Uh, no. I got the next meeting. >> Okay. I'll just give him to I pledge algiance 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, testing. Okay. All right, everybody. Welcome to the March 9th, 2026 Jackson Township Planning Board meeting. Year is going quick. Um,
this not this meeting has been properly noticed in all the appropriate forums and places pursuant to the Open Public Meetings Act and I will leave it up to Madam Chairwoman. >> We'll have the roll call, please. Mr. Brezie >> here. >> Mr. Marzo >> here. >> Mr. Heler >> here. >> Mr. Parks,
>> Mr. Rogers >> here. Miss Santoro >> here. >> Mr. Tremor >> here. >> Mr. Weart, >> Mr. Sullivan >> here, >> Dr. Camp >> here. Uh, I'll take a motion for payment of voucher for recording secretary for March 9th. Please move.
>> Second. Sullivan. >> Mr. Brezie. >> Yes. >> Mr. Marzo? >> Yes. >> Mr. Heler? >> Yes. >> Mr. Parks? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rogers? >> Yes. >> Miss Santoro? >> Yes. >> Mr. Tremor? >> Yes. >> Mr. Sullivan? >> Yes. >> Dr. Camp? >> Yes. Take a motion for approval of
minutes for February 9th, please. >> So move. Sullivan. >> Second. >> Mr. Brezie. >> Yes. >> Mr. Marzo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Heler. >> Yes. >> Mr. Parks. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rogers. >> Yes. >> M. Santoro. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Sullivan. >> Yes. >> Dr. Campbell. >> Yes. We have no resolutions this evening. We do have some changes to the agenda schedule. Uh application for block 19703 lot 29 for Nefresh AAM in is carried
from March 23rd to April 20th with notice required. Have a motion on that please. >> So move Sullivan >> second Demarzo. All in favor? >> I >> I. >> Anyone opposed?
Carried. Uh the uh April 6th meeting is cancelled. Need a motion for that, please. >> Motion. Hello. >> Second, Demorzo. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Okay. Um Mr. Cle.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um application tonight, we have two administrative approvals or courtesy reviews for Great Adventure. Um historically the um greater venture uh came in comes in um gives a brief um um description explanation of the uh capital
improvement projects that are proposed and that's what we're here tonight. We have a uh 30 by 50 foot retail sales building next to the safari base camp and a [clears throat] 10 foot x 21t building addition to the existing uh paradise pizza and grill at her hurricane harbor.
>> Any concerns? >> None. >> Mr. Buffer. Good evening everybody. Adam Feffer turning after the applicant uh Six Flags Great Adventure. I'm sure Mr. Breie could probably give everybody including myself a history of of how these administrative applications came
before the board for Greater Adventure. Um as uh Mr. Cle indicated, these are two very minor um um administrative. Uh one of the projects is a small addition. It's about 210 square feet, which is about size of my size closet. um
addition to a pizza retail uh store uh in an already disturbed area. It's already existing building. Uh the second project is an approximately 1,200 square foot uh retail building that will be a new building but it's in again an area of the safari that's already being
utilized. Uh I have representatives from great adventure. I have our engineer here. I will just tell you that the uh plans are still going to be any architectural plans and building permits still go through the township will get reviewed by your building department and will be inspected um you know with a
normal course of of of inspections. So this is not as as exciting as a new ride that will be coming in for other hearings. Um but this is just uh an administrative uh approval for a capital improvement for this year. >> I was at that safari base camp last
year. Wow, that's terrific. Yes, we came here about two years ago to convert the to to the >> Very nice. Very nice. Any questions from the board? Yes, I stayed at the safari twice the last two years. Any questions from the board?
>> Make a statement. You're right. This has started many years ago and it happened every time that the odds are if you did not come in or a great adventure did not come in it, nobody would know about it. Uh it's always been done up and up. always
asking for the, you know, the right stuff, going through the engineers. It's been that way for years. They've never taken a shortcut to try to eliminate that. >> Any other comments, questions?
Okay. Just ask for approval. We'll take a motion. Can we do we can we do them both on the same approval or do we have to do them separately? >> You have any testimony for the >> It's the same. Megan, I put a testimony on, but I think it's an administrative, so I think one vote is probably
sufficient. >> Yeah, they they technically have two different um So, let's just do one at a time. >> One at a time. Then we'll take a motion for block 3101, lot 11.01 for the new retail building at Safari Base Camp.
>> So moved. >> Second. Sullivan. >> Let's do a roll call. Mr. Brezie, >> yes. >> Mr. Marzo, >> yes. >> Mr. Mr. Heler. >> Yes. >> Mr. Parks. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rogers. >> Yes. >> Miss Santoro. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tremer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sullivan. >> Yes.
>> Dr. Camp. >> Yes. Block 3101, lot 11.01, Six Flags Great Adventure, addition to existing Pizza Paradise at Hurricane Harbor. We'll take a motion, please. >> So move. >> Second. Sullivan.
>> Mr. Brezie. >> Yes. >> Mr. Marzo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Heler. >> Yes. >> Mr. Parks. Mr. Rogers. >> Yes. >> Miss Santoro. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tremor. >> Yes. >> Mr. Sullivan. >> Yes. >> Dr. Kim. >> Yes. Congratulations. Thank you.
[laughter] >> Thank you, gentlemen. At least you didn't have too far to come. >> Have a good night. >> Mr. Alfi. Um, you know, Madam Chairman, let me um let me for the appellet decision that came in. Let me just >> We need We need a little a little
something to put on the record for attorney. >> Yeah, Mr. F, I'll just take two minutes. We just got a recent uh >> I I'll take two minutes and put this on record and then then we'll uh So, we we recently had an appellet decision come back in our favor. Uh we got five key
points. I just want to make sure that the board is is on point with uh first one is that we won on the conflict issue uh and this is in the matter of uh Bova verse uh the township of Jackson the Jackson planning board uh otherwise
known by is bias yakov um there was a conflict issue that was in question and the appellet division ruled that it has to be two-dimensional not three-dimensional so therefore it has to be like a personal uh either self-interest or pecuni ary interest for
for that to trigger the conflict itself. It can't be three-dimensional in in um in guidance. So like you can't it can't be like an agent of yours or anything like that. Um it has to be it has to be a direct conflict. So that's kind of a simple test. It's called the pain test.
Um there's four aspects of it, but the the appellet division ruled in our favor on on the whole gamut. Um the second issue that we went on was the EIS statement. Um so what happened in this situation was that uh a um there
actually was a um mclassification of a habitat uh from 4 to three but it was in the non-habitable area. So the appel division actually ruled that due to the fact that it's a juris jurisdiction of the D that handles the the EIS
statements um everything regarding the environmental aspects of that that it's okay to have harmless errors in there as long as it's not in the disturbed areas. So this was this was kind of a guiding um decision from them because there's
not many cases on this. But that was good because if it impacts the developed areas, it makes sense. If it doesn't impact the uh areas that aren't being disturbed, aren't being developed, that that makes sense as to why they ruled in in that uh in that fashion. Um third
area that they ruled in our favor was uh the endangered species habitat area. So what happened was is that they alleged that we're that the um the developer was going to be disturbing endangered habitats, but we made the resolution conditional upon D approval of just
whether it was going to happen or not. You know, what were there species? Were not were there not species? Um and the appellet division ruled in our favor indicating that we made the right call in in conditioning the approval upon D weighing in on that as to whether or not
um you know as to the D being the ones to determine whether or not there's any habitat um issues. Uh fourth area of note that we went on was just regular uh it was land I believe we landbanked 136
spaces. Uh the appel division said that we are entirely within our discretion of um of allowing that. Uh if we do so choose um that's kind of here nor there, but it's just kind of a a good thing that you know it's not we're allowed to do that. We're allowed to greed bank.
We're allowed to land bank. That's okay. Um and the fifth area to note is is the uh procedural fairness uh kind of due process uh argument that we went on and that was we are allowed to restrict test
because we're quasi judicial body. we're allowed to restrict testimony um to the issues on point and and as long as we allow whether the objector or a member of the public or anybody to um to put
their opinion on record, we we allow it to happen. We're we're allowed to restrict it from that point forward. Meaning like for our purposes and and for you guys to know this if we say asked and answered it's okay if we say
that if we if we say you guys you know somebody has already asked that question as long as they have been given the opportunity to put it on record to establish that point as a matter of record for an appealable issue later on if they so do choose of you know filing
a PW or or contesting anything later on that issue is now of the of the record, but they don't have to put it on like 10 15 times. So, as long as we allow them the opportunity to put it on, that's perfectly procedurally fine and we're not violating any due process violations
or anything like that. Um, so we want on all counts. Um, and that's it. >> So, does how do we know let's say someone comes forth and puts something on the record? Will you keep track of that?
You'll let us know that's been >> right. So, so what I'll do, I'll I'll keep track of of the uh items that that are being questioned or asked or anything like that. Um if it gets to the point of repetitiveness, you know, we can say, okay, it's okay. It's part of
the record now. The appealable issue is now made part of the record in the event of any challenge, you know, you can move on. So, um I'll I'll keep tabs of that. >> All right. Any questions for uh Mr. Sheay?
All right. No, you're right, Mr. Alfairy. I'm We're going to do block 18701, lot 40 first. >> Uh good evening. My name is Steve Slavven. I'm attorney with Prime Telmi. We represent the applicant uh 789 Toms
River Road. We're We're going to ask our professionals first. So, just let us know who you are. Have a seat. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> That's okay. That's fine. >> Well, we need another chair. Oh, you're good. All right, Mr. Cle. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. An application
for a minor subdivision of the subject property. The applicants proposing to create two lots. Um, lot A will require a variance for lot depth and lot B will require variance for lot width. There's an existing residential
dwelling that's been uh constructed on the property that's designated to remain. Um, we do have the pedestrian safety fund. Um, and this is an area where that's probably applicable um because no curbs or sidewalks are proposed. I'm sure the applicant will be willing to contribute into the um into
the fund. That's all. >> Mr. Peters, >> what Mr. Please. [laughter] >> Okay, that was pretty easy, wasn't it? That wasn't so bad. Um, Mr. Tremor, do we have anything from environmental on this >> application? Do not believe so.
>> Did we get a letter of uh no concern or concern one way or the other? >> For lot uh block 18701, lot 40. >> Okay. >> Just curious. Thank you.
Madam Madam. >> All right, gentlemen. >> Madam Chair, this is in the Pelands, so we we're tied up as far as environmental issues go that they'll be more than diligent as far as >> be going to the Pinelands Commission. Yes. >> All right. Okay, gentlemen. Thank you.
>> Could you spell your name for me, please? Because I don't have you on my list. Thank you, sir. property located. >> Yeah, we can't hear you. >> And when the people at home can't hear you either.
>> You hear me now? Is that better? Okay, thank you. Um, applicant is seeking a minor subdivision to create two residential lots. Uh, one of the lots is already developed with a single family home which will remain. There is no development of the second lot as a part of this application. Um there may be in
the future a construction of a single family home. Um as a result of the minor subdivision, there are a couple bulk variances. One for lot depth and one for existing lot an existing lot and a second for a lot with for the newly created lot. Appan has received actually certificate of filing and consistency
determination from the pylons commission in receipt of your professionals uh review letters. Um and we're prepared to respond to any comments on those. I have one witness this evening. It's Josh Seaw, professional engineer, professional planner um with Dynamic Engineering. And with that, I'm prepared
to start. >> Y please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, not by the truth? >> I do, Mr. Chair. >> Please, please state your name. Tell your last the record. >> Certainly. Josh, S E W from Dynamic
Engineering Consultants. >> And does the board accept his credentials? Never seen him before. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, we do have one exhibit. It's the same minor subdivision exhibit. I did provide a USB or it might be on the file. Um,
>> oh, these are so nice. >> Oh, that's cool. >> It's actually the first one in the folder without the blue bean markup. >> Perfect. Thank you, Um all right. So the exhibit before you minor subdivision plan, same drawing
that you have uh in front of you. The property is 2.195 acres and it's a relatively simple application uh for this first one on the docket. Uh it's uniquely shaped parcel. As you can see, it's long and rectangular. It is angled towards Tom's River Road. Uh out there
today, as Mr. Slavven mentions we do have one two-story residential dwelling associated with those improvements. A couple of uh driveways, uh detached uh an attached garage on the back. There's a front porch, some fencing, and essentially what we're looking to do is
take the back undeveloped piece of the property and create a separate lot. Uh to the north of us is the same Pinelands Village zoning district, woods and residential uses. To the east of us, um, right next to our neighboring is the same Pinelands Village District, but
that actually has a commercial use. To the south is Further Woods County Route 571 and further RD9 zoning. And to the west is more uh Pineland's Village. Overall, the property is a residential use, and all surrounding us are additional residential uses except for
one of our neighbors. What we're looking to do, take this 2acre and change property, split it into two. Lot A will be 1.025 acres. that will have the existing dwelling on it that's on the map before you that has the same one with the frontage on Tom River Road and
lot B will be 1.026 026 acres. So essentially splitting the property right in half, right in the middle. And there are no proposed improvements at this time. Anytime we're before your board and we're talking about grading, drainage, lighting, and landscaping, tonight is simply a lot split. Um, as as
we discussed very high level, both single family dwellings are uh permitted uses within the zone. So let's talk about the crux of the application. We are seeking two variances from the board this evening. Um and two of them are going to clearly fall within the C2 planning criteria that's associated with
more the deviation can be granted from the board. Uh we call it the flexible planning alternative. So the first one is minimum lot width for lot B. Lot B is the newly created lot. That's the lot in the rear of the parcel. Um 125 ft width
is required. We're proposing approximately 37.57. Essentially, that is the flag lot driveway that will be able for the rear lot of the property to access Tom's River Road. The second variance that we're seeking is minimum lot depth. 250
ft is required. 209 is proposed and that is more associated with lot A. That's the existing house. Why are these variances existed? Why are we seeking them this evening? Long story short, a lot of the properties in this area, not just this subject property, but the
block of 18 uh 701 are very deep but kind of narrow in the front. We're actually lucky that we're sitting on two acres, a lot of our neighbors around the 1acre requirement. So, you could in theory split this lot right down the middle long ways and create somewhat of
those conforming lots. But, we do have an existing house already on the front. So, in order to comply with all the other bulk standards of the Pine Village, we're looking to create this flag lot style, the 35 foot wide drive aisle on the northern side to get to this compliant box in the back. So,
let's go through some of the um the planning proofs and criteria. We simply have to show that the benefits outweigh any detriment. Doesn't mean that there aren't any detriments. Just have to show that the benefits certainly outweigh them. So, for lot B, again, that's the newly created lot. We're talking about the deviation is simply for the flat lot
portion only to serve as the driveway. The rear lot actually where that house is going to be located will be approximately 172 by 200 feet. This is exactly what the bulk standard of Pine Village is looking for. A nice rectangular space to have your home. It's not out of character of the neighborhood that we discussed and
multiple lots within block 18701 has those unique shaped parcels and under the 125 foot lot minimum. It promotes another permitted use within the zone and you allow that to have a more efficient use of land that we can keep an existing uh property in the back and have another home on there. It also
provides a more rectangular shape for both the existing and future home. I don't believe there's any substantial detriment to public good zone planning or zoning ordinance. The second variance we have again is the 250 foot minimum lot depth 209 ft is proposed and again that's lot A. That's the um existing
uh that's the existing dwelling that's out there. As you can see, the existing dwelling is actually facing and is parallel with Tom's River Road, but the property is angled uh at a unique acute angle. And that kind of creates a situation where we we can't and really we can't relocate that existing building
to create more of a conforming situation. So again, a uniquely shaped parcel. Um based on the definition, the way that Jackson identifies um lot depth, you actually take the midway of the rear lot line and then you calculate that the average depth to the front
parcel line. The average lot depth is actually 262. So I basically took the southern side property line, which is 198. I added the northern side property line, which is 326, combined them, divided them by two. The average lot
depth of this new lot A is 262 which meets the intent of your ordinance. You guys are looking for 250. That 209 exists because of the unique angle and shape and the way that the subdivision is happening. So we comply with the minimum lot size requirements again for lot A as well. And again the existing
home is to remain as is. Overall in my professional opinion no substantial detriment to the public good nor the zone plan or zoning ordinance. I further believe that it advances several purposes of miscellaneous law. A, G, and M, but M the most important part in my professional opinion. You have an
existing house that's on a property at two acres in size. It it exceeds the minimum lot size that we have. And we're looking to create two single one acre lot properties. And simply what we're asking for is some some flexibility in how the existing property is shaped, how
the existing dwelling is located. We don't want to modify them too much. and really to promote the more efficient use of land that we can have a new resident and citizen of your community on a nice rectangular shape of the building in the back. That completes my overall direct presentation of a little bit of
engineering, mostly planning and just a summary of what we're looking to do on this property. >> And there's a shared driveway. >> No, there will be a separate >> There'll be a separate driveway. >> That's right. >> It looked very confusing.
>> Maybe you could point that out. certainly can for you. Again, referencing the minor subdivision. This is the existing driveway heading to the existing house. There's also a second curb cut that goes to the front of their garage. The right 35- ft uh subdivided
property will be able to access the house in the back. So, two separate driveways for you. >> Any questions from the board? Mr. Heler. >> All right. on lot B. Can you just elaborate a bit about your I guess it's a front yard setback even though it's behind a rare yard setback. You have it
as a side setback. So can you just elaborate a bit about that? Certainly. So the way that we review the bulk standards of the PV because this lot line which is will be the rear lot line for lot A, this technically has to be the sideyard. So the front yard
really always has to be fronting on a public rightway. So the way that we drew our building envelope is that this is actually the sideyard. If you were to draw a sideyard on each one of these property lines and the front yard, the building envelope would enclose upon itself. Basically rendering that we
can't put a structure in that flag portion of the lot. So the back building envelope is where you can actually put a home. Yes, >> I have a question on the driveway for lot B. >> Yeah, could you use the microphone? They can't hear you.
>> I have a question on the driveway for lot B. That would be dedicated to lot B, right? >> That is correct. >> So, it would become the property of lot B. It's not being dedicated to some township or >> Correct. It will it will not be an easement. That will be a separate C
fimple uh C f simple. Wow. I'm sorry. Fe simple lot transaction not an easement or a condo or an HOA. That is its own standalone parcel. Now, should you vote favorably on the application >> not be designated as a residential use? >> Yes.
>> So, that's the homeowner is going to be responsible for that driveway. >> They'll maintain the snow and the maintenance of their driveway from the street. Making >> sure. Absolutely. Anyone else from the board? Um, I'm sorry. So, the variance that
you're asking for for lot B is Could you just point it out for me on there? >> Certainly. Minimum lot width is 125 ft. Technically, the lot width in this portion of the flag lot is about 37.57 feet. >> Yep. Thank you.
>> No problem. So, if I might for the board members, the town doesn't specifically have flag lot ordinances. I don't know if you all discussed that during master plan or not, but the town doesn't have them. So, if you go to Freehold or Howell or other municipalities, they would say
the stem of the flag lot should be some width and the area in the back might be 150% of the required lot area. And then it'll tell you where to measure setback lines to. So sometimes you'd say, well, let's measure the front setback line
from the buildable area in the back so that you have enough separation between the house in the back and the house in the front. In this case, we simply don't. So the lot frontage is along the highway. The lot width is measured at the building setback line, which is 60 feet. So it's only 35 foot wide. So they
technically need a variance. They could make the argument they could provide that with in the back, but the way our ordinance reads at this point, I take no exception to the planning testimony that was given. It just we don't get a lot of flag plots
in town and we don't have a set of standards that applies to them. So when we apply, as the witness had indicated, how to measure lot depth or how we measure lot width, sometimes it seems a little funky, but quite frankly, flag lots are not
a rarity, so to speak. Um, they serve purposes on deep, narrow properties. So from that perspective, um, we don't take any exception to the bulk variances that are being required. However, I do have a couple of questions. Um,
Mr. Seawol, can you tell us what the use of the property to the east is or what's located on the property to the east? >> I believe it's a commercial use. You can see the building is very [clears throat] close to the uh property line. >> So, to Mr. Slavven, your client understands that they're
creating their own hardship by putting a driveway closer to an existing non-residential structure. >> Yes. We're going to have that on the record so they don't come back here and tell the town why didn't we make someone put a buffer up? They came in, there's an existing building next door.
Um, Mr. Seol, can you tell us what the use of the property in the rear is, what the wire fences are, and what the little circles on your plan indicate, please? >> I believe the property to the
>> to the north. No, no, on on the >> on your own tract of land. >> Yep. >> There are a number of wire fences in the rear and there are a number of what appear to be poles in the rear yard of proposed lot A.
Can you just explain what goes on there? Is it is it a use that needs to be cleaned up or ended prior to the subdivision of the property so that the user or owner of lot A doesn't continue the use or the improvements on lot B
because we really can't create a new lot with a use on it without a principal structure. [clears throat] I just confirm with the client it it's remnants of whatever might have been there previously, but right now it's just a wooded lot. There's no separate use that we're looking for. We're um
just don't want us to create a title problem when he tries to subdivide and then sell or get insurance on the property in the back. >> Understood. >> At this point, Madam Chair, I have no additional comments or questions for the witness. >> Mr. Clay, anything?
Um ju just one relating to the um septic systems. Will this new lot um require an alternate design? >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Um and how about lot A, will that need to be converted to? >> Yes. One of the conditions of their certificate of filing was that should
the board vote favorably and we get the approval and we go towards a subdivision, the conventional septic system on lot A, which is the existing dwelling, would be converted to the alternative. How do we make sure that gets done? >> You can make it certainly a condition of
approval. We certainly have Pelands that would be requiring us to do so. Um I'm just more concerned that yes, I understand that you'll you'll convert it, but is there enough time to do it in the 190 days that you have to file the map?
>> Procedurally, I'd have to work with Mr. Slavven on that. if we need to actually convert as you know Mr. Cle the subdivision is is an invisible boundary line right and what's going to happen should the board vote favorably and it gets uh adopt in
12 90 days when you were to obtain building permits for anything we're looking to do in the rear that would be another trigger actually for Pinelands to ensure that that condition was satisfied. So, let's pretend for a second we we don't tie this subdivision to converting the septic of the
traditional to the new alternate. It's not the last time that Pinelands nor Jackson will be a part of that new future home that will go in the back. And I believe, and please correct me if you think I'm wrong, that Pinelands will get the application again for the new
home project in the back in addition to Jackson's, you know, building department and engineering department. So, I think there could be another prong where you could perfect the subdivision. It gets enacted, goes to Ocean County Clerks, and then maybe it takes two years before the applicant actually wants to build a home or sell it or find someone that
wants to build a home. You'll still have another opportunity both Jackson and Pinelands to ensure that that gets changed. >> Mr. Seal, just refer to the conditions in the
Pineland certificate of filing. Um, it says, "Prior to the commission commission issuance of a letter advising that any final municipal subdivision approval may take effect, documentation must be submitted to the Pineelance Commission that the existing standard
septic system located on proposed lot A depicted on the above reference plan has been converted to one of the alternate design septic systems. So again, normally we deal with this post approval, but we need to have it on the record because this seems like something
that would stop Mr. Cle from signing back to do the subdivision. >> It it also sounds like the pilance commission is not going to give you a letter of call no call up, which I need to sign up on it until they're satisfied with um that the septic system has been
converted. So based on that, I really don't have any concerns. >> Yeah. M Mr. So if we make a conditional upon all the conditions contained in the certificate of filing, would that be adequate? >> Yeah. Is that good? Yeah. >> Mr. President.
>> Yeah. Right. Mr. Tremor, did you say you had a letter of no concern or concern yet with them? >> No, we do not have one yet. >> Would the applicant be uh subject to if they cannot get a letter of no concern from our environmental commission, they have to come back in front of us? Well,
>> no, they got to go back to the pylons. >> So, so this is this is just for a subdivision. So, if they want to put anything on the land, they're going to have to come back anyway. >> So, the subdivision is one thing and building permits would be another thing. So, this would be just dealing with the
subdivision. If you wanted to put structures on that building, you would have to come back anyway. >> I believe we would have to file to the building department. >> That's my question. come back to the planning board for for a home.
>> Yeah. So any preliminary final, you would be back here anyway. I unless you you know are going to do a different use and go to the zoning board. >> Exactly. >> So, >> but it it's just again conceptually because I know we're just here talking about a lot split and I could be wrong, Mr. Sh. Correct me if I am. If they were
to just go in with one dwelling with a driveway, there's a chance that it doesn't trigger any variances or need a prelim and final major site plan. may just be a plot plan grading and the building department reviews. >> Well, if they have no no variances or waiverss, the zoning officer may just,
you know, rubber stamp the the home creation. Then it goes to the building department. >> That's correct. >> Um but they would still have to comport with with all the outside agencies. Absolutely. >> To get everything done. >> Perfect example, everybody for the board. 5,000 feet of disturbance triggers Ocean County Soil Conservation
District. this project whether it's a single when it it is a single family home the house the driveway the patio is going to trigger that anyway there will need to be a stormwater review there there will certainly be Mr. Shay outside agency >> and then I believe the zoning officer is the one that um runs point on whether or
not that's all been complied with. So if the zoning officer rubber stamps something that you know creation of a building um that that falls outside the scope of the planning board then the zoning officer is the one kind of chasing down the
outside agency approvals still have to comply but it would be them. >> We need a very comprehensive checklist before the building official will even accept our building permit drawings. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Brazi I'm this triggers in me
because of the master plan and I remember we looked at flag lots there are many many many many would this be something that the uh council would like to uh explore and
maybe find it it's making an ordinance dealing with flag lots the way that some of the other townships are doing it now >> going back to the township form of government the committee form and this form has been talked about and trashed
around and thrown around and cannot come up with a solution because you're telling the people what they want to do you put limits on it's almost impossible to do it so it's been kind of left hanging like >> so how has been able to do it has been able to do it uh Jackson isn't able to
do it because of the Faulner act >> I don't know if it's the Faulner act or just that the way the land is and the way people want it a lot of We have different zones, three acre zones, two acre zones, and you want flag lots all over the place.
>> We do. And and this just triggers our concerns for the future, not for this particular project, but I'm trying to think outside the box on more people coming forward with this type of plan. >> I'll definitely raise it to the
>> Will you raise it again, please? Will. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions from the board? >> One here. Mr. uh point of clarity. Am I to assume that the resident in the two family this twotory dwelling is the
legal owner in some form of this lot to be subdivided? >> Mr. Rogers just speak into the microphone if you can. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Question the person in the home. >> They have a rented area. >> Yes.
>> Okay. So there's a renter there and does he have a lease? Any say in this matter? Was he us with them? >> Excuse me. >> I couldn't answer that question. >> Okay.
>> There's nothing to say. >> I understand that, but they might have a fiveyear lease. I don't know. >> Yeah. Yeah. You know, if there's a lease on the property with them, they live in the house.
They're aware of this. >> Okay. And they have no legal claims to it. No. Say that one more time. >> I have no legal claim >> as to the renter. No, no, the renter has no Yeah. Well, first of all, let me preface
it with this. So, uh, the planning board doesn't have the jurisdiction to enter into title disputes. So, um, let's say if the renter even showed up and objected to this thing, he would be objecting as a as a late test as a lay
person. He wouldn't be objecting as anybody with a right entitle because that we don't have that jurisdiction that that's chancery court. So, um, it's kind of we don't even deal with that. So the variances that you're seeking,
we're seeking under the C2 standard, correct? Okay. >> Yes, sir. >> Gotcha. All right. So, um the two there's only two variances uh with regards to the subdivision. Uh so, if the board um chooses to um vote in the
affirmative, it would just be for two C2 variances um governed by A, G, and M. Um that would be the the legal support that they used uh in support of the variances um based upon the balancing test they put on record uh with the one condition
of approval um that they're basically just going to agree to everything that the D require Pinelands commissions requires from them. Um that would be the vote and you guys can do what you want. >> All right. Uh we'll accept a motion please.
I'll make a motion uh Sullivan for approval of this application with the requested variances. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. [laughter] I I was looking around. Didn't see any public, but all of a sudden there's public. >> All right. Yes. So, I'll make a motion
to open this to the public. >> Good. All in favor? Anyone who would like to speak uh about the uh um this particular application on the testimony that was given may come
forward. >> Seeing no one come forward, I move to close the public portion. Sullivan second. >> Anyone who would like to speak upon this application in any manner may come forward.
Seeing no one come forward, I move to close the public portion. >> Good. Okay. Now you're >> second to Marzo. >> Great. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> Mr. Sullivan. >> Yes. So I'd like to make a motion to approve this application with the
requested variances. >> I'll second a motion based on all the testimony and that they still have all the outside agencies and other approvals they still have to get. So, I'll make a motion to approve. >> We'll have a roll call, please. Mr. Brazie, >> yes. >> Mr. Marzo, >> yes.
>> Mr. Heler, >> yes. >> Mr. Parks, >> yes. >> Mr. Rogers, >> yes. >> Miss Santoro, >> yes. >> Mr. Tmer, >> yes. >> Mr. Sullivan, >> yes. >> Dr. Him, >> yes. Congratulations. Thank you. Have a good evening. Enjoy that daylight
savings time when you go outside and it's still light. >> Mr. Alfi got a little rusty too long off. >> Good evening. >> Good evening, Mr. Chair, Madame Chair. Sorry. Me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me members of board Salvator
Alfian behalf of the applicant. Um we were here in December I believe at that time we offered testimony from our engineer um architect and traffic engineer. The board asked us to look at the plans again, reduce the size of the
building and try to eliminate as many variances as we could. We have since made a resubmission in effort to address the board's comments. Um I don't know if you want to hear from your professionals before I do a little more summary. >> We will. Yes, please. Mr. Clay,
>> very briefly, Madam Chair. Um Mr. F's uh correct. We had heard this application. I think the board struggled with the um the the size of it um and requested that the um building be reduced in floor area, which which they have done. um and also was able to eliminate um several of
the variances that were um that were requested and I'll leave it to the applicant to go through them and the applicant also initially was requesting a waiver from an EIS which now has been provided. >> Thank you, Mr. Peters. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um the one
concern we brought up from a traffic perspective was the vehicle movements at the intersection. Um there's been some test uh some written testimony. I suspect we'll get some additional testimony and our office is prepared to report with some comments as it relates
to the vehicle movements into and out of the site. >> Mr. Tremor, did we get a letter about this particular project? >> Uh the there is no current letter of no concern from us yet. We still have to review the >> Thank you.
Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. So, we do have um updated reports from Mr. Cle and Mr. Peters. Um as indicated, we did reduce the gross floor area of the building. Um several of the stipulations that we had
committed to at the last hearing would carry over to the revised plan. one being um public sewer connection, another replacing the um existing fence with a white vinyl fence, another would
be relocation of the ADA spaces which our engineer will discuss. And [clears throat] then lastly, um we stipulated that the roof would only be for mechanicals and no other purpose. So those stipulations would carry over to this revised plan. um our
engineer planner who's gonna Josh Seaworld who you just met um will be our w first witness. We do have traffic and architecture here too and but Josh did not testify at the last hearing so we're going to have to qualify him after we swear him in.
>> Let's see you again. >> Two for one. >> That's right. >> Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do, Mr. Check. >> All right. Please state your name and spell your last for the record. Josh Seawald SW Ald from dynamic engineering. >> And does the board accept his credentials? >> Welcome again.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> All right. And you're a planner and engineer, correct? >> That is correct, Mr. Ali. >> All right, Josh. Thank you. And we did presubmit certain exhibits that I assume you're going to refer to during the course of your testimony. That's correct. And what
is on the screen now, this is a new site plan rendering. Um, this takes into account the revision 3 civil drawings. Uh, this is the site plan sheet overlaid onto the landscape plan and then colored for presentation purposes.
>> And I'm looking for my notes and I can't find where we left off on exhibits. So I I believe and Mr. Shay, correct me if I'm wrong. We may be on exhibit A9. >> That was a really good question.
>> I believe A1 initially was the aerial map. Uh A2 was the original site plan rendering and then A3 through 8 I believe was all the different various architectural floor plans and elevation drawings uh that was presented by the architect. >> Yep. That that's good. We can >> let's just go from the beginning because
we have some new people on our board as well. So absolutely let's just do it from the get-go. I can say right away looking at this it looks much better. >> That's great to hear, Madam Chair. So, I was not your original engineering planner uh back in November of 2025.
What I have done though is I did listen and watch the YouTube video um of all the testimony, the back and forth. We want to basically come here and say we heard everybody loud and clear. So, tonight's presentation and the exhibit that you have before you, exhibit A9, again, that's your site plan overlaid onto your landscape plan. The orange
block is the three-story office building we'll be discussing. The uh dark gray color is the parking lot. You'll see all the striping of the parking associated with the white lines and then the same full movement driveway we have on uh South Hope Chapel Road. Made a lot of modifications. I'm going to go through
them uh quickly but also detailed because I think it's very important to show how much we've done since November of 2025 to show that we were trying to comply with all the feedback from you, feedback from the public as well as your professional review letters. First thing, it is a complete redesign of the
project. It is a brand new building. As you see, there are no proposed parking underneath and on the first floor. All parking will be perimeter in the protypical prototypical office layout. It is a complete overhaul of the parking lot. We no longer have uh any angled
parking spaces. Initially, the the building in the parking lot was following the orientation of that private drive. Uh now we are actually perpendicular completely to South Hope Chapel Road. That got rid of some of the acute angles in the parking areas. We eliminated the parallel parking spaces
that were on the northern side property line. Um, and then we have a more consistent buffer along the western rear property line and an increased buffer to the southern south property line. The total gross floor area has been reduced by approximately 10%. I heard that madam
chair in your testimony. Uh, from 16,500 to 14,979 square feet. There is a reduction associated with that in total parking spaces from 75 spaces originally proposed down to 63. Now we do have a
slight variance associated with that and you're going to hear from myself both my engineering and planning hat but also from Mr. Taylor my colleague talking about it land use code and what parking is really going to be associated with an sub 15,000 square foot office facility. There was a lot of discussion about ADA.
We have moved that to the northern side property line which is closest to the door um which is also northern facing that existing board on board fence proposed to be replaced and extended along the rear and side with a white vinyl fence. The minimum rear yard
setback relief sorry uh the minimum rear yard setback relief is no longer required. 20T is required again that is on the western rear property line. 18.6 6 ft was previously proposed and 20.3 ft is currently proposed. And I'll just
show my uh right up here. This is now a formalized 20 foot minimum buffer along the rear property line. Minimum sideyard parking uh setback to the north. Again, this is uh looking at exhibit A9 where my uh laser pointer is
showing. We had previously relief there for 9.6 ft. Uh we now comply with your 10 foot uh due to the building gross floor area. Previously there was a 25 foot side and rear yard buffer. Uh since we have reduced the building under 15,000 square feet, we now comply with
the 10-ft minimum side and rear yard buffers that are shown on the exhibit A9. A section of the driveway was less than 24 feet previously. We've modified the facility to have between 24 and 26 feet. There was discussions about landscape islands not being 10 feet.
Every landscape island that we had throughout the parking lot is now 10 feet or greater. And finally, we do provide sidewalk along the entire frontage of the property. So overall, similar scope, three-story, sub 15,000 square ft office building. It is still a
speculative build in nature, but listening to a lot of the comments from madam chair, board members, the public, and your professionals, it was a complete redesign. We reoriented the parking lot completely, reduced as many variances and buffers as we could and we overall shrunk the intensity of the
development. Um along with that came modified grading, drainage, lighting and landscaping all have been updated accordingly. Um but we wanted to start with that message that exhibit A9 before you is a new building and a new parking lot associated with it.
>> How high is the uh final fencing? Four feet. >> We have it at six right now. >> Six. Good. >> Yes. >> Any questions so far? Can I >> questions from the board so far? >> We have We have a lot more to do. We just >> Well, good. Just wanted to see if anybody was itching to ask a question.
>> I have one. >> Okay, Mr. >> We'll get out of the way now. There is no letter of no concern from our environmental commission. Will you stipulate that if you cannot get a letter of no concern from the environmental commission, you'll come back in front of us? I um the answer is probably yes or no.
>> No no no s you know it better than probably the answer has to be yes or no. >> I understand. No. The reason the reason I saying probably is I sent a text to the client a little before I got up here just saying they're going to ask for that. Please make sure I could say yes. So unless I hear otherwise I'm going to
say yes. But just can I just wait for a text back if if I get one? I'm not sure. >> I'll take a yes for now. But there's no changes. >> Also I I would like to say Mr. tremor when when we get one of these uh you know this we should be getting a letter prior to our meetings not after our
meetings. So the environmental commission meets whenever they meet they need to look at our schedule and they need to get us a letter before the meeting not after the meeting because this puts the the township and the client in a very bad
position. >> That's that's understandable madam chair. The problem is that there's a two-year backlog with the environmental committee and we are working through it as diligently as possible. >> Well, it would be good if you started with the people who are coming before us now. >> I would >> catch up can be done after the people
who are coming before us now. >> Excuse me. >> Excuse me. >> That's noted madam chair and I can assure you Mr. Alfier that this will be heard next Monday at our meeting >> and I'll get back to you promptly. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So the same stipulation applies then for
this for this particular application. >> You need a letter of no concern from our environmental commod. Do we need to attend that meeting or you that's your just a private meeting that you have. I know it's open to the >> if you would like to attend it. That's I'd be more than more than happy to have you. >> That's up to the engineer.
>> I really think the applicant should be there. >> Okay. These environmental meetings have to be a little more not from their point professional but the applicants because then when there's something said at least you can debate it or go back and forth or give cause or whatever the case may be. >> What time and where?
>> Uh here 7 o'clock next Monday. >> Okay. So someone from dynamic we'll be there. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Let's continue then. That good? >> Good. >> Thanks. So um I know um I guess from a storm storm management perspective the
the um project will comply with the storm water management rags in the township ordinance. >> Correct. And there was a lot of discussion at the November hearing about Pinelands and and and what's going on in the site historically what what's going on out there today. And I think the
board is aware there stormwater management is robustly regulated in the state of New Jersey in 2026. There's multiple agencies that have their uh hand involved in it in addition to your own professionals. And I'm I'm confident and can testify that the plans before you comply with all four prongs of storm
water management, quality, quantity, groundwater recharge, and green infrastructure. The entire site today that is developed with a building and a parking lot will be uh conveyed underground to an underground infiltration system. And it does have a water quality unit. We're only
developing about 65% of the site. The rest of it is spread between different landscaping and other buffer areas. So, uh, in my professional opinion, I believe that we substantially comply with all of the New Jersey standards as well as county and local ordinances. >> And could you just remind the board, and
some of the board members weren't here at the last meeting, what's the current condition of this property? >> Yeah, it's um, it's in need of some tender loving care. Um, basically, it's been developed for for many decades out there today. There's a home, there's a pool, there's multiple structures. If you go back through some historical
aerials or even the phase one or phase two reports that were submitted to the board through our second submission, you'll see that there was some type of commercial yard in the rear portion of the site. It's just gravel, broken pavement, and more of a pre-engineered metal pole barn that's in the back. So,
this site has certainly been developed. There's a couple perimeter trees and a and a fence that needs some replacement as uh the board has requested. So, um it is vacant right now based in my understanding. driving past the site looking at it as well earlier today, Madam Chair. But overall, uh, it's been
developed for quite some time. >> Okay. And then I guess we'll get to the planning testimony briefly, but in a moment, but what about the, um, electric vehicle charging stations? >> We will certainly comply with the EV statute. I remember listening to the,
um, initial November 2025 meeting and that we did not want the EV underneath the building. There is no parking anymore into the building. So, they will be placed on the outside and perimeter locations. >> And um the reports I referred to, Mr. Cle is March 4th and Mr. Peters is March
5th. Are there any issues with addressing the technical comments contained within the previous? >> No, I I believe from a technical standpoint will comply. There's certainly a lot of line items that ask for additional testimony clarification. I think we're going to work our way through that tonight. But anything that
is technically requested storm water grading, lighting, landscaping, we will comply with those requests. >> Okay. So, do you want to while we're talking about the reports, do you want to address the tech the testimony comments that are within those reports? >> I certainly do. And one more item we wanted to touch on before we dove into
uh the variances and design waiverss that we have. Um we have as you know been working with Jackson Township and Municipal Utilities Authority for the improvements that are necessary in order to provide a public center uh sanitary sewer connection. Essentially what JTMUA has asked of this applicant is to upsize
the force man within uh South Hope Chapel Road from a 3-in to a 4 inch. The applicant has agreed to. We are working through the engineering drawings with them. We have as recent of an email as March 6, 2026 going back and forth with JTMUA on the um the items that are
required to tie into the pump station. We do not with this application have to upgrade the downstream pump station. The other projects that may or may not have been heard by this board in the previous six months or the upcoming next six months, JTMUA said those demand are much higher and they will be responsible. So,
as long as this applicant, should the board vote favorably, the condition from them will be upgrading the force maintenance from three to 4 in. >> As a friendly reminder from our sewer water and sewer engineers report, there's less than 2,000 gallons per day that are going to be generated from this sub 15,000 square foot facility. So,
it's a decent size offsite upgrade that comes along. >> Mr. Brezie has a question. >> If you do those improvements and the increase, are they guarantee you have flow? >> Say it again, sir. I'm sorry. If you do those improvements, is the MUA guaranteeing you have flow? >> Yes, sir.
>> In writing, you got that? >> It's right now everything's via email. We're we're passing back full >> email writing or something back and forth. >> I have you stipulate that you have to get that before you can go further because we've had applications come in where there's been lines put in and the lines right there, but the MUA had no
flow. >> There's a difference here that I want addressed all the time up front. >> Yeah. So the 3-in for example is is tapped and the only way to increase flow to that line is to make the line bigger which we're going to do up to 4 in. >> Thank you. >> Absolutely.
>> Thank you Mr. President. Anyone else? All right. We'll continue. >> So just just one question. So um that condition uh was that already a condition in a letter from theou from the mua to you guys or is that
something that >> was that already in a preliminary letter sent to you guys or was that just via email? >> March 8 March 6. >> So we we filed an initial application right and at when we supplemented it from November to this month we provided then a sketch of what the offsite would
be. That was part of our recent submission. We have been emailing back and forth with JTMUA since November. So should the board vote favorably tonight and I'm not making any assumptions. The next step is just the final engineering document. >> Yeah. I just want to be clear for the condition of approval as to how to write it.
>> In other words, if you don't have the final writing, >> we would need a JTMUA final writing when you go away, right? >> That could be obtained, >> right? >> But is substantially advanced since the November hearing. One, we have a full off-site roadway
survey that got the underground utility so that we can then adequately show where our line was going into. We then survey the the downstream pump station to know what the invert would be. It's a lot more further advanced than I think the initial testimony was in November of last year. >> And Mr. Clay, you're comfortable with
that? >> Thank you. >> Okay. Please continue. >> Certainly. Uh, do you want me to go through the review letters first or the the variance relief? Uh, do the review first. Certainly. I don't know if you you you want him to just go through the points that you say
testimony is required or do you want Doug and Ernie specific things covered? >> Okay, go ahead. Certainly. [snorts] >> Um under on page two underneath general comments and environment >> for the engineer report, right?
>> That is correct. Mr. Cle's letter uh dated March 4, 2026. Uh starting under uh page two B, general comments, environmental uh considerations. Again, we we provided the EIS update. I will be in attendance on Monday night as well in front of the
environmental commission. There are a few uh outstanding comments associated with the um stormwater design associated with the Pinelands. In our redesign and our resubmission to Jackson Township, we did an itemized response showing how we complied with all those prongs of storm
water. In addition to that, uh we updated the storm water report as well so that the board could feel comfortable that what is on the plans and in the drainage drawings and calculations are all up to date and accurate. Uh I'll leave section 4 traffic safety to my uh partner Justin Taylor who's in
the back. I know the board is familiar with him. We'll get to the design waiverss separately. Um, just for further testimony on page six, there's some discussion. Jackson certainly has a robust soil removal permit. All of the grading and
activities on site will be under that thousand cubic yard uh standard. So, any associated paperwork that's required under the thousand cubic yards, we will certainly handle, but this is not a massive uh import site. We will certainly provide, should the board vote favorably, an operation and maintenance manual for the underground stormwater
management facility. Uh Mr. Clay, under section six for lighting and landscaping, uh I we do want to confirm that we have provided a backlick control and house shielding on certain lights throughout the property. Uh we will absolutely have the automatic
activation and deactivation. That's pretty common, especially on an office use. Basically, after the office shuts down, generally after an hour or so, lights will shut off for energy efficient purposes. You'll still have some on site for emergency purposes. Um, but we'll have that certainly throughout
the facility. We do have our project architect up here tonight to talk about the substantial change in the building design. We can make the lighting condition of approval just at a certain point, a certain time.
You're saying like when it actually >> Yeah, like when it triggers when it actually >> we typically say an hour after sunset and obviously it changes throughout the year. So like right now we just daylight savings generally an hour after that. >> Hour after daylight.
>> Hour after sunset, whatever sunset is. [snorts] >> Uh the rest of the comments, happy to answer any of them, but we just wanted to touch on those specific sections for the engineering uh review letter. And then the uh RV,
that's right, dated March 5th uh 2026. Uh on page five, uh Mr. Peters, if you wouldn't mind, item four, is the number of parking spaces a design waiver or a variance in your professional opinion? It's a design waiver.
>> Thank you, sir. >> Just going to follow up with my planning testimony a little later. Um, >> so you presently have 63 spaces and you >> 68 is required. >> 58 are required. >> Correct.
>> Not to take away too much of the thunder of Mr. Taylor, but he's going to go through those IT uh requirements and you'll find that uh the parking ratio for a sub 15,000 foot office is nowhere near 68 or 63 spaces. So, you'll hear from him that we're pretty comfortable with the current site design that's
located on exhibit A9. >> There's a comment about signage that Mr. Peters mentions and just I want to emphasize that what we >> can before we get there, Mr. Alfieri. >> Yes. On page five under items to be discussed
with the board, comment A1 about the use of the building. >> General office. General office space. That's all we have. >> But it's not medical or dental. >> Correct. Correct. >> So we put on the record that medical or dental may require a higher parking
ratio which would require additional relief which would require you to come back before. >> That's correct. No medical, no dental. like to get it on the record. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um the on page six signage, I don't know if Josh is up to that yet, but we had stipulated that um we would have one
building mounted sign that would conform to the ordinance and then we were going to put at the board's request, I think a small monument sign with just the address um that would also conform that no other signage was proposed. That was from last testimony
>> and and we appreciated that because the um depending on what the signage would be on the building, fire and police need the address. >> Correct. Understood. Go ahead, >> Josh. And I and I do believe S, thank you for clarifying that eliminates the
need for a variance. Initially, the elevations at two building mounted signs, dropping them down to one removes that variance from the overall application. Again, [snorts] we have the architect here. Um, we'll talk about it with design waiverss, but I don't remember it being
discussed in great detail at the first meeting. Basically, this type of facility does not need a formal loading zone. It is going to require design waiver which I'll go through in detail but just wanted to clarify as we're going through operations that this is an office facility with a handful of
tenants. I run a couple of offices. We get a box truck. It's going to be mail paper deliveries, things like that. There's not going to be an articulating tractor trailer coming through here. So, uh we're not proposing or seeking any special loading zone associated with this building. They'll park in one of the uh regular parking spaces or
temporarily staged in an access aisle and make their way throughout the site. Again, you're talking about FedEx, UPS, uh, and other deliveries alike. >> Uh, >> most likely on the side of the building would be where you might have a truck
parked temporarily. >> It'll be by the front door essentially. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Um, couple of items, Mr. Peters, for example, under item G about some of the the additional curbing and landscaping around the trash enclosure that's 10
x20. We will comply modify the plan to ensure that we comply with those two sections. We don't want to ask for design waiver relief associated with those items. Those are pretty easy to comply with. Um Mr. Peters did have a couple of comments underneath miscellaneous on
page 10. So, we did um as a request to the board, we provided an EIS, a phase one and a phase two. He just asked me to go through some of the findings and reporting to your board and as well as some of the public. So, specifically underneath miscellaneous item nine, there's a section of the phase one that
we call BERS, their business environmental risks. You actually don't address them in the design and entitlements, but they will be required to address should the board vote favorably and should the property be redeveloped. And I'll give a couple examples. If there was a well on the property previously for a house, there's
permits required that you have to pull when you go and renovate the property, we'll make sure that we do that and we can certainly condition any approval on that. Another item could be a potentially an old septic facility. Same thing, there's proper paperwork and items required when you go to construction that you need to make sure
that's taken care of. Asbestous containing materials, that's going to be a checklist requirement of any demolition item. So there's there's about nine of these beers and we just want to make sure that the board and and your professional know that we're aware of them, the client's aware of them. Should you vote favorably in this go to
construction, a lot of these things will be flushed out before we're putting >> a lot or all? >> All of them. >> That's better. >> No problem. Um a a phase two investigation was then done based on some of the wrecks that were in the phase one and he just simply asked me to provide testimony on our findings.
Overall, there was no exceedences of any things that were in the groundwater or the soil reporting. So there's no third step which would be remediation reporting to the D. So we were concerned there was wrecks in the phase one. We tested the soil and groundwater and it came back and said that we're underneath
all D levels and you're good to proceed accordingly. >> That will I assume be reviewed Monday night as well. >> That's correct. And that is my quick summary of the items I just wanted to add on. Again, I know it's been a few months since the
November hearing. We modified the plans, modified the building. We tried removing a lot of the buffer waiverss that we needed, some variances. Um, and I wanted to make sure we touched on a few of those items for the engineer and your planner. >> And we did get confirmation about conditions on environmental commission
approval. So, >> and Mr. Cle, Mr. Peters, is there anything that they didn't touch on that you're concerned about? I believe he's dealing with engineering, so we still have traffic and architecture. Yes. >> And I think he was going to take care of
planning as well. >> Correct. >> Good. All right. >> You have next witness. >> We're going to bring the architect. >> Hey, hey, just one sec. So, um, just to be clear, so the, um, the applicant will still be subject to a possible callup
letter, correct? They'll have to resubmit everything to the D. And if the D warrants that uh call up letter, >> the Peland's, correct? >> I'm sorry. Pelands. Pance. Yeah. Yeah. So, they'll they'll still be subject to
that review and everything will still have to be provided. >> Yeah. That's an outside agency approval we're required to obtain. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> We'll call our architect. >> Don't go far. No, >> he's coming back. and uh you were sworn in at the last
meeting. Just so for the record's clear, would you state your name and your affiliation with the project? >> Yes. Hi. Um my name is Rachel Pasquez and I am the project manager at Rise Architecture, the architecture firm designing that building in question.
>> Okay. I can swear it. Do you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> All right. >> So, um, can you just generally describe for the board and I assume we have an exhibit, um, Anthony there. So, can you describe for the board what changes have been made from an architectural
perspective since the last hearing? >> Sure. So, as you see on the screen here in this exhibit, the building shape, size, and um overall look has changed since the previous application. In the
previous application, the building was a stilted building in which there was parking on the ground level and then two stories of offices above. in the current design and the building
was a larger square footage building. Um the changes made changed the shape of the building. We changed the size of the building to bring it down under that 15,000 square foot threshold. The building was modified to be a much more
traditional office building look in which it's three stories from the slab on grade going up. Um, parking is now surrounding the building, not under the building. The building height was
adjusted as well to be lessened and um be less obtrusive um on the on the streetscape. >> What is the building height with the parapit center? >> So, the building height to the top of
the roof is 36 ft. And then the parapit um adds I believe another 3 ft or so for rooftop screening. And then the taller parapit is a um steer bulkhead to allow
for access to the mechanical units which we will we can um get to as well. And um that should be within the height ordinance um for um standard bulkheads
and and um that should be within the height ordinance um for um standard bulkheads and parapets. >> So so you would say is not should be. >> Yes, it is. >> So to clarify um the ordinance allows
additional height for the parapit. the we comply with the height relating to the parapit. The relief we're going to be seeking for height is 35 is allowed and we're at 36. Correct. >> Yeah. It's a one foot um height variance
request to the top of the roof which is requested in order to allow for the structure to work and the structure to be built. >> And excuse me, Mr. Rogers has a question. Uh previously on this
application we discussed that the uh height of a building could be 35 ft by ordinance with parapit. Now we got a mechanical room that's going to extend it to 50 ft above grade. Now I believe
that >> no >> I believe that remained. Yeah >> that that I believe that remains since the previous application. What was modified here was that the overall roof height was brought down from 37 1/2 ft
to 36 ft. >> The mechanical room >> stay the same. >> But it complies. >> It complies. It was the mechanical room >> it complies >> now. Now that the roof has been lowered, the mechanicals have been lowered as well. >> Yeah, it's the there are two things in
question here to clarify. There's an overall main parapit around the roof, >> right, >> which is at roughly 3 feet. That's to allow for the standard construction, drainage, screening of any mechanical units. Then
there is a steer bulkhead which allows for the steer to extend to the roof for maintenance of the units. And that height of that bulkhead is just governed by standard overrun of the
steer the height that we need. And that height complies with the ordinance. >> I'm confused. So, >> Senator, you do you have a a laser? >> If you don't, I do. >> So, let's be quite specific.
>> Yes. So, we'll be specific here. um where I'm pointing right now. Let's see this area and this area. This is the parapit >> that wraps the roof >> and it's you said
>> so this parapit is within the um four I believe there's a 4ft except um allowance for the parapit. So it's within that allowance. This area that extends up higher is simply just masking. It's surrounding a steer. It's
surrounding the the center steer case in the building that reaches up to the roof to allow for maintenance to access the roof. >> What is the height >> of that? >> So, this bulkhead believe the allowed
I believe the allowance for the height um above the roof height is 15 ft and we're within that allowance. And >> that's allow Mr. Tremor, that that good for the fire department? >> Yes. >> Yeah. This is to allow for fire
department access, safety, maintenance of the rooftop units and um we had discussed usage of the roof um by the previous hearing and um we have determined that the roof will not not be
open for public access. So this is simply for access for in case of emergency and for the HVAC units that will be on the roof >> and that's stipulated. >> Yeah. >> In the resolution. Thank you. >> Yes. But the 15 is the max on that
structure. I believe Mr. Peter's report also acknowledges um towers, elevator towers, etc. are usually carried above the roof level and non-commercial radio and television antennas except that same may exceed said height limitation by not more than
15 ft except for certain exceptions which these don't apply like skylights and >> but we're not asking for those exceptions. >> That's correct. Um in addition um that you heard me stipulate that at the last meeting we
said there'll be one building mounted sign. That plan shows two. So, we're only going to provide one. Which one would come off? >> So, the reason that there are two is because the building design was changed
in which the main entrance is now >> oriented on the side within the site. Um this works well with this was in order to get the parking to work for the handicap um spaces to be adjacent to the
front entrance and it allowed for the overall building size to shrink. So in order to allow for um easy access in case of emergency and um for identification of the building we had um
placed two building mounted signs. one fronting the street. So, the building is noticeable from that frontage and then one at the main entrance. Um, we definitely can remove one. >> I'd say it can remove the one on the side. We only need to know the one on the front.
>> We definitely can. >> That's fine. >> Yeah. >> Um, that's those were the only architectural changes, correct? >> Yes, I believe so. >> Okay. That's all we have of the architect. Any questions?
>> Thank you. >> Good. Happy to hear them. >> Um, thank you for your testimony. Um, you've indicated the proposed building heights 36 ft where 35 is required. Could you quickly for the board members go through the elevations of each of the
floors um so the board has an understanding of why we need to grant a variance? >> Sure. of 35 ft for a three-story building, please. >> How do we get to the next? Um, >> I know, Anthony, are there other elevations there?
I'm not sure what you have. That's floor plans. >> So, last year >> there. Yeah. So, if we um zoom in here, the um building height, I believe each
floor is 11 1/2 ft floor to floor. And um that's in order to allow for you. Yeah, if you want to zoom in. >> Ceilings. >> Yeah. >> Ceiling mounted mechanicals. So, we're roughly 11 and
1/2 ft floor to floor to allow for the HVAC and structure that's um sitting within the ceiling. And then I believe the top floor needs slightly more height in order to accommodate for the roof slope and insulation and everything
that's needed to um build the roof and actually have a top of roof height at 36 ft as noted here. So you need a a 9 ft ceiling for it to be a class A building and you need two more feet for the
mechanicals to go in the ceiling. Is that the reason for the height? Yeah. >> Well concern is that the third floor seems to need 13 ft. >> Yeah. That and that's in order to meet energy code and um structure for the roof. The roof will need more insulation
as it's the top of the building. So, we end up with a buildup and there needs to be extra height in order to construct it. I noticed that the What are we calling the portion of the building that goes to elevation 50? A
bulkhead. >> Yes. >> What's the need for the bulkhead to be at elevation 50? That's in order to get the stairs to the roof as well as the elevator which would be used for access for maintenance and
>> 14 ft. >> I agree there. There is an elevator overrun just the nature of the elevator and the beam that's needed for it. >> Thank you. Is that a normal elevator bulkhead? >> Yes.
>> These days. >> Yep. >> And is this all stemming from the um and we're dealing with them more and more now? The class A as compared to a class B building. >> Um
>> mostly we're at nine foot ceilings here. So if we were class A, we would probably be at 10 foot. Yeah. Well, that's meeting code. Yeah. >> Elevator required. >> The elevator is required in this building. Yes. Any other questions from the board?
>> Thank you. >> Thank you, Justin. >> Gentlemen, >> thank you. Just wanted to make sure. >> [snorts] >> Hello everybody. Good to see everybody again. [clears throat] >> All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do.
>> Right. Please state your name and spell your last for the record. >> Uh Justin Taylor, T A Y L O R. Um I was qualified at the last one. I can go through my >> Welcome back, Mr. Taylor. Does the board accept the credentials? >> We do. We We accept him last time. He hasn't changed or fallen out of favor.
>> Nothing has changed since the last time I was here. >> All right. >> Um, so just to run you through the changes uh similar to what Mr. Sewald did from a traffic perspective, we went back and reran some numbers based on the reduction in building uh square footage.
Naturally, the traffic generated by a smaller building comes down a little bit. uh those numbers fall within uh between about 35 and 45 peak hour trips uh during the AM and the PM peak hour which would fall well below the threshold of a significant increase in
traffic uh when you look to the NJ DOT standards. Uh there was a comment though from Mr. Peters in his review letter asking about levels of service and operation. when we when we talk about there's a low level of traffic, we don't typically do the capacity analyses that would give
you those capacity uh those levels of service, but because it was requested, we did have the opportunity to pull some historic NJD data along Hope Chapel Road. We utilize that to uh generate the background traffic and projected that the driveway will operate at levels of
service E or better during both either of the peak hours uh studied. So based on that, there's capacity in the roadway to accommodate the uh the additional traffic that's associated with this project. Um there was also some question
about the um the full movement nature of the driveway and whether or not um there would be safe and efficient access to the site as proposed. Uh as I testified the last time, we have met with Ocean County. Hope Chapel Road is under Ocean
County jurisdiction. Uh it was their suggestion and requirement that we put the driveway in the location that it is on on the site plan which is not a >> Maybe we could bring up that site plan please. >> Yep. So their their requirement understanding that there are existing access points on the uh on the lot was
to shift the driveway as far north as possible on the site to give as much separation as possible between it and uh the private driveway which is garden street and the access to the school which is on the other side of the road. So it was their as I said their
requirement to locate it as it as it uh is shown on that plan but also to provide the full movement nature um that is that is proposed. We did have a chance to look at what we would consider from a safety metric standpoint. We want to make sure that we're uh providing
sufficient sight distances along the roadway to uh allow the vehicles entering and exiting the site to see um traffic traveling along the roadways. The ASHTO or the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials requires 555 feet of sight
distance for a 45 mph roadway which we provide in exceedence in this area. It is shown on the plan and it will be reviewed by Ocean County to confirm that. But we we we did take great pains in making sure that any landscaping proposed as part of the project was
outside of that uh that that site triangle. Um, from a purely site standpoint, we also worked with Mr. Sewald to design this new layout. We wanted to make sure that we were providing 24 foot access aisles throughout the site. We wanted to
make sure that we're providing uh compliant parking space uh stall size. One of the things that we did lose as we pulled the site in and tightened it up. So, we had the u the buffers that were very important to the board, we did lose
some parking, right? The ordinance does require 68 parking spaces when you take into account the EV parking credits. We are providing 63 which does require variance. However, balancing the two of those, what we really wanted to keep in mind is what type of demand can we
expect from a facility such as this. So when you look to the Institute of Transportation Engineers and their publication parking generation, it would say for a a office building of this size, it requires 1.95 parking spaces per thousand square feet,
which translates into the 14 almost 15,000 foot building of 30 stalls. So what they would project based on the current industry data is about 30 vehicles necessary with some fluctuation uh parked on on the site. So, it's my opinion that the 63 that are provided
are more than sufficient to accommodate that demand and the board can feel comfortable that there will be enough parking for this site to operate safely uh without any impact to the surrounding area. Um, from a circulation standpoint and the type of vehicles we anticipate, we
have run a fire truck through the site. We've also run a box truck simulating that UPS and that Amazon and the [clears throat] the FedEx deliveries. and we're comfortable that it can adequately navigate through the through the property. >> That's that's all.
>> The only thing the final thing I wanted to touch on was a question that came up right at the tail end with regards to the left turns into the site. We did have a chance to do some research. I told you there was a justification behind why we did what we did in our professional opinion and we have submitted a a report summarizing that.
But in a nutshell, what we look to is there's three publications. The first would be title 39 which is a New Jersey state statute that governs um traffic laws. It when talking about striping on the roadways points you to the manual on
uniform traffic control devices which is published by the FHWA and that is a national uh manual for all types of traffic control devices whether it's striping whether it's signage whether it's traffic signals um it governs all of that. So, title 39 points you to the
MT MUTCD. The MUTCD then points you when it talks about crossing double yellow lines or no passing zones to the uniform vehicle code. Okay. And the uniform vehicle code is another national publication of recommendations to unify
across states, across municipalities the um the laws and regulations that you would do in in regards to those. So, we've gone from the title 39 to the METCD now to the uniform vehicle code. And what the uniform vehicle code says
is that the intent of a double yellow line is not to prohibit access to driveways, alleys, and private roads, but rather to designate where no passing is um is or passing is not permitted or
where passing is prohibited. So, the intent is not necessarily to break a double yellow line every time you have a commercial driveway. That double yellow is to tell you whether it's a striped median or just a a single set of double lines that you can't pass another vehicle there. So, when you look at all
that, the uniform vehicle code says that you can traverse a double line to enter a private driveway. the uniform vehicle code. MUTD says MUTCD says that you should follow the uniform vehicle code. Title 39 says you should follow the
METCD. So that's how we render the professional opinion that you can cross that double yellow line to get into uh a private driveway. And all that's documented in the report that we submitted as part of this uh resubmission. >> Mr. Peters, you comfortable?
No, I've been sitting in a chair all day. >> Sorry, we're sitting here, too. [laughter] >> Um, as it relates to the testimony about being able to cross double yellow lines, I don't take any exception to that. Um,
I know sometimes our traffic safety folks and emergency service folks have some concerns about that. They've even suggested that you can't do it even in front of the police station across the way. I don't disagree that what's been testified to is correct. My question has
to do with safety given the location of the existing access points across the street which do you have a exhibit that shows the access points for the school and for Jackson Crossing?
>> A1 area. >> If we could go back to A1. That was part of the original submission from November. >> I mean, there's a there's a sheet two of the sets, the aerial. >> We could do that, too. Either either
way. Yeah. >> I I just want to say that was an excellent analysis. It's very difficult to layer those different sources of statutes and codes and I do a lot of that. So that that was it that was a very it was very in-depth analysis. That
was excellent. >> Well, thank you. It's one of those as the last meeting I was like I know I know there's a rationale behind it. I need to give you all the basis. Um so zooming in right you're you have the this entrance to the school on the opposite side I think is where what
we're discussing. So that what we're talking about is our driveway right here at the north end and to the south of our driveway is the entrance to the school. >> Anthony, can you zoom in on that
>> little more? [clears throat] >> To the north you have the entrance to the shopping center and the two-way left turn lane that runs along that whole section. asking as a result of your address
>> at this point. They have not. It was not something that came up in our pre-lication meeting and we're still working through them and our approvals. >> I do not know. I can tell you from the pre-application meeting, nothing was brought up at that point, but no, we don't have anything definitive. Um,
subject to this approval by this board, we'll have to get their approval for any access point as well. >> It'll be subject to >> and that'll be subject to an outside agency approval. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. asking.
>> Um, from the private develop the private owner of that? I don't believe so. >> Thank you. You might you might look into that just for emergency sake. And the applicant will still be subject to traffic safety review. Correct. >> Yes.
>> Yeah. >> That's all we have, right? >> All right. Open for public session. >> Well, we have to bring our planner back. Josh, back up. >> You're going to have him back up. All right. >> Just we had to get this on so he can >> Sure. >> And Mr. the road.
>> Yes, sir. >> So, we have two variances that we're seeking before you. Uh, the first one we'll talk about is section 24496D. That is maximum building height. As you heard from the project architect a few moments ago, 35 ft is permissible within the underlying zone. 36 ft is proposed.
Aka, we are seeking a 1-oot deviation and request. It was previously back in November in 2025 37 and a half feet that's been reduced. Uh this is going to fall underneath the C2 uh we talked about a little bit earlier. That's the deviation can be granted by the board. We call that flexible planning. Uh
purposes of the MLUL must be advanced by the deviation and the benefits of those deviations from the zoning ordinance has to substantially outweigh any detriment. It's not to say that there's no detriment. could easily have a planning and engineering discussion how a taller building may have a negative impact on
the property and surrounding neighbors that we have alike. We need to prove that the uh detriments certainly do not outweigh any of the the positives. So, let's start with the first positive. The building, as you said, Madam Chair, both the first time and the second time, it is a good-looking building. The
applicant is here tonight to redevelop an entire property for a class A type of building, modern uh fully uh energy efficient, good materials, good-looking building. So, aesthetically, we're looking at a a nicel looking building. In addition to that, the architect was
able to reduce the height by the uh the another 1.5 ft from last time we were here. In my professional opinion, 1 foot above a 35- foot tall building is a slightly dimminimous increase. It's only 2.8% 8% of the entire height of the structure. Why are we doing three
stories here and not maybe a two-story building? We are going taller because it allows us to completely redevelop the parcel and incorporate some of the items that both you, the public, and the professionals have come into place. We call that smart growth and development. And instead of providing that more traditional site design where you have a
one or two foot story building, we're going a little bit more modern with threetory enabling to tighten up the parking around that building and have perimeter green space on all four sides. Um like we discussed the negative is is there any potential impact to the
neighbors? 35t building is allowed to be 60 feet from Hope Chapel Road. That is based on the underlying zoning ordinance. We are at 86.2T. A 35- foot tall building is allowed to be 30 feet from the rear property line.
We are at 86 feet away. And finally, a 35 foot building is allowed to be 10 ft to both the side property lines. We are at 59.5 ft. So what does that mean? This is where the flexible planning argument comes in. Does the board believe that based on all the testimony from November
and tonight, the engineering, the traffic, the architecture, and now the planning, do we meet the balance test of what you're seeing on exhibit A9? If uh sir, if you don't mind going back to the site plan, so we could look at that. Does this one foot increase in deviation
substantially and ne and negatively impact the neighbors and the surrounding? Four, what has been proposed, the new site plan, the tightness, the tightening up of the parking, the increasing in the landscaping, does that outweigh it? In my professional opinion, it does. This
board and the public will not be able to tell the difference of a one- foot increase. However, they will certainly be able to tell the difference that this building is in the center of the property and it's not pushed closer to where our sensitive neighbors are, which is our residents to the west and the
southern side. The ordinance allows us to have the same similar height building at 35 ft much closer to the property lines. There could be in theory a separate design where the building is buried to the west or buried to the south and parking in front of it which is a little bit more retail oriented.
That's not what the applicant is looking to do here. They heard the board's concerns at the last meeting. They went completely back to the drawing board. They still would like to provide that class A modern architectural that you've been shown in both situations. They simply need the height in order to be able to provide those clear heights that
they're looking for. Second and final variance of the evening is minimum parking setback to residential. 20 ft is required. 9.6 ft was previously requested to the south and 18.6 ft was previously requested to
the west. So again referencing exhibit A9 to the west of us is where that rear property line is. We straightened that out. It is now perpendicular and 90 degrees and parallel to that rear property line. There's no acute angle on the parking lot. We provide the full 20 foot buffer back there. What we're
looking for is a deviation actually on the south side and that was not done by mistake. That was done by design. Why? Because that is the unique and acute angle of the property line. We talked about it in existing conditions. It's a unique shaped pro uh property. It's not
an exact rectangle. So, we made sure that we complied now with the redesign. The northern property buffer 10 feet complied. Western side 20 feet comply. We comply with the setback from the front. The area where we don't comply with is these 10 parking spaces over
here. That 20 foot setback offset of that acute angle property line comes right along here. So the first 10 parking spaces not only meets the 20 foot standard, it greatly exceeds it based on the shape of the lot. And that was done on purpose. What happens is as
the an uh the property starts to cut into the corner, we then have this deviation that we're seeking. So 10 of the 20 spaces on the southern side property line is now located within that buffer area. Again, I believe this falls within the C2. The benefits must
outweigh any detriments associated with this. If you look at the property in today's conditions, that back southwestern corner property was completely developed. It was a gravel and a pavement area for whatever use might have been there. illegally or illegally, but it's real and pragmatic
is that it was fully developed. There was no buffer out there. This development before you this evening is going to provide landscaping. Yes, there is a retaining wall over there with a six-foot fence on it now, but that in itself also acts as a buffer to this private driveway. It's also, in my
professional opinion, the least impactful portion of the site to the residents. Why? Because it's next to a roadway. It's not like my neighbor's house and their backyard is coming up there where we really want to make sure the buffer is over here is the closest portion to Garden Street which is a
private driveway. If we're going to have any deviation, let's put it in the place that has the least impact to all of our neighbors, most importantly the residential. So overall, I believe that the redesign from the positive criteria allowed us to eliminate a lot of the buffer variances that we were seeking
previously. And we increased the buffer along the majority of the private driveway that is known as Garden Street, which actually where the residents live much closer to South Hope Chapel Road. And again, like I mentioned, we are providing inside of there the wall, six foot fence, and the landscaping. In my professional opinion, there's no
substantial detriment to the public goods zone planner zoning ordinance because the overall development has now been reshaped so that you have that true perimeter landscaping. Those are the two variances that I believe that we have associated with the project. You heard from Mr. Peters earlier the parking is
more of a design waiver and you heard from the project architect that we dropped one of the two building mountain signs to one. So a vast a vastly improved application when it comes to any relief that we're we're seeking. We still have a handful of design waiverss that um happy to answer any questions
comments on. A vast majority of them have either been eliminated or improved. We can certainly go one by one. We can pause right now. Have any questions? >> Let's do that. >> The one by one matter. >> Yes, please. >> Certainly. um right into it. 244 197J.
No driveway shall be located less than 10 feet from the property line or 30 feet from an existing driveway. As you heard from my colleague, uh Mr. Taylor, we essentially buried the driveway on the northern portion of the site based on what Ocean County was looking for us
to do. From the applicant standpoint and the engineering team standpoint, it sure the further it moves south and you're in more conflict with multiple ways. We we get it from an engineering and a traffic standpoint. So design waiverss, as this board knows, we don't need to talk about the C1 and C2 and the proofs. We simply
have to talk about is it impractical, is there a hardship or is there a better design. Those are really some of the prongs when we get into design waiverss. Ocean County has jurisdiction over the road. We don't disagree with them from an engineering and traffic standpoint that the further north this this driveway can be next to the property
line away from the intersection is an improvement. and we believe that design waiver can be granted. The next two are similar. Entrance drive shall be 100 feet into the site. Exit drive shall be 60 feet into the site. Now, I've never designed a driveway that had two separate depths. They usually come
together. We're about 76 feet on the entrance and we're about 52 feet in the exit. What I will say is a massive improvement from the first time we were here is that there's no longer parallel spaces on that northern property line. This is a prototypical office design
driveway. You come into the site and you now have all this pavement in front of you to make a decision to go right or make a decision to go left where the parking is offset. So, I believe from an engineering standpoint, there's certainly plenty enough real estate for us to make a safe maneuver in here. In addition to that, we are an office. We
are not a retail facility that has a lot of high turnover uh traffic that maybe you see up at the Wawa at the corner only a few hundred feet away. It's an office. We go in in the morning. We sit there all day, me and Mr. Peters, looking at engineering drawings and then later we leave at 536 to come to a hearing. There's not a lot of in and
out. So, I believe the entrance drives and exit drive design is is satisfactory. Um, very similar. No parking spaces shall be within the entrance exit drives. This is a little bit of gray area in my opinion. I don't believe there's any parking actually on the entrance drive, but there's certainly
some along the the exterior drive aisles. Very prototypical parking lot design. you need an access out to be close to those parking spaces. Next design waiver we have is ADA spaces are required to be 12 feet wide whereas 8t is proposed. It's a waiver from
Jackson's ordinance. We absolutely comply with ADAG and other uh ADA space requirements. Sincerely, the only reason we're not doing it is to improve the overall site design, less impervious coverage, and if we absolutely had to, should that waiver be denied and
everything else was approved, essentially the striping would get wider, and then these spaces would be further closer to the entrance drive. Again, we comply with ADA standards. We do a lot of parking lot plans. This is a Jackson specific standard. Uh six foot wide sidewalk is required.
uh five foot is proposed on the eastern and western side simply because there's only a handful of spaces there. Should the board be really concerned about the depth of the 18ft parking space and then the sidewalk, we can put some wheel stops on either of those two sides so that the car doesn't overhang and
provides adequate um spacing. 15 foot radi uh we are proposing 10 throughout the property. 15t is is a standard. There's nothing wrong with 15 feet. It's pretty big though. There's a lot of different parking lots that you see throughout your community that are substantially less than 15 feet. And
again, this is not a retail or commercial facility. This is an office facility. So, you'll have a couple of times a day people going in and out of here. They will have ample maneuverability to go throughout the exact >> Mr. Tremor. Is that enough? >> Thank you. >> No problem, Madam Chair. Uh, we talked
about the loading zone earlier today. This use does not need it. No need to be extra impervious coverage on site. Uh and the last two came up during the public comment period as well and we want to make sure we address them. So the first one is uh section 244 193B4 no structure within the buffer area and a
retaining wall is proposed. Absolutely. There is a design standard section of the ordinance that talks about various things that what can be in a buffer and without a buffer. First off, this is not a natural buffer. What's out there today again is gravel, broken pavement and and a dilapidated fence. So in order to
redevelop the site comes with it all the other benefits though. Yes, in addition to the building and the parking lot comes stormwater management comes a brand new public sanitary sewer connection in addition to the lighting of the landscaping. So yes, in order to develop this site in accordance with all
the other rules and regulations that we have, we need to modify some of the grading that's on site. And in order to modify the grading and provide a compliant modern stormwater facility, I need to adjust the grades in that buffer area. And like I talked about a little bit earlier ago through my C2 planning
testimony for the buffer, there's a pinch point in the corner where I need that retaining wall. So yes, we're >> show that please. >> Certainly on A9, there is a retaining wall on this southern side property line that we share with Garden Street. And also up here in the western parking lot
is our stormwater management facility. And because there's no local infrastructure in the back, I need a discharge eventually at grade. So overall, we are modifying the grading in this area, providing storm water management. And what comes with that is a wall. So yes, we absolutely need a
design waiver for putting that small retaining wall in the buffer area. In my professional opinion though, it acts as an extension of that six-foot fence and landscaping. It will truly enhance the buffer that we have from that private roadway into the site. The last and
final design waiver, same thing, grading within the buffer area. Technically, it is another code section all within section 193B. The last one was number four. This one is number five. Same thing, redevelopment of an already existed impacted area on a subject
parcel. So, in summary, for what is a relatively small property and a relatively small project, there's a lot of things that have been discussed in November, there's extra testimony by three more professionals tonight. We want the board and the public and the
professionals to know we heard you loud and clear in November. We fully went back to the drawing board, completely redid the site plan design, kept the nice things associated with the building, but we eliminated the parking underneath and still kept it at that modern class A facility and tried to put
a more prototypical design for you. All perimeter buffering landscaping. I do believe in my professional opinion that we advance several person uh purposes of the misal, G, I, and my favorite as always is M and that is again to the more efficient use
of land. As you heard tonight and a little bit in November, this is not a wooded track of land. This is a property that needs some substantial TLC. And yes, when we came in November, the site plan was angled. It was a unique and maybe different building design. The applicant is looking to do something
special here. I think the board can agree with after this new testimony and new approach to the overall layout that you are truly making the most efficient use of this land. There's a lot of permitted uses in the underlying zone. office will absolutely support some of the residents in the area, but it won't
be so negative overnight and on the weekends. It's a general 9-to-f5, maybe some some weekend hours if we're a little bit busier. And in the redesign and the reworking with your professionals and your team, we've been able to improve the storm water management, lighting, and landscaping. Um, so again, I I really focus on
advancing the purposes of the municipal lanes law, particularly section M, to the more efficient use of land. >> Mr. Mr. Cle, Mr. Peters, any comments? >> Thank you. Any board members have any concerns? Mr. Hel,
>> I've got two things. Number one, I didn't hear Madam Chair say anything about solar today, did I? >> Solar. Yes, it will be solar ready. >> Yes. Sorry, I >> I think we did say that last one, but good catch. >> And a second, anything about electric
vehicle charging stations? >> Yes. >> Did I miss that? >> Yes. Yes, they're over on the >> That's what >> EV stature. So that's what the credits are for, right? The parking credits. >> That's correct. >> And not um >> it would not be near the building. >> Near the building. That's the other.
>> That's correct. Thank you. >> Right. Anything else? Anyone else? We ready for the public? >> Like to make a motion to open uh for cross-examination of witnesses to the
public on this application and this application only >> and just on the uh on what was uh the testimony? >> Yes. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> Good evening. My name is Adam Midy. I am
a resident of Jackson. I live at 70 Vina Court. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes, sir. >> All right. >> Uh, and just uh fair warning, not a warning, but I am on the environmental commission, but I'm just here as a concerned resident. >> You're here as a member of public, correct? >> Correct.
>> Yeah. >> Um, all right. Um, the environmental impact statement, when was that actually uh emailed or submitted to the township or when was the environmental impact
statement conducted? Dynamic Engineering submitted our resubmission to the planning board on February 13, 2026, both via hand delivery as well as an electronic submission. The environmental impact statement is uh dated August 2026.
However, it was provided to the board back in February >> and I believe it's on the website. >> Perfect. Uh, and when was the last time you guys appeared before the board? November. >> November. Okay. And you had said you uh
significantly redesigned the site plan. Correct. >> That is correct. >> Would that require a new submission to the Pineland Commission for review? >> Not necessarily. So, the Pinelands has jurisdiction over certain items. The township has jurisdiction over other
items. Uh if you take a look at the last review letter that the Pinelands had, they had a couple of comments remaining for us. Um, as you know, we're not allowed to come to the board before we get past a certain a certain threshold with the Pinelands. They allowed us to come to the board and start these proceedings. They did have what we'll
call two conditions to those Pinelands uh standards and we then provided an itemized response how we address them. >> Okay. And and when exactly was that correspondence, the last correspondence from the Pineland Commission? >> Um, I get you that date. It was last year though.
>> Correct. Would it be June of 2025? >> Uh, sounds right. Yep. >> Awesome. And did they issue a letter of consistency or a letter of inconsistency? >> It technically is considered an inconsistency letter, but again, it's a certificate of filing to come to the
board with two conditions that we must address. >> Correct. And do you know how many items uh the pilot commission raised of of concern? >> Well, there's only two left. >> Which which are the two uh what are the four concerns they had raised and which of the two have you remediated? Can you
advise me what the four items that you're concerned with and I'll address them for you? >> Absolutely, sir. Can you give me 10 seconds? >> Sure. >> Uh so the first one was water quality. Was that remediated? >> It certainly was. Um, so you'll see it underneath water quality. It's also
listed, if it's helpful, in Mr. Cle's uh review letter dated March 4, 2026. Um, underneath water quality, it says the proposed development must be serviced by public sanitary sewer service. The applicant proposes to connect to an existing sanitary sewer manhole located
on a different site across the street and so uh, South Hope Chapel Road. Uh, we advise that there's an existing commercial shopping center located on that parcel. it has not been demonstrated that is currently adequate sanitary sewer capacity. So since then as I testified to earlier um we have
that thread. >> So you you have not achieved uh a confirmation of sewage capacity yet. Correct. >> We have. Yes, >> you have. >> Yes. They basically said the existing 3-in force man does not have capacity. Dynamic Engineering provided a solution which was replacing that 3-in with a new
4-in force man which allows new capacity greatly exceeding the less than 2,000 gallons per day that my uh this applicant will do and it will be improvement not just to this property but the corridor of South Hope Chapel Road. So I believe that we've satisfied that >> and and were there any calculations done
or or data submitted in relation to that? >> Yes to JTMUA >> and the MUA certified the sewage plan. We don't we're not proposing a sewage plant. Sir, >> the MUA certified the connection to the sewage line across the block.
>> No, they have not s we we don't have our final JTMUA permit. >> So, the sewer authority they have not approved the connection yet. >> They have advised us that they accept the 4in sanitary sewer line. So, we are now since then going through detailed
calculations to give to them. >> Okay. I'm okay. Just an excerpt from the EIS. You said the proposed development will connect and improve the existing sanitary sewer system. >> It is going to improve it because we're making it bigger. >> How can you prove that this will improve
the existing sewage system with no data? >> I I can happily answer that question for you. Please please keep asking as many as you need. >> I will. >> A 3-in sanitary sewer line has an an x amount of gallons per day it can handle.
So when JTMUA and the board basically said, listen, this 3-inch line is is at or above its capacity, we said, okay, a 4 inch is substantially greater than what the existing flow is. It will handle the under 2,000 gallons per day
that our facility is going to add to it, plus help improve any future developments along the way. So basically, a 3-in pipe generate allows a certain amount of gallons per day, and a 4 inch allows more. So I can >> So it was all verbal. >> Say again. >> There was no quantitative model. It's
all verbal just based off of what you were going to do. >> Sir, it's it's arithmetic. A 4 inch line allows more gallons per day than a 3-in line. >> Has the board received those calculations? >> They Well, first of all, that's a a
utility authority jurisdiction. Um so they have to receive the final design plans and approve them. It's not a planning board function. It's a JTMUA function. Okay. >> I'm only asking the question because I spoke with the Pelines Commission today
and that problem was still listed. >> Yeah, agreed. We We have >> It is inconsistent. The water quality is still inconsistent per the Pineel's Commission. So, I'm just trying to figure out how. >> Right. I don't think Josh >> I don't think he testified that he got a letter from the Pineland saying they've
all been addressed. He's saying how he's addressing them. Adam, >> that would be a condition of approval as well. >> Yeah. So, let this chip in real quick. So, so what happens it's a it's a complex chain, right? So, um we have uh
municipal uh utility authority, right? That that has to approve those calculations, right? So, that so that's an outside agency approval. Uh but then what also happens is that all that is also um also reviewed by the Pinelands
in a follow-up letter. It's called a a it's called a no call back letter, right? So what's going to happen is that everything that they submit to the MUA, they're also going to have to submit to the Pinelands. Pinelands is also going to have to review that to make sure the calculations are right. So there's only
so much that can be supplied to us based upon the the condition of approval that they've agreed to with the MUA for expanding the capacity. So it it's just just another way of saying that it's outside agency approval. But
>> No, no, I hear that. But what he's testifying directly contradicts the formal letter issued by the pilots commission. He's he's saying they've they've uh achieved sewage capacity, but there's no uh formal documentation from the MUA that states that. I think he referenced an email to Mr. Bresie when
Mr. Breie asked about will is it guaranteed? >> He referenced what they were working on now. No matter what happens now, if the MUA say is is no good and the finals don't like it, he's got back. They're gone. They're gone. The problem you got that you can't accept that the outside
agencies have the final say and you just will not accept that and you never do. Maybe if you just accept the facts that the outside agencies have the final say or they get nixed. >> Yeah. >> Very simple. Would you consider maybe scheduling hearings after the
environmental commission has reason that's not how it works? >> We cannot that be logical. Can you explain the court order, please? >> All right. Yeah. So, so um what happens is that there's something called the time of application rule. So, whenever an application is deemed complete, depending on the type of application
that's submitted, whether it's preliminary concept review, we only have x amount of days to pursuant to the municipal land use law to to have hold a hearing. So why would the chairwoman reprimand Mr. Tremor when he simply received the EIS two weeks ago if you
guys are just meeting right it's not fair to do that >> I'm I'm only speaking to the time of application rule right so we >> Mr. Mr. impressive. >> You know what Highland's DP history shows? They will not give a final letter of approval
until an applicant gets an approval from this board. They're not going to look at the thing three and four times where the applicant keeps coming back and forth with half and half. So, they don't make a final move until the applicant submits their final stuff. They have an approval and that's how it works. That's the
facts. Ask the attorney. Okay. >> We We agree with each other. That's perfect. >> All right. So, so we'll consider consider ask and answer. You can keep on going. >> Okay. Um, have you resolved the storm water management issue? >> Uh, we have in our itemized response, we
provided uh that we have exceeded the volume that must be recharged back into the ground. >> Okay. So then you didn't resolve the soil permeability issue. >> There's two storm water management issues. One is volume and the other would be >> there's technically three. So the first
one is volume. that basically says how much has to go back into the ground. There's a minimum requirement based on 7 colon 8 pinelands and the BMP 13,000 square feet is required. We're providing 17,000 square feet >> fulfilled. Understood. Understood. >> The second one is the total nitrogen reduction. Um we have redesigned
resubmitted added calculations to our drainage report and we 53% are required 59% is proposed. So we comply with that section. >> Can I ask you a question sir? >> Yeah. >> Why wasn't Does the environmental impact statement
contain a nitrogen loaden analysis? >> Uh, it probably doesn't, >> but are but >> probably doesn't. >> Yes or no, respectfully, >> sir. >> Does the environmental impact statement even include the word nitrogen?
>> I'd have to review that. I don't know every word that's in that off the top of my head. However, to answer your question, if I may, the environmental statement, environmental impact statement is one document associated with a very large amount of documents. The stormwater
management report is comprehensive. It talks about nitrogen for the board engineer, the public, the members, and the DP. So, sir, there is >> the impact statement did not include the word nitrogen at all. It never referenced nitrogen reduction at all. It
you could search the word nitrogen. It's not even there. Is there a reason why in the environmental impact statement you guys omitted such a and and I understand yes there's a lot of paperwork a lot of documentation but the environment is
what our constituents rely on our public health our safety our well-being. So it's very serious. I don't believe dynamic engineering omitted anything. It is located within the stormwater management report. We have a table of contents in the environmental impact statement. If there was a review letter
from an environmental commission and they asked for nitrogen, I'd be happy to amend this report to take the same information from the storm water management report and put it into the environmental impact statement. We can certainly make that a condition of approval should the board ask >> you make that >> in your environmental impact statement.
There was no mention of nitrogen reduction which was specifically mentioned by the Pinelands Commission as a concern of in their letter of inconsistency. So >> I know I addressed it in the stormwater report. >> The stormwater reports in the environmental impact statement. Correct. >> No, it's a separate report.
>> Separate report. >> Interesting. Okay. >> Excuse me. Can I ask a question? >> Yes, sir. >> Why wouldn't you go to the pine lands committee meeting and bring >> and you brought those issues up >> multiple applications? >> Well, they're the persons that got to give you the answers. Why are you duplicating it here?
>> I'm sorry. Why are you duplicating those questions here where we don't have the end ability to uh ask >> why would I ask the planning board environmental questions that >> I didn't say question
>> our residents >> I said >> why would I verify the question of a planning board application >> what I'm saying why are you already been told that those issues are up to the planning board. >> Are you asking me why I'm here right
now? >> You would agree. >> H how many times has this very board approved things? >> Do you know what a call-up letter is? >> So So I I think >> Give me one second, Mr. Rogers. >> Yes. >> Do you know what a callup letter is?
>> Adam, hang on a second. May I >> please just go back? Hang on. Hang on a sec. Let me just Do you mind if we No, the attorney is addressing you. So, so I think what's happening here is that so you have three different things at play right now. You have the EIS, you have
the FA, you have four different things. You have the EIS, you got the phase one, you get the phase two, and you get the storm water report. Each one of those has different mandates, has different things that are required in it, right? So, it it's easy to overlap one or two
or three of the four and say that conditions from one should be in the other. So the the nitrogen a lot of that is in the storm water management report correct that is submitted to the board reviewed by the board engineer also submitted to Pinelands Commission um and
and going for so it's I I understand where you're coming from. There's multiple layers that overlap when there's four different reports. So and and I know what Mr. Rogers was was indicating it's it's that of jurisdiction. It's who has the final say, right? So,
>> let's just take a letter of inconsistency. >> Do you know what a letter of inconsistency explains? >> Adam, >> well, let me tell you what it explains. >> No, wait. I know what it is. >> Excuse us. You're not giving testimony. >> Answer five people. >> You're not giving >> We got We got to keep
>> You're asking questions. Your team's testimony. >> Excuse me. You're asking questions. >> You're asking questions. Please ask questions that we got. We got to keep it. That's insulting to say that we're their team. >> Respectfully, I would like to ask questions without being uh
>> Well, maybe if you stopped insulting us, you wouldn't be interrupted. >> Okay. >> May I speak? >> I'm curious why I'm >> Can I add something? >> Uh on the >> Adam, it's me. Can I add something? >> So, before we move on from this issue, I think what I would I'm picking up what you're putting down here. I think with
because it's a direct issue with the pilots commission with the nitrogen loading. >> It's our own our own ordinances guys. These are our own ordinances. >> Can we add the stipulation into the >> These are our own orders. >> So So what what we can do right Adam I
speech is being uh restricted. >> No listen listen I'm trying I'm trying to help you. Right. So what we're going to do is that we're going to make it conditional upon the nitrogen calculation is being approved by whatever authorities
>> are, you know, whether it be Mr. Cle or Pinelands, whoever is is the appropriate authority to review and determine, right? So we'll make that a condition of approval. >> I I find it I feel these are our own rules. Their designs don't fit within
our ordinances and that's what the pilot is saying. So for you to ask me why would you even follow our own township ordinance? >> What what happens what happens is that if it goes to the Pinelands, Pinelands says no go which is you know to be fair it's but yeah which they did. I mean
they came back with a letter of inconsistency. So so they have to apply to they have to comport with everything now. >> And I'm saying 10 months later have you resolved any >> because I'm asking a question that I could answer. >> So all that Pinelands requires to come to this board is a certificate of
filing. Correct. It doesn't say we have to now address all their inconsistencies. We have to do that ultimately, but we're not going to do any of that until we get past this level of approval. >> Absolutely. And as a constituent, I'm allowed to inform my board whose job is
to both respect your due process and the best interest of the township. Right. >> So, you're asking why did we do it? The answer is because we don't we don't do it until after this layer of approval is obtained because Pinelands doesn't want to get peacemeal. If they make a plan revision,
we have to go back to Pinelands. If back it's it's a cycle. We get township approval, then we get everybody else's approval. >> I understand that you describe it so sweetly, but not all applications are perfect and and and sweet. You guys
slip, not you. People slip things in all the time. >> All right. So, so let's consider >> fix that while we consider >> how you fix it is you thoroughly review. >> Okay. Hang on. So, so let's let's consider the the nitrogen. >> Yeah. One at a time. One at a time. All right. So, let's consider the the
nitrogen ask and answer. We'll move on to the next one. >> Okay. >> Good. >> And again, we we comply with the nitrate calculations that's in the engineering report. The final item that was left for Pineelands was soil permeability. It was talked about in November. I will repeat
the testimony that was provided by my colleague, Mr. Richie. Essentially, because we're in Jackson, there's too much sandy soil. The water goes through it too fast here. Pinelands wants us to slow it down. The easy way to solve that is simply adding a note that says over excavation replacement of the whole basin footprint and about 3 ft of soil
around it with a lower u infiltraable soil. Generally, you hear the terms K5, that simply means 20 inches or more. You were looking at K4s and K3s. So, so that the inches per hour are underneath 20 inches per hour. It is a simple plan
adjustment. It's in the current set of drawings that the board has before itself. It's in the stormwater management report. I do not know if it is in the EIS exactly, but in order to address that section of the Pinelands letter, we did ourized response on February 13. It's a 31page itemized
substantial and because Mr. Cle correctly put it in his review letter, we had to address it. So, I believe we satisfactorily addressed the four different components that are remaining with the pilots. >> And just to be clear, the applicant's going to be subject to a no callup
letter or or a letter of no further review, which all of this has to be taken care of. >> This board has no power to to deviate from that. That's it. >> But it's a it's a jurisdictional thing, but I'll put it in there as a condition of approval. >> Correct. Um, you had a vegetation section in the
environmental impact statement. Uh, use the quote, "The vegetation is substandard." What did you mean by substandard? >> Can you give me a page and a section number, please? >> Give me one second. >> Is it page three under H? >> H,
>> I can get it for you. I'm sorry. I believe so. Page three underneath site uh section H vegetation. >> Yes. Yes sir. >> We had a summarizing statement last the overall condition of the existing. >> Okay. >> And will be improved.
>> You have no no faith in Mr. Tremor and the environmental commission doing their job because that's who has to do this. >> This is so relevant. Um did the report include a vegetation survey? Can you expand on what a vegetation
survey means for you? >> The report uh describes the vegetation as substandard. So I would imagine you guys surveyed the site to come up with that description. >> We did. We did a property survey as well as a tree location survey and we've been
on the site multiple times throughout the few years that we've been there. >> Why didn't you list the species uh found on site? >> I don't believe it's a requirement, sir. Uh okay. What about a wildlife analysis? I think
>> the next section over you said this analysis uh what does this say? >> Does the wildlife found on site is typical of central New Jersey. It's under I. >> So
this is just a general assumption. >> Yes sir. Did you touch upon threatened and endangered species given we were in the Pinelands and that's a uh ecologically sensitive area. Is there anywhere in the report that touches on threatened or
endangered species? >> So item J after item I wildlife addresses threatened endangered species. >> Okay. And then that geo web mapping uh is that up to reg is that how um [clears throat]
is that up to regulatory compliance? Is that how an applicant typically uh deciphers whether or not there's a threat an endangered species on the site? They would use that map. >> Yeah, absolutely. It's the first tool I would say that uh engineers use. I would
say board engineers do use that as well to refresh the board's memory in the public. This application has been filed to the >> if there was a question about habitat studies or T& studies they would have asked us. >> Yes.
>> Again the property is fully developed in its existing condition with various structures, pools, houses, pavement and gravel. So our comments after leaving the sessions IJ are accurate and relative. >> Okay, last couple questions.
>> Where in the EIS can you demonstrate um compliance with any of the four issues that Pelands has raised? >> He just testified to how we addressed them previously in the stormware manage
report. >> Yeah, I'm going to I'm going to have to say that that was >> Did you say that already? that that was asked. They put a lot of testimony on about that. >> Yeah. >> I think my last question is um has the MUA produced any formal documentation relative to this application?
>> We provided testimony on that too. No, that just the application was filed and they have email exchanges, but we haven't submitted anything to this board because that's another outside agency approval that we have to obtain. Okay. All right. No further questions. Um, I
do want to say uh it is incredibly uh insulting to uh ask a resident why he would be here uh in any capacity, whatever it may be. Uh I find that immensely disrespectful. Uh I'm a molecular scientist with a biochemistry
background. Uh I'm not here to just uh play games. Uh I'm I'm here for >> we we we can't >> and >> yeah just keep keep it civil. Let's just >> simple. >> Yeah, I would I would appreciate that. Thank you.
>> Anyone else have uh questions for the uh applicants test? Anyone else have uh questions for the uh applicant's testimony? >> Seeing no one come forward, I move to close the cross- examination portion of
this application. >> All in favor? >> I. >> If anyone has any comments to make specifically about this particular application, you may come forward now. >> I move uh hold on. I move to open public
comment uh on this and this application only. Sullivan. >> All in favor? >> I can just comment for the >> general comment. >> Give your name for the record please. >> Adam. >> Um again I think I started
>> he was already sworn. Okay. >> The board should really look into how they schedule uh hearings. Again this environmental impact statement was received two weeks two to three weeks prior to this hearing. Mr. Tremor, the chair of the environmental commission has stated the team hasn't even reviewed
the application. Uh so to go forth with a hearing as a little unethical uh disrespectful with respect to >> there there was an application uh that we heard on this exact property uh that could have received an environmental
impact statement from the environmental commission that was happened months ago. >> Months ago. This is just a rehearing of an application that was about the size of the building. The environmental
issues have not changed from the first time four months ago that this was heard >> and as stated >> as as stipulated >> it has remediated as far as the size of the building. The property is exactly the same. Nothing has changed.
>> General comment. >> General comment. Let's keep it to that. And and don't forget they've stipulated that they must get a letter of no concern from the environmental commission. So it's not being ignored. It's being addressed. >> Great job. >> Thank you,
>> Mr. Sh. Can I defend myself slightly? >> Because there was no EIS submitted until February 26, 2026, which I greatly do appreciate. We did have the hearing in November and I did the environmental commission did review it at that time. There was concerns. You guys have brought questions to those concerns in great length. Again, much appreciated.
This EIS was only received two weeks ago. That is the only reason why that has not been reviewed or there has not been a letter of no concern issued to this point. It will be reviewed Monday. It is on the schedule for the environmental commission on Monday and we will be reviewing it and getting back >> and Josh will be there too. They answer your question. Appreciate it.
>> Mr. Tremor, that's exactly why I brought it up. That can happen anytime where you don't get it right away or you jam backed up. That's why I always put in there they must receive a letter of no concern or null and void. if it's not there. So, we are we are addressing it together. >> The environmental commission was defunct
for years in this town and we've now recently brought it back and are reviewing it everything as quickly as possible. So, I appreciate >> and we understand that you're backed up. It's it's been a very difficult situation for you. However, this board has a schedule and we need to keep to
our schedule. So, it's difficult for us as a board if we don't get your opinion from your commission prior to hearing a an application. [clears throat] That's my point. >> Can I add something else to that? And
just for the public certification, if it takes the environmental commission for some good reason that they can't get it back for six months, they still can't move forward. >> Yeah. >> So, I mean, this is protected all the way around. Any approval is conditioned >> bond whenever they get it. You put a time frame that the environmental
commission has to have it next week, next month or whatever when they get it. But if they don't get a letter of no concern, they can't move forward. And you have such a hard time understanding that, >> right? So So what we have at play here is two different time frames, right? So we we got we got the we got we got the
we got the time of application rule for which we have to comport with via both ordinance and uh municipal land use law. Right? So you know for certain applications we only have 45 days or you know so to uh to act right to to hear
the application and then what happens is that the outside agency jurisdictions they have to be approved within the resolution compliance time frame which is typically sometimes it's one year sometimes it's two years there's extensions involved um but but that that
if it doesn't happen before then it has to happen afterwards. So, and they can't get a zoning permit to do anything until everything is comported with. Mr. Cle signs off with everything. Um, and the zoning officer then, you know, approves it or denies it. So, so there's there's
two different So, a planning board is always kind of caught in the middle between a hammer and anvil because there's competing time frames with different statutes for different reasons for different jurisdictions. So ju just so that everybody is clear wherever we are in this room that that's what we're
up against because if we go too far one way we risk automatic approvals. If we go too far the other way we we risk you know prejudice to the applicants. So it's got to you got to kind of have a balanced approach to this or else it kind of tips too far to one side and
prejudice either happens to the township or the applicant. So you just got to be careful with it. You know that's all I got to say. Anyone else come forward to discuss this application? >> Seeing no one come forward, I move to close the public uh comment portion of
this application. So >> second. >> All in favor? >> I >> thank you. Any comments from the board members or questions? Any comments from the professionals? >> All right. So I think we're at the point
where you got to make a decision. >> I'd like to make a motion. based on the improvements they made from the last one. When they came in, they had a waiver on all four sides of the lot, uh the size of the building, no parking
underneath it. All the improvements that you listen to that very well and did a lot of improvements and based that out of the 11 outside agencies, they can't move further until they get their approvals from the 11 outside agencies. I make a motion to approve. >> I'll second that motion, Sullivan. And
also want to once again uh state clearly that nothing gets built without outside agency approval. And we know this. Members of other boards in this town should know that. Uh unfortunately it seems that we need to have have some
kind of education process for other boards. Um, also, uh, I want to commend you for coming back pretty quickly, uh, with those changes and having listened to this board and to the public because we had concerns. However, it would be
nice if you came to us in the first place with with uh, things that, you know, we're going to not approve. So, you know, save us all a lot of time if you came to us with the right stuff in the first place. >> I just
And just to be clear that the motion is going to be for the two variances uh C2 variances um with and the waiverss which were put on record. Uh for a waiver you can either uh approve it under the impractability standard which is a balancing test between the benefits and
the costs uh or an undue hardship based upon the underlying condition of the land. uh just in case you guys want to put testimony on regarding that. But but regardless, it's going to be with the reduction in variances, with the reduction in waiverss based upon the testimony that was presented tonight.
Anything in contradiction of the prior night is waved with with the testimony tonight being in effect. >> We'll take a roll call vote, please. >> Mr. Barzie. Now, if we look at everything they brought forward tonight, yeah, it would have been great the first
time if they came in like that, but they listened to the public. They listened to everything. They caught it all. And the waiver they've asked for are well within reason. I think it's a very clean application at this point. They have to get the outside 11 agencies approved
before they can move forward. I vote yes. >> Mr. Heler, >> yes. >> Mr. Parks. >> This uh was much improved and I vote yes. >> Mr. Rogers. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tremor
>> with the stipulations of the outside agencies. Yes. >> Mr. Sullivan. >> Yes. >> Dr. Campbell. >> Yes. Congratulations. >> Thank you everyone. >> Thank you for listening. >> Our pleasure. >> A motion. >> I'd like to make a motion to close this
meeting. Sullivan. Second tomorrow. >> All in favor? >> I I >> remember we do not have a meeting the first week of April. >> That's right.