I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. All right, everybody. Welcome to the
December 1st Jackson Township Planning Board meeting of 2025. Uh, this meeting has been appropriately noticed according to the open public meetings acts in all the appropriate places and forums accordingly. Madam Chairwoman, >> good evening everyone. We'll have a roll
call, please. >> Mr. Brezzy, >> here. >> Mr. Marzo, >> here. >> Mr. Heler, >> here. >> Mr. Rogers >> here. >> Miss Santoro >> here. >> Mr. Turmer >> here. >> Miss Rose >> here. >> Mr. Weingart. >> Mr. Sullivan
>> here. >> Dr. Campbell >> here. Uh, we'll take a motion for payment of a voucher for recording secretary, please. >> So move. S. [laughter] >> We got a second. >> So popular. Okay. Mr. Brezie, >> yes.
>> Mr. Marzo, >> yes. >> Mr. Heler, >> yes. >> Mr. Rogers, >> yes. >> Miss Santoro, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremer, >> yes. >> Miss Rose, >> yes. >> Mr. Sullivan, >> yes. >> Dr. Campbell, >> yes. And we'll take a motion for approval of the minutes from November
3rd, please. >> So move. Sullivan. >> Second. >> It was the second. >> Thank you, Mr. Brezie. Yes, >> Mr. Heler. >> Yes, >> Mr. Rogers. >> Yes,
>> Dr. Campbell. >> Yes. >> All right. Um, a couple of things. We want to welcome Haley Santoro to our group. Um, and look forward to her bringing her youthful charm.
[cough] And uh, appreciation to Betty Rose for her service uh, for the last several years. Betty is uh going to retire from a different position, but she's a a valued um member of our
community, and I'll continue to ask her questions. Thank you. All right. No resolutions? >> None at this time. >> Okay. >> Next meeting. >> Did you want to say something about the change in schedule first?
>> Oh. Um the first application is going to be carried. Uh the applicant indicated they will be providing an EIS statement. Uh so that will be carried to the first meeting in January for scheduling. Then we can determine from there. >> All right. So, the application for block
22401, lots 7 through 12 for 510 Whitesville LLC is carried from tonight to the reorganization meeting on January 12th, 2026 for scheduling purposes only with no further notice required. We'll take a motion to approve that.
>> So move Sullivan. >> Second, >> a roll call, please. >> Mr. Brezie, >> yes. >> Mr. Marzo, >> yes. >> Mr. Heler, Yes, >> Mr. Rogers. >> Yes, >> Miss Santoro. >> Yes, >> Mr. Tremor. >> Yes, >> Miss Rose.
>> Yes, >> Mr. Sullivan. >> Yes, >> Dr. Campbell. >> All right. And um >> then we have three ordinances on tonight. Um we can have our uh board planner do the consistency analysis.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, the governing body has referred ordinances 2025-46,47 [clears throat] and 48 to the board for review. Um, for the record, I'd like to just read two portions of the land use law and so that the board members who may not have done
this previously are familiar with what it is we're doing and what the what the scope of this is. Um in the land use law under 40 col 55D-26 referral powers says prior to the adoption of a development regulation
revision or amendment the planning board shall make and transmit to the governing body within 35 days after referral a report including identification of any provisions in the proposed development regulation which are inconsistent with the master plan and recommendations
concerning these inconsistencies or any other matters as the board deems seems appropriate. Separately in the municipal land use law in 40 col55D-62 power to zone says the governing body may adopt or amend a zoning ordinance
relating to the nature and extent of the uses of land and of buildings or structures thereon. Such ordinance shall be adopted after the planning board has adopted the land use plan element and the housing plan element of a master
plan. This board adopted the master plan in I believe July of 2025 and the housing plan element and fair share plan soon after that. So to the extent that
the governing body has referred something to us in accordance with the municipal land use law that's correct. Our responsibility is to look at these ordinances and say are they consistent with these two documents. What I can tell you is that the drafts of these
three ordinances are actually contained within the master plan. They were made as recommendations at the end of the report. So when the master plan subcommittee prepared the master plan document and it was adopted by the board, you saved yourselves a lot of
work on December 1st, 2025 because I don't know how you could say it's not consistent with the master plan or the land development ordinance or the housing plan and fair share element of the master plan when in point of fact they are included in that document. Now
to the extent that the ordinances 2025, 46, 47 and 48 are not verbatim maybe different specifics as to a lot and block or a development standard. Our responsibility
is to determine if it's incon if if the ordinance are ordinances are consistent with the master plan. Having reviewed the three ordinances and the master plan along with the housing plan and fair share plan. I would
recommend to the board that you make a finding that these ordinances are not inconsistent with the master plan. uh to the extent that we want to have a discussion about the ordinances themselves, that's generally the purview of the
governing body at that level because they're the board, they're the entity that transmitted them to us. However, since we're here tonight, I'm happy to try to answer any comments or questions with regards to either the ordinances or the plans, understanding that myself and
Doug didn't prepare them. Well, we happily have several people here who did prepare them. Um, and I think we ought to thank uh Mr. Marzo and Mr. Heler who were on that master plan
committee uh who worked very hard and those ordinances are very important to us. And then I thought I'd ask Mr. Brezie if he has any comments from the administrative side. You know, when I looked at these ordinances, um, I looked at ordinances
for several years. I have never seen any written this strong, especially for affordable housing. And the attorneys knowing how far and and the engineers knowing how far we can go with it. Each one of them is 20% set aside, has community center set to the scale of how
many homes. Basement and garages are prohibited from conversions to rentals. Basements. Basements cannot have access from outside with a staircase or any way. No more than eight attached single home town houses at a single structure.
Phasing amenities for the club houses and open space is a phasing amenity. So they just can't go and do the house and then not do the rest. You got to phase everything in together so it finishes together. That's so important to something like this where somebody can
build a house and sell it then somebody does something else. This they'll be able to do and they have to phase it in but they can't move further if they don't phase it in. No parking within a 100 foot of a roadway intersection. Visitor parking extra spaces for
visitors. Affordable housing attorney will review it for the uh uh hack uniform housing affordable control. 50 units or more, minimum, two separate roadways in and out. 80 150 units more,
three roadways in and out. Now, that's something we haven't had for years. We've always fought for extra roadways going in, putting pavers in so fire trucks can get in and so forth. They're actually covered in this ordinance. If it's on a county road, they must request, they can't demen it, they must
request permission to widen the road from the county. That's some of the extra stuff that you see that you don't normally see in the old ordinances. So, it was put together well. All the recommendations were put in and it really carries a lot of weight to an ordinance that I haven't seen in years. Thank you. And Madam Chair,
[clears throat] um just so the record's complete, the affordable housing ordinances were broken down um 1 through 4. Um ordinance 2025 29 and 202530, which we heard a
couple months ago, were for the AH4 and AH2. um ordinances 202546 is for AH1, 202547 is for AH3 and 202548 is for
AH3A. So, this will sort of complete full circle the affordable housing um ordinances that were offered, referred, and approved previously by the board acting affirmatively and sending them back to the governing body
for a public hearing. >> Thank you, Mr. Peters. We'll do them one at a time. >> Mr. Shay, >> you you could do all three as well. It's a vote specifying that ordinances 2025
464748 are not inconsistent with the master plan. You can do them in both. >> All right. We'll take a motion then please. >> I'd like to make a motion that ordinances 2025 46 47 and 48 are are not
inconsistent with the master plan of Jackson Township. >> Great. >> Sullivan. >> A second please. I'll second that motion with the remarks I made earlier. >> Thank you very much. >> All right, we'll take a roll call on that, please. >> Are you gonna have public comment on these ordinances? >> No, there's no public comment on
consistency reviews. >> You can do that at the uh >> second reading of the ordinance. There will be public comment. >> I mean, in terms of planning, >> so there there is no public comment for consistency reviews. >> Mr. Brezie?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Marzo? Yes, >> Mr. Heler. >> Yes, >> Mr. Rogers. >> Yes, >> Miss Santoro. >> Yes, >> Mr. Tremor. >> Yes, >> Miss Rose. >> Yes, >> Mr. Sullivan. >> Yes.
>> And Dr. Campbell? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Okay. Anything else we need to do? >> Nope. Now we just have the next application. >> All righty, Miss Jennings.
It's easy to triple. And just to be clear for any late comers, the uh 510 uh what is the name? 5 510 Whitesville LLC has been carried.
Uh it will not be heard tonight. Just any late comers. All right. Good evening. For the record, I'm Donna Jennings from the law firm of Wence, Goldman, and Spitzer on behalf of the applicant. As the board is aware, the applicant is here this evening seeking
amended preliminary and final major site plan approval to add approximately 787 square feet to the previously approved mezzanine area of the office retail building located at 146 North County Line Road identified as block 5301
lot on the township tax maps. The applicant also seeks to add seven electrical vehicle parking spaces to the previously approved plan. The property is approximately 1.92 acres located in the HC highway commercial zone and the office retail building is currently
under construction. Um, the applicant will be seeking one bulk variance from ordinance section 244-197N to allow 108 parking spaces, including nine EV space credits, whereas 118
parking spaces are required. As will be discussed by the applicant's planner, the record will show that the applicant satisfies a positive and negative criteria to warrant granting the requested variance. Um, and then just as a matter of recordkeeping, the applicants in receipt of the following review letters. Fire department review
letter dated September 15, 2025. Board engineers review letter dated October 20th, 2025. The board planners review letter dated October 28th, 2025. And we received an email today from the environmental commission dated December 1st, 2025. Uh, in support of the
application, we are going to call two witnesses. is Graham McFarland who's sitting to my left the site engineer and planner and Rick Takarsski the architect. So if we could have Graham sworn in we can begin. >> First we'll have Mr. Peters
and Mr. Clay. >> Mr. Clay. >> Thank you Madam Chair. Um uh no um objection or to as Miss Dennings presented the project a 780 square foot um addition to a previously approved u
project um dating back to 2016 was the original original approval. It is um a um an addition within the footprint [clears throat] of the existing um or approved building. No engineering um modifications to the existence
previously approved dis um development that's proposed. So, it's really just the um the addition within the um footprint of the building, the building itself. There is be some discussion as far as the design exception for the for the parking, but pretty much everything stays the same. It was originally approved by the board.
>> Thank you, >> Mr. Peters. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Take no exception of Miss Jennings comments. Um I concur with Mr. Cle's comments. I going to steal Graham's thunder. Um the previous variance relief for parking was
they were 12 parking spaces short. This evening they're going to revise the plan and be nine parking spaces short. So I guess the phrase that us planners and engineers like to use is less worse. That's all. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. I swear Mr.
Graham. >> Yep. >> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Please state your name and spell your last in the record because we don't know who you are. Sure. It's uh Graham McFarland, MAC F A R LE, professional engineer, professional planner with PDS.
Previously qualified and testified before this board um a few times. Um so yes, quite uh >> welcome and we'll get you your own parking phase next year maybe. [laughter] >> Thank you. So um quite simply as as described by Miss Jennings and and
described by the by your professionals the application is to uh add some additional amenity space to the uh to the office part of the building. If the board recalls um you know this project we had a lot of discussion when it was approved. Uh the client had had this
concept of adding this amenity space. You know this mezzanine has an amenity space. It really enhances the usability of of the office makes it a first first class office space and again provides amenity space for the existing tenants or the existing users of the building.
Uh there was a a restriction or a condition in the original approval uh indicating such and that that is not going to be changed at all. And when you see u Mr. Darkski uh shows you the renderings of what that space is going to be. You really get a a really firm
understanding of how that space is going to be utilized and what it's going to be for. And and part of our argument, you know, originally was that, you know, we felt and we still feel the same way that having this mezzanine space, this amenity space doesn't change the uh the need for the parking in the in the
project as a as a total. We do understand that your ordinance does require parking to be determined based upon the the entire gross floor area of the building, but that was all vetted when the project was originally approved and that variance was granted. And as
Mr. Peter said under the original approval uh the application required I believe it wasund and uh 10 and 100 original site plan uh required 114 parking space and 102 were provided. So
there was a deviation of 12 parking spaces. Under this revised plan, we've added EV parking spaces to soften the uh the deviation of of the parking so that 118 are required now uh again if we use
all of that gross floor area where 109 are provided. So a deviation of nine parking spaces. So we could even argue that the variance has previously been granted because it's even being lessened by this by this application. So we have on the on the screen we have A1 which is
the uh approved site plan. The approved site plan had three EV parking spaces that were located close to the building. So again this plan had 99 physical spaces plus bonus credit for the three uh parking credit of 102 parking spaces.
One thing that we have come to learn after uh dealing with these EV spaces for a few years now is the fire guys always want these spaces pushed further away from the building. Uh nobody none of the fire guys, fire bureaus in this town or other towns. They they all say, "Geez, we don't want these EV spaces
right next to the building." So, this plan is going to accomplish that goal. Uh and also add some additional EB spaces. Anthony, you go to A2 for me real quick. So A2 is is the the amended plan we're seeking the approval for. And you can
see where we've shifted the EV spaces further away from the building. There are a total of nine EV parking spaces uh proposed back here. We've also added one for the handicap parking space which frankly was not provided on the original SL plan but is required by the E by the
EV statute. So this plan would now now fully complies with the EV requirements by having the uh the one EV space for in handicap space and we do have the nine proposed further away from the building. So, I think that benefits uh benefits the project, you know, pushing them
further away from the building. And again, it's uh it's 10 uh nine that are proposed where 118 are required if we were to count all of the space inside the building. But again, I I really I really don't think we need to need to count that count that at all. Uh we do
have letters from from your board professionals. We have Mr. Cle's letter of October 20th where he discusses the project. He uh just confirms that he didn't identify any other variances needed. Um indicates that or confirms
that we are not making any changes to the layout. We are not adding any impervious parking. So there's no changes to grading and drainage, lighting or landscaping, solid way storage, no changes to signage or any other any other items. So his letter really just points out all of those
particular items. uh Mr. Peter's letter of October 28th, he summarizes the history of the of the project, the original approval, and then the amended approval that that we got. Uh and then he he he of course confirms
the uh the change in parking, the variance being lessened from a deviation of 12 to a deviation of nine. Uh and then just provides some language about compliance with with the land use law. Then we also have two other two other
letters. One from the uh one from the fire bureau and we got one uh some email comments from the uh from the environmental commission first to the comments from the environmental commission. I have um I have three comments. One asks about traffic impact
to wildlife in the area and I I would say that there's no change in this plan from the original approved plan that was fully vetted and and previously approved. uh asked if amended plans have been submitted to outside agencies and the reply is the plans have been submitted to the agencies as as
required. Uh again there's no changes in in impervious coverage grading or drainage and and other outside agency approvals frankly are not not required. Um and some comment about changing parking spaces EV spots near slopes towards lake. I'm not really sure what
that comment is getting at because we're not changing any grading uh not adding any additional parking space. So, I I don't think there's any any impact or anything to be addressed by that particular comment. Uh, we did get a a letter from the Bureau of Fire
Prevention dated September 15th, and that letter had uh one comment about a an additional fire hydrant being placed in the back of, you know, near the EV parking spaces. And uh our our position is we don't believe that there's any
code that requires a fire hydrant to be to be located behind this building in proximity of the EV parking spaces. Uh the original application did have EV parking spaces behind the building. It was approved by the fire bureau and at that time there was no requirement to
provide any fire hydrant back you know behind the uh behind the building. Substantial site work has already been done on on this project. the utilities, you know, water system have already been installed. Uh it would be it would be frankly quite a hardship uh if the
applicant were required to uh to install a fire hydrant behind a building for those EV parking spaces. Uh and further, I don't believe there's any code that requires a fire it to be located behind this building in proximity to those EV spaces. So, we are not in not in
agreement to to address that particular comment. I just think it's going above and beyond what any any uh code requires for this application. Uh with that that being said, I think my testimony is complete and maybe we get Mr. Tarsski to
talk about the uh specific changes to the to the building and the and the mezzanine space. >> Um just actually before you step away, can you just put your planners hat on for a second and just go through the proofs for the request of the parking variance even though it is an improvement over existing conditions. something on the record.
>> I I would just say it would it would satisfy the test of of a C2 variance, you know, the the flexible uh flexible variance where the benefit of the variance outweighs any detriment associated there with I believe that there is adequate adequate parking spaces provided for the building. He had
previously testified that when the when the variance was originally granted. Uh and again this this application tonight, this amended application, we're actually lessening the variance request. And one could argue that uh the variance that there's really no no change need or no additional variance is is required.
>> And would you say that it's an improvement actually because we are now providing the EV required for the handicap which is now part of the statute which was not before. >> Yes, it is. And in addition, just just to summarize, um we looked at the uh the parking ratio of the approved plan and
the parking ratio of this amended plan. The approved plan had parking at the ratio of one space for every 223 square feet. Again, when we're including the gross floor area of all spaces, uh this plan has a parking ratio of one parking
space for every 216 square feet. So a slightly uh better parking ratio provided on this plan as compared to the plan that was previously approved. >> Thank you. >> I have a question. >> Mr. President, >> I have one question on that. I
understand. Can you show on there what you point of where the fire hydrant would be if you put where they're asking you to put it? >> Uh they've asked for a fire hydrant to be located in proximity, you know, to the EV parking space which be back behind the building. Of course, the water water man is in County Line Road.
Water service comes in here to the meter pit and then goes over to the building here. We have we have a separate line for domestic and for fire suppression right now that that go over there. >> And you say the horse shipped through the rest of the line to that fire extinguisher if you were to put it
there. Why? >> For correct for for a couple reasons. One one is one is those utilities have already been installed in accordance with the prior approval and again it at that time we had EV parking spaces proposed in the rear of the building and you know they did not ask ask us to put
the fire hydrant in the back. Second is uh we only have a we have a 4inch line going over to the building for the domestic and for the and for the fire service. If we were required to put a fire hydrant in, we'd have to put a 6-in line in. So we'd have to put a new wet tap out to County Line Road. It's quite
be quite an undertaking for something that is not required by any building code. >> Thank you for the explanation. >> Any other questions? >> Mr. [clears throat] >> I I understand your your point, but I I
believe the fire official is trying to make it known that the what it takes to put out an EV fire, especially with the EV charging stations, it takes a copious amount of water. And that's the the reason for the safety is is the safety of the building and also just the accessibility of it.
Is it really a hardship if we're are we weighing hardship versus safety? Because that's that's the reason for it. They want a hydrant back there because the amount of water you're going to need to put out a fire of that type, it's just it's a copious amount of water. That's the word that's the verbiage that the fire code uses for the state. So I'm
just wondering is Is it possible to get around putting the 6 inch water main or is this to get a fire hydrant back there? You need to put a 6 in main to get to that point. [clears throat] >> Fire hydrants have to be on a minimum 6 in >> 6 inch service line. Yes.
>> And there's no way to to do a yard hydrant perhaps. Well, there I'm there may be um there may be a way to get a fire department connection uh that's connected to the sprinkler sit
to the suppression system that's at the you know at the building um we'd have to speak with our MEP but you know at the at the rear of the building over here possibly but it wouldn't be a true fire hydrant. We may
be able to get a a connection back there that could get some water supply back there, but again, it's not the same level as a dedicated fire. >> I understand that. I know that in some larger like warehouse type setting, they they do have these things that are that are yard hydrants, right? They're not necessarily supplied off of main. You'll
see them in like uh like trash facilities, stuff like that, that they're they're more so a connection that you're not you're not they're not usually built off the main. They're they're more of a secondary kind of fire hydrant. Is that something that the applicant would be willing to look into to perhaps >> we would definitely look look into
getting let's say uh an an additional method of fire protection at the rear of the building that does not require a new fire service line or a you know 6 in line coming from from the street. If we could get something that that fed off of
the suppression system in the building we could >> I think >> we could pursue that. I think that would be >> think that's if that's feasible, >> that would be the way to go because I I I just want to reiterate that what we're finding with these EV fires and and the charging stations itself is the just the
amount of water carried alone on the on the class A fire engines we have in Jackson, you'll need more than we have in the town to put an initial fire out. So just for the safety stance of it alto together, I I think it would be I think it would behoove everybody to look into
a secondary system to to try to meet that requirement. I I would agree to uh to look into that alternative. >> Thank you. >> Excellent suggestion and u I'm sure that Mr. Sheay is writing that down as we [laughter] as we >> already got it.
>> Thank you. Anyone else on the board? >> Mr. Clay, >> Mr. Peters, >> thank you very much. >> Okay, at this time I'd like to call up our architect
All right, please raise your right hand. Do >> you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> All right. Please state your name and spell your last of the record. Sure. >> It's Richard Tokarsski. T O K A R S KI. Firm of Tokarsi Melman Architects of Wall, New Jersey. >> All right.
>> You want to give a little bit of your benefit of your background and qualifications? >> Uh, yes. I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. I've um presented before this board numerous times. [laughter] >> Welcome back. Thank you, Dr. Campbell. The board accepts his credentials. >> Yes, ma'am. Yes, sir.
>> Okay. And if you could, um, Rick, why don't we pull up your exhibit and why don't you go through what the applicant is proposing here? I think your exhibits will speak a thousand words as they say. >> Sure. On the exhibit, um, drawing A4, what we're proposing is a second
mezzanine. Thank you. You'll see this uh rectangular bar in the back of the building um which is a second mezzanine which is accessed from a stair that comes up here. It's 7
87 square ft and it's additional amenity space for the office building. Anthony if you could go to the next slide please. So these are some renderings done by CMR designs. They're the interior designer that we're working with on the project.
And as you'll see from these renderings, uh it's not additional workspace. There's not workstations. Um it's coffee bars, seating areas. It's additional space for people who are working within the building to get up from their desk, go to a different area, have a meeting.
So, it does not increase the occupancy load of the building. It's just additional amenity space. Um, here you'll see the coffee bar and some bar uh stool seating in the back. Anthony, if you could flip to the next exhibit. There's some lounge seating with tables.
So, for on spot meetings and you can go to the third one, please. And here you see the tall counters with bar stool seating. People can have, you know, take a break, have lunch, have coffee. And that's the uh additional
amenity space that we're proposing. And there will be no uh no offices there, no meeting space, no new >> facility except for socialization. >> Exactly. It's a place to take a break, have a small breakout meeting.
>> Uh not workstations. >> Do you want to just describe some of the actual materials you're using? >> Not really. I think you can see from the pictures it's going to be beautiful space. It's class A. There's, you know, >> different panelings, uh, wall
treatments, flooring. It's all high-end materials. >> This is within the existing structure of the existing building, right? >> Yes. This is basically at the third level. There's two floors of workspace. The third level consists of mezzanine space, which is these amenity spaces.
Um, to the right, you can see a railing which looks down into the second floor where the office area is. Uh what's the safety railing system? It's how high? >> Uh 42 in. >> Just worried about children visiting for any reason.
>> So do we. Yep. It's code compliant. 42 inch high ramp. >> So it's compliant with the safety. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Any questions, >> Mr. Peters? Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> That's all we got. That's it.
>> All right. >> I'd like to make a motion to open to the public for cross-examination of witnesses on this application and this application only. Sullivan. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> questionify
to come forward. >> See, >> yeah. Come up to the >> But you have you have to come up here. >> You got to come up to the podium. Yes. >> To the microphone and be sworn in. Thank you.
>> How you doing? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> You got to speak into the mic. >> Yes. Yes. Yeah. My name is Tom. Um I actually >> Well, hang on. >> Oh, my name is Tomo. >> Please state your name, spell your last
for the record, and give your address. >> Yeah. Tom anarico. A n e c h a r i o. Can you hear me? >> Address, please. >> I own the property next door. >> Address, sir. >> It's 154 North County line. >> Okay. I just had a question regarding
the >> You just speak into the microphone. >> The people at home. >> Oh, I had a question about the um the EVs in the back. Um wouldn't it be better to have a fire extinguish
a fire hydrant there? who would answer that question. >> Gramp may >> well we've had we've we've had some discussion about that and again that you know the fire bureau recommended a dedicated fire hydrant but at the
suggestion of of Mr. Tremor we had discussion about getting some some form of fire suppression even though it's not a dedicated fire hydrant back there. >> But wouldn't it be better to have a firefighter? I there's many pictures on the internet. It's true. When those
catch on fire, >> you have to use when those catch >> Sorry. When they catch on fire, it does take a lot of war to put them out, right? >> Well, I'm I'm not the expert in in fire suppression or how you put out an EV fire. I mean, I I also believe
electrical fires are a lot of times are put out with foam, not not just with water, right? Um, but I think getting getting some measure of some water back there for emerging purposes, I think is is a is a benefit. And given all of the particulars of of this project, what
we're asking for and considering what's already been completed, I think it's very very reasonable uh to to try to get, you know, some measure of protection back there without without the need for a dedicated fire hydrant >> because there's woods back there, too, right? The borders the woods, I believe.
Yeah, there are some woods around the property >> where what I mean is where you want to relocate the stations. Isn't that where the woods? >> No, that's within areas that were already approved for for parking spaces. We're simply >> we're simply changing you know the
designation of some of those parking spaces and you know putting the EV uh you know charging units in spaces that are already approved in the in the project. >> Did I mis misunderstand though? You wanted to move the space. Sorry. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Yeah. >> I want Did I misunderstand you want to
move? >> You can move the microphone to where >> to help you. >> Did I misunderstand you want to move the spaces? >> More towards the rear, right, >> Anthony? Just put A2 up again for me, please. And maybe we'll I'll just just show you again. >> So, you can see these spaces that are
that are kind of kind of shaded. Anthony, zoom in if you don't mind. >> So, where are they? >> Please. >> So, where are the spaces going? The back ones? >> No, give just give me give me a second. So, this plan, the approved plan, these are already parking proposed parking spaces. >> Sure. >> Okay. They're just not designated EV
parking spaces. The approved plan had three EV parking spaces over here next to the building. >> I see. >> So, now we're just changing these parking spaces from, you know, let's say conventional spaces to EV parking spaces, >> right? And and all all the all the chargers are going to be next to each
other. All the >> Yeah. They're usually in pairs. >> Yeah. Yeah. So hypothetically there could be what? How many spaces are there there? >> Well, that's a total of nine. Six plus. So there could be nine electrical vehicles there. Let's say one in the middle there catches on fire
and then what would happen to the one I I've seen vehicles sitting on the Parkway burning for hours and hours and hours and hours and there's just one one vehicle there. >> Well, I'm not I'm not going to argue whether there's, you know, a possibility of a fire occurring. Of course, we know that that's a
possibility, right? Um, you know, but again, we're we're proposing to provide a measure of fire suppression that comes off the suppression system from the building instead of a dedicated, you know, fire line running all the way around the building. >> But you're you're not a an expert in that though. Correct. I
>> I'm not an expert in in the fire suppression or the or the >> and you have >> fires for EV. >> And you have nobody here to testify about Hey, it's okay. We don't have a fire hydrant. >> There is no code that requires a fire hydrant there. So, we're actually going
to try to be accommodating by looking at an alternate suppression system as was recommended by Mr. Tremor, and we're going to do that. But there is no code that says you have to have a fire hydrant next to EV stations. I've done plenty of sip applications, but there's no fire hydrant next to the EV stations.
And so, it's not a law. >> And And you want to move the spaces. Why? I'm sorry, maybe I didn't hear that. Why you want to move the spaces? the microphone. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> And you want to move >> uh we wanted to move the spaces further away from the building
>> and we wanted to provide additional EV parking space. >> Right. Add additional ones. Right. >> Correct. >> Right. Right. But more I guess what I'm trying to say is more risk of a fire. >> Right. >> So the applicant stipulates that they'll put in the additional f fire suppression system. Correct. >> Is that what >> Yes.
>> Well, Mr. McFallen, you said before you will look into it. Can we confirm the word that a stipulation you'll get it done? >> If it's feasible, we will do it. If if it is >> we would we would agree to come back to the board if it's determined to be not
feasible. >> You'll come back to the board if you can. >> Yes. >> So he's not saying just to be clear, he's not saying he's putting it in. They're going to >> No. So, what's what's going to happen is that uh due to the fact that they're stipulating to the additional fire suppression system, if if it's um
engineeringly infeasible, they'll have to come back to the board for a renewed schematic of a system >> to be put in. >> It's still bare land there. There's no pavement on anything. >> What? >> I'm sorry. You you have to understand
that this is a 2016 application that is already all the infrastructure is in and all the girder systems are in. If you drive down the street, it's all built. >> I know. I've seen it. >> They're just putting in a mezzanine.
That's it. >> I'm not referring to the mezzanine. Yes. But but the point is there it all the infrastructure is already there and they're stipulating that they will make they will make sure that they can put in
the fire suppression system that they don't aren't required to do by code. >> Right? >> But if they cannot they will come back to the sport. But you could say to them, if you want these additional spaces, we
want you to do this. >> Correct. >> No, they could not impose a fire hydrant and said there's not a law that requires that. They could not do that. >> So just just to be clear, >> why ask for the additional spaces and why don't they just do it? >> Why don't they just move them wherever they want? >> Just just to be clear, what what happens
is that the planning board has to we are governed by what the ordinance specifies, >> right? But that's only the local ordinance. What happens is that the fire department has has juris it's called an outside agency jurisdiction over what they are requesting for um for fire
suppression systems. In this case, what's happened is that the the fire department has indicated they want an additional fire hydrant in an additional location, but there but there's nothing statutoily that requires that. So what we're trying to do is meet the applic
meet meet the applicant in the middle so to speak and say listen if you can put in an additional f fire suppression system that you technically aren't required to have pursuant to the ordinance and pursuant to you know state federal statutes um you know it would be
good for you to meet us in the middle here you know to do that. So, what they've agreed to is that they're going to put in the additional fire suppression system. Um, if it's engineeringly infeasible to do so, they're going to come back for an additional request to put something else
in to make sure that that is covered fire suppression wise. >> Is that what is that what they stipulated to? >> They just stipulated to it. >> Okay. Okay. >> It'll it'll go into the resolution the whole nine yards. >> So, if they can't put it in, they're going to come back to you again. >> Correct. We got those words straightened out. Yes.
>> Okay. Okay. Whereas before they were just going to try. >> Yeah, we had to get away from the look at. Yes. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. >> You got it. >> Anyone else? [clears throat] >> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
>> Yes. >> Please state your name and spell your last for the record. >> John Chapel. That's C H A P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P E L L 871 Bowman Road, Jackson. >> I have a question. I think it's architecture.
Prior to this um mezzanine, what what was in place that was approved? In other words, what's being added when we say that we want to introduce the mezzanine? Is this additional um is this another floor?
Uh yes, originally it was a two-story building with a mezzanine. The mezzanine that was approved prior was towards the front of the building. This is additional mezzanine space on the back side of the building, but it's internal to the footprint. >> Okay. So, as part of that, has there
been any consideration for access to the mezzanine? Will there be additional stairways, uh additional restrooms, um power, >> heating, ventilating, air conditioning? Is there anything that has to be changed in order to support that? >> Um, yes. We did add an additional stair
that goes from the second floor up to that mezzanine. It only because of this limited size of it and the occupancy load, it only requires one stair. Um, we also did look at the travel distance and that was all met with one stair that goes from the mezzanine down to the second floor. >> Okay. >> Um, it doesn't require any it's not
accommodating any more people. So, there's no additional bathroom load. It's all those people are within the building already. and is satisfied with the restrooms that are currently designed. >> Okay. And and is there additional power that's being run? >> Uh yes. Knowing that this was coming up,
we did look at the heating and air conditioning, the structural system, mechanical systems, and they've all been modified to accommodate this mezzanine should it be approved. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Anyone else? Seeing no one else come forward, I move to close the cross-examination portion of this application. Sullivan >> second. >> All in favor? >> I
>> I uh make a motion to open the public comment portion of this application and this application only. Sullivan >> second. Bringing >> would anyone like to speak about this application in any way? Seeing no one come forward, I move to
close the public comment portion of this application. Sullivan >> second. >> All in favor? >> I >> summation. >> Sure. I think in the grand scheme of things is a pretty benign application.
Simply adding some additional mezzanine space really for the comfort of the tenants that are going to be there so maybe they don't have to run out to Starbucks at their lunch break. Um, and we are obviously improving the parking shortage going from 12 less spaces to
nine. So, as Mr. Peter said, less worse than what was already approved. I would respectfully request that the board grant an approval. >> Anything from you, gentlemen? >> Thank you. Anything from the board?
>> We'll look for a resolution. A >> I'd like to make a motion. based on the fact that you reduced the shortage in the parking is a big plus. You don't usually see that and the EV parking moving away from the buildings and committing to getting the water out
towards those EV parking. I think it's a lot of movement and it was a good application to begin with, but it made it better. I make a motion to approve. I'll second that, Sullivan, and and add to that that I appreciate the applicant's willingness to work with the
fire district in finding some sort of suppression system for that EV parking. And uh with that, I second the motion. Sold. >> Mr. Brezie, >> before I vote, I want to thank Mr. Tremor because on these boards, you look for people who have experience in
certain areas. He's a fireman in many places. I'm glad he came up with a suggestion about coming off the building. I make a motion. I I vote yes. >> Mr. Marzo, >> yes. >> Mr. Heler, >> yes. >> Mr. Rogers, >> yes. >> Miss Santoro, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremer,
>> yes. >> Miss Rose, >> yes. >> Mr. Sullivan, >> yes. >> Dr. Campbell, >> yes. Congratulations. >> Great. Thank you so much. Have a great night. >> I'd like to make a motion to close this meeting. Sullivan.
All in favor? >> I >> and we wish everyone happy holidays since this is our last meeting of the year. Uh our next meeting is January the 12th reorganization.