I'm not an engineer. I don't pose to be
one. I like the idea of three septic systems. If one fails, only one fails. But in the same token, that one that we approved, the system that it was, if it fails, you're in trouble, but you have to fix it. I see this as just a way, my own personal opinion, to just be able to
sell off property quicker. I don't know why you can't leave it as is and just lease the property as Mr. ally recommended um and not create all these variances. And I do have a concern with the septic systems. I like the idea of three. I realize they're not the same
quality as the one we approved, but they're all on undersized lots by 100 foot each. And you know, that was part of the problem why we kept R3s in the master plan for years is to keep the nitrates and stuff down and not septic systems close and uh to the wells and
stuff. This way you put them even closer. I have a concern with that. >> Mr. Clay, >> just just one last item. The um the realignment great. I think it's a better project. So from an engineer perspective, no issue with the the realignment of this. I think it's really
really a good idea. >> All right. So the bigger question is has the engineer finished presenting his testimony because I don't know if he did. >> Almost. Almost. >> Okay. You want to keep on going and then >> Yes, I would. And ju just to answer your questions about the separations, of course, we have to comply with the well
doumented requirements, which I [clears throat] didn't study them, but they >> I understand and you'll meet the requirements. Once again, you're going to be you'll just meet it rather than have room like we had before. So, if you're 10 foot more extra rather than being 50 foot apart, you're that much
closer. And there's three septic systems with each shields in the back. And and I and and if you look at that, I don't know what the numbers are that required, but I'm sure you can draw any line to make it meet the 50 foot or 20 foot that you want, but you still got three septic fields in three lots that are undersized
in width by over 100 foot each. >> I I do have a question. When it comes to the original system, did you get to the point where it got to the Department of Health and was there any concerns from the state about the original system? Is that why it caused the trigger to try to change to three separate systems or was
the original septic system that was planned? Was that approved by the state ready to go? >> It it wasn't approved by the state. It was it went to the Yeah, it did go to the state itself. It wasn't me. It was an outside agency. That's how different it is. Let's call it. So, you have you have not an outside agency. You have a
different engineer that this is what they specialize in these type of systems. I wish I knew how to design those. I don't. So that's that's trying to what I'm trying to wrap my head around is that so it got to the state level and the original plan that we had they they looked at that septic system
and were they good with it or were they were they the ones that were trying to amend it? I I didn't get an answer. Okay. >> Just just quickly follow so you don't know if an application was actually submitted to the state >> correct. Thank you.
So this has been two two years maybe three. >> We were approved last year, >> right? Okay. >> I have a question. Let's say you didn't get the subdivision. You have the three buildings on one septic system. What's stopping you from leasing out one school
to a different owner? >> That possible? >> Nothing. That's a legal question. No, that's possible. >> It's possible then. So you could do accomplish the same with the same system we originally approved and not get the subdivision and create all these variouses. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. >> We're sorry to interrupt, but these [laughter] things these things are surfacing and you're the you're the man at the seat right now. So if you'd just like to finish your testimony. >> More than happy. >> Thank you. >> With regard to lighting, there's no changes from the prior approval. Um
landscaping plan, again, no changes. is we will comply with the ordinance for landscaping and buffering along the lot frontages and rear lot line other than the one waiver I mentioned along the side lot line where a 10-ft unbroken landscaping strip is required whereas we have 9.5 and we also have openings for
the emergency access um with regard to parking I touched on it before a little bit requirement the current requirement is one space per staff plus three spaces per classroom plus one space per 50 square ft of general assembly space. Um, lot 24.03
requires 88 spaces but includes only 74 spaces. Uh, so variance is required there. Lot 24.04 requires 82 spaces and we have 86 proposed. So that complies. And lot 24.05 requires 78 spaces and we
have 78 proposed which again complies. Um, an emergency access easement will be necessary for each lot and that's that's created because we're we would subdivide. So each lot would give each other permission to go through in case of emergency go through each other's
lot. Um, I know it was brought up in the letter should an individual school require a grease trap for any reason if they have food prep, obviously one will be provided per per the code. Um, with regard to the grading comments, the amount of soil removal does not exceed
1,000 cubic yards and we will comply with chapter 364 of the ordinance with regard to fill. Um, the design for the solid waste storage has not changed from the previous approval and we'll comply with the ordinance. Um, there was some discussion about whether an easement is
is necessary for access to the fire system. Uh, no easement is required. I I think it would be covered under the emergency cross access easement. The one who who would be accessing that that system is the the fire department. They can go in and access that. Um no signage
is proposed with this application. Um with regard to outside agency approvals and this touches on what's what's taking so long. Ocean County Planning Board. I know I myself sat in I I think it was at least three meetings with them and so you schedule it three months out and then you get to the meeting and then try
to incorporate it, send the letter. All this stuff does take time, but at this point it is pending this realignment of this road. We do have a meeting scheduled with them for the end of this month to follow up about this realignment. Um for Ocean County Soil Conservation
District, we have re I believe we received comments. Those are generally stormwater comments. Those those uh we will address together with the township engineers stormwater comments. Um the environmental commission, it's the same as the original. There are no environmental concerns um as was seen in
the original EIS. Um Ocean County Health Department that's pending, you know, once we submit for individual septic systems and the NJP also would would be hold off until we would submit uh well permit applications.
That's all I got. >> Thank you. >> Question, >> Mr. Brazie. >> TR new septic system. Would you comply or stipulate that if the environmental commission comes back or a letter of concern, you'd come back in front of us? If they come back or a letter of no concern, then you don't have to come back.
>> Sure. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Yes, ma'am. Miss Demorza. So I think in the very beginning you mentioned that um you wanted the flexibility or the applicant wanted the flexibility to be
able to sell the lots off. Is that Yeah. So that to me seems like the reason that we're trying to subdivide at this point doesn't have anything to do with the septics. You want to be able to sell these lots individually and they're undersized. >> It isn't an an additional benefit. the
the reason for the subdivision is really the realignment of the road. As was mentioned, if if he just wanted to sell them off, that was the sole reason, he can without without doing a subdivision. Um, but I guess you'd say it progressed to this point where each thing led to
another where we said, "Oh, you know what? We're realigning. It's a subdivision. Oh, how about if we if we actually subdivide and kill two birds with one stone where you get that benefit of selling them off and you get the typical septic systems." Yeah, >> but it is a benefit of subdividing is
that I want to say it's easier. I don't know the process of of uh HOA or whatever it's called other processes of selling each individual lot. I don't know which one's easier or harder. >> Madam Chair, >> Mr. Brezie, >> um you made a statement that reason subdivisions, the adjustment to the
road, the adjustment to the road, I concur, Mr. Cle is great. I see no reason how the road curving out created the need to subdivide these lots. I'm sorry. Respectfully, I disagree. I I as I said at the beginning, it looks to me like it just makes it easier to sell
them off as far as I'm concerned. Eliminate the subdivision, lease them off individually, however you can do it. And uh we approved an original septic system that was totally modified up to the Pineland standards, all that stuff and whatever it's called. I forget the name of it. And they're quite intricate
and they got to be monitored and everything else. And I rather have a monitored septic system that size even those for three buildings than three individuals uh like a house. Um and then again creating all these variances. Like I say the road from what I'm looking at
and I could be wrong. I'd ask D. I don't see the road creating the variances. I just see the easier way to sell it is with the variances. Respectfully >> I want I want to say I agree. I don't I don't know maybe I misrepresented. I agree the the road realignment doesn't need the subdivision. Thank you.
>> It did lead us to to think of the subdivision, but it's not required for >> you didn't think of it. I understand that. No problem. >> Also, we still have the planner to put planning testimony on. So, we want to let them get through some of that. Um because some of this is just go to the variance.
>> We'll you'll be right here if we have more questions. >> Thank you. >> Okay. At this time, I'd like to call Scott Kennel, the traffic engineer. All right. Do you swear, affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth?
>> Yes, I do. >> All right. >> Scott Kennel, Ken Nel, with Mcdana and Ray Associates, located 1431 Lakewood Road, Manisquan. >> Because we've never seen you before, does the board accept your credentials? >> Welcome back. We certainly accept your
credentials. Happy to see you again. >> Thank you. So, our office repaired an updated traffic study. It was submitted as part of this application dated January 9, 2026. It generally contains basically the same information that we had testified
previously. The difference is is the realignment of Fister Road opposite uh North New Prospect. Uh but a as before as we testifi testified previously, the school commences at 7:15 in the
morning. That's prior to the peak hour traffic that occurs in that area, which is generally 8:30 to 9:30. And they also have dismissal at 700 p.m. So again, the majority of traffic activities outside the street peak hours
along Farale Road in this area. Uh and the other key factor is as was mentioned earlier is none of the students drive as you would see at other type of high schools. So again, the traffic generation from these three high schools are much lower because the
students are not allowed to drive vehicles to the school. And we had originally projected approximately 180 trips during during the morning peak hour and that would occur from 7 to 8 again prior to the AM peak hour. And
we we did some projections for the afternoon which would be minimal would be service or employee which would be a lower traffic volume of approximately 30 trips. And again um the majority in the dismissal period occurs after the PM
peak hour um when the traffic volumes are lower along Farmingdale Road and um North New Prospect. But in looking at the realignment of Fister Road and Prospect,
uh we're providing a four-way intersection. The other major benefit is is that there will be a dedicated left turn lane eastbound and westbound on Farmingdale Road to to better segregate traffic through the intersection.
It's also important to note that all the improvements and widening takes place on the north side or along our property frontage because of the existing nursery on the south side of Farmingdale Road and the fact that they're parking have head-on parking fairly close to the edge
of pavement uh required us to do all the widening along the site frontage on the north side of Farmdale Road. But even with all those improvements and with the three schools fully operational, we're projecting a level of
service B. B is in boy, which is well below the design level, level service C to D that Ocean County uh encourages. Uh the site driveways are all projected to operate a level service A or B. So again, as testified previously,
uh all the site driveways in the intersection will operate at uh very good levels of service. Uh and again it was testified that we have more than a ample parking to serve the all three schools and for emergency
purposes there is a emergency driveway between uh each school parking lot as an alternate means of access to optimize accessibility for fire emergency vehicles. >> Mr. Kennel, can you show us on there where it would be?
They would be, as I recall, there's one right here between the the northern school and the middle school, >> and then the other one is right in this location here.
>> So that way again, we have access the Farmdale Road. It kind of gives you a straight shot north south to connect to all three schools. And as um the engineer testified, we've been having numerous meetings with the county and we have another meeting
scheduled for the end of the month um to just uh firm up and finalize the intersection design. And then one other condition of this, not that it's warranted based on this development, but again, the intersection will be
monitored for the need if it should happen for a traffic signal at this location. >> Mr. President, >> my question you just touched on it originally. It was like a zigzag where you were coming out and going, this is I like this better, too. But I was going to say I know it's up to the county.
You're going to say it's up to the county. Uh, but I I believe that'd be the perfect spot for the light. I don't know about the what it takes to constitute that with the county, but uh I believe there should be a light there if possible. I know that's not up to you or the applicant. It's up to the county. >> Well, we've had a discussion with the
county and we've looked at the future traffic volumes and the the future traffic volumes with the school fully operational would not justify meet the traffic volume warrants that are established by the Federal Highway Administration. >> I I understand those regulations.
There's that issue on Diamond Road and Carrying Line Road where we have accidents every month and they're finally putting a light in. For the last five years, it's still not there. But, uh, if there could be some push from the applicant on this because with the flow with the traffic off New Prospect and everything now and the way it matches
up, I think a lights warranted there. I don't know what you can do to push it. Well, again, if there were the number of accidents you mentioned as far as a diamond >> and West Commodore, that is that is another type of warrant since this isn't configured in that fashion.
>> I understand. I don't want to wish accidents, but we got to do something, I think, to get you look at the flow there. I think you need to light there. >> Well, again, again, the applicant has agreed and we've committed to the county that we'll monitor it for meeting the signal warrants. >> I appreciate that. I was out there uh as I said three times
in the last week and I noticed there are a lot of very large trucks uh coming down Fister um from I assume Champion um >> and the thought of school buses
and those trucks on that same intersection that's going to be tough. Well, that's why this improvement is a benefit not only to this development but to the public and Fister roadway would be widened along the entire frontage. So that'll be enhanced for what exists today.
>> Good. Anyone else from the board? Gentlemen, any questions? >> Just two. I guess Scott closely working with the county as far as the re realignment goes. Um good job.
>> Thank you. I think it's, you know, tremendous. But the dog leg struggled with in the beginning. Um the only other question is from a traffic um safety design point of view, does the fact that the there's a subdivision involved
affect your findings one way or another? >> No impact at all. >> Thank >> Mr. Peters. >> Nothing to add, Madam Chair. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. [music] Okay. At this time, I like to call bar
planner Christine >> Capone. You're ready. >> Always a pleasure. All right. Do you swear affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Welcome. We'll accept your credentials. We've heard them before. >> Thank you, chairwoman.
>> Well, just for the record, you are a professional planner, correct? >> Yes, I am practicing for 30 years and my licenses are current and valid. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. You've had an opportunity to uh go over the application, review the master plan and the ordinance. Correct.
>> Yes, I did all of that and I testified on the prior application as well, so I am familiar with it. Um, so I did hear all of the questions and the testimony earlier. So what this gets down to, right, is that and and one of the things that hasn't been brought up tonight is that this is an inherently beneficial
use, right? It's a school. So from as a planner when you look at the definition in the municipal land use law of inherently beneficial use it's a use which is universally considered a value to the community because it fundamentally serves the public good and promotes the general welfare. Such a use
includes but is not limited to a hospital, school, child care center, group home or a wind, solar or photo photovalttaic energy facility or structure. >> So if you could hold that microphone up to your face a little closer. Say it again.
>> I think so. >> I think it's on, but >> I think it is. >> That's better. It's a better one. >> That one's better. >> Do you want me to read for the record the definition of inherently beneficial use again? >> I think we all know what it is. Okay. >> Thank you so much. >> Those are undoubtedly an inherently beneficial use. So maybe I share a
little bit of a different perspective because I think it's wonderful from a planning point of view if we're able to do something i.e. the proposed subdivision that even though it creates a few variances to facilitate the development and construction of inherently beneficial uses which of
course would satisfy the positive criteria. Um so the way I look at this application is five of the variances are related to the subdivision right all three lot area variances for the proposed schools well four if you
consider the lot area for 34.01 01. Um, so those are related to the subdivision. And additionally, the sideyard setback for the school proposed to sit on 24.03 is also related to the subdivision. And then essentially the fact that the the
schools are not fronting on a collector road, that would also be related to the subdivision. So, and I I heard Mr. Mr. um Kennel's testimony that the road realignment that's it really is a separate issue. I think there's there's two things sort of that the board has
before it tonight. I think we all seem to be in in agreement that the realignment of the road is a better alternative and advised by the county. I guess what I am struggling with as a planning point of view is that regardless of if the board approves this subdivision or not, this property was
slated for three schools. So I look at it as they're really in my opinion, right? I've been at this for 30 years now. I don't see the benefits of counting the variances. I don't think that that really gives the board an indication as to the impact of the
variance. And in this case, when as planners, what we look at as far as impact of the variances, right? We look at impervious coverage, we look at traffic, we look at all of these things, we look at the use, we look at the hours of operation. These are all the things that inform us as planners, whether it's
us planners for the applicant, you as planners for the board. These are the things we look at and we consider when we're understanding the impacts of the application. Yes, this application needs a number of variances with it. But the impacts are related to lines on a piece
of paper. That's what this boils down to. I mean, if you look at what's on the board as A4, that was the uh that's the proposed application. The original application, I think if you put them up side by side, they're not going to look radically
different. And the only way you would know that this application were approved if you were driving by absent the realignment. Of course you would know that is if you had some familiarity with this application because again there are lines on a paper. This is what we come
to in planning. There are you can consider this almost like a technical subdivision or sometimes it's called a financial subdivision. And one of the greatest examples we give of this is if you have a Chick-fil-A sitting outside as a pad site or when we used to build banks with drive-throughs and they would
sit out on a pad site or we had a Starbucks with a drive-thru and that sat in a shopping center a lot of times and you wouldn't know it driving past because it's not like we paint the lot lines into the shopping center, but more often than not, I would say that those out parcels are probably sitting on
their own lot. If you're familiar with the Freehold Mall, almost all of those out parcels at the Freehold Mall sit on their own lot and they do that for financial for financial uh or owners or financing ways to get the development approved. So here when I hear someone
say well that would just facilitate and make the application easier to be developed or approved. Well, I would hope so. This [clears throat] is an inherently beneficial use. And I think that that's certainly a benefit. So, I think when you look at that and you look at the fact that nothing is changing as
far as the development program, this subdivision that we're asking does not entitle the applicant to build a single square foot. We're not asking for an additional birdhouse of size beyond what was originally approved. We're not asking for any more capacity. This
subdivision does nothing to intensify what was previously asked for by this board. It doesn't change anything as far as the number of students to be enrolled. It simply allows for the developer to have the flexibility to have each school sit on its own lot, have each school have its own septic
system. Um, and that's something that the developer or the the property owner feels as if is beneficial to get these schools online that it will facilitate that. So when you think again that it's a an inherently beneficial use, I think the board can grant the relief um of
course with criteria A promoting the general welfare but I also think the board can grant and look at criteria G which talks about sufficient space in appropriate locations despite the fact that they're lot area variances. They are again paper lines because the development program
that's being before this board is exactly as was contemplated previously. I think criteria M which talks about an efficient use of the land is also advanced by this application. So statutoily again we only need to advance one but I think that those three are
advanced by this application. And then regardless of of what we find for the positive criteria, and again this is an inherently beneficial use, we have to deal with the negative criteria. And the negative criteria does not ask you to hold the applicant to a standard there be no detriment. Just that the benefits
of the grant of the variance outweigh any detriment. And like I said, to me, there is no detriment associated. These are paper variances that nobody from the public would be able to discern. If the board approved, you would not be able to tell that these lots were unders sized
or that the application was radically different. So when you look at the the negative impacts or the the impact on the zone plan or the public good, I am at a loss as to see where these paper lines and paper variances create any substantial detriment to the
zone plan or the public good. And again, the variances that we're seeking are the lot area variances for the three schools, the lot area variance for lot 34.01, the lot depth variance on 34.01, the sideyard setback of 60 versus 50.48
ft on lot 24.03, which is the um the southern lot. That's the the southernmost or the bottom lot as our our site engineer called it. And then um the school is not fronting on a collector, which again we meet the intent of that ordinance because we do front on a collector. It's just when we
put those paper lines there, we won't. And then of course for the parking, which um we're not changing the parking program from what was approved last time. So when you look at that and and I understand your concern that it looks on paper like you're granting variances, but I think when you roll that back and
you understand what this application is and what the ask is, I don't think that you can rise this to the level of a substantial detriment which is the test. Um so I have nothing further on direct unless you want me to touch on the two waiverss which were actually improving
the one which is the length of the drive and and the landscaping which is dimminimous. It's about a half a foot and I'm sure we could work with your planner um and engineer to ensure that those buffer strips are planted to the satisfaction of your board of professionals because we're talking
about of a half a foot. So that's that's the design waiverss there that we're seeking. So an improvement over the existing conditions and a half a foot resulting from the subdivision and I I think that that's that's what I would consider to minimize and I think the applicant would certainly work with your professionals to make sure that those
buffers were properly planted and that's the extent of the relief. I know. I know. It seems like >> Thank you for the testimony. I think uh you uh keep saying inherently beneficial use. We we agreed with you originally. We
approved it. We approved the schools in this spot in this place. But it didn't have to have all these waiverss and uh variances and variances are our concern these days. We also spent a good deal of
time going over this uh um sewage issue. We spent a lot of time on that and heard a lot of testimony on that. We we have not had that same opportunity for these three systems uh to know exactly uh what we're what we're
getting. Um so that's where my concern lies. I understand, but I I don't think that you as a board are charged with evaluating the number of variances. What you're specifically charged with is to evaluate the impact of the variances. Right? No. In none of your board member
training did they tell you to count the number of variances required and assess the impact of the application based on the sheer number of the variances or lack thereof. Right? If you had an application that had only one variance, that doesn't mean that the applicant could come in and say, "Well, we only
need one variance." So it's a great it's a it's a >> but you did come in and say we don't need any variances. >> Well that's that's not good application >> and that makes a big difference to us here when you come here and say we don't need any variances. We know and you know
where we stand and where we have to stand. But when you come back and change things and they now require a number of variances we have to consider that. You have to consider what the variances are and these are variances for lots on a
paper and these are variances for a septic system that we believe is a better zoning alternative right which is the flexible city or the C2 to have the three separate systems so that if one fails all three schools are not impacted by that. So I think that the board um
does not in my opinion it's it's not the right area of focus to look at the number of variances. You have to look at the impact. >> Thank you Mr. Brazi. >> Yes. Um I just want to review the beneficial uses. Now you said they're beneficial to the town and so forth and we understand that. We hear that a lot. We have to comply with that.
>> How does the beneficial use changed because on three separate lots or all together? >> So it's not that the beneficial use changed. >> It doesn't change. It doesn't change. That's what I wanted to know. It doesn't change. >> It it doesn't change. But one of the things that somebody said was that this subdivision would make it easier if we
had the subdivision. it would make it easier for the applicant to develop the property. And I agree with that and I think that the board can consider that when it's an inherently beneficial use. I actually think it's good planning for the board to do things like grant variance relief that would make it easier to develop the inherently
beneficial use, particularly when those variances are related to nothing that has to do with the use or intensity of the application, but rather lines on a paper. And I think that that's a difference with a distinction that the yes we are asking for relief and it is
different but you cannot there is no rational nexus between the variance relief required in conjunction with this application and any specific land use impact. How are you tying the lot line on a paper to any impact any perceptible
impact? Number one, you know, the public has confused enough and some people up here too when the planning board has to grant variances. They think every has to go to the zoning board. I understand a difference. The attorneys understand the difference and you keep saying variance is only a line imaginary line. Well, it's not an imaginary line. Maybe
somebody driving by it is. But for this board, it's not an imaginary line. And they're undersized lots. We're creating undersized lots. Now, we're going to get into it's still a beneficial use by your own words. And the biggest thing I add and I think we need another report from the environmental commission is that
septic system we went through pretty heavily and it's a totally different type septic system. I realize it's more expensive. I have more faith in that septic system than I do as a layman in these other three septic systems. And the lines on the floor are just paper only. No, they're lines this board's
going to vote to put in. That's real. May not be real to you or the people driving by. And I think you're just saying there's lines on a piece of paper. The long term is that we put that line there and you can you can do that. And the opening statement was they wanted they can sell it easier like this
and I don't think that's any reason why we should approve these lot lines so you can easier to sell especially we found there's other things you can do like lease the the buildings or something like that. I do concur with the road change like everybody else but the I got a big concern for three separate six
systems because yes one fails two still work but with the big system we had in place we really researched that there was a lot of data put on the records about that and that's what we went along with um I think as you said it's just just lines creating nothing is lines
creating three undersized lots with three septic systems next to each other and I I take a little offense to you regarding them as just lines on a piece of paper. This board just don't put lines on a piece of paper. We we look at the paper and we make lines according to what we should do. And I'm sorry, when a
when a board come when an applicant comes in with a bunch of variances to the planning board, it does draw attention. You come in with one or two waiverss that make sense. You come in with a couple variants. Yes, these are self-created variances your applicant's doing by creating undersized lots. So
the undersized lots though and the lines the lot lines that we're proposing do absolutely nothing to change the intensity or intent of the development that was approved. >> I appreciate your I Mr. Right. I didn't interrupt you, so I just I would like to respond and I certainly didn't mean to
offend you, but it is a statement of the fact that the lot lines proposed in conjunction with this application and I don't even want to use are not materially altering. They are not altering in any way the intensity of what was approved by this board. So when I made the example of lines on a paper
because that's important, right? If we were asking for the board to consider a subdivision layout that allowed us to create additional lots and put on bigger buildings or do a different thing or allow a different development program, then I think that that's something the board can consider that that's not
that's that's a difference, right? What we're asking the board to consider does not change the intensity. It doesn't change the size of the schools. It doesn't change the enrollment. It doesn't change anything as far as the intensity. And I do think that the board can take notice of that when you're
granting the variances. I think it would be appropriate for the board to make a finding that while the applicant is requesting variances for undersized lots, the undersized lots themselves do not lead to additional density intensity or development intensity on the subject
property. >> But they do add three. >> Ma'am, I do want to say one thing. It does add two extra septic systems. Here we go again with three septic systems. You keep saying there's no change. We're going from one major type septic system to three separate ones on top of each other. So there is a change. I'm sorry.
>> But the septic systems will meet the state code just like the large one. So it really would have no impact. >> And it's not it's not that the three septic systems will be designed for additional capacity. The capacity of the school is staying the same. It
facilitates having each school have its own septic system so that if there were some problem with one of the septic systems, all three schools wouldn't be impacted. So, I believe that that's a better zoning alternative, particularly when you're dealing with an inherently beneficial use. >> Thank you. I have several board members
who are approaching me here. >> Time out time out for a second. So just so the board is clear, the legal standard for an inherently beneficial use, what it does and and planners correct me if I'm wrong, right, is that it enhances the positive criteria of the
C2 test. So the C2 variance, you have positive criteria, which is I think Miss Capone said is A, G, and M, right? Uh then you have the negative criteria right which is the detrimental impacts and to the zoning master plan uh
ordinances all that. So whenever we talk about an inherently beneficial use it's not you know get out of jail free card but what it does is it enhances the positive criteria arguments that they're presenting. Right? So, so again at C2
it's it's a sliding scale balancing test. You have to balance the positive versus the, you know, negatives with detriments. Um, and it just it's ever so slightly enhances the positives when it's a statutory or case law driven inherently beneficial use. In this case,
it's it's statutory, right? Um, so that's it. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. Now, Mr. Rogers had a question. >> Uh, Mr. Resi very nicely explained most of my questions but in support of that
you know you stated that uh these imaginary lines public wouldn't even know about it they couldn't recognize it without the lines our job is to support the public and is to act in their best benefits not to fool them. Okay you were asking like you
wanted preferential treatment and that is not the role of this board. this board is to apply evenly, okay, all uh ordinances and uh laws. So, we certainly didn't ask for
preferential treatment. I came in and I put the testimony on. We provided the testimony of a site civil engineer, a traffic engineer, and my testimony to address the statutory proofs. So we put the full proofs on to address the relief required which is certainly in my opinion not consistent with seeking any
type of preferential treatment. >> Sounded like to me that's I just saying if it sounded like to me might have sounded like that to the public. >> Um I want to thank you for your testimony. Um, when we're discussing this project, we
turned it from a project that was conforming that was on a county road that now has two schools that will be on a local road, which is against zoning here in Jackson Township. And I don't
want to set the president that we're going to allow this. That's one. Two, we are here to serve the township of Jackson and the residents of Jackson within the law. We are not here to serve the interests of your client or any
other applicant. We are here on behalf of the township to enforce the zoning laws of this township. Period. Any other Well, it's just we're going to, you know, we're just it's the same application. Just throw some invisible
lines in there. It doesn't wash with us. You might try that in some other town. It's not going to work here. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Turmer. >> I was just gonna add too like I I I agree it's you say it's lines on a paper, but there's already cons there's
already considerations that if if one of the overflow basins fails, it's going to pond on Fister Road. That's noted in the engineering report. So now we're also adding three different septic systems, three different leech fields. We're adding more concerns. So it's to me it's not just it's not just lines on a paper, too. It's it's additional loading that
we're putting on there, right? Like Mr. Breie touched on with the nitrates and the soil systems, too. You know, there it's not just that. There's more to it. So, and and even with the like I said, there's there's concerns that the one basin will will pond on Fister Road. The other two are going to are are going to
overflow to the trenching which is on Farmdale Road, too. So, there is more concerns than just lines on road. And that was what my point I was going to add to to the mix was as well. Madam Chair, as Mr. Chair brought up the septic systems, I do recall that we went
over the other septic system. The way it's monitored and stuff, it helps filter more out than just the leech fields does. Totally different system. And uh the three separate system does not have that severity to it that it does that kind of job on it. So I agree with Mr. Trema there. Also,
>> Mr. Peters, anything from you? >> Uh a couple of things. and and if I if I start to get confusing or or if I lose anyone, please stop me. But Miss Capones, since you're the the last witness, you get to tell me it's someone else's responsibility.
>> Okay. As I look at the specific variance request for minimum sideyard setback where 60 ft's required and 50s proposed for building A on lot 2403, the lot closest >> the bottom lot
>> to Farming. >> Yeah. The southernmost lot. [clears throat] If the lines on paper don't matter much, could we have adjusted these lot lines so that the sideyards in between the proposed buildings were 120 ft each and
then perhaps the sideyard setback for building C on lot 2405 would have been the one that was deficient. Would that have been better planning on our part?
Um because I don't >> I understand if I can understand your question correctly. You're asking if we took the lots the lot line out between 2403 and 24 and made that variance go away and we flipped it to the northern portion, right? You have a finite amount of property here. So again, it just the
layout of the schools and the circulation is not going to change. So if you did what you're suggesting, what is the planning benefit other than eliminating a variance for the sideyard setback? You don't change any of the layout. You don't change the circulation. You don't
>> Well, I don't I don't know that because I don't have dimensions that add up across all of the side property lines. >> I I think you really should ask a site engineer that question. But it would it would appear to me that that you could
limit the reduction in sideyard setback on lot 2403 by adjusting lot lines. >> That may very well be the case. I think we should bring our sites engineer back up to ask if he thinks we could eliminate that one variance. And the
second question I had is since the original approval the parking standards have changed and now we have a deficient number of parking spaces for building A and [clears throat] whether it's a waiver or variance I
don't know I guess to Miss Jennings really didn't get much testimony other than saying we need a waiver. Well now we're creating a lot that's deficient and doesn't have the ability to share access with other folks. [clears throat] So I I I would like someone to come back and tell us
why we should have less parking that's than what's required in 2026 on building A. >> I think the testimony was that the students don't drive. So we were overparked to begin with. We're not going to have 77 teachers in the school. So there'll be more than sufficient
parking for the teachers that are actually going to drive to the site and there'll be no students driving. So, we're actually overparked still on the site even though we don't meet the parking requirements today. >> And the parking demand hasn't changed. The parking demand and the use hasn't changed.
>> So, you would agree if if the use if the parking use changed that someone would need to come back to the board for relief? >> 100%. And that I think was part of our original approval that if anything changed, >> we would have to come back to the board.
But, uh, we don't anticipate that there'll be any change. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. We've been talking a lot about the septics and while I hear everything Mr. Breie was saying about that, um, yes, they are being currently 2,000 gallon standard septics. Correct
me if I'm saying it wrong, but what happens if maybe the applicant can s agree to an alternate kind of septic system, each one individually, it's more costly, but at the same time it will keep the property cleaner and at the
same time have it. I don't like seeing one big septic for three schools in my opinion. I do believe, you know, small septic small problem, big septic, if there's a fail, big problem. So, if there could be an alternate septic design, maybe that would be agreeable
and maybe the board will agree with that as well. >> We would have to ask the site engineer that because I'm not exactly sure what that would entail. Hoody, do you want to come up and address that? >> That's a good idea. That is the concern. That is a good idea. It's not It's not so difficult. >> Use the microphone, please.
>> It does cost a little more. Obviously, you introduce another tank that does pre-treatment, which is part of what the the state uh septic system would do. Um they do require this in the Pinelands, such a thing. Um yeah, that would be if
if that is the concern with the septics, that is a good idea. >> Well, that's certainly one of the concerns. >> So, are we adding that as a stipulation? >> So, would that would would the uh applicant be willing to stipulate to that? >> Yes. Yes.
pre-treatment tanks, I guess. >> Pre-treatment facilities for all three septics. >> Yes. >> Any other questions from the board members? >> And how about Mr. Cle? >> Um, just going back to the septic system. Um, pre-treatment um as required
by the finance commission or design in accordance with the filing commission standards. I just really get get in a situation where um well we said pre-treatment we added another septic that we pre-treated. >> Yes. One of the certified pre-treatment tanks. >> Excellent. Certified by the violence. >> Thank you.
>> Yes. >> Um and this just two people the um um in the land use um m um the purposes that advance. I think you gave us three. >> I did. Yes.
>> Okay. Did any of them include um that it enhances the applicants or developers ability to sell the property? >> I didn't say anything about the ability to sell the property. What I talked about was facilitating the construction of schools which are an inherently beneficial use.
>> We've been through the inherently beneficial. Um but was there anything in any of the purposes that advance it that makes it easier to market? >> I didn't provide any testimony to that. So, none of your testimony relates to the marketing and the selling of the property? >> No.
>> Okay. Um, and can you speak to the ordinance requirement for being on a higher level roadway and why that might be in the ordinance um and a whole different application and every application stands on its own, but
recently we saw a school um on a um local street and that what the board really struggled with. So, I'm just curious why the ordinance requires that it be on a higher level street, but um the applicants proposing that there's a
reason why that this these two um schools don't have to be or it's okay that they are. >> So, because in this particular case, and as you said, I agree with you, each case has to rise and fall on its own merit. So, what the board struggled with in another application or might struggle with on a future application has no
bearing on this, right? Each case is facts sensitive and you have to go on the fact pattern that's before you. So in this particular application unlike I'm familiar with the other case you were talking about unlike another application this is really more of a technicality because when you put that
lot line in then the the whole entire site no longer fronts on the type of street that the board envisioned it. But if you don't put the lot lines in we don't need that variance. So that to me is again becomes more of a technicality right. So hard to say that we're not
meeting the intent of the ordinance when the only reason we're no longer meeting that section is is because we've drawn two lines on a piece of paper on a site that two years ago was approved for schools in this location. There's been nothing in the character of this area.
There's been no change circumstance in this area that would render it inappropriate for the site to be laid out the way it is. In fact, I think the board I've heard nothing but universal agreement this evening that the access and the site layout or the the the road
realignment is a better improved circumstance over what was done previously. So hearing that and hearing nothing but universal agreement that the road alignment and the road network serving this is better, I am struggling at all to find any substantial detriment
that the lot line and the site not fronting on a collector would bring to uh to the board would rise to the level of any kind of detriment because I I've heard nothing but universal agreement that the road layout is better. So for those reasons, for the fact that it's a
superior road layout and the fact that it's a technicality that we don't comply with that, that the site still does have frontage on a collector, but when you drop those lines in, two of the three lots don't have the frontage. >> But but going back to why does the ordinance require being on for a school
to be on a higher level road? >> Well, I didn't write the ordinance, Mr. Cle, so I can I can't I can't tell you why they broke that in. I would imagine it has to do with um the ability of the road to service the use that's being proposed and here you have uh agreement
from your board um and the applicant that the road servicing it is is certainly a better situation. So I think in this particular case there's no offense to whatever intent the municipality had when they wrote in that you would have to front on a collector.
And I think it's important that a portion of the state still does front on a collector. It's just the subdivided portion if the board were to approve it wouldn't front on the collector. So here I think the board can rest on those two things if you were to move favorably on this application. One
that a portion of the site still does front on the collector. two, that it's a better access and layout than you approved previously, and three, really that there's been no change circumstance in in this neighborhood that would render it um inappropriate for this type of use. >> That's all. Thank you.
>> You're welcome, Mr. Peters. Anything from you? >> Pretty much. I think Miss Demarzo, um Mr. Heler and I can explain to you why we've uh uh prefer that we use larger
roadways and not local roadways. The local roadway does have a problem sustaining bus traffic, turning radius, um passing of buses. So that's that's
why we prefer the uh larger roads. Mr. Brezie, >> I have a pro a question on the uh >> they put the >> I can't hear you, Mr. >> If they put the special systems in on the different systems like the pil
requires when we approve the original one there, I believe some testimony. I'm testing my memory here that there's a licensed professional to monitor that on one big system. Now, are these three separate systems going to be monitored for that first tank and so forth or some sort of system to monitor it?
>> My wheelhouse. That's what I thought >> that and I got a question, Miss Jennings, just by memory and going away a little bit here. Um, I thought on the original application there was some recreation in the back of the buildings. Was there recreation areas in the back
of the buildings originally? >> Yeah, but I think on the original we agreed that the septic system would be fenced in. >> But the recreation area would be back only the one septic system be fenced in. But you had recreation areas in the in the areas. Now, on these plans, I don't see no reference to recreation areas,
but you have three separate systems. Does that cut down the recreation areas? >> It can if we fence those in. Yeah. >> Yeah. It's going to cut it down. >> You can you can play ball on top of the septics. >> I I know that on top of leaf field, but it doesn't help it. Um, but I was just
wondering why it's not showed at all on the plans where the original ones did show uh recreation for each school. >> Anthony, can you pull up A1, please? I don't think we called out any recreation area specifically. There may have been testimony to that. I
>> I think if we check the testimony, >> it might have been a condition of the approval that we were going to put the recreation areas in because I do recall a discussion about recreation septic system. Actually, chair person Campbell brought that up. >> That was mine. Um and and now there will
be no recreation because there'll be three separate systems covering all those areas. >> No, I think we can still have uh areas. Go back to a what is it? Four. >> A4. >> Yep. We're asking >> one at a time, guys.
>> But it would be reduced. Correct. >> I don't know off the top of my head. >> Can you we go to is it A4? >> Um A5. Sorry. We got 12,000 total. Keep the mic up. >> I think it's 12,000 total between the
three of them, the three fields which can be played on, but I don't know this the square footage for the state one off the top of my head. So, I don't know how it matches up. >> And of course, if there are three separate schools, they wouldn't be
necessarily allowed to play on the very large area that was available with the original plan. The original plan had one very large area available, >> right? >> This has three smaller areas available.
>> I'm assuming there would still be some sort of agreement even on the one large. It's three schools. I highly doubt it's >> Well, I think you've eliminated the one large one. We've done that. >> Yeah, >> that one large one's eliminated. But I would like some sort of professional answer. I can get one about how does the
I call the special septic system, the pilot system. Isn't that have to be monitored by a licensed somebody? The way the holding tank works and stuff, >> I don't believe so. I don't believe they're monitor. >> Use the microphone. >> I don't think they're monitored. Even in
the pine lens, I don't think so. >> You have your knowledge. >> Septic systems. >> I don't don't know if that could be monitored, but I think there has to be some reporting back to the pilots commission as far as its functionality.
Is it meeting its um reductions >> could be. I don't know. >> Would you stipulate to doing some sort of regular monitoring on it? >> Yes, I think that would be fair. >> Sure. >> I think that's a good recommendation and
and those systems are totally different than just regular 2,000 gallon system. >> Any other questions, Mr. Tremor? No, Mr. Presley answered my question. Thank you. >> Thank you, M. Jennings.
>> Uh, no, I think that's our presentation. I think you need to open it to the public, right? >> Um, Miss Capone, just real quick. So, um, just when it goes back to I just want to make sure the board is clear on this. So when you goes back to the individual lots, right? I know that
we're subdividing, but each individual lot still has to stand on its own merits pursuant to the ordinance. Correct. >> Yeah. So, so if two of the lots I know that one, I believe, does meet the fact that it's on the major arterial road, right? >> Yeah. 24.03.
>> I always have a problem pronouncing that. It's like a tongue twister. Um, but the other two don't. So the other two so the board would still have to deliberate on the legal standard for the C2 variance based upon the other two lots. So even though we even though the testimony that was provided uh had the
positive negative criteria testimony that was put on record, they still have to determine the viability of that legal test for the other two lots given the ordinance standards. >> Yes. Y4 and 24.05. Those are the two that don't
comply, right? Madam Chair. >> Yes, sir. >> Um, Miss Jennings, just summarily, um, there were a number of conditions that were in the previous resolution. Um,
are any of those, and I don't mean to sort of sandbag you with them. I'm just going through them. There were a number of items that are in the last resolution. Are there changes to any of these that that need to be discussed with the board? I'm looking at page 16
of the previous resolution. Um, and while I I I take you at your word, I don't know that the the engineer or anyone sort of testified that the board had a number of conditions which would apply to the approval. Um, and I
just want to make sure that if we need to change them because of how we're amending the plan, I don't want you to just say yes to everything and then we go to write up a resolution and then we have to spend hours trying to decide what it was we
discussed at this meeting tonight. Understood. So, looking at page 16, there are seven conditions listed. Um, I'm reviewing them. The first one said the applicant will provide roaming security guard services for sight protection. Agreed. Two,
>> all three for all three sites >> individually. >> All three. Correct. Mhm. Uh the septic areas will be fenced. Yes. The schools will only be used for school related activities and purposes. Yes.
Four. signs indicated no stopping and no standing will place on all fronting of the properties or the three lots and along the roadway. Five, each school will certify to the township that the parking capacity has
not exceeded the current limitations. Six, children will not be permitted to drive to any of the schools. And seven, the site or all three properties shall employ a D certified individual to maintain the septic system. Yes, >> all three.
>> All three. >> I thought there was something there about monitoring it. >> We all We all printed out that lengthy. All right. We'll uh like to open it to the public now, please. >> I'd like to make a motion to open it to
the public for cross-examination of the witnesses on this application. Sullivan. >> Second. Demorzo. Now, that would mean that at this time you would only come up and ask questions specific to the uh
applicants uh and to their the the people that testified, not general comments. General comments will be held at a separate time following this particular time. Does anyone have any specific questions for
the applicant at this time? Seeing no one come forward, I move to close the public cross-examination on this application. Sullivan. >> Second, Demarzo. >> All in favor? >> I. >> I.
>> All right. Then we'll open again. >> I'd like to make a motion to open to the public for comments on this application and this application only. Sullivan. >> Second. Demarzo. >> All in favor? >> I. If anyone has any uh comments about
this particular application, please come forward at this time. >> Didn't I just see you here >> a couple days ago? >> Ray Treamer Jun, >> please raise right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but truth? >> Always. >> All right. Please state your name and
spell your last. >> Raymond Tr. I am on the zoning board, but I'm here as a civilian. Um, as we all know, I used to be on the planning board and thank you, Mr. Breie, for the u the great questions on septic
systems. Pineland systems, it's become a joke. What a pineland system is because the normal house effluent goes into a tank.
It just mixes up and goes into a field and spreads out. What a pineland system is is basically a very small sewage treatment plant. So it goes from one tank to a second tank. There's a misconception that's been brought to the
boards many times that this creates less impact and we could do a lot more with less. It's not true. It still has the same amount of water going in it, same amount of stuff. What it does is breaks down more of the
effluent which gives a cleaner product going out into the same size field. So it doesn't change the demand. I've installed these things for five years. So over 250 systems under my belt, I will call myself a semi-professional.
So understand when they come to the board and say, "Oh, 150 kids, 2,000galon system." It's not accurate in my opinion. 10-bedroom house, they demand a piland system, 2,000gallon tank. How many
people in a 10-bedroom house? 15 maybe. So, how could 150 children use the same system? Ask yourself that. That's all I'm going to say. Second, I've always said that we need better
proof of calculation of these systems. In my eyes, apparently this single system, they got caught. They need three systems. That's why they're doing this. And Mr. Marzo, you are correct. They are
trying, I believe, to sell it. And it's it's kind of a shame. Just be honest. Do what you got to do. Um, brought up the master plan, how it doesn't fit. I don't understand why they even want to do this. But I just wanted
to explain the Pineeland system to everybody just to help understand it. Don't be taken. >> Thank you. Anyone else like to come forward on this application at this time? >> Seeing no one else come forward, I move to close the public comment portion on
this application. Sullivan >> second. Demarzo. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Okay. >> So, I think you understand uh the applicant's position. Uh we would hope that the board would uh respectfully grant approval subject to the conditions
agreed upon. Thank you, Mr. Clay. Any closing comments from you? >> Um, not really. Um, the only other or concern was that because the um, realignment is such an advantage, such
as enhancing the product. Um, I'd hate to lose that. Um, but I'm struggling with the subdivision itself with the three lots. >> Thank you, Mr. Peters. the same thing. The balancing of the intersection improvements was one of the
paramount things that we discussed because we couldn't get it at the last application. And I I want to remind the board to weigh that against the the any perceived negatives associated with the requirement, the request for the subdivision. Thank you.
>> Can I ask Mr. Cle I couldn't catch what you were saying. Could you say it again your opinion of that, Mr. Cle? [clears throat] Now, um I just, you know, if the board were to deny the application, I would hate to see the realignment of fist if we lose that, but that might be a
condition of the county. >> Whether they do it or whether you approve it or not, I think the county is going to require that realignment. Um does that mean that they have to come back to the board again for the realignment of Fister Road? Well, if they deny this application, they would.
And um they would also have to apply for a sub for a subdivision of the 20 2402 across the street. I'm sorry, >> 34 >> 34 across the street. They would have to apply that would still be a subdivision involved with that to allow for the
realignment of of Fister. Um I said I just don't would you know I wouldn't really want to see it go back to the original way with the dog lake, but I don't think the county is going to buy into it anyway. I think that that was something we this board encouraged strongly when we heard this the first
time >> just follow the to get rid of that dog leg that was that was talked about at length >> if this had come in with that realignment and no subdivision I would have probably looked at that or been comfortable with it's a required by an
outside agency the lots are getting bigger everything's the same I could have done that administratively this I probably would have brought to the board but I could have handled it that way. It's a subdivision that's creating a problem. >> And if this board were to deny this,
could we um agree that it could be uh done administratively on the realignment of the uh lot across the street? That that's the issue, right? >> It's a subdivision. You have to have approval from the planning board.
>> Yeah. you can't you can't grant subdivisions administratively. Um but there's different processes that are involved to to get to the same point. You could do a phasing plan. You could do a condominium plan. Um you know, I don't know how that's going to impact
county approval for uh roadway. That's a it's a whole different ballgame. Um you know, but getting to that point, there's different methods of procedurally of of getting to that. Um, but I'll I'll leave
that as it may. >> Thank you. >> Just just just a um quick followup. Um, if the applicant would be, you know, willing to take the subdivision of the properties to create the three lots off the table, and we're just here to realign Fister, which will need an
impact to adjoining lot 34, and I think we could proceed, but that's kind of up to the board, and I don't know if the applicant's willing to do that. No, the applicant uh would like get their application voted on. >> Thank you.
>> All right, let's have uh some discussion among the board members then, please. Starting with you, Mr. Preszie. Any thoughts? >> No, I I thank Mr. a tremor for coming up and I understand is we've always had some concerns with numbers reported and so forth and we may not agree but I
respect you for it on on everything but he brought up one part that the system going in does provide a little cleaner waste going out of the leech field which is the reasoning for it and as you saw the stipulations do state from the prior application that it has to be monitored professionally which I think is
important too and uh I think that's a big concession with the undersized lots to do that type of system I think was a great idea from Mr. the hall. Uh, that's all I have to say at this time. >> Any other board member have comments? >> I just have one, >> Mr. Rogers.
>> Yes, thank you. I have one comment that I thought there was uh testimony as to the roadway uh reconstruction would survive without the uh three lot subdivision at all. It
could stand on its own two feet. And I heard there was some testimony as to there was other ways of getting uh to the uh
principal's desire of financial uh separation of the properties that would uh not impact the variances and the actual subdivision.
Any other members have concerns? I have >> Mr. Sullivan, >> I I have issues with this being a local roadway for two of the schools. Now, I know originally this was not an issue because it was one lot, but I I don't
like the idea of setting a precedence that we can allow schools on local roadways exclusively. and and and the fact is we are creating now two schools that will be on a local roadway which goes against the master plan. Um I have
uh I have some issues with that. >> Anyone else? Miss Demarzo. >> Yeah. I just don't find any compelling reason you we this project has previously been approved. The beneficial use of having these uh high schools is
fine as is. Um, it's just there's no question in my mind that by putting out three separate lots, the plan eventually will be to sell each one of those lots and potentially not even have schools on
them anymore. And having undersized lots and then putting something else up, that's real concern. Not to mention, as Mr. Sullivan rightly brought up, the the local roads. Thank you.
Mr. Parks, >> thank you. I I share um all of those concerns. The for consistency, I don't see how this board can approve one application um with uh two lots onto local roads, whereas previous
applications has been refused for other projects. Um the septic system I believe is not perfect and I don't think um it's adequate. Um I think it's a bad selection and also with the undersides
lots it's another issue that all goes to the uh the way I feel about this which is not very good. >> Anyone else? All right. We'll take a motion to uh
just discuss uh to uh vote on this particular issue. I'd like to make a motion to deny this application. I don't think it meets the requirements uh for us to uh give them the variances
they require and I think we have to draw the line when it comes to local roadways and therefore I am voting uh to deny this application. Sullivan, >> therefore that means to second. This is a second for a denial or
>> I'll second a motion for the denial. come a long way with the septic system, but I think Mr. Sullivan breaks a certain point up. I feel the same way as Mr. Mazo by separating the lots. It definitely encourages or makes it easy to sell them off. And then all we need
is somebody coming in with a pre-existing undersized lot and change the use. So, I have a problem with the undersized lots in the future. And I second a motion to deny. >> Take a roll call vote, please. And you
want to explain that a yes is a denial. >> A yes is a denial. And please, when you vote, explain what your vote is. >> In regards to the legal test. >> In regards to the legal test, >> Mr. Brazie,
>> in regards to the legal test, when we're creating without a hardship undersized lots, which seems apparent in my opinion that they are easy to sell that way. Uh the local road may not be their fault. It's a nice improvement with coming out with that curve in the road to the
intersection. And once again, there's three underside lots being created without a hardship. And my concern is that at any point in the future, somebody can come in from one of those lots if they buy it and change use and apply for a different use. So I I vote yes to deny.
>> Mr. Marzo, >> also yes to the denial. The detriments definitely outweigh the positives here. Thank you, >> Mr. Heler >> I did like my idea about the septic. I will agree with Mr. Breie's comments he
said and I will vote yes to deny. >> Mr. Parks >> I also vote yes to deny um the reasons I explained the local roads situation the undersized lots and the septic system or lead me to that conclusion.
>> Mr. Rogers. >> Uh, I vote yes to deny. Uh, let alone just the, uh, two schools on a local street uh, is good enough reason to deny it. >> Mr. Tremor, >> I also vote yes to deny, as previously
stated, with the the two roads on the local road and the undersized lots as well. >> Mr. Sullivan, >> uh, I vote yes to deny. We have undersized lots and two of the um proposed schools being on local roadways
which goes against the master plan of the township. Uh and therefore uh I uh vote to deny >> Dr. Camp. >> And I vote yes to deny. I thought it was a very good application, the one we did before. I thought we spent a great deal
of time on it. Um I remember going over the septic system at length. Uh, I remember going over the placement of where it was and its, uh, access to a major road. I thought it was a good application and I see no reason to have
it divided up at this point. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night. >> We'll accept a motion. >> Like to make a motion to close this meeting. Sullivan. >> Second, Demarzo.
>> All in favor? I >> bet nobody's opposed. >> Have a good night.