e e
e
e e
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God IND
with libery and justice for allbody there we go all right everybody Welcome to the Janu or the February 10th 2025 Jackson Township planning board meeting uh this meeting in accordance with the open public meetings Act uh has
been properly and adequately noticed uh in all the uh places prescribed by law Madam Sherwood good evening everyone roll call please Mr Bernstein Mr marzo here Mr heler here Mr rker Mr Rogers Mr treamer here Miss Rose here Mr weart Mr wal here Mr Sullivan here here
Dr Campbell here um I spoke with uh councilman Bernstein earlier this evening he will be having the same training tomorrow night so uh he figured it was probably wiser that he attend the council meeting for this for this evening uh let's um have a uh motion on payment for voucher for recording secretary please so moov
Sullivan second to marzo have a roll call please Mr marzo yes Mr heler yes Mr Rogers Mr treamer yes Miss Rose yes Mr wall yes Mr Sullivan yes Dr cim yes uh a um approval of the minutes for the January 27th regular meeting please uh look for a
motion motion dearo second Sullivan roll call vote Please Mr marzel yes Mr heler yes Mr Rogers yes Mr dreamer yes Miss Rose yes Mr wall yes Mr Sullivan yes Dr Campbell yes um now we have resolutions we have three of them yes thank you resolution
202-0563 LLC block 1710
1 lots 9.07 and 9.09 eligible to vote [Music] are Mr heler Mr tramer Miss Rose Mr wall Mr Sullivan and Dr Campbell we'll accept a motion please I make a motion to approve resolution second heler Mr heler yes
Mr tramer yes Miss Rose yes Mr wall yes Mr Sullivan yes Dr Campbell yes resolution 2025-the granting preliminary and final major site plan approval with required variances and design waivers for a three-story building with a an office
floor area for 15 leeville LLC block 12001 lot 1.01 eligible to vote are Mr heler Miss Rose Mr wall Mr Sullivan and Dr Cell motion please I'll make a motion to approve resolution Sullivan second hello Mr heler yes Miss Rose yes Mr wall yes Mr Sullivan yes Dr
Campbell yes and the last one is resolution 202- 07 resolution of the planning board of the township of Jackson County of ocean state of New Jersey graning minor site plan approval with a design waiver an amended site amended minor site plan approval for the conversion of an existing single family dwelling to a private girl school for shalva high school Inc block 230 001
Lots 14 and 15 eligible to vote are Mr marzo Mr heler Mr treamer Miss Rose Mr wall Mr Sullivan and Dr Campbell motion please I'll make a motion to approve Sullivan second de marzo Miss de marzo yes Mr Herer yes Mr dreamer yes Miss Rose yes Mr wall yes Mr
Sullivan yes Dr Campbell yes um as far as the master plan goes we're still awaiting a finalization of the affordable housing information from the uh attorney in the township who's in charge of that uh as soon as that's finished and it's a process that will uh go will be going uh to the uh engineer on that and then we will be meeting as a committee and we'll announce a uh public
meeting uh this evening we are going into executive session uh for a workshop and information on the religious land use law and we have uh informed the attorney uh for our one application to be here at 7:30 and we'll begin uh our regular meeting at uh with the applicant at 7:30 and we will uh invite the public
who is in zoom and of the public who is here uh to return at 7:30 when we're finished with the executive session I'll look for a motion please to go into executive session so moved Sullivan second deoro all in favor I thank you I'm sorry ma'am if I had seen you there earlier
e
e e
all right we're back on the record now welcome the public on zoom we're sorry it took a little longer uh to have that Workshop than we expected but we are all uh the better for it and we've learned a great deal Mr Feer you're on yes good evening Madam chairperson members of the board first I just want to take the opportunity to thank everybody I know we
were before the board a little more than two weeks ago uh with an application that the board had indicated that they were in favor of the concept as it's a permitted use for a warehouse with some ancillary office space um but there was some major concerns having the the uh docks for the warehouses uh fronting on West Commodore um the board did indicate you know they were willing to work with us um to make some revisions on that even that evening um but we felt it was probably better off to step back properly revise it resubmit it um and we
thank your professionals who definitely worked quickly um to to review those plans uh and to get us review letters um with that being said the application is very similar to what you saw we did put a lot of testimony on last time uh again it's an approximately uh a little bit shy of 65,000 square feet Warehouse building with uh 7 thou a little more than about 7,700 square feet of mezzanine office space just to give the board just a a reminder that office
space is only um each there are six Bays for the warehouses and those office spaces correlate to each of the warehouse spaces there are no separate entrances and uh I believe Mr Shay did ask us as a condition of the approval that we would agree that that would not be um Standalone rental space um so we agree to that uh as well uh the main changes um as uh as discussed we rotated the building basically flipped it around by doing so um we do needed a few
additional variances um uh particularly I'll run through them and then I'll have um our engineer and planner come up uh and put the testimony on but uh we did create some front yard setbacks again we are a corner property there are some um the layout of the property is is somewhat unique uh so we do have front yard setbacks of approximately 72 ft and change to um patter Road and 79 and change to West Commodore where 100 ft uh
is required um additionally there was some discussion well additionally we do need um a 10t 10ft variance for parking within the RightWay where 20 feet is required and that's just on I believe the Patterson side um additionally uh there was a question as to parking um there's a question if we need one or two parking spot variants um but we in speaking with with our engineer and planner um if the board were willing to increase um the
increase our impervious coverage right now we do not have a variance we're under the 75% if they were willing to go up to 78% we do have the room to add the additional parking spaces and we will not require the parking variants um finally and this was just something that we we didn't get to at the last meeting are just some sign variances again the ordinance uh allows for the one sign the one pound sign that one we have uh and we will comply with the 80 square feet
we then are just asking for six individual signs for each unit um uh above the the name and then there will be one additional uh address sign that may require we have testimony about this for the height uh of The Bu of where the location on the building and that's just going to be an address of the building sign um so with that I just that's the overview of what we're seeking uh we'll have Mr poroy come up we'll have him res worn in uh and then we'll go from there so we're removing the parking
variants yeah I just want the testimony there there was a question if we were one parking spot short or two um but we do have the room to add those spaces we just would then need to ask for a increase of the impervious coverage um which we don't have a variance for at the moment we're under the 75% but if the board would go up a few uh percentage points we could add the additional parking so it's going up% to seven to 78% yes
evening please raise your right hand do you swear affirm tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do all right please state name spelled last for the record yoseph poroi p o r t n o y right we've seen you a few times does the board accept your credentials the board accepts your credentials thank you good evening um I know we we we went through the testimony on this whatever uh as much as was we were able to so I'm going to focus now on the changes to the the
layout circulation um and and related items are we you have the exhibits you pull up the um rendering exhibit you have the next one um no next no this is fine yes perfect yes thank you very much um here we go thank you okay okay so as you can see we've we've um it's a similar a similar
project it's a proposed Warehouse with mezanine space we've rotated the building to put the loading area in the rear and the parking in the front along West Commodore um with that change there's a minimal change in the the the footprint um was previously 6462086071
we need a this shift triggered a variance front yard variance to
Patterson of 72.1 15 ft where 100t is required and 79.3 2 feet to West caror where 100s required we're still we're still compliant with the side and rear setbacks um and we do have a 10t parking setback to um West commodor the pass and we're complying with the 20 ft um but there are a couple spaces over here which are which are within the 10 which
which are within the 20 foot set back to um West commodor a coverage is still comp our building coverage is still compliant um but as know our our prvious coverage as shown on this plan was was was 74.4% just under the 75 that's permitted um we also kept this um we were we in order we to keep that
I'll explain that when we discuss the circulation but uh and the parking but any additional impervious would trigger variant um that's why we noted that to add additional parking spaces we will need a few percentage points I'll discuss how we get to parking and circulation um height still complies um in terms of circulation now that we've separated now that we' flipped the building the trucks will be entering the
rear of the site um with a truck turnaround that's similar to what was proposed on the adjacent Warehouse um um the trucks we we will agree as discussed last time we restrict um the trucks from making a right turn on the parison so trucks will be restricted to Left Turn Only onto Patterson and they'll need to come back down to West commodor we have a separate car entrance uh two-way entrance onto Patterson for cars
and we have a driveway onto west commodor for egress only for cars the driveway onto west commodor is subject to County approval um we there is they're discussing with a traffic engineer he said that he thought that the county may want to right in right out instead of the instead of just the ESS but he was not but there definitely would not be a left turn in
um when we have we we're maintaining right now now there's a a turnaround for trucks which could be used for fire trucks as well but we're still maintaining the EM fire truck emergency access around around uh the east side and on the left on the West Side even though we separated the trucks and the cars we kept this open as a One Way 20 foot wide for fire access for fire circulation around building and that's
also contributing to that impervious coverage alternately it's possible to make that grass PA as well which would not need a the impervious coverage variants but we know the board was want as much of the fire access paved as possible um okay every just most other things we've gone through just um just on parking updated parking calculations um with this with the 64,0
740t warehouse at one per 200 one space per 1500 square feet it's 43.1 six spaces um for the office Bas is 7,7 and3 SRE of office space that's 38.5 two spaces so there was a rounding around the plan we rounded they both got rounded down the 43 may be rounded down the 4 the 38 goes up um so we would need
at least one space one more additional parking space so which we we would we're not seeking a variance we would we would add that to the plan um okay everything else is is pretty much the same we did relocate um we just touch on utilities utilities are still the same we're proposing to connect a water main that's being brought up patteron um exist and that we have
relocate previously the septic was in the front corner we moved it to the back the storm water management we have a infiltration surface infiltration Basin along West along West along Patterson um we propose subsurface infiltration along the south side of property and east side of property and por Pavement in the parking lot and that will be um in order to get this around
turned around we we did some prelim analysis we'll be supplying the full the full calculations to board professionals uh and for Landscape and Lighting was noted that the the board professionals noted that we have do have some waivers for some of the of the parking um some of the the parking along the property lines um which were noted in the in the
professionals letter we have a 5ot parking strip instead of a 10-ft parking strip and uh along the Eastern property line um I also do want to touch on the the signage that the the architect will go into more detail on the signage we did not show sh signage on the last um on the when we were here before but since then the architect has designed um
the signage the the we we will have a monument sign location would be in the front of the site over here the tent is placement to comply um the area of the monument sign will comply with ordinance requirements and height will comply um and the the architect will testify regarding the building mounted signage any questions for this uh
gentleman my question was we' discussed last time about are you on the on the microphone yeah uh the grass pavers again we have a 990,000 PB fire truck in this town I don't know how the board feels about that but it it's a bit of an issue then we have to consider the impervious issue right and we're all we're we're
between excuse the expression a rock in a hard place on on discussing the impervious issues if we if we request uh a uh cement driveway there we're really over the impervious that causes quite a problem well you also have a building that could be shrunk down and said it's not but you know I mean again this is my personal issue we're shoehorning something huge in there and
you know we're at the maximum so we're bending but nobody else is bending I mean there's no sidewalks there's no safe area for evacuations as the fire department looks at it you know my my fire department head looks at it so I mean it's something for the board to consider I don't know let's say say that there were a fire God forbid can fire apparatus function on
those papers the problem is so much not so much functioning I mean stabilizing I guess yeah I mean they have it's called the tormenters the Outriggers that come out you're picking up a 990,000 pound truck so they're going to have to certify that there's a compaction and it can hold it issue is it's a 47t long fire Tru with tandem axd so when it turns those two
front tires become plow blades so as it turns in around that building especially like a situation with today's after uh the rain all weekend they come in turn you can bury that truck right there so it is a safety concern is it guaranteed that could happen no but it's not like your car where the uh geometry and your steering
makes the car not fight the wheels where this is a heavy heavy truck my concern I guess Mr Tremor is precedent if we if we make this a precedent then we are going to have to make this a precedent for every other building that we approve and we are really um up against it with the imper is coverage that that's it's all ordinance yes what do you think that's a good good time for
you to give us some I'm going to play lawyer for one second even I'm not supposed to you understand that you are only talking about this particular application correct and all applications are heard on their own merits correct I agree so to the extent that the applicant has a yield that requires variances here they've made accommodations from their original design to make it a better design in the eyes of the board members that's the reason we're entertaining some of the variance relief that's here this evening and that's why we're having a conversation about whether or not to
increase or decrease the amount of impervious on site in other sites you start from the beginning give us a conforming application with a conforming application we'll make a determination what's best for the Town based upon the subcommittee report so if the fire report comes back and says listen we're concerned that we need to be 25 ft away from the building we have to have access along all four sides and we have to have place to put our Outriggers out to fight a fire then those areas probably have to have a different pavement section so
again to the extent that we either get comments from the fire department or the board says you know what the applicant's been reasonable and their accommodations as it relates to the design so if we need to go a little Above and Beyond in terms of relief for whatever setbacks impervious coverage you know it's their burden to bring us something that we can approve so then my next question would be did the fire department make any suggestions regarding this
particular application that I have no idea I don't believe they did so there was if I could just respond to that one sorry so there was a letter July 19 I just do point out that the which there were no comments about the papers the original application had the same pavers along the side um they did not call anything out and I also want to point out the uh the project across the way had the same pvers as well again I believe me we understand safety and and
we don't want to cause any issues either uh but we are using all the materials that are approved uh and safe so if we just address this real quick so the um do you have a pointer on you yeah yeah just point out where the papers are right there green stri okay that's that's a green strip all right so we we can kind of cover this in in one fell Swoope so um Mr shemer so so based upon thew I just went over this with with the township attorney the township um
engineer ironically because he had a similar issue in a different town so how how the the law of this works out is that as long as you I think it's 270 degree axis around the building right so doesn't have to be full 360 but it's got to be minimum 270 and is a very subtest um regarding the different elements of how and why and all that I I could put a memo together for the board and put that all together and make sure everybody's
on the same page with that but in this instance they I mean it looks like they gave us a little bit more than 270 so they're they're kind of fulfilling the mandates um of the state of of the codes and everything that that pertain to the fire circulation so it's I know we want in a perfect world 360 and some times we don't get that every single time and and yes I mean you know to be fair the the applicant is maximizing their their yield here which
you know every applicant likes to do in in given situations um but we do have a significant conference you know so and I I can't imagine the fire truck wanting to be within three feet of that building either you know um so that that's just food for thought that's that's the kind of legal test that we have to work with it's it's really the 270 and I can put together a whole memo I just went over this with the township engineer um so we
can that's as per the Township Code as it stands no that's so that that's pursuant to the uh to the state code the um whole it's three or four different guidelines that go into that um it's rather complicated we we can we and then and and maybe where things might need to be addressed is with the fire department if the fire fire department is telling us as a board that this is acceptable to them then we have to listen to that well
and that's what they have told us on this project there hasn't been any significant changes over the years which it's in the process like our master plan to be updated and brought to current standards trucks are bigger buildings are bigger when that happens we'll be able to we'll be able to address that no that's fine Mr Shay put it on record so now it's something that can be addressed yeah and we I'll I'll break it all down to the board I'll put it in in a memo to everybody just to see kind of The Logical flow um but that's kind of what
we have to work with at the board level so my my next question for the board is would you prefer to Grant the impervious coverage increase of 3% or lower the parking spaces that Force the impervious coverage and if I could I just want to just give board full clarity there was a uh we didn't get into the exact testimony uh Mr Peter's report I think called out that we were two spot short again our
testimony I think is that we're one spot short in any matter I'm not trying to cut hairs here but um the reason why we're saying if we increase a few percentage points on the impervious either way we can give at least the two spots uh not maybe an additional one so that I just wanted to clarify that for the good all right so Mr solom at 3% I I don't think that's a problem if we were talking a much larger percentage I think then we'd have the really discuss it but I think we're splitting hairs at 3% I think that's fine reasonable so it's reasonable so you would say that we
should Grant the um variance for impervious coverage yes any other thoughts from the board members on can we ask why we didn't take 3% off the building it's a huge building why don't we just take 3% off and so it's that shoehorn thing again we just keep on jamming the maximum in there and becoming to us making us give to you but what' you give to us you turn the building around but that's what we require and why don't we take 5% off the
building and give a little more leeway any other thoughts questioning site travel radius I believe the Track Trail not to exceed the length of 65 ft liation signs at the entrance experience trcks going up to 72 yeah we'll we'll we'll be providing
truck circulation plans and you know based on that anything that'll C that will not be perm will be restricted we would agree and we would agree to as a condition of approval that condition yeah anyone else thank you next yeah we just have the architect well why why don't we why don't we have the I was just yeah on do you want to
wait until after we finish with all everything and then vote on the on the resolution compliance well it would be all right or the all right on this issue Mr Shay why don't you use the wording on how you'd like it how you'd like that to read so it would be uh we so board the board's got to make a decision as to whether they want to Grant the
parking or they they want the the applicant to seek the parking variants or they want the applicant to seek the impervious coverage uh variance variance so um if if we just want to do a maybe a a roll call as to which one we want the applicant to seek and and then the applicant can seek that variance from us and we can subsume that into the vote in the end okay um that may be the easiest
thing all just a brief question this strikes me as Inc it's it's because it's you know what we're probably doing Mr wall is because we said last meeting that we would be open to variances if they fli that building we made it very clear that we would be we would be more generous with our variances now we have to decide which
variances I can see where you make a point and it's going to be this one or this one I'm just sharing it's a bit sloppy to me Mr tror saying why is the bulk of this property not not addressing some of these issues itself I don't have a particular destination on it but it just seems Cho SL but we're trying to be neat and Democratic just quickly we did
ask about the the warehouse since there are no tenants identified yet we did ask if you would be willing to um decrease the size so that we wouldn't have to Grant some of these variances I really appreciate that you flipped it as we asked but there was no further um commentary or I when I first looked at it I was like wow the the square footage has not changed at all so
I'm just wondering why we have on either side on either end the warehouses are so big without any so idy tenants so the the previous plans were we believe more efficient um for many different reasons um with that being said the board asked for it we have no problem so we comply with that um we did lose some square footage in the office space um that are the mezanine level of the of there was a decrease in the square footage on that
end um also I just wanted to clarify one other item I did confirm with with uh with our planner and engineer the increase in the in the impervious we don't even know if we need to go up to the 78 we just wanted to be be careful we need to add again if we go by Ernie and Ernie is usually always right um we're two spots short whatever the impervious won't exceed the 78 it might only be one or two percentage points as opposed to the three to get to the the two parking
spaces again we also are testimonies that we only leave it one spot short but um we have like I said no problem providing it um so I'm assuming uh looking at the map here of the project that the two spots would probably be on the left hand
side probably in that space above the first entrance so if you put the pointer like up up there down down down right there I'm assuming that's probably where you're going to have to put the two spaces I can't even see that probably even be more than 1% change um I mean to me it's more it's worth it's
worth the accommodation yes microphone please you asked for a little bit of uh feedback from the board I would concur with uh the vice chair over there that I think uh if what Joe is the calculation uh Mr suvin is making it would probably be closer to 1% and I'd be okay with I would rather a
part A perious coverage of variance and a than a parking variance okay U let's do a uh roll call vote Please Mr marzo I'm sorry what am I impervious or lower parking spaces oh impervious sorry Mr Bernstein I should have called
first impervious sorry okay Mr uh Rogers Mr Rogers impervious or imp trying to understand what we just said is is the imp we're asking you do you we're vo be impervious okay thank you Mr
trer I don't think we should do either we asked them to make the building smaller we were very clear last meeting so I don't think either should happen sir Miss Rose impervious Mr wall a pass question Mr Sullivan impervious Dr Campbell impervious and that would make one two three there
would be perious five thank you thank you good evening good evening yeah have the Architects for all right please raise your right hand do you swear affirm to tell the truth to hold truth nothing but the truth I do all right please state your name spell your last of the record uh Michael millerman m i l l e m a n n all right and your credentials even though I know you licensed architect in
the state of New Jersey since 1999 I've appeared before this board many times as well as others in the state of New Jersey welcome we accept your credentials thank you okay so I'm going to quickly go through the plans and elevations um so this is the ground floor plan um as was mentioned earlier earlier we have six tenant spaces um the majority of the uh square footage is for warehouse use uh
we have um storage small storage spaces along the frontage as you enter into the building and then Traverse upstairs uh to the office spaces we do have one office space downstairs to require um to comply with the barrier free requirements uh we also have toilets uh for the uh Warehouse use located in these areas here along the um the rear
of the building are loading spaces um each of the spaces um have two loading docks um the large one here on the left has three loading docks uh one of them is going to be a drive up um an inclined ramp and then the others will be traditional loading docks and there's a small mechanical space in the back corner of the building to host sprinkler uh set and other
utilities you go to the next illustration is going to show the the mezzanine plan so again the majority of the spaces up here are going to be office spaces and then we do have one small storage space that was to equal out the square footage from the um office that we had to put downstairs to comply with the barrier free requirements again upstairs we do have um upstairs we have uh break rooms and toilets for the office
spaces and then the next illustration is the uh elevation so uh the bottom illustration here the the building is going to be a um a tilt up concrete panel uh structure uh so what we uh did was in combination with the panel score lines is introduce some geometric patterns to break up the facades um the stair towers are noted here they're three feet higher than the
remainder of the building uh the building height is 44 ft we have glass entry into the office spaces and then there's Windows glass windows for the office spaces uh above I'm sorry these are the glass entries into the uh entry uh into each of the tenant spaces so the the rear of the building showing the loading docks is this illustration
here uh we have some clear story light that's uh proposed going into the warehouse space um along Patterson uh again we're using the same similar geometries uh with some windows um that are going to be in the facade to let some light into the uh warehouse space and then the this is the East elevation here um no windows proposed on that one as it's uh it's not
going to be seen much at all uh we did prepare a rendering I just uh real quick in here too it's it's hard to see here but um there are tenancy signs that are going to be located to identify the different tenants into the spaces so each one of those signs is proposed a little bit under the maximum of 880 Square ft uh per use uh or per space um and that we'll be asking for
either a waiver or a variance for because the ordinance uh allows one signage per building uh but since we're going to have six tencies we're going to want uh one sign to identify each of the businesses the sign just going to be in the glass is that just above the yeah just above the uh the door y so it'll be on the wall there'll be wall mounted signs so this is the illustration um looking from the corner of um West
Commodore and and Patterson and again you can see the um I didn't mention on the elevations but you can see better here the canopies that are going to be going into the building um to cover up the doorways and uh again all glass and um uh metal openings uh the colors we haven't um exactly identified the colors but again uh we're just looking to bring some geometry painted um facade uh to break up the long mass of the building
and to introduce a little bit of Interest into the the building um could you point to where the signage is going to be please yeah so they're going to be between the canopies so between the canopies there'll be a sign to identify each of the tenant spaces so there'll be a total of six and we can we can add that to the rendering Mr Peters what's your thought
on that since it's code well 80 square feet is a pretty big sign for each unit um other than I want it I hope we get more testimony about why it's needed quite frankly just think about you drive pass I this isn't something you need to see from the interstate you know you put a sign up it's two foot high it's six foot long it's 12 square feet um you put up a 4 by8 sheet of
plywood political sign on the highway that's 30 32 square feet this is 80 square feet six consecutive buildings so yeah just to clarify I don't it's it's nice to ask I'd like to hear some justification to make it six times what's the permitted size that's fine I just want to make sure we clarify we're not asking for 60 square feet per unit just that the ordinance reads it's
a total of 60 square feet we're just looking for and I'll ask uh Mr to give uh some square footage per each unit we're yeah the um so the total of the six signs will not exceed 80 square feet so the ordinance allows up to 80 square feet and the total of the six signs will not exceed the 80 squ ft but you're asking for more signs quty cor y right so there'll be about 12 square
feet couldn't you just number number each door and that would let your uh that would let your uh people coming to deliver know what or going to the office know what door it is I mean then then it's not a bunch of signs that have to constantly change depending on who your tenants are you just put number one number two number three number four number five number six then it never changes right potentially that's a
solution this was more of a uh convenience to help your customer identify if you do have somebody visiting your space um where they should be going but there's no sales taking place out of those spaces so there's no need to advertise what the company is uh and then you don't have a sign problem how's that sound
everybody okay we'll go with number numbers one two 3 four five six okay and we'll talk about the other signs we want sure yes yes so the the other um sign that was identifying the building itself with the number was going to be located in in this area here again it's not on this rendering um but again it's just identifying the building street address sign corre correct yes yeah Madam chair
I hate to jump in the board simply needs to know do they need to Grant variance relief right if they don't it's fine it goes in Mr Shay's resolution they go to the zoning officer to pull a permit and it's okay if they need a variance and they don't get it here they're not getting one so I understand they might not know but this is you L they come back this is the place you get the variance from so so either they ask for it or they don't if they ask for it it's got to be specific now what do you need as far as
he yeah so the the ordinance limits the height of the signage to 25 ft so we would propose something a little bit High higher probably coming up to this score line here which is approximately 35 ft so I can keep the sign to 80 Square ft but the height of it it again for safety somebody identifying trying to find the building um we would ask for relief from the the height of the
sign that sounds reasonable why does that sound reasonable because if you're driving a truck uh a a large truck and you are looking for the sign where it is it seems like they need height I would suggest they're looking at Google is all they're looking at and it's bringing them right precisely where they need to go if you want Jackson to appear to be advertisement at 35
foot then you should approve it if you're looking to have Jackson look like a consistent rolling advertisement at 35 fet same as everything else we got to be consistent I makes absolutely no sense so you think that it would be just fine to leave it at the height that is recommended under the ordinance I think it's taking a a a c see the board is suggesting something looks civilized in Jackson and then skewering it for variances that you don't need anyway all due respect I why don't you just have a
something that has no variances and call it a day that's why I'm all this now and there's no concept by the way there's nothing you can see no there's that illustrates that you're making Jackson into an advertisement at 35 ft so you're already handicapped right right so I just I failed to see I understand try to lever it and get that I just don't understand the point it just seems like an awful lot of time squandered for things that you have see it's nice looks nice 4 thank but you're you're your fa
was just kind of guessing what it looks like and and carrying all so if we don't need if we don't it'll stay at it'll stay at 25t correct fine yeah we'll we good point Thank You ordinance so you don't need a variance correct Madam chair I just want to share the numbers kind of defense of the applicant the numbers are kind of that's a bit dry you know that in of itself so
I'm not saying that the board shouldn't be considering something that's a little bit more civilized looking rather than just one two three it just goes back to the board so I think I think just try to strike some common sense of what is fair to the community fair to the applicant fair to the folks that developing the property and um common sense I would say so I would necessarily I wouldn't necessarily keep it compliant to the 1 two 3 4 that's such a loading dock load I mean that's
not necessarily something you're looking for just have something civilized it's common sense I don't know why it's so elusive now I don't mean you I mean I understand since I've been on this board I think that would help the sales and
if you stick to the ver if you stick to the ordinance on signs stick to the ordinance on signs and put up what you want as long as it doesn't need a variance how's that sound sounds good thoughts all right all right so now that we spent the last five minutes on signs um so just to be clear so we're
keeping the main sign at the ordinance height 25 fet but then Mr wall were you were you recommending that we go back to uh putting the names of whatever businesses are on the over the doors or if I'm a tenant I think it would be nicer that I'm not saying you know I'll see you at number three well you know well we have an issue with the number three we never like the number yeah well that's so going back so that would be a variance that we would have to grant them because that would exceed qu be 80 squet so if if you guys are so what what
they're saying here is that that each one of those signs that going over the door would be would be 12 or so square feet in diameter um for like the name of of the building above I guess each door or to the right of each door um and because the the 25 ft High sign is is is what approximately 60 square ft or something like that they're the combined total of all that would be over the 80 Square ft so if we if we grant them the
uh the 12 square feet per door we're exceeding the volume per the ordinance so don't exceed theum for the and just just I'm sorry I mean to you off soor just to clarify on on the sign ordinance just say 80 square feet talks about one sign um that's where the confusion comes we we're not looking to exceed the 80 Square F feet we're just looking to break up the amount of signage right so if the board being had a variance that we would have to Grant but that's
they're looking for the the 12 every application's different but there's a Lowe that I I'm familiar with it's in home though 165,000 foot building undulating BMS the planning board was involved down to the font of the sign it's a destination location you know where it is you know where you're going you don't need something at 8 feet or you know for you know where you're but if you drive by Route 35 you can hardly see it's there it's 165,000 ft like it's
that kind of more elegant design that it's it's so frustratingly elusive with so many applications and so I apologize me respect the board's time but it's it's I think maybe it's a mutual frustration but there is a way to do this right and elegant and look good and and and and increase the value of the developer's not decre increase the value increase the value to the tenant increase the demand of the site and meet exactly what the the folks in Jackson are looking for which is a civilized environment so it's I'm just giving you
a different type of example that's far bigger than this I think I have one question give F that you just yeah uh I have one question um the windows we see in the front there for the Second Story the mezzanine um where what's the height of those windows where are we talking about like at the top of that window what's that
height yeah I'm just curious as yeah just want to make sure it'll be about 8 ft above the mezzanine floor level okay but how how high is it in total of the building itself the front of the building the of was 44 um 22 that put that about 22 feet 22 feet the top all right so and our sign ordinance
for the street numbering is 25 ft what uh the height is a height height can exceed the it's about the same size as the windows little bit okay I I just want to picture this in my head
yeah a a decision that I think Mr wall is correct about that if you stick within the ordinance on signage then we don't have to create variances so find a way to make it fit that's fine just we're good either way just clarify are we talking about the amount of signs or the square the the the square footage of the signs total we agree we have no issue the height we agree no issue I just I'm not sure the
board however you guys end up voting just if you can clarify if you want the numbers above the units or a name if it's a name we just need the an increase from the one sign that's all I'm asking to clarify thank you let me tell you about what my concern would be you're going to have to constantly as as the years go by change the signs because there will be different uh owners or renters or
however you're developing this site if you have numbers that never changes if you have signage who's in that particular location then it's constantly changing so you're going to have different colors different shapes different sizes different fonts different you know it will be a constant uh problem for the uh owner of the building to deal with that where if you have numbers there's no problem
we're good either way just I just ask whoever the board votes just enumerates that so there's no question for the resolution that's all no question you won't need a variance if you stick to the size stick to the size okay that's our testimony oh and one other thing I just want to add should the board vote in favor of the application I know uh uh Madam chairperson and the board had discussed
last meeting uh talking about once the site gets starts to get developed about adding a signage uh to tell the public block lot uh there was a bunch of list of items that you had listed and this applicant even though it's not a a on your checklist or an ordinance yet this applicant would agree should the board vote in favor we will agree to those conditions as well be we ask that that'll be part of the resolution the the board is looking for a coming soon sign that would be um with a color
rendering of what's being built on that site from the time the land is cleared until the COO once the CEO is um given then the sign goes away quickly uh but this is to help the public so that the public knows what's going on on that property and I think it's good for the public and it's good for the developer to show what is being built on a site so
this is a new thing we're we're looking for and and and you're our first uh our first uh uh applicant and this this will give the public an idea of what's coming so something like this on right with the block would be there address with the lot block number the address so that if somebody wants to call Town Hall they know what it is yeah with that that it will be something that lets the public know what's going to be on that property I suggest that we put tree
replacement numbers and here's the reason we get constant concern from residents about how much is being taken down but we also know on this board how much you're planting so if you say we're going to plant 150 trees on this property we're going to plant uh 125 bushes on this property that they that the public knows that there is a
tree replacement that's taking place so it's not going to be just totally no trees they will they will understand that we we have no objection to the installation of the sign and putting that as a condition of the approval great um I just asked Mr Shad do we need any language for sign any variant or I'll just be within setbacks it's temporary in nature temporary a temporary sign and I and I have cleared this with Mr propor he he agrees that he we have no
objection whatsoever great Qui question we want to consider yes it's 4 by eight one's orange one green purple this is this is just a temporary while the building is being constructed with a um color rendering oh the permanent signs permanent signs when the AR when the
architect decides upon the coloration then that's their that's up to them okay okay good good yes ma'am is there any type of uh signage at the roadway to identify what's going to be in the building or is it just going to be the number on the building um that's going to be on the monument sign there's one pylon sign pardon there's one pylon sign okay and that'll comply with the with the sign ordinance I thank
you anything else any other questions for this gentleman the architect I have one question that AC from saf stand uh yes uh everything is going to comply with code so one means of egresses um
required based on the occupant and the exit travel distance and the fire department approved or they did yes yes yes and they are fire proof um divisions correct separation assembly separations are fire mam V sure yes um real quickly you had indicated that um there's a second
floor storage area storage unit yeah so if you go back one slide for one of the units yeah it's for one of the units it's this one right here so there's one unit that is um dedicated for storage and that'll be used for the unit below and essenti what that was why we did that was because we needed to comply with the barrier-free requirements I need um an equivalent
office space on the lower level so which is why if if you go back to the other the one exhibit before page one you'll see that that same unit has office space on the first floor um but yeah that's that area that storage is included in the office space for um for the parking calculation yeah all included for the gr Flor area includes that yes yes yeah thank you thank you any anything else from our
um our planner or our engineer any other questions or comments you'd like to make at this time just a comment on the overall project I think the applicant heard the um um the board their comments to reverse the uh the building which I think is good the variance relief um as an accommodation or kind of working with the board but I'm still struggling a little bit um kind of where where Mr Tremor was was going that you heard the um comments of the board flipped the um flip the building everything's but there
was no adjustment to the square footage and it seems the applicants coming in will give you a choice of Varian there of waivers either it's impervious or is parking well if you lose 400 square feet 400 square feet of of the office everything goes away so I'm just leaning towards that you know maybe there's just a little bit too much here and maybe they're asking a little bit more of the board for as far as variants or design waver relief that is warranted that's all thank you Mr Peters nothing M
so if if you took that shape that is not uh a uh rectangle and you made it a rectangle all your problems would go away so respectfully to to to to Mr C if we took off some office which is again mostly mezzanine it's the same
footprint your footprint is not changing the mezzanine is upstairs so we could shave off a couple square foot of office space and again it's a question if it's one or two two parking spaces that are that are needed um we could also break out if we wanted to go through and I could bring Mr poro back up which I'm not looking to do and start talking about breaking out each of the the sections of the building including the staircases um and whatnot and and how we calculated all the parking but and I
could make the argument that we don't need any parking variances as it is but we're not looking to niick um we think that this is a fair project uh we did come in we did listen to the board's requests we did rotate the building um the indication from the board before we we left was what would you like and we were it was indicated it was okay with seeing some variances and I'll be honest with you I thought this the variances that we're asking are really not when we're talking about 79 F feet um where
100 feet requireed 100 feet if if you walked it out it's a large distance we're not trying to squeeze in something that's not but we're now talking about you know hey just chop over a section of the building I mean internally I could lose a couple square feet of an office and that parking goes away as well um and but the building from the outside is going to look exactly the same you have a triangular Bay why couldn't you just take 10 ft off that and just flatten that corner that would have given you the percentage instead of going after
the office space now we did make it clear last meeting make it a little bit smaller overall we lost square footage what'd you lose 10 ft we lost in the office space okay but that's inside you chose to lose inside you can make more office space you have massive warehouse space especially that one that's triangular I mean you you're being very persistent we're not changing well guess what I I think you're wrong I think you should be able to take 58 10 ft off that
one corner right there and that would fix everything you wouldn't be asking for all this stuff I mean it seems to be a constant pattern here so I mean this is my rant but any other thoughts how about are we confirming let them I guess we're having a conference uh by the way I think I think
the building will look very nice it it has it has some interest it has some roadside interest it's not just boring and it's facing the right yeah and and that was what our main issue was and that was addressed Mr Feer uh the applicants indicated they
remov 300 Square F feet of office from the application we don't need the parking variant and we don't need the the um impervious coverage variants this is what the engineer had recommended all right so what what is being suggested is that they that in order not
to have any variances no not yet I not not yet so the variances that we' be seeking which are still as we indicated the two front yard setback variances correct um which are listed in in the report the minimum front yard set back the Patterson Road of 72.1 15 ft where
100 FTS required and the 79.3 2 feet to West commodor Boulevard where 100 ft's required the 10 foot uh parking variant for within the RightWay um we are not seeking the park we are no longer seeking the parking variants we're no longer seeking the impervious uh coverage so those are the only variances the signs we took care of so we're just down to really the front yard setbacks which again we are a
corner property um the board ask us to rotate it we've complied um so those are the three variances that we would require okay all right uh anything from our professionals before we have Mr feffer wrap up yeah all right all right and uh uh I
don't know should we have an open to the public who's not here I don't know we have we have to do it procedurally yeah so uh I motion to open to the public for cross examination of these Witnesses on this application Solomon second seeing no one come forward I move to close the cross examination of the public solivan second we'll take another
one for uh comments from the public I move to open uh this uh to the public for comments on this project and this project only Solomon second seeing no one come forward I move to close the public uh portion of the comments for this application Solon second thank you all right that's procedurally done wrap wrap it up just real quick to sum it up um I I I the
applicant has heard the board this applicant has come before uh the board's uh in town and does build a nice product um the the reduction of the footprint of the building would not change your front yard setbacks the two set the two main variances that we have are due to again we're a corner property um and and the parking within the RightWay again it's only for a small Corner section that the park a few parking spots are within um the
applicants agreed to reduce uh the size of the office space so that there's no other variances needed other than the front yard setback and the parking within the RightWay and with that uh we would agree um just I think there were just two conditions Mr Shay um one was that there would be no renting of the office space to a separate tenant there would be ancillary to the warehouse the the correlating warehouse use uh and that the signage for the the new request to um to notify the public as to what is
coming here I don't think there were any other stipulations if there were if if I I'll clude them into the resolution and you would you will get uh the new revised plans for the office space to our professionals yes of course in a timely manner thank you always and with that I would just ask that the board board vote uh in favor of the application it's a it's a nice rateable in the area that's permitted um it's contiguous to other
warehouses all right we'll seek a motion please um I'd like to make a motion to approve this application with the setback and a RightWay variance second Bernstein roll call vote Please Mr Bernstein yes Mr marzo yes Mr Rogers yes Mr trer I'd be hypocrite if I voted yes with all my complaints on this thing so
I am a no I believe that the building should have been made just slightly smaller that three or 4% so I am in no Miss Rose yes Mr Walt yes Mr Sullivan yes Dr Campbell yes thank you congratulations thank you I'll entertain a motion to uh motion to close second Bernstein all in favor I I
thank you