United States. Amen. All right, everybody, the very large crowd that we have, welcome to the November 3rd, 2025 Jackson Township Planning Board meeting. This year is going entirely way too
quick. Uh, this meeting has been properly noticed according to the Open Public Meetings Act and all the appropriate forums and places. And I'll leave it off to Madam Chairwoman. >> We'll have a roll call, please. >> Mr. Brezie, >> Mr. Marzo,
Mr. Heler, >> here. >> Mr. Rogers >> here. >> Mr. Tremor, Miss Rose, Mr. Weart >> here, >> Mr. Sullivan, Dr. Campbell >> here, Did did Ry confirm that he was going to
be here or >> No, he didn't. >> Okay. >> Uh we have a majority, so we're we're okay. >> Uh executive session is going to be up to you. Um depending on I have everything prepped and ready to go. Oh,
>> let's just Yeah. All right. Approval of the minutes. Uh motion, please. >> Motion. Heler. >> Second. >> Mr. Brezzy. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rogers.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Weart. >> Yes. >> Dr. Campbell. >> Yes. We have a change uh to the agenda schedule. Application for block 5301,
lot 12 for 146 North County Line Road LLC is carried from tonight to December 1st, 2025 with notice required. Will someone make a motion, please? >> Motion. Hello. >> Second.
>> Roll call, >> please. >> Mr. Brezie. Yes, >> Mr. Heler. >> Yes, >> Mr. Rogers. >> Yes, >> Mr. Weart. >> Yes, >> Dr. Ke. >> Yes, >> we have an ordinance. >> Yes, ma'am. Could we do the voucher as well, >> please?
>> We'll do >> the payment for the voucher for my voucher. >> Oh, did I miss it? >> I thought I did it first. Okay. Payment for voucher for recording secretary. Um, we'll take a motion, please. >> Second. Heler. >> Mr. Brezie.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Tyler. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rogers. >> Yes. >> Mr. Weart. >> Yes. >> Dr. Campbell. >> Yes. And we have an ordinance. >> Yes, we do. All right, everybody. We got a consistency review for ordinance uh
2025-40. And I will leave that up to the planner or the board to make a determination as to whether it's consistent or not with the master plan. >> Thank you, Madam Chair.
>> We don't have speakers, so we really have to get close to the mic tonight. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. It appears this recommend or this um ordinance draft to the planning board deals with the residential use
requirements in the HCMU highway commercial mixeduse zone. Um and it specifies the maximum number of dwelling units including affordable units are four acres four units per net acre
dedicated to residential use. It appears to be a clarification of a previous ordinance revision. Um, I do not know if it came out of the master plan subcommittee or or not, but it would appear to be consistent with both the master plan that was in effect when the
HCMU zone was created and the master plan that was adopted this summer. >> So, it is not inconsistent. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Any recommendations?
That's just it's not inconsistent. >> Yes. Our recommendation is that is that it is not inconsistent with the township master plan. >> Anyone have any questions about that? >> Okay. Then we need a motion to adopt. >> I'll make a motion to adopt because it
consistent with the master plan. >> Second that motion. Heler. >> We'll have a roll call vote. Mr. Brezie. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hower? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rogers? >> Yes. >> Mr. Weart? >> Yes. >> Dr. Camp? >> Yes. All right.
Miscellaneous legal matters. >> Uh just procedural issues that we need to discuss in executive session. >> So I'll take a uh motion to adjourn to executive session. Please. >> Motion.
>> Second. Helen. >> Gentlemen. It should not be too long. We've we we booked a room. >> So, if you want to set up by the time that we get out, you can Yeah. So move second.
>> All in favor? >> I >> Okay, we'll just wait for a minute. Good. We just moved us out of executive session. So, do we have to postpone this? the North County line.
>> We moved it. Yes. Yep, we did. Okay. Mr. Alfi, welcome. >> Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. Salvatore Alfieri [clears throat] on behalf of the applicant. This application is for a threetory 16,500 foot.
>> We're We have no speakers today. 16 thou better >> 16,500 square foot uh threestory office building. >> Um I have reports from your engineer dated October 22nd and the planner October 29th. Uh we have three witnesses
that we have our engineerplanner and architect and traffic engineer that we're going to call tonight hopefully. >> Thank you. >> And we're ready to go when you are madam chair. >> Ready? Yep. All right,
>> please raise your right hand. You swear, affirm, tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> All right. Please state your name and spell your last for the record. Rod Richie. Um, what did you say? And your credentials.
>> So, I work for Dynamic Engineering. Um I you want me to go through and the qualifications? Okay. So >> I have a bachelor's of science, masters of science in civil engineering from Lehigh University. Um I am a registered um professional
planner and professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. Uh engineer since 2002, planner since 2004. Um, so at this point I've got uh about 25 years of design experience uh in the
land development industry. I've been accepted uh as an expert in the field of civil engineering and testified before many other boards in the state of New Jersey. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. The board accepts >> Thank you. [clears throat] And and Madam
Chair, we submitted it had pre-marked eight exhibits [music] that we'll refer to at some point. Anthony has them as well. Um, so Rod, why don't you begin, please? Great.
I'm going to stand if that's all right. So, the parcel is block 20901, lot 15, as highlighted in yellow there. Uh the uh >> before you is that exhibit A1? >> That is exhibit A1 as marked in the
upper leftand corner. Thank you. >> See that up there? >> The property is 30 South Hope Chapel Road which is County Route 547 and uh at the intersection of South Hope
Chapel Road and Garden Street which is a private drive. Um that yellow parcel is at the northwest corner of that intersection. So for everybody's the orientation north is to the right of the page.
This is a 1.13 acre property. The existing zoning is RGC2, the regional growth commercial where um the permitted uses in this zone are the same as the PVC2 Pineland's Village
commercial and office is a permitted use within this zone. Um the existing property, you can't see it too well on this aerial, but it is an a previously developed property with um an existing
um now vacant, but it's a it was a residential dwelling uh with several other garage uh accessory buildings to the north just to again to sort of orient the you folks to the site. Uh to
the north again that's to the plan right there are other commercial and retail uses with Veterans Highway. Uh beyond Veterans Highway, you can see there is running top of the page to the bottom of the page. On the right hand side
to the east is the is an existing retail shopping center which is across South Hope Chapel Road from the site and to the west and the south of the property are existing residential dwellings.
Um, as I mentioned, uh, the site is currently developed or previously developed. It's currently vacant, but, um, couple things to note. U, there are some existing paved areas on the site. Um, to the south, on the south side of the
site, the pavement, the edge of the pavement is approximately 9 ft from the property [music] line. And on the north side, the edge of pavement is approximately 2.1 ft from the north property line. And that's important because I'm going to show you when we
get to the proposed conditions how we're improving those conditions. Those are existing non-conforming conditions and we're going to uh increase those setbacks from the gravel areas. Uh there are three existing points of
access onto South Hope Chapel Road from the site. There are currently no access points to Garden Street. Uh and again that's a private drive, not a public right away. So we intend to maintain that condition.
Um the property as I mentioned does front on South Hope Chapel Road and that's where we will plan to uh propose access to the site. the the topography on the on the property generally slopes from South
Hope Chapel Road to the south and west corner of the property and we intend to maintain those existing drainage patterns. Um the site is not located within a flood hazard area. There are no existing wetlands on the site. We did do
a phase one uh which indicated the presence of a former auto repair operations and so we did a phase two um and that included soil sampling and the results indicated no exceedences of D soil remediation standards. So for those
reasons we're requesting a waiver from the from an EIS as uh we expect there to be no negative impact as a result of this development. And we can get into that more as we talk about the proposed conditions.
Um, so can we switch to exhibit A2 which is a rendering colored rendering of the site plan that was submitted as part of the application
uh as well as the landscaping included on that plan as well. So, as I mentioned or uh as was described, this is a proposed three-story office building with a total gross floor area of approximately 16,500
square ft. The proposed building is located within the center of the site and does comply with the building setbacks required by the ordinance. Um and again just to compare that to the existing conditions there the there is
one existing one-story garage that's located approximately 575 ft from the western property line and this proposed building is set back approximately 96 ft from that property line. So we're increasing the separation
of building from the western property line. The uh proposed building is 38 feet where 35 ft is the max allowed um by ordinance. So we are requesting seeking a variance for the building height. Um
and I'm coming I'm arriving at 38 ft as uh the vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the finished grade at all corners of the building to the highest point of the roof for flat roofs. We are 38 foot 38 foot.
>> Yes, >> we are proposing to raise the grades on the site and so that will require uh some imported fill and the applicant does agree to comply with the provisions of chapter 364 uh which regulates soil and fill
importation. Um even with the fill, we intend to maintain the majority of u the overland flow direction. Um, with the proposed storm water
uh running through a a new drainage collection system and ultimately to an underground proposed underground infiltration basin uh designed to meet the uh state storm water rules and
requirements. Um that system does include a manufactured treatment device to handle water quality uh from the runoff uh generated from the proposed motor vehicle surfaces. And the remainder of the site is mostly pvious uh open space around the
perimeter um that will generally flow off site via overland flow to the south and west. similar to the existing uh drainage patterns. There are some areas along the perimeter where we we are proposing 3 to one slopes and and low retaining walls less
generally less than 3 ft um that are required to make up that grade at the along the perimeter. And we do need uh we are requesting design waivers um for those conditions. But um we believe those are are pretty
typical um grading conditions that we run into uh pretty regularly. We are proposing um 75 spaces and eight EV parking spaces on the site. You can see those uh generally
underneath the building in the center of the site and then the spaces are located around the perimeter. Um we are proposing a 9 by18 stall size where the ordinance requires 83 spaces. We're proposing 75 physical spaces but
we get one credit for each of those eight EV spaces and therefore demonstrate compliance with the parking requirements. The ordinance does state that parking spaces should not use the main circulation aisle. However, on this
site, um the main circulation aisle is the parking area. So, for that reason, we would request a waiver from that um provision of the ordinance. And I think the that provision of the ordinance is really intended more toward a commercial
retail site which this is not. I mean this will be an office small office building where um the people that use the site are going to be familiar with the layout turnover is low and u and the traffic volume is generally low as well.
Um and again similar thing the landscaped islands the internal landscaped islands ordinance requires a width of 10 ft. We're proposing uh less than 10 ft for the landscaped islands. And again it's
in order to be able to fit the the required number of spaces on the site. And we still believe there's adequate space um to plant a tree there in those islands. No, my apologies. I should have qualified this before. You're testifying
as both an engineer and a planner. I am. Yeah. >> Trying to hit all those points. Okay. Uh there we are proposing a single ingress and egress along the frontage of South Hope Chapel Road uh with two-way
circulation throughout the site. You can see there in the bottom right hand corner uh which is the northeast corner of the site on the the site rendering the proposed driveway entrance. >> Um again that entrance u that driveway
condition obviously will have to be reviewed and approved by um Ocean County entrances. is there's a provision in the ordinance that says entrances should extend 100 ft into the site where 40 ft here is proposed and exit drive should
extend 60 ft where 50 ft is proposed here. Both lengths here are decreased due to the depth of the lot but uh we believe there's still plenty of room for vehicles to circulate the site and provide for adequate stacking. And again for the same reasons I mentioned before,
you know, this is not a typical retail commercial site where uh the general public may may be coming here and not familiar with the layout, whereas these folks are going to be coming here every day and know their way around. Um and I don't think the volume will be so high
that we're going to be concerned about stacking. So again, some some waiverss there uh for those provisions are required. We will be providing a a sight triangle easement in accordance with the Ocean
County site triangle requirements. Um the minimum we are proposing um to meet the minimum drive aisle width of 24 [music] ft in most places throughout the site. There is one small pinch point
there at the northwest corner of the building uh where we have 21.4 4 feet proposed, but there is also a hatched area um that can be used for turning movement turning movements and uh if a vehicle needs to
back out of one of those spaces there at the northwest corner of the building. We are proposing ADA compliant sidewalks uh along the front edge of the building and throughout the site as well as um ADA connection uh to the ADA spaces
along the front there adjacent to [music] South Hope Chapel Road. uh there is not a specific loading area proposed here uh as we don't expect major deliveries. I mean the deliveries that we would expect here are typical of
a a t typical FedEx or UPS delivery. [music] Uh the largest vehicle we would expect here is like a a van or even possibly a a box truck. Um we're proposing a 10x20 masonry trash
enclosure. It'll be a combined trash and recycling um enclosure. It is 6.7 ft from the northern property line where 10 ft is required. Um and that's on the northern side. You can see
sort of that light gray triangle just to the northwest corner of the building there. And uh the area surrounding the trash enclosure should also be landscaped where we have some landscaping on the lefthand side but no landscaping is
proposed on the north side uh because of a retaining wall that we have to include there. Um and it is adjacent to another commercial use. So not sure the benefit of a of a landscape buffer
there or the need for it. We do need uh some bulk variances for the parking areas. The rear yard parking setback requirement is 20 ft where we're proposing 18.6 ft. And as I mentioned earlier when I was talking about the
existing conditions on the site, there is gravel and broken asphalt uh a gravel and broken asphalt parking area that does extend all the way to the to the existing fence along that western property line um almost right up to the
edge. So we are proposing to improve that condition by uh planting and landscaping that 18.6 feet. But it is uh it is less than what is required and so we therefore are requesting that variance.
Um and in two other similar conditions uh the sideyard parking setback along Garden Street again is 20 ft and here we're proposing 9.6 ft where uh the existing pave drive is approximately 9 ft from Garden Street. So, we are
increasing that distance slightly. And on the north side, 10 ft is required for a sideyard parking [music] setback along a commercial property. 2.1 ft uh separates the northern property line from the existing pave
drive that's there now. And we're proposing a separation of 9.6 feet, slightly less than what's required. So, we need a relief uh need variance for that. We are proposing a lighting plan uh that
is generally complies with the uh illuminating engineering society standards. Um we think we believe we're proposing a plan that uh provides adequate lighting for safety security uh and looks to minimize off-site glare. Um
we are proposing an average of.72 foot candles um throughout the parking area. Um max is 1.4 there. There are a few areas where it is a minimum of 0.2 foot candles but that's underneath the
building. Those spaces that you see uh I probably didn't describe this carefully enough when I was talking about the parking but that those spaces that are right against the building are actually underneath um the building. the the first floor, the first story is that
dark orange rectangle in the middle. There's sidewalk on either side of that main structure on the first floor. And then there's a canopy. The two stories above are above those parking spaces that you see there.
>> Excuse me. Those are EV parking spaces up against the building. >> Uh they are shown that way on the site plan, but we we intend to correct that. >> We are moving them. >> We are moving them. Yes. >> Good. >> Yes. Um, but that's where those lower light
levels are just because they're underneath the building. So, for that reason, we're requesting uh some waiver relief for the the minimum foot candles. Um, talk about the landscaping for the
site. Uh we're proposing 36 total trees, 86 total shrubs, some additional grasses, ground cover, and for a total planting of 218 new plants. Um we do need a uh design waiver for the
minimum residential buffer screen where 25 ft is required. Uh currently there's no buffer along that western property line and um and approximately 9 ft again to the edge of that pave drive on the southern side. So we're proposing 9.6 ft
along the south and 18.6 ft along the west with uh a substantial landscaped area. And we do intend to uh keep the existing board on board privacy fence. Public water is available um within
South Hope Chapel Road. We intend to connect to the existing water man there for water surface. Same with gas and electric and sanitary sewer will will be ultimately a public sewer connection. Um we're in the process of designing that
um sewer upgrade and we are proposing to run across South Hope Chapel Road uh to tie into that existing public sewer system. We are proposing one compliant monument
sign along South Hope Chapel Road um in accordance with the sign requirements. no closer than 5T from the property line and it will will meet the area um and and height requirements. We didn't include [music] it with our site plan application package, but we'd like to
add that to the um application this evening along with one compliant building mounted sign. The ordinance does allow for one monument sign and one building mounted sign and we'd like to include both of those. And and that monument
sign will just have the street address. It's not going to advertise the occupants of the building. Correct. >> That's right. Yes. >> Just the number. >> Yeah. And I know it's something the board has contin consistently asked for. That's why we're offering it tonight. >> Fire department likes the number.
>> Correct. Understood. >> So, uh, as I mentioned, the applicant is requesting C variances for the sideyard parking setbacks, uh, where 20 ft from a residential use is required where 9.6 6 is proposed on the south and 18.6 proposed on the west side of the site
where 10 ft from a non-residential use is required and 9.6 is proposed on the north side of the site and a height variance where 35 ft is the max and 38 ft is proposed.
The applicant is requesting the variances because based on the dimensions of the existing lot and the proposed layout, they are not able to comply with the bulk requirements. And this lot is existing. It's not part of a proposed subdivision. So, the lot dimensions are set.
The proposed conditions are an improvement over existing conditions where the existing drive is 9 ft from the southern property line and 2.1 ft from the northern property line. Uh the height variance is a small
increase over the max allowable and allows the applicant the ability to build the three-story building he needs to make the project work. and this applicant is looking to redevelop the existing site for the purposes of building a permitted use in the town which is a benefit to the
surrounding area. The design seeks to mitigate the impacts of the relief by maintaining an existing privacy fence and proposing over 200 total plantings on the site. And in my opinion, the granting of the requested variances would advance
purposes A, C, E, G, I, and M of the municipal land use law. And in my opinion, the benefits of this application outweigh any detriments. So in summary, uh the use is a permitted use. Uh it does fit in with the
surrounding uh commercial development. We are proposing an aesthetically pleasing site design and building. And finally, I would say that we will uh work with the board's professionals to address any technical comments not addressed in the testimony.
>> I I have a few follow-ups. First of all, are we proposing a sidewalk on South Hope Chapel Road? >> Yes, we are. Sorry if I missed that. >> And you mentioned the Ocean County Planning Board as one of the outside agency approvals along with utilities.
Can you just update the board on the status of the Pinelands application? >> Yes, we have submitted um an application for a certificate of filing to the Pinelands. We did receive um an incomplete letter I believe um that had
one uh one issue to address with our storm water design which we are in the process of addressing. uh we're essentially going to have to over excavate and remove some of the material. Their comment dealt with permeability. So,
we're going to have to replace um actually we're going to have to replace soils that drain too well with soils that have a lower permeability rate in order to meet their requirement. And then the other um issue was the question
about public sewer. And as I stated earlier, we're going to we're proposing a connection to the public sewer. And you you mentioned u that you would address the technical comments in the board professional reports. If the board were to grant this approval, you would agree that all of their technical
comments would be addressed. >> Yes. >> Um there's one question in Mr. Peter's report about a mailbox. Um how is the mail handled? Is there is there a is there a mailbox itself or the postman comes to the
building? Do you know? I believe the the post postal service would deliver to the front door. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So there's no separate mailbox or anything that's proposed outside the building, >> right? Not at this time. >> Okay. >> Um I believe that's all we have of this professional. Madam Chair,
>> thank you, Mr. Peters. >> Madam Chair, um Mr. Richie, thank you for your testimony. Um, I'm gonna ask some questions and Mr. Alfieri may tell me someone else is going to answer them. Um, there was a submitted statement of operations.
>> Yes. >> Discuss that at all? >> We Yeah, we could. Um, the the You want us to summarize the statement of operations or you want to just say >> Okay, so it's a it's a uh general office
building. Um, it says the hours going to be se Monday through Saturday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, but some of the office hours might extend beyond that. There are no tenants currently identified except that the applicants will be the largest uh user of the building, but you know, for
obvious reasons, it's hard to rent something until you have approvals and you're ready to build. Um, the parking standards we'll get into with our traffic engineer. He'll explain the parking um and the number of truck traffic trips and trash removal. I think
you covered already, correct? It's private private pickup, >> right? I may not have said that, but yes, the I I was talking about the trash enclosure, but yeah, the pickup will be by private hauler and probably one to two times per week depending on the need. >> So,
respectfully, I'm back to the comment first comment in the statement. Seems like a disclaimer from an attorney. >> I didn't write it though. So, >> fair enough. Then I'll ask Mr. Richie about it.
I'm trying to understand how the board feels about we ask for a statement of operations. The statement starts out by saying the information provided in the summary statement of operations serves as a general guideline only is not intended to limit the flexibility of the proposed use or businesses. I think that
requires some explanation, >> some specificity. >> We What's the business? >> The business is general office and there is >> no group meetings. >> I'm sorry. >> No group meetings. No groups.
>> Okay. >> Can we stipulate that, Mr. I'm not I don't I don't How do you define what do you mean like a group? >> No large groups. >> Well, because it's not >> meet there. It'll be office building. >> They're not therapists or anything where you would have therapy sessions because it's non-medical. So >> non-medical,
>> right? So it's general general. >> Where's that coming from? >> Not me. >> Must be you. >> Um it's just general office space. So, okay. If you want us to stipulate no group meeting, I can't even imagine a use that has group meetings. Like, I
have an office that would be permitted there. If I have a closing, there might be eight people that come to a closing, right? >> I don't I don't consider that a group meeting. So, that's >> trying to understand how to take that comment and give it to the zoning officer when we're done. >> Well, it's going to be for it's a permitted use, right? So, the
issue is as long as it's office space that that not medical, then it's permitted. Uh the hours of operation are general hours of operation. If if I have a meeting at my office at 8 o'clock, I don't think that would be violative of the hours of operation. We're just
giving you general hours. Beyond that, I mean, if we're a use variance, then I think a lot more specificity would be required, but we're just general office space. So, we would concur that the uses that are indicated or proposed that are proposed are permitted in the zone. Um
Mr. Richie, you gave some testimony about the E Last waiver said that there were phase one and phase two studies performed. >> Yes. >> I don't recall seeing them in the submission documents. Are they available? Can can they be submitted as a condition of the approval for the board's record?
>> Yes. >> As it relates to the planning testimony, um a lot of your testimony seem to center around the existing conditions. Existing conditions out there are existing house. Correct. There's nothing. It's empty. >> Used to be an existing house.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> My question was is you're relying upon you said, "Well, there's an existing setback. There's an exist." Do you know if any of those existing conditions have approvals to the best of your knowledge? >> I I can't say for sure. No. >> Okay. Yeah. We um we Oprah every time we
start an application records from the town. There's nothing in there that there's really no history for the zoning because that house must have been I don't know how old it must I just want the board to understand if a homeowner >> decided to widen a driveway and didn't get a permit. I'm not sure if that meets the standard for a variance for you not
to provide parking in the location that's required in the ordinance. >> The the intent in my testimony was simply to represent what's out there today and what we're proposing and how those two compare. >> I don't disagree. Um I didn't hear a lot about the proofs for the height
variance. Um, are we going to get some testimony from the architect? >> The architect's going to >> There there's no existing condition related to So, I understand I got an idea about what kind of testimony we're going to get, but from a variance
perspective, I think we're going to need to hear something about why you need a height variance when 35 ft permitted. Well, we'll let the architect first describe the height and why it's proposed and then we can bring Mr. Richie back if necessary.
>> Yeah, I think Mr. Peters is asking for a more detailed legal analysis as to the >> right. But we need the architect to we can go back. I I got some other issues that we got to discuss. Anyway, >> I have no additional questions for Mr.
Richie at this time. Thank you, >> Mr. Clay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um just just a couple um on the environmental issue. Um I think you know it would be a good idea to have the um phase one and phase two provided to the board. No problem.
>> Um I I looking at the site I would agree there's not too much environmentally here, but you will still be go still going to the environmental commission who might require an EIS and you'll comply with >> I think this board will require an EIS approval. Yeah, I was going to get to
that before the engineers got to it. I understand that you did some testing and so forth and you don't think you need EIS and you know we have that on the books as a requirement and it gets a little aggravating when the applicants come in and say well we don't have to do it because we think we know better. I
would like to see an EIS and I'd also insist that we have a letter of no concern from our environmental commission. >> No problem. We agree. And while we're on that, I have a question about the MUA. You were pretty convinced you were hooking up to water and so forth, but
with the uh septic, you hesitated. Do you have a preliminary for hooking up to their sewer system or is there flow if you do hook up? Uh we've been in discussions with the MUA uh extensive discussions and we have a means to
connect across the street to an existing gravity system that leads to the McCulliff pump station which then uh has a force main connected to it that sends [clears throat] a sewer to the to the main plant.
The question is I know on that line yeah >> there's been problem with any more allowance for flow >> and a lot of their lines right now are overcapacitated >> for flow so I don't hear the words you've had discussions you've had yeah you talk and yeah you can hook up >> well
>> do you have preliminary I'm not saying final but do you have a preliminary >> for the sewer system from the MUA >> we're proposing to upgrade that force main line and and that was part of what we've discussed with the MUA so we're in the process of designing that upgrade now and until we have a design plan to
submit to them for review and final approval. We don't have that document, but we have had conversations and they're on >> stipulate that you would not move no further unless you got final approval. >> We we can't build this building unless we public's connection to sewer. We
agree. >> That's I think that's important especially >> Agreed. Sure. >> Yeah. And the Pelands wants it to. So yes, we agree. >> Well, I don't envy you dealing with the pylons, but that's another The another thing is I look at my engineer Doug with the entrances being
short and all these sidelines are a little short. You're usually pretty good. How can we eliminate some of that? Are the entrances good enough for you with the length they are coming in for the flow? We had raised a concern about as you
enter the site, if you head west, there's sort of a a striped area before you get to parallel parking spaces. >> And there's probably a better engineering solution to that. Um, we didn't get any testimony on it yet. I
was going to wait until after the traffic engineer spoke to ask either the site engineer or the traffic engineer about that location that that first parallel parking space you get to seems to be unprotected. >> Yeah.
>> Would you I mean just to head that off. Uh would you be looking for that striped area to be curbed? >> Preference. I think we can work I think we can find a solution. >> Um um just going back um to the
environmental you're going to get a pylons no call upload letter. you'll address all the inconsistencies that were noted by the pilots commission. >> Absolutely. I mean, the biggest one and the longest lead item is that sewer connection. We have uh the applicant is investing a significant amount of money
in that sewer upgrade that's going to be required. Um and until we have that approval, that's uh then that's what Pinelands is is looking for as well. But yes, we're that's we're working toward that. >> All right. Um and the uh retaining walls
a maximum of three foot height. >> Um yes, I don't think there's any that are over over three feet. >> And the concern is once we start getting a little bit higher, some type of you know guide rail, guard rail or some safe safety concerns. Um and the only other
question or comment goes back to the internal islands. A minimum of 10 ft required. Um but you have less in a number of different spaces or spots throughout the site. Um why can't we have 10 foot um wide aisles and um
minimum 5 foot radiuses? >> Well, some of those islands are underneath the building and those islands underneath the building are meant for the column supports. The the few islands that are in the parking area outside of the building
footprint um two are on the west side and one is on the south side. And due to the geometry of the site and this is part of what I was talking about before where this is an existing property. It's so the the dimensions are
set. Uh we just don't have the room to provide that full 10-ft [music] width without losing parking spaces. And as I mentioned earlier, we are right on the number for required parking spaces. So if we were to lose a parking space in
order to provide that full width, we'd be talking about a parking variance as opposed to a design waiver. >> So the the need for the floor areas kind of drive or driving the need for these reduced islands.
>> I mean, it's the overall site layout really to fit fit the program on the site within those dimensions. We we just aren't able to provide the full width, but we believe the width we're proposing is adequate to support a tree.
>> There's an awful lot of building for a very small space. I walked that lot today >> and uh it it's just too big. >> Yeah. You come out with a permitted use and we understand that and that you have some restraints and stuff. But we get to
the point for every time we talk here we got 10 feet on this side not enough. Five feet on this side not enough. This not enough. Everything is just kind of like five pounds of in a bag when it's only two pound bag. Um could there be some reduction to open
some of this stuff up? And you know everything seems to be how many small waves do you want on your size setbacks? Also on Garden Street there on the left side, I can't see it on the wall there. There's a house right there. What are you going to do to stop headlights and
stuff from your parking lot high enough to stop headlights from going across the street right house? >> Uh there is an existing board on board fence there and we intend to maintain that and extend it along that
>> maybe a nice new vinyl fence. >> Sure. The board fence probably been up there since the house went away. >> That walked that lot today and and that's an old beat up fence. I think a nice lovely vinyl fence might be a great idea.
>> No objection to replacing that with a brand new white vinyl privacy fence. >> Excellent. Mr. Cle, question for you. Hate to put you on the spot. Do you have anything that you come up with sometimes? What could we do to get away
from all these just short of what he requires for footages on the sides and stuff? >> Smaller the size of the building. >> Reduce the size of the building >> or or ask for a waiver of number.
>> And that's a tough one because parking is one of my biggest gripes because once we don't have parking, we have a hard time getting out. >> Easy for Doug and I to take out the knife and chop some stuff up. Yeah. I mean, it just seems like there's a lot of a lot of stuff that it's not one side, it's both sides, it's the north
sides, the west side, it's every side. >> I think we got to get that a little cleaner. >> So, I mean, that's [music] a great great comment there. And I our traffic engineer is going to provide some testimony based on um the IT standards
in terms of what parking would be required for a building of this size. and it's far less than what your ordinance requires. And so if there is if the board is willing to um give some leeway with the number of parking spaces, then we absolutely can
accommodate the full width. >> I think the board may want to see a cleaner plan as opposed to at max number of parking. I I think that's kind of where we're going with this. Um also I want to address two other issues. What's the what's the ETA on the rework of the
storm water design? Um, so that our engineer can take a look at that. Um, do we have an ETA on that or >> storm water or >> there's there's no rework? >> I I'm sorry. The the the sewer from from the the pine. >> Yeah.
>> Uh, I mean, we're just getting started with the design of that offsite force main upgrade. >> ETA on that or couple months. >> Yeah, we're probably a couple months out. >> Couple months out. Okay. Um, so
So that's that's one issue I want to address. So I would rather us be in a situation where our engineer uh is able to take a look at that prior to any full approval, make sure the calculations are correct, the whole nine yards, I think that may be beneficial
kind of towards the end of this thing. Um, additionally, when it comes down to the the phase one, phase 2 reports, um, we don't have an environmental commission report on this application yet, do we? No, no, we don't. Okay. We don't. Um, so I would request that the phase one,
phase two be sent to the board's professionals, but also be sent to the environmental commission and an EIS be performed. Um, I mean, knowing that you have to schedule EIS's, somebody's got to actually do the leg work on it. Uh, that may that may take as much time as
as getting the full, you know, analysis done and calculations done for the MUA anyway. So, I think if we get that on track together by the time that both are ready um and and have the review letters out on them um make killed two birds
with one stone. >> The applicant >> Yeah. Does Doug does he normally review the I hate to talk about >> I I I just want to make sure the calcul he has all the calculations he needs, you know. >> Yeah. But the sanitary is really MUA. It's not this board. So, I'm not sure.
All right. I just wasn't sure if there was a flow analysis you had to do. >> Yeah. I if you wanted, we could provide it, but that's not typically something we do. >> Okay. >> But yeah, as as long as we get something back from the MUA, you know.
>> Yeah. I mean, if if if the board needs the EIS and the environmental commission report before it acts, then we're going to have the time to do it anyway. So, which is what you were suggesting, but that's not typically something we submit here. We just requested just to, you know, if if we're going to kill two
birds with one stone, might as well just knock them both off. >> Um, >> those were your two. >> Those were my two. >> Gentlemen, >> anything from the board? >> Yes. Hi. Um, got a few things. >> Nice and close. >> Well, some of them already got stolen by
others, I guess. But, um, regarding the ADA parking spaces, two small observations. Number one, I'm not sure why they won't put it butting the building. It might be easier for people with disabilities to not have to cross the road each time. Was there a reason why it was done opposite the building
versus in the >> say that they they should be switched with the EV? >> That's what I was thinking. Unless there was a reason under the building and put the EV out >> away from the building because the fire department is asking us to make sure the
EV is not close to buildings. Correct. and the ADA compliant people would be much happier to be closer to the facility >> and sheltered >> and sheltered. >> Uh we could certainly look at that. >> Yeah. The width of them are also
narrower than the standard parking spaces that you have around. They're 8 foot versus the nines or tens that you have around the property. So not sure why they're actually narrower when they generally need more space. the ADA spaces >> you've got in between you've got eight foots but the actual spot itself on the
what I'm seeing here is showing 8 foot >> and one is one is van >> only one is van compliant >> yeah the spaces have to be ADA compliant you can't give relief from that so we have to >> yeah they they it's a federal guideline they have to be ADA compliant yeah
>> okay um I don't see any plans I guess it's not for you but are we going to have anything to see the actual building >> yeah that's the next I was going ask the board's permission to at least let us put the architect on so you can give us your input on that. >> Of course, of course. Now, Mr. Wong,
anything from you, Mr. Anything else? >> I just want to make sure I know the MUA would love you to put a a force made in the MUA love to give you a lot of lines to put in. I know the cost of it, but I also want to hear that they have flow
there for you when it's done. Yes, sir. [laughter] >> Think this building is just too big. >> Right. We want to put the architect. Yeah, please. >> Madam Chair, just >> Oh, Mr. Two more. Sorry. Um curbs and
sidewalk all along um so South Chapel. >> Yes. >> And all signage is going to comply. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I don't believe we received the architecturals on this. >> That's what I was talking about. >> I don't have any plans to look at.
>> Do we have them? >> Did we? No, I don't I don't have >> Well, we can put them up on the board and uh we can circulate them around afterwards. I so I I'll answer your question in a little bit. But yes, they would be.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> All right. Please state your name and spell your last for the record. >> Yes. My name is Rachel Pasquez. I'm Rachel Pasquez. P A S kez. I'm a licensed architect in the state of
New Jersey and I presented I believe in front of this board around two years ago. >> All right. >> Thank you. We accept your credentials. Welcome. >> Thanks. >> So Rachel, your office prepared the architectural plans that we're going to be discussing in a moment. Is that correct? >> Yeah.
>> And we submitted A3 through A8, which are all plans submit prepared by your office, right? >> Yes. So, do you want to just run through the plans as we go and you could then give the details? Fine. So, an Anthony, could you pull up A3, please?
Okay. Yes. So, I'll just run through as we page through the document since it seems like this came in pretty recently. So, um, as discussed earlier, we are proposing a three-story building, two stories of office space above ground
level parking, um, with a center small office portion on the ground floor. The building is proposed as a glass facade with a center solid portion that would
be covered, screened in a metal mesh design material. Um we can page to the to the floor plans to the next page and we can go into detail on the layout. Okay. So this gives a little more um detail as to what
is being proposed on the ground floor. The entrance is from the front. So facing the um the main street um shown on the sides is the parking that is covered and entry is going to be
gained through sidewalk that wraps the building. Um as discussed it's office space. So we have some small ground level tenencies and then the remainder of the ground floor is just circulation with elevator
stairs um and an internal mail space. So that should address the um mail and package. Going to the um next page. Yeah. So this shows um the second floor
level which is um general open office space. It's shown now divided into potential tenencies but um this project is still in the planning stages. So there could be one tenant for the whole floor, four tenants for the whole floor. And this just shows a conceptual idea as
to what's going on. Um and then just circulation, elevator, and building support. Um going to the upper the next the next page. Yeah, this is the third floor. So similar layout. Um if you
notice there is um um a there are there's a smaller first floor and then the upper two floors are the full the full size of the building. Um and then going going to the um last
floor plan page which is the roof. Um just the next next sheet. Um so we're proposing the elevator and stair will um be going up to the roof with a landing area
and the roof um will be proposed to be used for um there will be mechanicals up there um which would be laid out at a further stage um and the potential for um rooftop usage um by the building users.
>> What what kind of rooftop? What type of rooftop? >> So it would be like um break for simply for the employees like if someone needs some fresh air. >> Oh boy. >> No. >> No.
>> And what are there parapit? >> Yeah, there is a parapit. So we can go to the next sheet and see the elevation. >> So we Okay, I'll just give the numbers. It's all small.
Okay. So, the building height as discussed is the roof. The roof is at 37 foot6 or it's like 38 ft if we're going to go with the average
grade. Um, and that is that is to allow for the necessary height needed for construction just to construct the floor to floor heights and to get the clearance needed for the cars um that are parking beneath
the building with enough space. Um, and then there is a um 3 foot6 parapit being proposed to wrap the full roof. >> Right. I I I understand the fact that you know the height variance for a class A building. I I get it right. Um problem
is is that you're you're now testifying as to uses on top of a 38 foot building. Um, how about the applicant agrees as a stipulation and condition of approval to only have maintenance people on top of a
38 foot building so that they don't just have employees and random >> people going up to a top of a 38ft building and playing catch. >> We could discuss that with the applicant
between now. >> Yeah. Just have that conversation with them. Okay, sorry. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, so yeah, the parapit would remain though regardless of the roof usage because it's necessary for >> still needs to be safe.
>> Still needs to be safe. Exactly. And and there will be um mechanical units there. Um Okay. And then just on the exterior again, it's mainly um glass and um glass exterior with the um center more solid
portion. The building is stilted um with columns to allow for the parking that's beneath the building and I believe that covers the and and then we have the signage um piece which is at
the front entrance the building mounted signage which has the address. >> It's lovely. >> All we have I have a question >> but it's too big. The building is simply too big. You would not need all these
multiple variances if you reduced it by I went to Parsons for three years for architectural design. You could reduce this building by 10% and it would take away most of your variances. >> Are you using the parking from the roof
as well, the occupancy of there or is that not even included in that? No, >> it wasn't part of it. The square footage. >> It's not square footage for parking calculations. Got it. >> Mr. Brazie, >> I have another question. You have fire
suppression assistant through the building. >> Pardon? >> Fire sprinklers through the building. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yes. >> What about where the cars parked down there? Are they above the cars? >> Yeah, I believe that's required or whatever is necessary. >> You believe or are they there? >> Pardon? >> Do you believe it or are they going to
be there? >> Oh, it will definitely meet code and meet the code requirements. Not just the code requirement. It will all be fire supplies. Yeah. Which requires a sprinkler. >> Well, and if it didn't require it, I still want the fire sprinklers in in the pocket here.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> But I agree with the chairwoman that we're looking at this and I know it's just I was trying to keep track of a waiver on this and this many feet here that there. And it's all over the site all the way around. And the only way to kind of fix that is reduce the size of
the building. we get so much more in compliance what we want on our books what we have as ordinances for and I'd like to see that I don't I can't figure a percentage out a 10% reduction of 20 whatever but I think it has to be reduced to get to where we have to be to get everything in or at least get rid of
some of the waivers variances >> that's not a decision for Rachel to make [laughter] >> but she's going to be the one >> she'll be the one that has to >> being um part partial owner occupancy so >> if there is I I don't know the exact
nature of the business honestly, but they're they're the owners and they are planning on using um a portion of the building. Um if if they do understand know how many occupants they have, is that something that can be part of the traffic study to allow for reduction in
parking spaces? >> We're we're beyond the parking spaces. We're also at the size setbacks and how many feet are required here. And I had a whole list of them here. I put them away already. 28 and you got 10 and you got 12 and you need 15 and you know it's
there's always seems to be a reduction not we meet the requirement. So I mean to be a consistent we need a reduction rather than we meet the requirement just kind of messes up the application. >> We'll we'll discuss that with the applicant also before we come back. Um,
we may ask the board to act on this application and present proofs to support potential relief, but we we'll look at it. Since you do need the environmental issues, >> we need a couple of things. So, probably we know you're coming back. This building is too big for that lot.
>> It's simply too big for the lot. >> Nice looking building. >> Nice, beautiful building. and and it will be it will be a beautiful building and we'd love to see it in town but on that lot it is too much building for the lot.
>> Okay, any other questions of the architect? >> Mr. Rogers, Mr. Hen. >> Gentlemen, >> thank you. Um I can't see on that drawing. Um, what's
the building height? >> Well, you you're talking about from the engineers calculation of the average or you want specific section? >> Building height. [laughter] >> You agree with the review? >> I agree with the engineer's height. Yeah, >> she agrees with the >> engineers height. I believe he's dated
38 ft. >> Yes. Okay. I'd like to make sure those plans coincide with that. >> Yeah, they will. >> Okay. What's the height of the power pit? >> 3 foot6. >> My concern is
Mr. Alfieri request and gets the correct variance relief. The section in the Jackson code for height limitations chapter 244-156B says the height limitations created here under shall not apply to spires, belelfries, koopulas or domes not used
for occupancy or to parapits, walls or cornises not extending more than 4 feet above the building height limit. Building heights at 35, 4 foot is 39. If you're starting at 38 and building a
three and a half foot wall, it's 41. >> That's 41. >> Yeah. >> So, I just I want that information correct. I don't want it to be a condition of approval and then it gets missed and the zoning officer denies the application because you didn't ask for or receive >> proper height variance relief. >> Yeah.
>> Now it's 31. >> You understand that? You understand that distinction, right? So, we'll have to look at that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for pointing that out. You know, if I'm look if I'm looking at this building, you could probably
>> avoid some of that height by moving your second and third floor down a bit because you don't really need that much height under the building.
You're not getting truck deliveries down there. There's going to be no semis coming through there. It's just a thought while you while you know you're going to have to do it again anyway. >> Can you tell the board what the floor height to floor height dimensions are from
>> the second to third floor and from the third floor to the roof, please? >> So, they're all being proposed at 12'6, which is pretty tight for an office building. >> It's a little challenging because we have the parking. So we have to get some
deep structure over there. So it's not it's not necessarily just uh intent, but we'll look into it. I like the I like under building parking. I think it's a good design feature and it does
maximize your space. Please look at the size of the building. >> Understood. >> Any other questions before we open to the public? We We have a traffic. >> Oh, we may as well. [laughter]
>> I'm so sorry. >> We may as well let him. >> He's been very quiet over there. >> That's so patient. Yeah. >> And I did see you sitting there quietly >> and we won't have him talk about parking relief because that's something we could >> Yeah, we can we'll address that. >> We're not going to go there. >> Thanks. Thanks, Rachel. >> Justin,
>> thank you. Either one. >> All right, stranger. You swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Please state name and spell your last for the record. >> Justin Taylor, T A Y L O R. Um, licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey. I
will tell you this. Nothing's changed since the last time I was here. Um, and everything is still current. >> And the board accepts the protection. >> We do. Welcome. >> Thank you very much. Um so just to give a brief rundown of what we did as part of this project. Uh we looked >> we have to get we have no microphone. We
have speakers today. >> Better. Yes. There we go. >> Much better. >> Um we looked at the circulation that's being proposed. We worked hand inand with a civil engineer to design the circulation and layout. We also reviewed the proposed trip generation that we would expect for this site. I have heard
about clear. I'm not going to talk about the parking at this point. But from a trip generation perspective, what we look at is we look to the Institute of Transportation Engineers publication, Trip Generation. For an 16,500 foot building and the most current 12th edition of Trip Generation, we would see
trips in the AM and the PM peak hour ranging from 38 in the morning to 47 in the evening. Now that's a combination of in and out. Obviously with more coming in in the morning and more leaving in the evening because of the prevailing traffic patterns of an office use uh based on standards that we utilize both
the IT and the NJ dot this falls well below the threshold of significant which has been set at 100 new peak hour trips. So based on that it's my professional opinion that the traffic associated with the uh project won't have any detrimental impact to the surrounding roadway network. Now, I will state and
it has been mentioned previously that Hope Chapel is County Route 547. So, this access point is going to require the approval of Ocean County. We had the ability to meet with Ocean County at the inception of the job and discuss the appropriate location for the access point and the operation of this access
point. Now, as Mr. Richie mentioned, we do currently have three driveways on the property. one circular horseshoe driveway for the residence that was there and one driveway that ran to the back to the garages that were in the rear and it's my understanding was used separately as a contractor storage type
facility. When we sat down and met with Ocean County, they asked us to move the driveway as far north as we could go to give separation with the driveway to the Christy McAuliffe Middle School. It was their opinion that while that is going to push it close to the driveway on the
property to the north, that was the most appropriate location for the driveway and it cleaned up kind of what's out there now, the kind of hodge podge of what's on the property. So with that and with their conceptual blessing, we moved on to the site plan that you see before
you on A2. Um, we did work handinhand with the civil engineer to kind of lay out the on-site circulation, providing adequate circulation aisles through the entirety of the site. We do require a waiver, which may end up going away uh depending on how this gets redesigned in
the back right corner where it pinches down because the two side property lines are not parallel. So, we ended up with about a 21 foot uh aisle there. But what you all see and >> I don't know if this is gonna show up on this one.
>> Nope. >> It's all right. In the rear I I could describe it. We're good. In the rear right corner of the um of the site near the trash enclosure, there's a striped area there that was one to protect. Perfect. Oh, actually, you know what?
Down. There we go. that's partially designed to protect the end of the parallel parking spaces along the north side of the property line, but it's also designed to give um an area for the vehicle that's in that 21 ft axis room to back into, right? And so it's my
opinion that we looked at circulation patterns and the vehicle that's parked in the proximity of the aisle where it's 21 feet can utilize that striped area to back into. So I don't see any detriment in granting that u minor deviation from the axis aisle width.
We also ensured that it was laid out to handle all the delivery vehicles that we do anticipate. We're talking about an office building. You're getting WB Mason, you're getting FedEx, you're getting UPS. They can adequately circulate through the site and we'll drop off in one of the parking spaces the way they do in every typical office building. But we
also ensure that both the fire truck can circulate around the building as well as a garbage truck get into the site, navigate to the rear, uh pick up the trash, and then exit again. And all of these maneuvers can be done adequately um as designed and it is included in the
site plan set uh that was submitted to the board. So in a nutshell from a traffic generation standpoint there won't be any detrimental impact given the fact that the level of traffic we're anticipating in this in this site is doesn't reach that level of significant. Um I do
believe that it's been designed with adequate parking. Um we do meet the ordinance. We also would meet the IT trip generation or parking generation standards. That would say about two per thousand is what you see today in uh standard office building. That
translates into a demand of about 32 spaces for the 16,000 square foot um facility that we're talking about. But beyond that, we do meet what your ordinance does require for the facility. So I do feel that what's proposed here is adequately parked and I feel that the
circulation will adequately support. Can you talk a little bit about the length of the access points because we do need relief from that as well? >> Surely. Surely. So, the the throat length that's being proposed here, um, given the low trip generation that we're anticipating for, I don't believe it'll
have any detrimental impact as vehicles cue at to exit onto South Hope Chapel. And realistically, as they would approach, they're going to be able to stack back two maybe three vehicles um, and then utilize the rest of the access aisles to to to be able to come out. So,
I don't see a detriment in granting that waiver. Um, it's pretty typical to have uh an axis throat length for a building of this size in that length. >> That's all we have of Mr. Taylor. Man, >> any questions,
gentlemen? >> You didn't do an analysis of the levels of service along South Hope Chapel Road, did you? >> We did not know. Um, if there was a capacity issue, what would the county have you do in
terms of being able to provide a full access driveway at that location? So, based on our meetings with the county, they permitted us to have the or conceptually permitted us to have a full
movement driveway with the trip generation in the building that's as proposed today. Um, so they're asking you to get rid of your second legal access, make it one, put it as far north as possible, and they're going to permit you to have that as a full movement.
>> That's correct. >> Mr. Cle and I have worked in town for a few too many years, going back to a different century. Um, making lefthand turns out of here would require someone to cross
what amounts to a left turn lane for the school. Correct. >> We are at the the rear end of that left turn lane. Yes. I've had other transportation officials, including policemen, tell me
that it's not permitted to cross that double yellow line in a left turn only lane. Can you give the board some confidence that what's being proposed by the applicant and will be approved by
the county will in fact allow people to cross that left turn lane. So there there's a couple pieces to that question and let's unpack them all slightly differently. When we talk about the left turn lane, what we talk about
is the full width of the left turn lane, not the transition areas where you're getting into that lane. Um, our left turns in, and it's difficult to see because it's cut off at the very bottom. Can we scroll up just a little? I don't know if the exhibit actually shows. >> Nope.
>> So, essentially, the left turnout turns into the transition area. So, it's not in the full width of the left turn lane. But to go a little further, it is permissible in and out of commercial driveways to cross double yellow lines. Both Title 39 and the MUTCD make that
permissible. You don't need to break it. You need to break it for public rightways. So, when you intersect another street, the double yellow needs to be broken. But from a commercial operation, it is absolutely permissible and legal to cross that double yellow line. >> Could Could we get that in writing? >> Absolutely. I will, knowing we're coming
back, give you the full do. >> We're coming back anyway. We might as well clean this all up. >> Yeah. My I apologize for interrupting. My suggestion is Mr. Taylor propers that letter to the board and to the traffic safety officer in town. >> Absolutely. >> So that we don't and no disrespect to
any group, but what I don't want to have is traffic safety questioning what the board does because Doug and I are of the opinion that we would agree with Mr. Taylor's assessment. However, we've had folks from PD in the past suggest that that's not
permissible, including at their own entrance to >> right to their own building. Yes, we know we struggle with that. >> Yes, I absolutely can provide the justification for their professional opinion. >> All right, so we'll get that in writing.
>> Thank you, >> gentlemen. Anything? Mr. Mr. President. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you so much. Stick around because people may have questions. >> So, Madam Chair, we're going to just open for questions now because we're not
>> We'll just do We'll do cross. We'll do >> We'll do cross because the people have been very patient. But hold it. Hold it. >> Thank you. >> We have a little process. So, you haven't been here. >> We have a little process. So, we need to uh have a motion, please, to open to
public for crossexamination purposes only. >> Make a motion. Open for cross examination. >> Second. Heler. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Anyone who wishes to ask questions of the professionals
applicants uh may come forward. >> All right. Please state your name. >> Uh my name is Adam Heidi. >> All right. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes, sir. I do. >> All right. And your address for the record? Uh >> I live uh in 60 Acres in Jackson, New Jersey.
with with ste 68 on Manhattan Street. >> Exactly. Thank you. >> I go by it every day. >> And may I just ask May I just ask a question? I'd rather not give >> you have a there's a number street address there though. Tulip or >> whis whispering Whisper Oaks. Whisper in Oakway. I live on Whisper and Oaks Way.
Heidi. H A I D I. I just would rather not give my numeric address uh to the public. Respectfully. >> Wait, say that again. >> He doesn't want to. I would just prefer not to disclose my numeric address to the public respectfully. >> Okay. Um, >> which is allowed. >> Well,
>> it's not allowed actually, but >> we're not going to debate it though. We're okay with that as long as >> No, I want to follow I want to follow the rules. >> Yeah. So, so let me let me explain to you. So what happens is that if if you don't disclose permanent address in the township, what happens that that goes
actually detrimentally to the weight of the questioning and testimony that you're providing to to such an extent pursuant with the case law. The board is actually uh able to either strike or dismiss your testimony. I don't like doing that because I don't think it's
the right thing to do when it's simply just an address thing. Yeah. >> So if you feel comfortable enough Just >> can I ask a question? >> Sure. >> Uh, Miss Campbell verified that I live in town. She >> seconded
enough. If the applicant's comfortable enough, we'll go with that. >> Just how >> Well, I just want to make sure I'm following the law. Do legally. Do I need to give you my numeric address or do I need to just state that I live within >> Well, within the township? >> I just gave it to you. What happens pursuant to the MLUL, if you don't give
a specific address, then you can strike my testimony, then you can strike a testimony. You you could make some very valid cogent points and >> well I don't want that to happen. >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I I don't think that's right to do to people. >> I apologize for migrants. My name is Adam Heidi. I live at 70 Verbina Court in Jackson, New Jersey.
>> My apologies, sir. >> You got it. Um am I allowed to ask the board questions also? >> No, we're not the we're not for this particular portion. You only ask questions of the applicants. >> Understood. >> And then we have another section.
Awesome. Okay. So, I counted over 15 variances not including nonconformities. Have you submitted these variances to the Pinelands Commission as well as this property lies within the Pineelands Commission? >> The plans were submitted to the Pineel >> Commission. Can you elaborate on their comments on that report, please?
>> The engineer would have to do that. Rod, >> you would not be able to elaborate on that. >> The engineer will do that. >> Thank you. I mean the latest letter from the Pinelands has two outstanding issues which I described earlier. Uh one about
the permeability of the soils underneath the storm water management system and the other was connection to public sewer. So those were their only outstanding comments that we're working on addressing. >> And you submitted that site plan to them correct? >> Yes. Did they review section 11
subsection D uh figure A2 page A2 on that site plan? I advise the attorney to look at subsection this right here A2 subsection 11 buffer requirements. Sorry, section 11 buffer requirements
subsection D. Uh it appears that the developer is seeking five waiverss relative to the environment. And let me explicitly state what this is. Let's remember we are within the Pinelands. So this application is contingent upon Pineland's commission approval. Right?
So not only is that the truth applicant is seeking a waiver for prohibited activities within the buffer areas. >> This is relative to 244. Sorry, let me ask a question. Can you elaborate on subsection D of section 11?
>> I have to ask questions. I apologize. Can you please read? >> He's testified to the variance relief and waiver relief that we >> He did not today. >> Yes, he has. >> He did not tonight. I did not hear that. It is recorded. That is That is a lie. I was absolutely paying attention. >> One one at a time. One at a time.
>> I'm ask I'm asking the developer >> to go over section 11 subsection D of the site plan. >> So, >> and he said, "I already did it." >> If if the developer can take a look at that and answer the >> question. And we also have meeting minutes. I'm 100% confident.
>> One one at a time. One at a time. >> I don't know what section. I don't have the ordinance in front of me. So tell me >> it's your site plan. >> I I can't read that. >> Can I read it? >> So So we >> I don't know if you're able to, but >> we we got to give some grace here because that you just threw a very technical question out there. So
>> it's their plan. >> Let's see if we can answer. >> Well, let let me try to answer it generally. >> There you go. and and that is that any relief that we're seeking is a decision that's made by this board. So the testimony that we provided this evening in support of the application is also in
support of that relief. That's relief from the local ordinance. Uh Pinelands didn't really comment on that. Pinelands relies on the the local municipality to review conformance with with the the local standards.
So, you're saying that the municipal ordinance supersedes uh the Pineland's law? >> No, they're completely independent of each other. >> They're independent. >> Okay. Can you please elaborate on section 11 subsection D? >> Five W five.
>> What's section 11 of what? The entire citation. >> So, so are you talking about a specific ordinance or are you talking about >> does the Do you see the figure on the PowerPoint right now? >> That page. That's what I'm So just so we're specific with the question, right?
So section 11 subsection D you're referencing is one of the comments on the site plan >> on the right hand side of the site plan. >> It's relative to five waivers on the environment. >> Okay. So So if if the applicant can take a look at >> they're not environmental waivers municipal land use waivers.
>> They're buffer waivers >> relative to the envir what what >> nothing to do with the environment. What are the what are the five waiverss you're stating? Uh you're you're seeking underneath 244-1 193.8. You wrote it. >> I have it here, but
>> No, that's okay. Just allow him a chance to answer the question. >> Yeah. Um so he's referring to section 244-193.B.5 of the ordinance that talks about buffer areas. And yes, we we included that in our testimony that we are seeking
uh relief. >> Can you elaborate on I through five 1 through five? I gave you I'm just asking for I just need some clarification on your site plan. I'm requesting you to elaborate on section 11 subsection D.
There's five waivers underneath the prohibited activities within a buffer area that the applicant is seeking a waiver on. >> Okay. Let him just answer the question. Yeah. So my understanding is that we we are seeking relief from providing
the full buffer that's required >> and therefore we're we're not >> meeting these five different provisions uh of a buffer area. >> Okay. >> To the tune of we're providing 18.6 ft
where the place where the relief was. >> Let me ask you another question. >> Finish. >> Yeah. I mean that's that's my answer. >> Okay. Let me ask you, can you can you confirm underneath section 11 subsection D? I >> Hang on one sec. M. Mr. Breie wants to
uh say something. >> I agree with you with all the waivers he's asked. That's why I made reference to before and that's why madam chair has to reduce the size of the building to eliminate them. I didn't go by what section there were. I just listed there were so many of them on the north corner, the west side and everything
else that we would want lower this reduce the size of the building maybe and eliminate asking of those waiverss and that's what we've been addressing. I need them to elaborate. I I would like information. Can you confirm or deny you are seeking a waiver on the removal,
excavation, grad or disturbance of the soil? Can you confirm or deny that in that subsection? That's subsection 11D di. It's the first of the five waiverss. I'm just helping guide him there. Can you
confirm or deny that? And I could repeat the question respectfully. >> No, let him let him read what he wrote. >> Okay. >> And if you don't know the answer tonight, you'll have to tell them. We'll get back to them. >> Can I borrow your laser? >> Could borrow mine.
>> Thank you, miss. >> Can I approach you? Yes, you may. >> Can the uh IT uh person respectfully zoom into the bottom right quadrant of the screen? Uh >> push that little silver button. You take the plastic off. >> Yeah, Anthony, if you could zoom in in
the section we're talking about. >> Somewhere over like here, section 11, subsection D, I through five. There's very concern I just want and then one more. >> I I have it here and can read it if you'd like.
>> So you're close. Buffer requirements is here. We just need underneath that. >> So >> and then blow if you could kindly blow that up. And I ask the applicant and developer to turn their attention to the screen. And
if you need help reading, I I can assist. >> He can see his now. Okay. So, can you confirm section 11 buffer requirements subsection D here it says waiver. Correct. >> Correct. >> So, you guys are seeking a waiver underneath prohibited activities within
the buffer area. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, can you confirm you're seeking a waiver on the removal, excavation, grading, or disturbance of the soil? >> Correct. >> Could you confirm you are seeking a waiver on dumping or filling with any
materials? >> Yes. Can you confirm the erection of structures? >> That one doesn't apply. >> Can you confirm or deny the erection of structures? It says waiver here. Are you
seeking a waiver for the ex the erection of structures underneath this ordinance or not? >> No, not within a buffer area. >> That's not what your site plan says. >> We just answered you. So, >> okay. Are you seeking a waiver on the
placements of pavements or any impervious covers? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. And are you seeking this one is my favorite. Are you seeking within the pinelands the destruction of plant life which would alter the existing pattern of
vegetation or cause substantial change of the buffer including but not limited to clear cut in burnin or application of herbicides? >> Yes, we are uh removing some plants and
putting a whole bunch more back. And did the Pinelands comment on that on on any of these uh these waiverss? >> No, not specifically. No. >> Okay. Would you say that the destruction of plant life affects the environment?
>> Sure. >> Okay. Because at the beginning of the meeting, you stated you don't believe that there's any environmental concerns on this site plan. Very confidently. That's correct. That's what you said, right? Yet our site plan
>> has a myrad of variances. Is that correct relative to the environment? >> So my is that correct? >> Can he answer the question? >> It was a yes or no question. >> Let let him let him answer let him answer the question. >> I apologize.
So when I made that statement, the context was with regard to wetlands and flood hazard areas and my comment was there are no wetlands or flood flood hazard areas on the site. So there were no uh detrimental environmental impacts
with regard to those environmental constraints is what the context was at the time if I recall correctly. >> You say there's no wetlands on the site. Have you evaluated evaluated if there is wetlands within the area? The wetlands have to be on the site to be pertinent to the application.
>> That yes, >> you know, wetland buffer laws. If there's a wetland within 200 300 feet, >> I I understand where you're going with this, >> which is why >> there is a wetland a tenth of a mile away from >> I understand that, but it's if it's not
on the site, then the buffer requirement doesn't apply to it. So, you can't have >> Okay, I understand. >> We don't have wetland or wetland buffer issues on this property. on the site. >> You don't have wetlands and pine pine lens has reviewed that.
>> And what did the Pineland say? You have a complete Do you have a complete application from the Pineel? >> Uh >> or do you have an incomplete application from the Pineelands currently that the board is reviewing? >> We have a We currently have an incomplete application. >> Okay. Thank you. Do you know um I don't
I'm not confident in this. Um, do you know anything about 244-72 in our land use laws? [snorts] >> If you really expect someone to answer that question >> what's the title of the
>> participation of pilent commission in public hearings? >> So, >> what about it is is All right, >> hang on. So, was that an ordinance that was addressed in any of the review letters or is this something that you're just kind of throwing out there?
>> Um, might maybe maybe in their plan. I'm not I'm not positive if it's in >> So, is it a is it a local township ordinance that you're referring to or are you looking are you referring to >> that's that's in our that's in our local municipal >> or what's the title of the ordinance? >> It is called 244-72
participation of Pineland's commissions in public hearings. I was going to ask the developer if he would be opposed to having the pilots commissions uh sit on these hearings. >> They're they're they're allowed as any member of the public to come to any hearing they want to come in. If you want to invite them, you can invite them.
>> Do you know Mr. Peters has something to say? >> Madam Chair, just so the record's clear, >> our ordinance chapter 244-72 is entitled participation of Pinelands Commission in public hearings. Okay? >> And it reads Pinelands Commission may
participate in a hearing held in the township involving the development of lands in the Pinelands area pursuant to NJAC 750-4.36. >> So they are welcome at any time. They're not here. >> Okay. Uh
would the applicant be opposed to having the Pel Commission? >> We have no control. So I think you're you're confusing. So you're talking about apples with oranges. So So what happens is that every application is subject to Pinelands approval. I if you as a
concerned citizen, interested party, whatever you want to call it, uh want to contact the Pineelands Commission and say, you know, hey, listen, may have something that you know you might be interested in. See if they're available to >> Yeah. Is that a bad question?
>> Well, it's doesn't apply to them. Just so you know, the property is within the Pineland. >> Hang on, [snorts] hang on. There's no legal precedence whereby we can stipulate to an applicant that they cannot present the testimony in front of us without a Pinelands official being
present. >> That's not my I didn't I didn't say that. >> I Well, you're kind of inferencing it, but No, I didn't. >> Right. >> I I I I explicitly asked whether or not the applicant would be opposed to the Pelines Commission sitting here. >> And we can't. >> It's not a mandate. That's why they're
not here. Can I answer your question more more intelligently than >> what what you want to hear? >> As part of our obligation under the municipal annual law, we had to send a certified letter to the Pinelands telling them about the hearing tonight. So they and they got it. So if they
wanted to attend, they can. But your question was, would we object if Pinelands came to the meeting? We have no control. If they want to come, they have the absolute right to come. So asking us that question is kind of meaningless because we if we said no, it wouldn't matter. They could come if they want. >> They'll be here anyway. Yeah,
>> I understand. I get your point. >> So you invite them, get them to come. Do you have any data on the uh the sewer upgrade? >> He answered that it was being designed so today. Do you? >> No. Okay.
>> All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Can I return to >> Anyone else like to come forward? >> And just just so you know what happens is that um typically there there's a there's a Pinelands public hearing that happens. So, if you have any concerns,
comments, it's like no different than going to uh the Ocean County [music] um freeholders board, right, for for similar concerns that happen at the county level. So, that may be kind of one of the avenues because you seem very interested in it. So, so that may what be one of the avenues you may want to
look into. >> So, just just for a kind of parallel line of interest. >> Yeah. Right. >> All right. I appreciate that. >> You got it. >> Can I bring you this? And also just remember that no matter what happens on everything you mentioned about the Pinelands, the Pinelands has the final
say. >> Without that, they can't they can't move forward. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Long time no see. >> You swear affirm. Tell the truth. The whole truth. Nothing about the truth. >> Yes. To the best of my ability.
>> Now you have to be We have no um >> Yeah, we're having a rough time here. having a rough time with the speakers. >> I know the air conditioner behind you probably is >> Well, no. The problem is that the speakers aren't hooked up yet. We're redoing this room. >> Uh Eric Jones, 722 Heisen Road. >> Um the only thing I have uh I was at a
zoning meeting. It's not really questions. I got questions for them. Yes. But >> to at this time >> I don't know what the obsession I understand. I understand. I don't know what the obsession is with three-story buildings. If you look around this whole area, they're popping up here and there, but I don't know what.
>> Is that a question for us? >> Well, I'm just curious at that. But my question to you guys would be, um, so this is going to be a clear-cut operation. >> Knock you're going to knock every tree on this. >> You talk about replacing stuff on the back of Well, I can't see the drawing
anymore. uh in the center of the site. Yes, most pretty much all the trees in the center of the site will be removed around the perimeter. We intend to save the trees that we can and that make sense. >> Okay. The ones towards the back are to retirement. But the ones in the back
that um you know are in poor condition or you know not not healthy then yeah we plan to remove them and replace them with new uh >> at your meeting with the forester correct >> our forester
>> we don't is shar your forester >> yeah uh we haven't but we can >> please do >> sure >> thank you >> okay >> well because everything around seems to be clear cutting to to property lines and then you put back you say you're going to put back a lot valuable bushes and trees and such, but every tree has
value, especially ones that are 30 years old, and you're just going to knock them over and you don't even I see a lot of job sites around here where they don't even touch the ground where they took the trees down. And it to me, it makes absolutely zero sense when you have to wait 30 years for a tree to grow.
Especially, you guys are building right next to a retirement place. People are going to sit on their back porch and look at this big wall. Who wants that? We may as well live next to the parkway and have a sound wall at your back door. >> Got to keep the questions.
>> I understand that. I just >> at least this part. >> This is not the statement part. >> All right. Then why does why does um why do we have to have two ways in the parking thing? >> Why can't it be one way in and one way out?
>> Because the county said no. >> You're talking about internal sites. Internal sites. >> Oh, the internal sites. >> Correct. Why do we have to have because we're talking about sizes of buildings and shrinking things and to make things fit then you go into your buffer zone.
Now if you made it one way you can increase the buffer buffer zone. You would have wouldn't have to remove any of those boundary trees. Not one. >> You're not allowed to make one circular path. >> He'll answer. E even if you made it a one-way
circulation, I mean, you still have to allow for enough room for the vehicles to be able to back out of the space. >> So, oh, was that the reason we have to have room for vehicles to circulate around the site? >> Now, you guys are totally against angle parking.
Do you lose spaces in angle parking? >> Like when you turn? >> Yes, you do. >> Do you do >> I think I've heard that before. I don't know if you consider that. >> I'll I'll bet the traffic engineer could tell you if we lose space in angle parking.
>> Yeah. >> Yes. Well, here. >> Yes. It's it's best efficient to angle. >> I don't know. I just think this is a lot. Like uh Mrs. Campbell was saying, this is a lot for a little spot. >> And um there's nothing around there. >> That's three stories.
>> This is not the statement part. >> Yeah, I know. But there's nothing around there. >> The statement part. Got to let these guys know there's nothing around here and the character of the town. >> I know, but we got to ask questions for right now, you know. >> All right. >> Anyone else like to come forward to ask
questions? We'll do comments next. Okay. >> All right. We'll take a motion, please. I'd like to make a motion to close public comment for test questioning the professionals. >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> I. >> We'll take a new motion. >> Motion of open public comment for any topic. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> And just to be clear, the public comment part does not end the applicant's case
and chief as the application will be carried to another hearing. Yeah. Just for procedure purposes. >> All right. >> Deborah Jones, 722 Heisen Road. >> All right. You affirm or swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, enough about the truth? >> I do.
>> All right. >> Um, I just want to go on record, and I said it at zoning, variances are what's killing Jackson. We just keep doing variances. I'm so glad to hear you question of why we're doing everything.
And I look at this and we all know that's a small lot. I lived on Hope Chapel for years. That lot is not big to me. I look at this and I look at I think about my son playing Matchbox cars when he was a little boy and the little city
and you look at that and it looks like this and then you go to the city and that picture doesn't do justice of what we're going to look at as residents. It's going to be huge. I know you say it's a nice building. I'm not
questioning if it's a nice building. It's a great building. I wouldn't mind looking at it if I moved to a city. I don't live in a city. Never lived in a city. We just keep keep going and keep going. Go down the road. Everywhere you look
now, the buildings are getting bigger and bigger and bigger. When do we leave Jackson to Jackson? It seems like we're taking, you know, a a square screw and we're trying to put
it into a round hole. If it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. And we can say no to variances. We do not have to approve them. So, I just wanted to put my opinion out there as a lifelong Jackson resident. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we already swore him in, so
you're good to go. >> Should I repeat my address? >> Could you please be put the microphone up close so we can hear you? Thank you. >> Just state your name for the record again. You're good. We can sworn in. >> Awesome. Adam Heidi. >> Um, yeah. So, I obviously uh you guys
heard my uh my attempt at interrogating uh the gentleman to the left of me. Um, I seriously have immense environmental concerns for this site plan. Um, they explicitly it's it's genuinely disturbing how they explicitly state what
For one, um, I'm a little disheartened at how little they understand their own site plan. Like there was many times that our our engineers are asking the architect about the sizes. She doesn't know what's going on. I'm asking you about your own site plan. You don't know what's going it's it's it's just
this is my public comment. >> I have to Yeah, I know this is my public when you say that >> I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna stop speaking and I'll let you speak. >> No, I'm speaking now. >> No, no, but I could speak over you because it's my But I'm going to be speak slow up. Slow up. All right. We're
We're not going to take pot shots with each other. We're going to keep it nice and respectful. >> But it's my comment. >> I I understand that. I know you have comments, but we got to keep it respectful. So, just if you have a point to make, now's the time. >> Just don't attack the witnesses. >> Yeah. >> Say whatever you want. Just don't attack
them. >> It's okay. Keep going. >> I I Okay. I I don't use the I wouldn't use the word attack, but I apologize uh if I may have offended anybody who's who is vouching for and sworn in uh testifying in support of this plan. So, that's my response to you, sir. Um so
back to what I was saying relative to the environment uh applicant explicitly is is seeking not only not variances they don't want use variances to do these things they explicitly want a waiver they want to fill in the wet they want to fill in
I mean I I I made such a annoying emphasis on section 11 subsection D I asked him I and I asked explicitly about f five things you guys want to clear cut you want destroy native plants. Uh actually, one
second. >> There's five prohibited activities within >> Just so Just so you're clear, so so you understand the process that a variance and a waiver are two requests for relief, but but they're different legal tests. So So they're legal requirements that you have to meet, and one's a
balancing test, one's a multiffactor test. So So they're not >> interchangeable with one another. They're not synonymous with another, but they they ask for similar sources of relief even though there's different legal standards for both. Just just in case you're not familiar with >> No, I appreciate all the knowledge.
Thank you, sir. But just my my emphasis is just the the blatant disregard for uh for the environment. Um I also referenced uh the Pineelands Commission ordinance. I think you guys should really look into that and maybe think about having the Pinelands Commission come in and sit here since this property
uh is within the Pinelands and >> and that's that's up to the Pineelands. We have no control over that. >> You guys can't reach out to them and out of concern. >> They get a notice of this meeting. >> They told >> I can right as a resident. I can reach out to the Pine Land. >> Yeah. So what what happens is that the Pineelands is automatically on notice of
every hearing that involves them if they want to send somebody out. And I've been I've actually been to private applications where where Pinelands have actually sent somebody out, believe it or not. Typically, it's like big commercial ones um typically much larger than than this scale for them to have some kind of vested interest in it. Um,
but we as a board don't have the capacity of twisting their arm to get somebody here. You as a resident have the ability, you actually have much more authority than we do, believe it or not, as to calling them up and and putting them kind of on notice and seeing if they're able to, you know, make make a guest appearance, so to speak.
>> Nice. Yeah. And, uh, just to follow up on that, since it is within the Pelands, I think you guys should have the commission uh, there should be an impact. >> Trust me, there are a lot of things I wish that I could make Pineelands do, [laughter] and having an official appear is is one of them. So
>> remember the Pelands has the final say on it. We don't >> the Pelands is judge and jury on that not us. >> The Pineel the Pinelands will review this this plan. >> Plus they will not our environmental commission because our chair is not stop
on the train. >> Then when it goes from here it goes to the outside agencies. We only have our control of our little area and then it moves to bigger areas. And and just just so you know, all right, what happens is that if they
don't get the Peland's approval, right? Let's say they they're violating some kind of PI lands, you know, ordinance or statute or whatever the case may be. If if Pinelands does not give the rubber stamp, the applicant has to come back before the board change everything that is non-compliant with Pinelands, which
most likely will be substantial in nature, and they have to redesign their entire plan. It'll be a whole new application. So So they they can't do anything without Pine Land's approval. >> Mr. Oh, Mr. Peters, >> just maybe we can short circuit this. >> The Pinelands Commission letter for this
application dated June 2nd, 2025, their inconsistent certificate of filing, states that a certificate of filing is not an approval. It is the document necessary to allow any municipal or county agency to review and act on the proposed development application. All
municipal and county permits and approvals granted for the proposed development are subject to review by the Pinelands Commission. And then in bold, it says, "No permit or approval shall take effect and no development may occur until the commission issues a letter
indicating that the municipal or county permit or approval may take effect." >> Also, documents and evidence this evening. >> Thank you, Mr. Peters. Also with that, take in mind the Pinelands will not give them that letter or even look any
further till they get an approval for the application. Once they get an approval and the whole things in a nutshell, everything they got, that goes to the Pelands and it's up to the Peland if they can move forward or not. The Pylons has 100% jurisdiction over it.
>> But they cannot start until we finish. >> So >> understood. As it is, this application will be coming back here because we've asked a number of questions and we've asked for a number of reconsiderations.
A if and when we approve then it will go to the pine if and when. But it cannot go to the pylons until we finish our job. >> Okay. Oh, so then >> just so you understand the process,
>> you guys also make sure that um like my concern with subsection 11, right? Uh destroying destroying the trees, right, >> within the pineelands, right? Like that's probably not allowed within the pil if what they want to do confir. >> Yeah. So, so what happens is that um let's say in the event that they obtain
an approval, right? >> They have to supply the Pinelands with every document that that uh that Pinelands is number one requesting. they have their own application uh submittal form, right? So, it's the site plans, it's all the variances, all the waiverss, everything. So, everything
that we do here is is actually a check and balancing system so to speak with Pineland. So, if they say, "Uh-uh, no go," then the applicant has got to come right back to us, change the whole design. They got to probably redo the plans and then they're back to square one with a whole brand new application
because it's substantially changed. And we appreciate you're asking these questions because I think it's very helpful not just for us, not just for you, but there are people on Zoom who are listening, I hope, and they will learn something tonight because of your questions.
>> I appreciate that. Thank you. >> I'm a lifelong resident. I grew up here. Uh, elementary school, kindergarten, uh, everything. >> 55 years. I don't think you can catch up with that one. [laughter] >> You look phenomenal. Respectfully, um, I would like to buy land here. So, I would I really hope uh and raise a family here
one day. So, I really hope you guys take a lot of these comments uh seriously. Um and we have um we have a plan and board for a reason. Like there's rules for a reason. There's ordinances for a reason. Not everybody needs an >> we know very well. >> And also remember now if the pylons does
say they have to do more and have to come back here when they come back here and get another approval, they got to go back to the pylons again for the final approval. You can't get around that. I think tonight showed anybody here or watching on TV, whatever they're doing, um that this board in a whole when it
comes to a waiver here, a waiver there is one thing when you come in with I lost count of them as I said earlier. Yeah. How many waivers you're going to see in most cases is going to be come back and fix it. >> Well, I appreciate that. Uh and then I will just apologize for any disrespect
that may have been delivered or anything. >> No worries. No worries. >> Just just passion. I care about >> a learning experience. It's there's a learning curve, my friend. Don't worry about it. >> Awesome. Especially to the gentleman to left me. No hard feelings respectfully. >> And miss. >> Good evening. >> Anyone else have any comments to make?
Please come forward. >> Seeing no one else come forward. Move to close public comment. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Would you like to say anything in conclusion, Mr. >> Well, it wouldn't be a summation. >> It'll be just summation. >> No, no summation.
>> Well, yeah, not going to do a summation. We're not at that point yet. We just have to figure out. >> We know what we have to schedule and fix. Right. >> Right. So, um, we're going to need >> How much time do you think you might need? >> Are there I think we're going into next
year at this point. Right. >> It's my guess. >> Why don't we >> probably safer to do that on reorg >> for reorg and then we can schedule it. >> Okay. >> The reorg meeting is January 12th. >> January January 12th. We can reschedule. >> We'll reschedu it.
So January 12th, it's going to be on for scheduling purposes only. That's our reorganization meeting. >> And is the environmental commission reconstituted in a meeting again? >> The commissioner is not here this evening. But >> who's who's the commissioner? >> But the the commissioner is Ray Tremor.
The third array is okay. But >> they were given the plans >> because I wouldn't have provided the application to Mr. Cle or Mr. Peters or Mr. if if they hadn't submitted to the >> Well, I I think I think we're still waiting on a >> Yeah, they haven't responded, >> but we're going to submit the the phase
one, the phase two, the EIS to to him and to the board and the board professionals and the traffic with the now fits right in. >> I'm sorry, what? >> See how much nicer with the EIS? >> Yeah, see right in. So um so if we
requested first of all we'll grant the board an extension of time in which to act and secondly you can announce that it's being carried to the 12th for scheduling purposes only without the need to renotice. >> Yep. >> Please. >> Yep. >> On the 12th we'll uh we'll figure out what >> on the 12th we'll figure out what will be going on.
>> We'll make a public notice. >> So you'll tell the public. >> Good. Tell them now too just in case. [laughter] >> Correct. >> All right. So, we're going to carry to January 12th without the need to renotice and then um you'll probably
have 50 things on that night to try and figure out how you >> That is correct. >> All right. Thank you everyone. >> I may not see you until next year. Happy New Year if I don't. >> Happy Thanksgiving. >> Yes, you too. Thank you. >> Motion on that. >> We could take a motion to >> make a motion to carry this to January
12th for the reorganization just to set a date for the hearing. >> Correct. >> Second. Heler. >> All in favor? >> I. Any questions? Any opposed? No. Good. Hearing nothing. We're set. We'll take the next motion.
>> Like to make a motion to close. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I. >> Thank you. Good evening.