I said the microphones mine's not on. We're going to call this meeting to order. Please stand for the pledge of >> allegiance. I aliance 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. This is a regular meeting of the Jackson Township Board of Adjustment. Notice that this meeting was duly posted on the bulletin board of the municipal clerk's office and advertised in the official newspaper of the township of Jackson on or before January 1st, 2025 as required by the Open Public Meetings Act.
>> Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Roll call, please. Mr. Heyman >> here. >> Miss Rosal >> here. >> Mr. Tremor >> here. >> Miss Cusano >> here. >> Mr. Seleia >> here. >> Dr. Hoffstein >> here. >> Miss Bradley
>> here. We do not have any resolutions this meeting uh this evening. I do have meet um minutes that we need a motion and second from the meeting on the 5th of November. If I could have a motion and a
second to approve the minutes, please. >> Motion to approve. Second. >> We have a motion in a second. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Miss Cusano, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia, >> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, >> yes. >> Miss Bradley,
>> yes. >> Mr. Lo, do we have any announcements this evening from your side? >> No announcements from us. >> All right. The only announcement we have, Mr. Martins is not here this evening as he had to be recused from this application. Um, and now we can swear on our professionals.
>> Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give before this board is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> You want to introduce yourself for the record? >> Matthew Wilder, filling in for Mark Roier, board engineer. >> Ernie Peters, board planner. Okay.
Due to a family emergency, we are without the zoning officer this evening. All right. I do not believe we have any matters for discussion or any administrative approvals. Before we get started, if everybody could just double check your microphones, let me remind the public the acoustics in here stink.
So, if at any time you are speaking, speak, please speak clearly into the microphone and we will try to remember to do the same thing. Uh, so we're going to move forward. Uh applicant A Partners LLC preliminary and final site plan 918
with use variance 3497. Uh the applicant themsel has completed their um application. So we're going to call up the objector, Mr. Paul Rivere. Before you get started, Mr. Revier, forgive me. Leave it to me. Kathleen, we
do have one voucher this evening. I apologize. We do have one voucher this evening for the recording secretary. I am going to need a motion and a second to pay the $175 voucher. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal,
>> yes. >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Miss Cusano, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia, >> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, >> yes. >> Miss Bradley, >> yes. I apologize. Mr. River, please come forward. Okay, we're we're up in age and uh I'm sorry.
>> I said we're up in age and we're going to be here for about an hour. Can we sit down at the table? >> If there's a microphone then that's fine. Yeah, if you're more comfortable that microphone. Thank you. >> You're welcome.
And Mr. Mr. River, you're going to be testifying. And who do you have with you? You just need >> Are you going to be testifying? >> Okay. So, just Mr. River, could you just raise your Can you hear me now? I just need to get
closer. Okay. I'm uh Leu. Robin Leu. Okay, you just raise your right hand. >> Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give before this board is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Just please state your name and address for the record. >> My name is Paul. Last name is River.
>> I live on West Commodore Road Boulevard in Jackson, New Jersey. >> Thank you. [snorts] >> Are you are you going to be saying anything, Mr. Maybe >> maybe. Okay. So, just if you just raise your right hand, >> do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give before
this board is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Just please state your name for the >> Bonnie River. >> Okay. Thank you. >> 1009 West Commodore Boulevard, Jackson, New Jersey. >> Thank you. >> Okay. There was uh one issue I want to
before we get started, I wanted to address. >> Just remember to hold the microphone. Okay, I will. I will. Um I might forget from time to time, but uh the the issue is last time we were here uh we were given the opportunity to make our
objector presentation and we were concerned that many of the people on the planning board would not be here if there would be a next meeting. If you let me finish, please. All right. And um and it did happen. I'm
glad we did not do our objector presentation because most of the people up here would have not heard it. All right. So, I still have the same concern. Now, is Mr. Pap going to commit
to calling for a vote? Because I don't want him to say, "Okay, I'm I'm going to make my presentation, but we can't have a vote tonight." >> Okay. So, let me let me just clarify something for the record. Um, you indicated the planning board. This is the zoning board of adjustment.
>> I'm sorry, zoning board. >> That's okay. I'm just clarifying for the record. Um, number two, it's not up to Mr. P to call for a vote. You're he's already presented his application. You're here as the objector. You have every right to present your case and then if there's public session, we will
be opening it once you're complete and then the board will discuss and take the matter into consideration. >> All right. So, just to make it clear, I'm making my objective presentation and then Mr. Pap is going to do his concluding presentation before the
board. And I'm concerned that there'll be a call for a vote. The last time he would not commit to calling for a vote and that's why I we decided to choose another day. I'm not sure I'm f No, he wasn't going to call
for a vote that evening because we were short. We have a full board of seven this evening. So again, you will present your uh objector testimony. We will open it to the public. Mr. P will make his closing statement and then it'll be up to the board for discussion.
>> Well, there were five people at the last meeting. >> That's not a full board. There's a full board of seven. And as an applicant, Miss Leoo can tell you as an applicant as an applicant's attorney, they have the right >> All right. Well, I I just don't want to uh because the board has substantially changed since the last meeting.
>> It just meant for for a Dvariance, he needs to have a vote of at least five members of the governing body. So when we when we're short, we leave it up to the applicant to say he would like to have a full board in order to have that sentence. And we have a full board, so we'll be able to proceed to a vote. >> Okay. I'll start my objector
presentation. Um I'm sorry, sir. What was your name? >> What? Pat. No, no. I'm saying the the person operating the the screen. >> Anthony. >> Anthony. >> Yes. >> Anthony, can you put up the PowerPoint >> that I sent you?
>> Okay. Now, uh this is my presentation. uh uh and I have some other items we'll look at but this is basically my objectctor presentation. Uh this is the type of equipment that you see in an excavation company. Next
slide please. Now, for about a year, the applicant was illegally using the lot next to me uh as a construction yard. I had to send the uh uh
uh code enforcement out there to get them to remove it. Next slide. Next slide, please. [snorts] as I guess he went. Okay. Okay. Now, here's a picture of
the dump trucks dumping uh Phil even though they had those uh uh excavation machines there. Next slide, please.
Now, I want to show you the aerial view. Over here is all kinds of that R3 is is is wrong. But over here there's Oh, thank you. You know I You had a better one,
huh? Okay. Over here are all beautiful R2 homes. Okay. And uh and there is this is the home that is basically across the street. Now all this is wetlands and
also across the street is all wetlands. Okay, they can't be touched. Next next I uh next. All right, you know industrial tandem trucks repairing tandem trucks
and excavation equipment is an industrial use. The office space is almost ancillary to the construction yard. Next, next slide, please. Hold on. I got to start looking at my
notes now. We're going to make a strong case that the applicant is not entitled to a uh class D variance. Uh the industrial repair garage cannot meet the class D variance requirements.
The industrial use excavation yard is not uh 4,000 square foot industrial repair garage is not ancillary to a garage to an office that was intended by the zoning regulations.
Next slide, please. This site is a major change in use that is not compatible with the beautiful homes all around it. That's the site plan is against the
Jackson Township master plan. The industrial use will harm the surrounding area and it will promote an undesirable visual environment. This industrial excavation yard is of no
benefit to the local residents and will only be a perpetual problem. Next, please. We'll talk about the uh the negative problems that will dis will uh will uh
show you that a class D can't be can't be uh approved. That's uh uh that we had quite a few people uh come here over the year and um they all testified to this. They get
worn out with so many meetings, but they we we have PE we I don't know we had about 10 people testifying. There's uh going those big tandem trucks. They create noise levels. The daily operation of
heavy machinery, trucks, maintenance activities can generate tremendous noise. Vibrations. big heavy trucks can actually shake the the ground. Diesel fuel being sp, you know,
uh uh burnt into the air by emissions. And then we'll I'll show you the traffic safety concerns, the the aesthetic value. If you care about Jackson and you're driving down 571 and you're you're new and the first
thing you're going to see is an industrial yard, it's meant to be a highway commercial with a nice uh retail office. It's going to have a negative property impact on all of the houses around it.
Now once you put industrial on an area it spreads like cancer. The next property wants industrial and the next property wants industrial. the the the I will show you that the applicant cannot demonstrate that
uh variance promotes the general welfare as required by the New Jersey land use law. Specifically, the applicant has failed to show that the variance would advance any purpose of zoning, such as providing
adequate light, air, open space, or promoting a desirable uh environment. And I'm going to show you that the applicant cannot prove that there's no negative criteria
as a result of this negative impact as a result of this uh variance. Now here. Go ahead. Uh, next, please. I'm sorry. I'll just say next. Okay. Next. Okay. Next.
Now, this is what should be done. It's a example of how you deny a Dvariance. You got to show that number one the positive uh impact there is no positive impact that would overwway uh the uh uh any
reason not to to overweigh any reason to grant us uh C glass D variance. The law says that it just can't be a little thing. It has to be an enhanced uh positive impact. has to be
substantial in order to grant a class D variance. So, I'm hoping one of you will be will be able to read this into the in or make a motion for this. Okay. Now, the application it should never have been deemed
complete. The first uh the first problem was the application does not have a statement of operations. Okay. A statement of operation is a detailed plan provides employee
information, traffic and trucking activity, potential off-site impacts, site maintenance and waste disposal, compliance with regulations, and a listing of all the permits required having jurisdiction and an environmental
impact. This is required by your town. If you look at the statement of operations, it's three or four lines. That's it. It's not complete and it hasn't been
professionally prepared. Okay. Uh go ahead. I'm sorry. I'm going faster than you. Now, this is uh the kind of thing that would be good for a highway commercial and that would serve the people in the area. An excavation
repair yard is not going to serve anybody in Jackson Township. So you you uh uh be about maybe 18 years ago a retail site was approved and that
had you know coffee shops and uh bank and thing like that but it never broke around. Uh it was abandoned and it was abandoned because I think the uh previous owner had some other problems. Now [sighs]
in order to now this this property is in what is called a uh conservation preservation uh what is it called? Conservation hold on conservation uh
preservation overlay zone. Uh hold on. I'm having a senior moment on exactly what it's called. Hold on. Hold on. I'll be right there. Okay. It's called a conservation zone overlay.
The purpose of this, they put this in place on in parts of Jackson because they knew that the property in that area needed special protection. Okay. It's ordinance. Uh, go ahead. Next
slide, please. And uh can we go to the next slide, please? Okay. Now, this ordinance specifically says that any property in a conservation
zone overlay has special requirements, okay, that other areas of the town do not have. The most important part is that uh well the one that applies here is a
C1A. It says, "All applications for major site plan or major subdivision approval shall be required to submit a New Jersey DP letter of interpretation or permit
which identifies all fresh land wetlands buffer transition areas on the property or properties included in the application before the application can be deemed complete. This is law. Now
this uh Mr. Peters also has this in his planning report. Yeah. As of today, the applicant has not submitted any
uh applications to New Jersey D. None. I checked last week and uh none. Zero. Now it's been a year and a half and they know they need it and they know they they they should have had it but
they haven't even gone to to uh to to make an application. That kind of flies in the face of what is required here in Jackson. Now, at first the the applicant
basically relied on a a conservation e easement squiggly on the on the map and that was relied on by all his experts, especially the planner.
But I have a letter here which I can I have a copy. Everybody can get a copy. It's an email. If anybody wants a copy of this email, I'll be glad to give it to you. But it was when I first investigated whether some if there was even an application
and they and and uh and the first email was July 10th, 2024. And basically I can give you this email and you can read it for yourself. They checked into the uh application
permit status of blocks 2901 slots 79 and 10. They said there was none. There were no applications. They said that there was an application back in 2006. And I'm just paraphrasing. You guys can
take a copy of the uh of of the uh uh email yourself. and they said it's it's all expired. It's null null and void. And specifically, they say that uh I'll I'll read you one sentence. I don't
Additionally, there were several wetlands permits and hazard area permits that applied for in 2010 were improved in association with the construction of a retail center, not a an industrial repair area.
and a deed restriction for a conservation easement was to be placed on site as addition of this condition of this permit. However, it appears the project never took place and therefore the deed restriction was not filed.
So that means they're presenting to you a conservation easement that that has not been recognized by the New Jersey D. And I want to tell you, I've had properties and I've provided a conservation easement on my own privately.
It doesn't mean it it's it's good, you know, uh for the property, but it doesn't mean anything when it comes to New Jersey D. So, what we've been talking about here is an imaginary conservation easement
line. Now, in the many uh uh hearings that I've attended, I tried to pin the applicant down. Hey, did you submit an LOI or not? I asked the engineer point blank, did you submit an LOI? And he
basically said yes. And I was I was blocked from following it up. They said, oh, you're not supposed to ask those questions. I was blocked. So, so his testimony
was not factually correct and it was misleading. As I said, I checked with LA last week if is there any applications done and it's the zero and the question is zero none. So, I don't understand. I think
that's a question maybe you can ask the the applicant and get a straight answer. Okay. So, they've they've they uh the township either by mistake or or whatever uh illegally deemed this application
complete. It does not meet the law. I think the the I had the first engineer, I don't remember his name, Evan, take me out to the parking lot and say, "Oh, everything's fine." You know, and and it turned out it was a total farce.
Okay. Now, where are we now? Next one, please. Next. All right. That's that's the uh I think the law that we just discussed. Now the notice that the applicant provided all the uh uh neighbors was
defective. Okay. He provided the first one. It's it's by law that when you notice your neighbors, you got to state that it's a conservation zone overlay. You got to you got to put that right in the notice
so people can understand what what's going on. So the first notice was defective and the second notice that we just received also did not uh uh state that
this application is in a conservation uh zone overlay. Next. Next, please. Now we're talking about the testimony. The testimony was that there was only going to be one truck a day coming into
this property. One truck. It w as there was no statement of operations. Uh this was the testimony. This is what the uh uh traffic engineer based his traffic report on.
Later on, I got the traffic engineer to all of a sudden he raised it to two to three trucks, but we really don't know how many trucks because there's no statement of operation. Now this th this uh site if it changes
hands can turn into all kinds of industrial things and I I it's it's in your purview to look at the future complications. Next sign. Okay. Next uh please The the uh traffic report did not
consider any uh repair parts any other sort support delivery trucks. What type of did not did the traffic report did not cons did not list the type of equipment that would be going in
there. It was a total blank. All we got was a verbal, oh, it's going to be one tandem truck uh a day. So, that's another problem with the statement of uh operations. So, this this is discussed, but it the
traffic report wasn't valid on on uh was not based on valid information. Okay. Now, the traffic report does not show how the 90° turning path for a 60 ft tractor trailer towing a track and e
excavator or tandem truck uh can happen. Route 571 is 32 feet wide and with the opposite of that of the site is total wetlands. You're not going to get a permit to widen the road there.
All right. Uh so it's a very narrow and it's a very heavily traveled uh road. Ne Okay. Now as this is a shot of the applicant's driveway
and you can see there's a guard rail all along here and across the street is wetlands. You know, this whole place should have been zoned something else from highway commercial because it's 95% wetlands. All right. Uh now, uh Tony, can you uh
go into the uh the video? Okay, you can see the uh the excavation equipment was there. They're bringing in or bringing out some excavation equipment. This is a front loader. And you can see he almost has to touch the rail to get out of that property.
Okay. I want to also at this time say that they've been talking about to the planning county planning board about the traffic, you know, situation. And I don't know how they can see that cuz when I checked their their application for the county planning
board has been deemed incomplete and they will not talk to the applicant until he presummits LOI and all the NJ D uh requirements. So all this uh positivity about talking
to the planning board all I saw and the who I talked to said no this is incomplete we don't even talk to them till they can they make it complete. So uh one more time see one more time sir so we can show the uh everybody what
it looks like and he's making a right turn and he's also starting out as a 45 degree not a 90. Okay a 45 degree. Now this road is full of school buses.
Uh it's back it's it's bumper to bumper uh in I'm sorry commuter traffic in the morning and the evening it's backed up all the way up to that telephone pole sometimes
and uh so it's a it's a hazard and the now some the planning board can say oh uh that's not our our purview it's county but you can't the zoning board has to consider
all the negative effects here and potential uh uh traffic offsite. Thank you, Tony. All right. Go ahead, Tony. Okay, next one.
Okay, next one. We just saw this is from my traffic engineer who couldn't be here gave me this information on on it's basically almost impossible for these these big rigs with their tandem trucks to not use
both lanes of that road. Next slide, please. And here it is once again. The radius is is almost bigger than the road. Next slide please. Okay, next slide.
Now I'm once again the traffic engineer did not have a list of the equipment that would be going in and out of that of that uh site because there's no statement of operations. It's three three sentences.
The traffic report did not talk about how long it takes for them to get on the road. And that that turn was on a a right turn and he started at 45°. Uh next slide, please. Now the the total trips the in the
traffic report is is contrary to my what my traffic engineer has told me. He's it also did not give a forecast on growth a 10-year for forecast. You're supposed to say, "Okay, this is what it looks like
today, but 10 years from now, this is what the traffic will be." It'll be a lot more. Okay, thank you. Next slide. Now, there was no
basis or data that would show that it would only be one truck a day. None. Because we don't have a statement of operations. We had uh a potential uh
renter uh say that they think it's going to be one truck a day. Next slide, please. Now, the problem is also is if you make this an industrial site, it gets sold.
The next guy could be really bad news. Next slide. All right. Now the site does not have any environmental impact study which requires a uh when adjacent to the conservation
uh overlay zone um and the wetlands and you know they really didn't provide I which I object they a lot of these uh applicants do they don't they don't provide an aerial so they just provide a
a really closeup of the site and they don't show show you all the houses around it. And I I and I I showed you what I what I took from Google aerial and you'll saw there's I don't know 20 30 homes. So, uh
we don't know. Okay. There are Okay. Next, please. I want to talk about the planner. Okay. Uh the planner uh based her all her testimony on a
contrived conservation easement line on the on the on the map which is not approved. We have no clue what the LOI will look like because this is a different use. We have no clue how
much of a buffer it is. None. There was some data from 15, 20 years ago, but everything has changed. All the standards have changed. So, how can you say there's two, you know, 2.7
uh acres of buildable property when you don't even know where the buffers end, start or end? You don't even know that. Also, the EIS could could also restrict the buildable area and the in the fact
that there's going to be uh diesel fuel emissions that might affect the uh the wildlife. But we don't know because basically uh nothing has been done in this regard and it's we're like what a year and a
half into the application. Uh, next, this is going to be a 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 pm industrial construction yard. And you've got 30 or 30 or 40 homes on both sides of the road that are going to have
to live with that. We don't even know what the construction equipment's going to be there. this this once you uh uh you know open this box, you don't know what's going to happen to that site that they might want to share the site with another
contractor. And I want to say no amount of conditioning, no amount of conditions is going to wipe away anything here. It's not going to You can't Oh, well you all the negatives. We can We can wipe the negatives away with
conditions. You can't do that. You can't uh the noise and the the uh the air the air pollution. We already saw that the uh the applicant
or whoever was parking con construction and excavation equipment there for a year illegally. If I hadn't wrote a letter, it would still be there. Okay. The testimony upon the traffic
engineer and planner and planner constitute a net opinion and should be given no weight. They have failed to provide why and wherefore for their key conclusions. For example, the traffic engineer
provides no factual basis for assuming only one truck a day, no analysis of the radius of the 60-foot trailers, and no list of equipment types. The planners claim that there are no
adverse effects is an unsupported conclusion that ignores documented impacts on neighbors property values and environment. Without factual and reliable methodology, their opinions are mere speculation and do not meet the
legal standard for competent evidence. The applicant's planner must show that the proposed use is particularly suited to the subject property. And we don't how can they do that when we don't even
know where the wetlands are. How can we do that? The planer does not indicate how these characteristics make the outdoor contractor storage particularly suited for this specifics of this property.
Such a proof of a particular suitability required by the MDC decision which applies to private uses that are not permitted in the zone. The planner admits that the truck storage and maintenance use is a second principle
that is not permitted in the zone. The applicant has a burden of proof. Failure to satisfy that burden warrants the application be denied. Next, please. These are some of the runoffs of uh of
my calculation. I'm not an expert, but I want to tell you that the planner said, "Oh, there'll be no toxic air." I I don't think the planner has ever been to a garage with a 50 foot 50 gallon [laughter]
uh barrel of oil. All right? Or what they do. He says that every repair is going to be inside the garage. Now, you can't condition that because I'm not going to be there every day saying, "Hey, you got to get that truck, you
know, into the garage." And you're not going to condition that away. Also, she didn't uh she she said there'd be no uh you know, these these diesel trucks, they put out a hell of a fume. And if
you're a neighbor, do you want us do you want to be uh uh breathing that also when there is like oil on the ground because trucks do leak oil and there is a runoff it goes in it'll go into a
detention bond which goes into the M mati Kunk tributary and the wetlands but we don't have any information on that and then you don't have any information on that which is why you
must uh uh say no to this application because you don't have enough information and you and okay now the uh if you want to bifurgate it that means separate them approve the the variance but not the
preliminary fans you can't do that it's all intertwined Now, the na the planner stated that there was no neighbors. And luckily for me, [laughter] luckily for me, one of the neighbors was in the at the meeting. I think Mosha,
you probably remember that. And he goes, "I'm here. I'm here." And he goes, "I am a neighbor." So, her testimony in saying that there was no neighbors is was false and not and not uh factual.
My you're going to see there's been a a trend of of uh testimony that was not factual. Okay. Can we uh All right. Can you Next, please. Okay. Next. All right. I think I covered this. Next.
Okay. This is uh the copy of the statement of operations. It's a letter with two paragraphs. Now, how can you have that on a major industrial uh how can you have that on a major
industrial uh uh site plan? Is that what you're going to base your uh uh approval on Uh, next please. Now, what is this? Okay, we've had uh about 10 neighbors
come in over the year period. They all said that the noise and vibration would would reduce their their quality of life. They were they were concerned about diesel trucks uh emissions in their neighborhood or their
area. Uh they were concerned about traffic safety concerns and uh at frequent heavy trucks would lead to faster deterioration of local roads. They uh I just want to put in the record
that I'm not the only one saying this. There are other neighbors saying it. Next, please. All other negatives are the the aesthetic impact, which is going to be horrible. And uh the property values, they're all
uh we uh went to a uh a uh real estate person who's expert for 20 years. He couldn't be here uh personally. He gave us a letter. He goes, "Paul, if that thing goes in into you next to you, your property is worth half the value." And
this the guy across the street also was very concerned. >> Mr. I'm going to ask you, you can't relay to us to the board what other people have told you. Okay. So, if you could just stick to your own personal impression and impressions. >> Yeah. >> All right.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. I spoke with a uh uh a real estate expert and I was advised. >> All right. Well, you can't tell us what he advised you because he's not here. >> Okay. Well, anybody with a little common sense knows that if you have a
industrial uh use next to your property, any residential property, it's not it's going to hurt the value. And like I said before, zone industrial zoning will is creeping because the next guy next to him also will want a repair
garage or something like that. Next, please. And those are the uh the the negative. Next, please. All right. This is the letter I've received. >> Right. And we can't we can't consider that. >> Okay. Well, then don't consider it. >> We can just move on to the next slide.
>> Well, don't consider it. I I received this letter. I asked somebody come to my house and >> Right. But in order for the board to consider that this person would need to be here, >> be sworn and testify. Well, >> then I guess I'll ask the board to just use their common sense. All right. So, I'm getting to the
summary. I appreciate uh everybody's time and I appreciate your accommodation. Next up, please. Uh there was a uh uh for your benefit. This is for your benefit, Dr. Hoffstein. You were talking about how I I had to uh
I had to get a um a variance to build my home. Well, I just wanted to give you the background that there was a home there since 1940. And it was a it was a mobile home. I bought it and I tried to tear it down,
but Mr. McIll stopped me [laughter] and I had to go through the the whole process. It took me four years to get my NJD approvals. Okay. Four years and I got them.
So, uh, when the town reszones a whole area from, uh, residential to highway commercial, there should be some consideration to the people already living there, who have been living there for 40 years.
And uh I was very disappointed that when the township and the applicant were having these meetings that was making plans for my property, they didn't invite me. I know you have encouraged the applicant to talk with the
neighbors. I've seen that before and that's a very good practice. Can it can avoid a lot of problems but uh the applicant refused to do that. Uh uh next please. Okay, this is my summary.
First of all, the board authority to import impose conditions is not a cure all. The applicant might suggest that conditions may mitigate all problems.
The board's power to does have power to impose conditions. My argument is that the harms are so fundamental they cannot be conditioned away. While the board uh there are
they can they you cannot condition away the fundamental incompatibility of industrial and a residential commercial area. You cannot condition away the permanent devaluation of neighboring homes. You cannot condition away the inherent
environmental threat to wetlands when the applicant hasn't provided the basic NJD permits required by law. Some problems are so inherent that
the only responsible remedy is to deny the application. So my my uh my summary is that the jurisdictional defect the application was illegally deemed uh complete. It is the the
incomplete. It was there was no statement of uh operations and there was not even an application to New Jersey D. But they came in here and they told you how they did it. Oh, we got this
failure on positive criteria. There's no inherently beneficial use for a truck a truck repair place that's going to benefit Jackson, the the people of Jackson, its master plan,
the failure of negative criteria, substantial detrimental detriment proven via property values, traffic and environment homes. I showed you the problem with the m the truck leaving the site and that was at 45 degrees. The
applicant has not met their burden of proof. Denial is the only legally defensive defensible outcome. This is to uh remind you that Jackson Township Code which is uh Mr. uh
McGuffin uh wrote a letter to one applicant enforcing you can't be deemed complete unless you give us the uh because because you're in a uh conservation zone overlay. I have the letter. You can't be
deemed complete if you don't have what this law says. The applicant um has no LOI wetlands linear and has nothing. The board lacks jurisdiction to hear a substantial review. Hearing it now is a
legal error. The failure of the positive criteria. There was no positive criteria. I think the planner said to her, "We're not going to we're not going to uh develop. We're not going to uh uh develop the wetlands. The wetlands can't
be developed a under NJSA 40 55D70D. The applicant must prove special reasons by showing the use promotes the general welfare and serves the purposes of
zoning per NJSA 40 col 55D-2. There is no inherently beneficial use for a for a forprofit industrial yard. no essential public service and no and
deserves no leniency. The use directly undermines the the MUL core by damaging the environment. We have we have very sensitive that's why it's in a conservation zone overlay. It's we have a very sensitive land with
a tributary and they're they're telling us that uh a truck repair uh facility is good for that that is a good place to put it. It's going to have an undesirable visual environment on your town and especially
my area and it's destroying the character of a normal highway commercial and adjacent R2 residential neighborhood. If there's any hardship, it's a self-created hardship. Ave partners
bought this knowing it was highway commercial, knowing that there was very limited uh property to build on the uh that I I demonstrated that a 60oot tractor trailer cannot access a 32
ft road uh and that which and if it does it creates a severe public safety hazard. There's noise, drones, pollution, and environmental harm. There was also, as I showed you, there
was defective public notice. Each one of these public notices in a high in a uh conservation zone overlay requires that it state that it's is the the the site is in a conservation zone
overlay. And the uh statement of operation is just a few vague sentences. I would ask you to carefully review Mr. Peter's letter. He upfront
told you there was no LOI. He upfront told you to that it was required by the law to be deemed complete and it was ignored. Apparently, Mr. Evan uh had a higher uh uh uh influence on
this board. >> Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt you and be rude, but for the record, the board does not deem it complete. Township officials deem it complete. I just want to make sure that's clear for the record. >> Okay. I [laughter]
Okay. Uh well, he didn't serve you right because he said in his technical evaluation that there was no LOI, but we could use a a defunct uh conservation easement. And
then uh about halfway through the year, he told you he was wrong. He said, "Oh, I I made a mistake. Uh you know, this all these permits are are are expired." And that's in the record, too. So, with that, uh, I don't, you know, I'm a
little, you know, I I'm a little upset. I don't I don't mean to to come across as an old grouchy guy, but I'm living next to here and I had to hear this testimony. I saw them dumping, uh, filter dirt on the thing and parking the excavation trucks,
you know. So, uh, and I had to hear this testimony and it was very frustrating and I I didn't have a really chance to speak until today. I I just want to let you all know it's very it's very uh
stressful and I got intimidating two intimidating tea uh emails disrespectful and intimidating emails from the last uh zoning board attorney and I here I am trying to present my case and I'm getting I'm getting almost
threatening emails from him. All right. So, uh, with that, uh, if if can I ask if there's any questions? >> We'll open it up to the board members and also the professionals for any comments. >> I'm sorry. What she said? >> Oh, do you want the emails saying
there's nothing? No, no, not >> I'm sorry. No, thank you. >> All right. Well, uh, so are there any questions? We'll open that up, sir. Oh, what' you say? >> Okay. All right. Well, thank you for
your time and attention >> and >> thank you >> and I sincerely hope you uh uh listen to everything I'm saying. This this uh applicant does not deserve a yes. Thank you.
>> Thank you. chair. Sure. Um, so I think most of the comments raised had been previously questioned and answered by the applicant professionals. Um, as it relates to wetlands, they did agree as a condition of approval they would provide a valid
LOI. They did at some point amend the application to be both a use variance and preliminary approval rather than use variance preliminary and final. As it relates to traffic, there's been multiple at length conversations how the driveways under the jurisdiction of the
Ocean County Planning Board. As it relates to noise, they did speak at the I believe the prior hearing that they would meet all standards with respect to noise levels at the residential property lines and they're regulated by the time. Um, I'm sure Mr. Pap in his in his
closing will comment on many of these. Um, but like I said, I think many of these issues were previously raised and addressed, so I have nothing further at this time. >> Mr. Peters, >> Mr. Wilder covered most of it. I have no comments or questions regarding Mr.
River's testimony this evening. >> Board members, questions, comments? Okay, seeing that we have no questions here first, uh the board members would like to wait until we hear from the public. So, anybody wishing to come forward at this time, please do so. I just want to remind you as you can hear the acoustics
in your terrible. So, just speak clearly into the microphone for me. Thank you. >> Motion. >> Good evening. >> A motion to open to the public. >> Well, I think Sorry. >> Go ahead. >> This is on you.
>> Please raise your hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give before this board is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I affirm. >> Just please state your name and address for the record. name is Pit Pal's P A LS Solomon Court Jackson. >> Thank you.
>> I'm testifying here this evening uh neither in support of nor opposition to this application. I absolutely believe that every property owner has the right to develop or use their property as long as it complies with applicable ordinances and um and every applicant
has every right to submit an application that complies with any pertinent ordinances also. So, I think I'm late to the story because everybody else says I don't need to ask questions of the of the professionals, but were there any waiverss requested with this
application? >> Mr. Peters, out of an abundance of caution, I think the applicant should answer the question. If you want me to do it, I'm happy to, but it sounds like I'm testifying for the applicant. >> Yes, it is. Mr. P. >> Mr. Would you like to respond to that? I
would agree with you, Mr. Peters. >> Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. Kenneth Pap of the Firm Hour. >> Kenneth Pap of the Firm Halman paper on behalf of the applicant. There was no waiver relief that was requested of the board. There was limited variance relief
that was requested and that variance relief was most of it was was withdrawn. The there's a uh when we do our summation I'll point out that there's some sign variance relief that continues. The applicant is requested. >> Thank you very much. So no waivers have
been requested. >> There are no submission waiverss that were requested. >> Submit. Thank you very much. Um so from 244-6 we have some definitions. Certificate of completeness which is a certificate issued by the board after all required submissions have been made
in proper form certifying that an application for de development is complete. Then 2446 definitions complete application an application for development which complies in all respects with the appropriate submission requirements set forth in this chapter.
So the planning board uh when these guys submit something it goes to our engineers they review it to see if everything's kosher or good and then they if there's problems they back and forth until they arrive at a complete application. So, I reviewed this application and I looked and I looked
and I looked and there's no plat which shows all structures within 200 ft of the proposed development and that is 244-30.B12 B12 which reads plat requirements all
existing all all existing structures on the site and within 200 feet thereof including their use indicating those to be destroyed or removed and those to remain. So that is missing and by my understanding if something is missing
it's not a complete application. So I also looked there are two reports from Remington and Varic. One is 61124 and one is 82624. Now since the applicant did not include that information, I would expect to see that the township would pick up on that
and tell them, hey, 244-30.B12 requires this. Well, those reports that I referenced by Mr. Peters make no mention of this whatsoever. >> Madam Chair, if I might, >> I serve the board as the planner. I don't do the completeness reviews for the board. That's the reason the
information isn't in there. It doesn't get reviewed twice >> by both professionals. It gets reviewed by one. >> Our office doesn't write a report until the board engineers report deems it complete and then our office does our planning review. So that's the reason, sir, you don't see the information, the RVE reports respectfully.
>> Understood. Okay. So then what I would surmise at this point is since it never ended up in the applicant's package, someone didn't tell them about it. It doesn't matter if it's Mr. Peters it I also looked there was another uh report from G it said G something uh you know
another firm it wasn't in there also so suffice to say this application is not complete because it is lacking the information required in 244-30 30B12 it's as simple as that so you live by
the ordinance and you die by the ordinance and I also looked in the file and I did not see a certificate of completeness and I was told once by the people in that office that oh we don't even do that it's required to be done so
at this juncture the incontrovertible fact is that this application does not include all the appropriate submission requirements set forth in the chapter and is therefore by definition not a complete application. Consequently as the application in its current state is incomplete the applicant has no standing
before the board. The applicant must be required to revise the application to a form which complies in all respects with the appropriate submission requirements set forth in this chapter before they can even appear for consideration. And I'd like to also now I was discussing
with my friends and they're like well some stuff might be minor small things whatever well if it's minor and small things it wouldn't be part of the ordinance because the ordinance says what needs to be there. Now, in my estimation, this requirement of having
all structures within 200 feet of the proposed project is the most important document that you can provide to citizens like myself because this way I can see exactly where my house is in relation to where the project is. And let's say there's a lighting issue, I
can say, "Oh, here's my house. Here's my pool. Oh, here's the proposed proposed development. And there's a light right there." there. So now I can get in front of the board and I can say, "Yo, right, without that document, you can't do this and you're that's a it's a severe
disservice to the public." And uh my one now you know where I'm going with this. My one last thing would be as I used to work for the state. I used to do stuff like this and it was a lot more technically complex than what we're talking about. So the requirement under 244-30.B5
B5. The names and addresses of this is what's required on the plot. The names and addresses of all owners and property lines of parcels within 200 feet of the land to be subdivided, including the properties across the street as shown on the most recent records of the township
of Jackson or the municipality uh where the uh the last sentence says and it will also include the list of property owners shall also indicate the use of parcels within 200 feet. Look at the cover page on that document you're holding and you'll see on the upper left
there's a list of lots and blocks people's names. However, it does not include the uh use of those parcels. So just by that little thing the it's incomplete. >> No no I I don't feel no go right on
ahead. >> So that's where we are. The applicant has submitted an incomplete application. the township has not corrected them >> and now I don't know if a certificate of completeness was issued because it couldn't be issued because it's not
complete and here we are waiting to be voting on this and it's an incomplete application which the board has no right to to vote on and I know I can't bring up other issue other times when this happened but it
happened to me three years ago and they they that prevented me from being able to look at the project and assess it in relation to the realities of my property. >> First of all, let me apologize for the crinkling paper while you were speaking.
>> I have the um preliminary and uh for the the map that they provided to us. There is a list of all the owners. Um as you stated, it does not state what the purpose what the what is done on those properties. >> Mr. Lu.
>> Yeah, it indicates the use of the The attorney is going to address that, >> right? I'm just looking at this right now. Um, >> oh, sorry. >> Yeah, I don't think that matters. I mean, I I do see where it says that in
the code. It says the names and addresses of all owners and property lines within 200 feet. I would say that at this time, regardless of whether or not there was strict compliance, there is a list of property owners on there, the properties are listed, the zone is listed, the the application was deemed
complete. And if the township the zoning board were to say at this time that it's not complete, I think we would end up in court with Mr. P very quickly because they've been going through a year of hearings and this is not a basis by which to deny the application. and it's been deemed complete. Whether or not
there was strict adherence to all of the requirements in the code is something that needs to be addressed in the review of applications going forward. Um, definitely. >> But by by definition, how can you say that it's complete? Where the definition of complete application is an application for development which
complies in all respects with the appropriate submission requirements set forth in it. >> I'm not saying that it's complete. I'm saying that the application was deemed complete more than a year ago. Okay. >> And to say now at this time that we're here and the application is done and all
of the hearings have been had to now say, "Well, it's not complete would be a problem." >> Okay. Fair enough. But so so then then then you really the whole process was a disservice to the residents because they did not include the required 200 foot.
>> Right. But all of those property owners had notice of the hearings. >> Sure. They're notice. It also says that you're going to provide a drawing that shows where these structures are. This is very sus this is very suspect because an argument could be made that this is occurring so you don't get comments from
the residents because most people or a lot of people cannot look at a two-dimensional piece of paper and make those determinations. They could look and stand there and say, "Here's my house. There's the building. Oh, now I can get an idea." >> Can I ask you a question, sir?
>> Sure. Of course. I'm a resident in this town. So, >> as you can well imagine, that's why I'm sitting on the board. >> If I received a notice >> indicating that my neighbor wanted to do A, B, or C, that in itself >> should say I need to be concerned or
informed. Wouldn't you agree? >> Of course. And since I'm concerned and I want to be informed, I would come here and say, "Oh, the ordinance in the township states that they have to include this information. So, I'm concerned. I'm interested, but I don't have the tool to make my determination
because they it hasn't been complied with the ordinance. And so, you think about the people that live and again, I am not here in support of nor in opposition to the current at [clears throat] all. My problem is with this procedural procedural things that
are going on here which I mean if you think about it from the way I'm explaining it that you it's a tool and the municipal land use law they want to have the public able to also engage in the whole process and by what's happening here the public has been
excluded from being able to do that in a meaningful review. >> I disagree. Uh the public did get noticed. the public. I mean, if your house is next door, you know how far away your house is from what's going to be happening on this lot. That require distance. I'm sorry, I'm speaking. That
requirement is for the board members to be informed on the application. And if they had questions about distance between the current use and adjacent structures, they would ask the applicant. >> So then would you would you agree then that perhaps this requirement 24430B12
is not even required? Why why is it in the ordinance if it's nothing that really has to be done? >> It's in the ordinance. It's required and from now on it's it's going I can attest to the fact that the professionals who are listening right now are going to make sure that that's something that is provided with each application. But what
I'm saying is that we can't now deny this application on the basis of something that was not given to them over a year ago. The application has been deemed complete and that information would have been good to have for the public and for the board, but for some reason it wasn't if it wasn't
supplied, it wasn't supplied. I haven't seen the complete application. I don't know that it wasn't in there. I don't know that it wasn't reviewed, but you're saying that it's not there. I will take you at your word. We can't now deny this application on that basis. >> Understood. But if you look at the drawings that you were just looking at,
you'll see that it doesn't exist. So, I'm prepared to come to every meeting when I look at the plans. If it's not in there, you're going to hear the same thing over and over because it is so important to the people to be able to make uh educated opinions and come to
conclusions. I mean, just because you know it's 30 feet away, there's there's orientations and it's a lot easier when you can see exactly where your house is. And again, I would say why is it in the ordinance? >> And you've said that. Thank you. >> I did. Thank you very much for your
time. [applause] >> Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth in this matter before the board? >> Uh, yes I do. >> Your name and address for the record? >> My name is Adam Heidi. I live at 70 Rabbina Court. And just for the record, uh, Adam Heidi, H A I Di, and I live at
70 Rabbina Court. And just for the record, I am on the Township Environmental Commission, but I'm just here as a concerned resident. Um I'm not too familiar with the um the project actually. Um but I just have a couple concerns. Um if the applicant is seeking
um a use variance but the site is within wetlands where an LOI would be required, how can the [music] board ethically >> wet? >> Yeah. So if if the site truly has if the site is within proximity of wetlands
where an LOI would be needed for the application, how would the board really know where and where anything can happen on this property, let alone sign variance? Just doesn't matter what variance it is. We don't quite know where we can do anything on the property
yet if there's no LOI um issued. Um, moving I also have just concerns if the applicant and anyone on the team um developed any part of the plan on this fictitious LOI that it's my
understanding that Paul said um there was no LOI, right? Is there an LOI from the D? >> I'm sorry. You're speaking to the board now. So address board and just comments not you're not here to question them. >> You can just state your comments. What's your name, Miss?
>> My name is Robin Leu. >> Leoo. I apologize, Miss Lu. >> It's okay. >> Um, yeah. So, if there is no LOI, um, >> the board shouldn't be granting any used variances. Um, I also I mean, if you look at the
PowerPoint, why are there so many construction vehicles at this site if nothing's been approved? >> I don't know if you heard. >> I could hear you. >> I don't know if you heard um at the beginning. Those are samples of large equipment. That's not what was on the site.
>> Okay. >> He showed a picture of a of a vehicle that was leaving, but those themselves were not what was on the site, but he did show pictures of other show. Right. >> I did I did see that. I did see that. But did he also testify that wetlands were being filled in?
>> Again, you can make comments. You're not questioning the board right now. So, we're not going to reiterate anyone's testimony. My >> apologies. Let me rephrase your comments. I I think Paul had testified that um he he witnessed wetlands being filled in, which is a very severe violation of not only our local law, but
state law and and federal law. It's actually punishable up to uh $25,000 per day that the violation takes place and is not remediated. I encourage the board to look into laws outside of our own municipality.
Um, I think my last point is really I'm just kind of concerned, uh, Miss Leoo in particular, I just heard you like five minutes ago say you arguably admitted that the application, you recognize the application's not complete, but being
that other agencies, maybe the planning board deemed it complete, you feel you don't have the authority to stop it in its tracks. I think that's >> that's not >> I think it's in your ethical integrity. >> Maybe not yours, but can you please would you like to would you like a second chance to elaborate on what you
said? >> I didn't say I said that that's a requirement, but the application has been deemed complete. I have not reviewed everything. >> Did you think you used the words from now on? >> I'm sorry. application has been deemed
complete and it is my legal opinion that if the board were to say it's not complete a year after deeming it it complete then we would be in court and we would not be victorious on that. Mr. Pap would make sure of that. The application has been deemed complete and the applicant is entitled to rely on
that. And now that these requirements have been highlighted for the board, the board's professionals, I'm sure that attention will be paid to them for future applications. But we cannot deny this application on that basis. >> I apologize for interrupting. Okay. I didn't mean to. Um I I don't necessarily
agree with with what you said. I feel like um it's in your your ethical integrity, one as an attorney, but one as a a municipal board governed by the state of New Jersey to stop something in its tracks if it made it to you inappropriately.
Right? We don't climb to the top by cheating. If the applicant cheated and we recognize the applicant cheated, they should be held accountable. They shouldn't be I'm not saying I just think no one should uh explicitly
break the rules on record and then be able to move forward to the next step. And if you guys approve something like this, it sets a very bad precedent um for the future. Thank you. Thank you for coming forward. Let me just state in
fairness. In fairness, I I have to respond to the one piece of your comment. In fairness to everyone in the room, it being deemed complete is not an act Mr. P created. That was it was deemed complete by a
township official, not by the applicant. So, in fairness to him, I think that needs to be stated. I understand what you're saying. Miss Leoo understands what you're saying. It is a tough position for the applicant to now be in, however, because he was told the application that he submitted was
complete. At this point, obviously, Mr. Pri, forgive me, I don't want to butcher your name anymore, has brought something to everybody's attention. Right. Again, the board doesn't deem it complete. A township official deems it complete. So that being said in what Miss Leoo is
trying to say is that we can't take that out on him at this point. How things move forward will obviously definitely change. As she stated, the professionals who were responsible for that will now have, you know, we'll be looking at that in a very different light. Okay.
>> May May I respond? >> Is that okay? >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> Um yeah, I think I I appreciate that response. Um, I think the boards, all of our boards can do a better job at vetting out the necessary like permits and requirements uh pertinent to the site plans, the block and lot number.
Um, and u I think I forgot my last point, but thank you for your time. >> Madam Chair, can I >> can I chime in for a second here? >> Go right ahead real quickly. >> Um, I I understand you don't want to
take it out on the applicant. uh he was told it was deemed complete. But again, if the applicant um did anything within that process to whether it was fictitious, if he if he elaborated and spoke on things that were never actually true, like a fictitious LOI that was
never issued. >> So the LOI is not what's in question as far as completeness. It's they >> maybe not the LOI. >> It's not the LOI. I just want to be clear again. You have to remember everything's on the record. >> Okay? >> So I I'm not being rude. I don't want anybody to take it that way. just trying to be clear that we need a clean record.
So the reason we're talking about completeness has nothing to do with the LOI. We're talking about completeness because according to the MLUL which Mr. Pri pointed out, not only did were the names to be listed of the property owners within 200 feet of the project,
which they were apparently part of that rec that requirement is that it state what they do and what how it what they do with those properties. So that is the question. It's not the LOI. So let's just be clear that LOI is not what it's about the completeness at
this point. >> All right. I hear you, Mr. Brown. >> Thank you. >> I'm sorry. You're gonna have to If you're going to come back up, come back up. >> True. Can I >> Yeah. Oh, hold on one moment. >> Just just kind of make a comment. Um I
appreciate all the residents that are reading the township code. If you look at all the council meetings for the last two years, I have spoken numerous times about errors in the in the township code. I just want to be clear about this code that you are bringing up. Okay. And
if you look at you're looking at 244-30B12, correct? Okay. If you go up to the the beginning of it, 23 2430. Okay. Talks about required documents, which is what you're saying. It only
lists that these documents must be presented to the planning board, not to the zoning board. >> So if your issues are with if you have that issue and you see it at a plan planning board meeting, I would say you have every right to present it. But this
does not include the zoning. >> These these rules don't apply both to zoning and to planning boards. My understanding is that it's the same requirements because in that in the the 244 they don't split it out saying this is for the planning board this is for the zoning board. They are universal if
you would >> general state. >> That's that's my take. >> I these are the requirements for a preliminary plat of major site plan and it while it does state the planning board in that section, it would apply to
any site plan application. >> Now again I said I'm late to this. At some other meetings they open it again for general comments. Is that going to happen tonight? because otherwise I'd like to read something >> and it pertains it pertains to documents
that have been submitted uh with respect to this application. >> It pertains to this application. >> It pertains to documents that have been submitted with this application. >> So I don't now you can tell me is if it's a document that's submitted uh with
relation to this application is it part of the application? >> All right. Right now, tonight, we're here for the objector's case. So, if unless it's a comment specifically related to the objector's case that he made tonight, then we're not going to be able to consider anything else. It should have been heard at a prior hearing.
>> Understood. Thank you very much. And I I've learned that. Thanks. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Hi, Kim Reali. R E >> Kim L E. >> Just raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth in this matter before the board? >> Yes. Just please state your name and
address for the record. >> You have my name? >> Okay. Last name is R E A L E. First name is Kim. 547 West Commodore Boulevard. So, I've been going to the planning and
zoning board meetings as well. And my issue with all of this at this point is that we're our planning and our planning board is doing final and preliminary and improving them without
everything that they need for it to go further in to the next stage. And that's what we're seeing here over and over again with this application as well. I don't understand how you can do a a final and a preliminary on one night for
some of these things that they're doing at this point. I don't know how you can sit there and when they're when the applicant is telling you, I oh no, I need to do this. Oh no, we need to change this. Oh no, we need to do that.
And yet now we're here. Does that make sense to anybody? I don't understand how they're getting it complete to get to here so we can object. I'd like to know how that works because I'm
>> we're just we're just hearing comments right now. We're not here to address the procedures. So, if you have a comment about this application, then please go ahead and >> Yeah, I I live on that road. I drive on that road >> there. There used to be a lake, the Java Moon Lake. Everybody knows the Java Moon
Lake. You built the venture crossings. Guess what happened to the lake? It's gone. Gone. the lake on Diamond Road. They were going to build the learning center. D came in and shut them down. Lakes's gone. Every time you touch something without
doing the proper LOI on a property, you're causing major major issues to our tributaries, to our wildlife, to the water that we're drinking. Because I'm not on public water. I am on wellwater.
Everybody in my area is on wellwater. You are causing harm to all of us without doing the proper sequence of events and getting the proper paperwork and legal stuff that needs to
be done prior to an application ending up here. It's very frustrating for the residents at this point because we go to the planning board meeting and it's rubber stamped. Oh, you got to prove it. The
other night, you got to approve it. That's it. You got to prove even though they didn't have everything they needed. So, it's going to end up here being an objected again. Why? Why aren't we just getting what we need so that we're not sitting in this position?
That's all I have to say. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else wishing to come forward from the public at this time? >> Seeing no one come forward, we're going to go ahead and close public session. Mr. Would you like to make your closing
statement? >> Madam Chair, prior to my closing statement, which I am prepared to make in the next 10 minutes, I would ask if we could take a brief recess. I'd like to have a a sidebar with your council to go over an issue that was raised. Oh, I'm very sorry. I ma madam, I am asking
if we could have a brief recess. I would like to speak with your attorney before I make make my presentation on the record. >> Okay. >> Five minutes. >> All right. We're going to take a fivem minute break. Thank you.
>> I'll do my very best. Madam Chair, members of the board, good evening all. Kenneth Pape on behalf of the applicant. This hearing is the ninth time that this matter was scheduled by this board to be heard. Those hearings um began June 19th
in 2024. And at that hearing, we began by asking that the board review our notice and take jurisdiction of the application. And that became part of the record. In June, we had a second public hearing in August of that year, but there was no testimony taken and was carried to September 18th, and there was
a substantive presentation on that date. It was then carried to November 20th, at which time Ryan Murphy ruled that the 10day rule had not been honored and did not allow the applicant to go forward. Was carried to January 15th. And on January 15th, I had COVID and I apologize to all of you at that time,
but I was quite ill. We then went to March 19th and had a third substantive hearing and it was carried to June 4th for Mr. River to make his presentation to the board for reasons that Mr. River shared with the board and the board accepted and we did too. There was no he
did not move forward on June 4th. It was then carried to August 20th and at August 20th the board did not convene did not have the significance of the board not convening is the applicant was directed to the applicant was directed to renotice and republish because there
was a gap created by the the August 4th meeting not taking place. But I wanted to make clear that jurisdiction was established early on on the record with an examination of the materials that have been submitted including the legal notice. The applicant is requesting this board
to grant the application that was filed was for preliminary and final site plan approval with the use variance. The use variance is for a limited portion of the project. The limited portion is the outdoor storage associated with the contractor's yard. During the presentation of the application, the
applicant indicated that they would go forward with the request for use variance and preliminary site plan approval and not ask for final until such time as all of the outstanding responsibilities to the board were completed. There was also a request to by the applicant and the applicant's
professionals to remove and reduce the bulk variance relief that was associated with the application. We're talking about lots 7, 9, and 10 in block 2901. We're talking about 10 07 West Commodore Boulevard. We're talking about property that's in the highway
commercial zone. In the highway commercial zone, office buildings are a permitted use and contractor's buildings are a permitted use. The ordinance actually reads, "A contractor's office, showroom,
garage, warehouse, and shop are all permitted provided that materials and equipment are stored within the building. We are asking for permission to store materials in the yard outside of the building. That is the element of the application that is not strictly in
accordance with your ordinance. We're 28.94 acres in size. We have a recorded wetland conservation easement. It has been provided to the board. I have an additional copy with me if anyone would like it. The wetland conservation
easement was recorded and the wetland conservation easement is consistent with the LOI that had been previously granted by the D. When Mr. River brought to our attention that there was someone at the D who wrote to him saying there is no conservation easement, we went to the D
and we showed them that we have a recorded conservation easement and we have given that to you. The easement is in place. We do acknowledge that we have a responsibility to return to the D. The D has advised us that the recording of the easement is not dispositive and that
we have a requirement to return to them to have that D application renewed, extended or reinstated. We acknowledge that. But the conservation easement is in place. and the conservation easement that was discussed by all of the professionals is the conservation
easement that has been recorded and has been delivered to the D. It's also worth noting that the during this summer our client received a notice from the DP that an anonymous tip had been provided to the DP stating there is
filling of the wetlands and we were called to the property. Uh my client was called to the property. I went with him and we met two investigators from the D. We spent an afternoon on the property with them. They conducted investigations. They measured the the
property. They measured the conservation easement and they confirmed in writing a writing that I then shared with this board that there was no improper filling of wetlands on the property. That was confirmed this summer in in July. [music] So the the D is fully aware of
the fact that there is a conservation easement that came out in in responding to that anonymous tip that there was filling taking place. I know that the board members are familiar with the testimony early on about why there was large pieces of equipment on the
property. Those that piece those pieces of equipment were there to prevent people from entering the property through the dirt driveway because there were people who were depositing garbage on the property. Mr. Our client put those pieces of equipment to block the the driveway. When it was complained
that they shouldn't be there, he removed them. He immediately removed them, but they were never there to be excavation equipment at all. AVE Partners is your applicant and AV Partners is owned by the Matoss family.
You'll recall at the June meeting, Esme Severino, who is a member of that family. She's the daughter of the of her her parents or the principal owners and she testified that there would be two or three her testimony two or three trucks
and she then said tandem style trucks and then she said and other smaller vehicles. This site she testified would be for maintenance and repair. When asked what maintenance and repair was, she said changing tires, changing light bulbs,
changing filters and oil, not heavy repairs at all. She testified that the heavy repairs are done at the site where the equipment is located when they break down and is not brought here. She also testified that her family owns a large storage yard that they continue to own
and operate. And this is not to be a storage yard. This large storage yard was testified to be somewhere in Union County. There was testimony as to what the storage purposes of the storage yard were and it pointed out that there is an opaque 6- foot high fence. The applicant
indicated that the type of material that would be stored would be concrete structures and they would never be taller than six feet. They point they said such things as u I think the head walls and concrete pipe. They specifically stated that there would be no loose material, no gra aggregate, no
gravel, no sand. They pointed out that that material is always delivered to a site and not delivered to their maintenance yard. There was a request of the applicant that the retail portion of the building be reconsidered. The applicant agreed that the building in the front, a 9,000
square foot building, would be solely an office. On the second floor, would be the headquarters of the Matoss's company, PM Construction. They agreed that the garage structure would always be a associated with the
contractor's office. The nexus is we agreed that that nexus would be part of any Greek relief granted by the board and it could never be severed. We pointed out there'd be no bathroom in the garage requiring the the garage occupants to use the bathroom facilities
in the building. The building was designed by Steve Rodosti. The building was designed to be with very high quality architecture, a 9,000 square foot building that Mr. Rodosti testified that he worked with the landscape architect to enhance the
beauty of the building with the landscaping. and he testified that the building was a stucco and stone building and that it was treated on all four sides similarly. He testified that the signage that was requested was designed the same way as the building. So the architecture was carried to the sign.
And he testified that the rear building would be a compatible building in colors and materials. All of that is intended to demonstrate that this will be an attractive building in a well landscaped site, not an eyesore. There was testimony that the the only
repairs and maintenance that would take place would be inside the building, and the applicant repeated that more than once during the presentation. During the hearing, we had a a parking lot setback of 19 feet which Mr. Intelli then a mod modified to 20 feet removing
the variance. During the hearing, there was a 24.6 foot setback for the monument sign which Mr. Intelli agreed to move to 30 feet eliminating the variance. During the hearing, the applicant agreed that any facade mounted signs would conform
with all elements of the ordinance. There'll be limited because there's no retail. There will be very limited signs on the building and the building is fully ADA compliant. There were during the presentation there was a request from the floor and from the
board and the professionals that we revisit the on-site circulation. You may recall that we began with one driveway and that one driveway was on the side of the property closest to the river at the request of the board and after a polling of the board members we went
back to the county planning board and I don't know where Mr. River got his information. We've have been in constant contact with the county planning board and they meet with us when we have questions. Mr. Ray um presented written evidence that he'd gone to the county.
We provided that to you I think two hearings ago and the county had agreed that we could have two driveways so we could separate the truck traffic and the car traffic and the car traffic would be on the side of River's property and the truck entrance would be on the opposite side and that revision was incorporated
into the plan. It resulted in the car and truck traffic being separated, which was something that the board members had asked. The applicant's architect also indicated that he used a certain roof design, a hip roof that was designed to reduce the appearance of the building's mass and
also to screen any rooftop equipment so it would not be visible from the community. The operation statement that was placed in front of you is not two sentences. It's seven paragraphs. It was reviewed by the applicant. It was the testimony of the applicant followed the operation
state statements. There was additional questions from board members and from the public about the operations all of which were fully answered by the applicant during the hearing. It's worth noting that early on, I think as early as June, comments from the board's engineer indicated that the
applicants had addressed his concerns indicated that concerns such as drainage, landscaping, and other technical requirements had been um addressed by the applicant. And the words that were used by your engineer at that hearing was there are minor items that would need to be cleaned up. And
the applicant agreed to do so. The property is zoned highway commercial. It is a commercial zone. It is not an industrial zone. The use that we're asking this board to consider is a commercial use. There is an a listed
commercial use. The contractor's yard is listed in the highway commercial as a commercial use. The only element of the application that it is at variance with the permitted uses. The only element is the request to store concrete structures
behind an opaque fence in the rear of the property. That's the only variance that the applicant is presenting. To suggest that this property is industrial or to suggest that once a property is industrial, a neighborhood goes industrial flies in the face first of the ordinance
and also how the board works. Board members I'll acknowledge that the board members treat each and every case on the on the facts that are presented, the merits that are presented, and that what happens on one property is not the grounds for another.
The testimony of Allison Coffin was very complete testimony. I actually have with me the outline from which she testified. She went through the positive criteria in detail. She went through the negative criteria in detail and she distinguished
the use on this property pointing out that the ex the use that the applicant was requesting was very similar and a slight variance from that which was permitted by the ordinance. And she also pointed out that the townships does not have an ordinance that permits this
activity anywhere. And she pointed out that that was one reason why this board could consider the relief favorably. Your applicant took great care to design the project
aesthetically attractive to design the project with a modern storm water system to design the project respecting the environmental constraints on the property and respecting the uses that are in the neighborhood. Those residential uses that are in the highway
commercial zone are residential. Those are in the reviewers actually came to this board and asked for permission to build their single family home on an undersized lot next to a a property that's zoned highway commercial.
The balance of the res the balance of the residential community is located in a separate zone and is not and what we're doing is consistent with the zone and is not contrary to the activities that are taking place there and certainly not contrary to your master
plan or your ordinances goals. It's respectfully requested of the applicant that the board consider the application favorably, the use variance relief limited to the storage of concrete structures behind a six-foot fence, the balance of the uses being consistent with the ordinance, and the
applicant's continued representation that they'll prior to final approval pursue the all outside agency approvals and permits and present them to the board. I thank you for the opportunity to present this summary. Thank you, Mr. P.
>> Thank you, Mr. Pave. Um, just to summarize, Mr. Pap did just explain the variance that was being sought by the applicant. The board um now has to determine whether or not the applicant is entitled to relief under the D or
special reasons variance criteria. You can special reasons to grant the requested relief where the refusal to allow the project would constitute a hardship or where the project carries out a purpose of zoning as set forth in municipal land use law and the property
is particularly suitable for the proposed use. The applicant must also satisfy the negative criteria which is um essentially that the use does not damage the zone plan, doesn't go against the master plan and doesn't harm the
neighborhood. um that development is not contrary to the public good. Any motion to approve uh this application will include all conditions that have been placed on the record in all of the previous hearings. >> So, >> you're welcome.
>> Board, it's up to us for discussion. >> Okay, I'll volunteer to go first. >> I'll start if you don't want. >> Okay. >> Just just try to speak as loudly as possible. >> Okay. I hope you hear me. Uh first I'd like to thank Mr. Rivia for his uh presentation that was quite good
compared to some of the opposition attorneys we have heard uh previously. I'd also like to say I listened intently to the applicants professionals, the board professionals and to the objector. I've also receive reviewed each meeting
on YouTube, read all the transcripts and minutes that were available. Some of my comments are uh most importantly is to mitigate the negative criteria.
The applicant has agreed to the following. The driveway traffic was changed. So the driveway nearest to property would be used by cars only. The driveway furthest from the property
would be used for trucks. There'll be no toxic materials stored on the site. This includes fuel. The revised circulation on the site will have heavy equipment further from the river home. All
maintenance to trucks such as oil change, filter change, tire repair will be done inside the maintenance building. Any fluids collected from these changes will be collected and disposed of
according to the law. The uh maintenance and storage area will not be se separate units but will if there's any change in ownership they come as one to be used as approved. The
outside storage area uh will consist of as stated concrete work and will be surrounded by a fence andor um plantings. Uh I I don't know which one was decided.
The sign was moved 20 feet from the rideway and have 30 foot setback which now conforms to the sign ordinance. The address of the building will be illuminated. The buffer between the residential sites will have shrubs and
provide an adequate buffer. Um the has agreed to provide all outside agency approvals as a condition for approval. Now, as far as I could ascertain from the testimony, there is
no encroachment on the wetlands or the conservation easements. On this issue, the applicant should provide the up-to-date paperwork from D as part of the condition for approval. I would also like a report from the Jackson
Environmental Commission which is now up and running confirming that there's no negative impact in the area of the site being used by the applicant and I don't know about an EIS that would be up to
the rest of the members of the board. Uh, the 9,000 square foot building will be for office use only, no retail. Um, I think I've gone pretty far on this. And just to state about the traffic,
yes, there will be an increase uh just because there's another business here. Most of the additional traffic will be coming from and to highway 195 and route 537 onto a leaving leaving the site.
Basically twothirds of the traffic will be in that area. Therefore, most of this every traffic will be passing through commercial areas except for the river residents. and the reviewers know what
was coming when they uh asked for a variance to build a home in a commercial area. Other than that, uh I'll leave the rest of the board members to add or subtract.
>> Okay. So, first of all, I just before I go through a whole lot of things. Um >> a little louder. >> I'm sorry. I'll try and stay right on top of the microphone. will bring it close. Um, just want to let everybody know I am the newest member on this board. I've been, this is my third
meeting. I know we have a couple other members that have probably had one or two meetings more than I have. Uh, but I will tell you for the last 10 days I have spent watching every YouTube video of these meetings, reading any
transcripts that were delivered, and reading any minute minute meeting. medium minutes uh that were provided. So, I didn't take this lightly. I want to let everybody know I did my due diligence. I do have a question for uh
Mr. Peters. So, the applicant is saying they are permitted uses under the code and they said contractor warehouses is one of the permitted uses. I do not
see where that is in the code. I see a contractor's office. It says contractor's office, showroom, garage, warehouse, and shop. Provided, however, that all materials and equipment are stored within a completely
enclosed building. And I assume that's the one that they're using because their their use variance is to not store everything indoors. That's correct. So what I don't see in this use is the
repair shop. Okay. But if I can if I go down further in conditional uses it allows a automobile repair shop and in parentheses it says motor vehicle repair
shop. So reading all of that, are are we comfortable that it is truly um two things? First is the section of the ordinance we're referring to as chapter 244-57 A is an apple parenthesis 49 where it
reads as a permitted use contractor's office, showroom, garage, warehouse, and shop. My recollection without having having the transcript in front of me is that's what Miss Coffin made reference to. So to the extent that the applicant paints
themselves into a corner and says [snorts] this is what we're going to do now our zoning officer has something to enforce. If they use the property in a manner different than the testimony or what's permitted in the ordinance, then they're not in compliance with what they've asked for.
>> So is the repair shop included in that? Well, >> the word shop is in there, correct? And I think, and I don't want to put words in Mr. Cape's mouth, in his testimony, he referenced the portions of their testimony
about items that aren't specifically listed in our ordinance and how they reconciled that. So, I know we're doing deliberations, but if I don't want to speak for Mr. Paper, the applicant, I want to answer your question, but it's their testimony. If he wants to clarify
that for you, I think we should let him. That was my recollection of the testimony and that's how our ordinance reads currently. Okay. Would you like to applicant relies on that language and the word shop is what we indicated is
it's a shop where there'll be maintenance on vehicles. There's there would be lifts in the bu inside the building. of the vehicles could be repaired and maintained and we are relying on that word that's in the ordinance. Yes. >> Okay. >> So I
as commentary when we think of repair shops they're not private they're public for profit place you and I can take our car on a Friday or Saturday and get an oil change. This is for their their own use. They're not profering to the board that
they're creating a contractor repair shop to fix Mr. Wilders's company's trucks for their use only. And so, while again, I don't want to testify for the applicant, I want to explain to you as a board member the differentiation between
the conditional use standard of motor vehicle repairs that's meant to be a business that's open to the general public. >> Okay. Thank you. Um Dr. Hoffstein listed a whole lot of things which kind of were some of them
were on my list. He had a little bit more detail on his list. Um the one thing tonight is only for the use variance and preliminary. We are not approving a final. >> That's correct. >> The applicant withdrew final. So what I
would recommend I won't say it should be done but I would recommend that before you come back for a final have your documents from the D. I know I understand the way it's worked that you
don't have to have the L the true LOI, you have to have the application submitted, but as long as you've completed everything >> to make sure that the everything that was approved in the past is either okay or you have applied
for the new stuff that's required. I think that's it for >> I want um just one thing. I want to thank Dr. Hoffstein and Mr. Seleia who have both confirmed for the record that they have reviewed all of the minutes
and recordings of all the previous meetings. And if all of the other board members when you're making your vote could also say whether or not you've reviewed everything. Just we have it for the record because there have been a number of meetings. Thank you. Just a couple comments. Thank you. Um,
first of all, thank you to the applicant and to the objector both for making such cases and presentations. We appreciate it. Thank you to the residents who came out to object and voice their concerns. All of your concerns are taken to heart.
Um, we feel your where you're coming from. We understand your concerns. Again, this board works with the municipal land use law. Um, there are certain things that we can and cannot take into consideration. Couple of things that were mentioned during
this meeting was the devaluation of surrounding properties. Um, in general, this is a highway commercial zone. Anybody that purchases a property bordering this if they did their due
diligence when they purchased their property would understand that although it is a open area and it's beautiful and gorgeous and we hope nobody will develop it but we all know that bottom line is if someone does purchase it and it's
zoned to be developed somebody is allowed to develop it. So all these concerns whether you know your property may have had a you want to call it an inflated value until now and if you are concerned that it may go down
whether it is or is not true um isn't really relevant. Um it's unfortunate you know that you know if such an outcome would happen but again this is a neighboring property and this is always the juggle that somebody has when they
want to make this purchase to take into consideration. Um another thing that the objector has repeated numerous times is that stipulations and conditions cannot be enforced. Um the you know the
objector himself said that there was illegal dumping possibly or the placement of the tractors and he said that he had code called code enforcement and immediately everything was remediated and the trucks
were removed. The came down as the applicant said. So definitely anything which is put into the record any terms and conditions that are placed um can and will be upheld. Uh, another thing that I would like to
address is I think 99% or if not 100% of the objector's concerns were related as he says to the trucks, the noise, the vibrations, fuel, traffic.
All of these concerns are unrelated to the actual devariance. As the applicant has said numerous times, the devariance is going on the outdoor storage.
I have not heard one word of testimony from the objector objecting to that specific issue. So, while I understand your concerns and I take your concerns to heart, I feel
for you, but this all those concerns are appropriate for the highway commercial zone and their permitted use in that zone. Um, that's all my comments and thank you. questions, comments.
Just for the record, Miss Cusano, I know that you were a newer board member. Uh, Mr. Rosal, I believe that there are meetings you both watched the different videos, read the minutes. Um, oh boy. Okay. So, for the record, I have been at every meeting, but I too did go
back because this has gone on for 17 months. Okay. Um, none of us are perfect and are going to remember everything. And on top of that, I am a nerdy notetaker. So, I've gone over my own notes. I've watched the YouTube. I've read the minutes again. Um because again, 17
months is a long time. All of that being said, I think that everyone who spoke made great points. I just want to touch on a couple of things. Um Mr. Revier, I thought you did a phenomenal job this evening. Thank you very much. Um I thought you did a good job um reiterating your concerns and helping us
understand exactly what it was you were concerned about. Um Mr. Pete, I thought your closing statement summarized a lot of things and for some of the newer members, I think that really helped because you helped them to understand exactly what the variance is for because again with all the different comments
from the public and all the different documents and 17 months worth of time, it's easy to get lost. But ultimately, as Mr. Heyman pointed out, we are governed by the municipal land use law. And that being said, I'm going to point
out a couple of things and piggy back off Mr. Heyman. We cannot, despite the fact that we're all residents and don't want our properties to be devalued in any way or anything, we cannot consider real estate values in our uh decision-making process. Um, doesn't
sound fair. We're not saying it is fair, but as a board that's governed by the municipal land use law, we cannot take that into consideration. Um, one of the other things that struck me with this application is the location. I've been to the um this location uh several times
over the 17 months, the most recent being Sunday. I will confirm what Mr. P said when the call went to code enforcement. The equipment was moved. I did go out. The equipment was moved at that time. There is a letter uh from the
D confirming that they were on site with Mr. P, Miss Severino that there was no illegal dumping. So for the record, I'd like to make that clear. There was no legal dumping on this site. And also um for the record, there may not be an LOI, but as Mr. Pay pointed out, there
is indeed that documentation that the D is in possession of. Also, um forgive me, ma'am. I'm forgetting your name right now. I'm having a senior moment of my own. You know who I'm talking about. You asked about preliminary and final. As Mr. Selectia pointed out, it is just
a preliminary and the use variant. So, the variance is specifically for the outdoor storage. It's not going to be any aggregate. It's not going to be any chemicals. It's not going to be anything toxic. It is uh according to my notes, some concrete and some piping. Um
All right. Hold on one second. In the original That's okay. In the original over the course of these 17 months when there was testimony, Miss Severino did a very good job explaining what exactly was going to be on site. That being said, as it was pointed out, they have a
yard up in Union County, the majority of their stuff is stored there. Should they have a project in this area that's done, that is when the equipment may or may not come there. Deliveries get delivered to their work site. Okay. Um, the other thing that struck me with this
application is the location. I travel this way to work. Um, the truck traffic, Clayton, Earl, up and down West Commodore. So, yes, are we adding a a a truck or two?
Absolutely. However, that that is a major thorough fair through Jackson. You come off of 195 and 537. So for me, that's why I felt it was a more suitable location. My concerns for the wetlands were somewhat
uh I don't want to use the word dim, but lessened because you have the outlets right there, right? Mr. River's properties there. There's a real estate agent. You have the outlets right there, right? There's obviously been a lot of study in that area. And of the I believe it's 28 acres, and if I misspe, please
correct me. 28 point something acres, they can only develop approximately 2.7 because of the wetland. That's clearly delineated on the easement. Um I agree with Mr. Selectia's um suggestion, Mr. ate uh when it does come back if we
should approve it this evening when it does come back for final um approval that we would I would think for everybody's best interest based on 17 months of questions and testimony and concern that the LOI application you I we understand Mr. you can correct me if
I'm wrong. We understand that you won't have the LOI itself, but you should at least submit the LOI application should it be approved this evening. Um, I have to tell you to the residents who've come out, I appreciate it. You brought out a lot of different things that maybe some of us who don't live in
that area of town, even though we go through it and buy it. Um, but I do believe that given the location, this is a more suitable and it is a highway commercial area. And again, just to be clear, the other thing I wanted to make sure I pointed out um is that there was
a misstatement when it was saying that the area once somebody gets an industrial use, which is this is not categorized as that it will take over that area. That is not true. Each application is indeed judged on its own merit. We cannot make a decision based
on things posted online or comments that are not backed up by the testimony. Um so that being said um each application is based on its own merit right so just because if this is approved if that does
have that doesn't mean that everything else is automatically approved they will have to do everything that's required by them as well and one last touch on the complete as Miss Loo said it's obvious that this is going to be something that will be go far above our head because again we are given the application once
it is deemed complete we do not I Just want to be clear. We do not deem an application complete. We get the information. We hear the testimony and that is when a decision is made. Thank you.
>> I think I said enough. Yes, Mr. Tremor. The one point that Mr. River brought up. >> Yes. >> Any question had it been sold, can we just clarify that if it gets sold, they cannot change the use? >> They'd have to come back before the board. Can we just put on record for
their concern? >> Absolutely. >> Any other questions, comments? >> Okay. So, it's up to us if someone would like to make a motion. My opinion, the applicant has adequately provided necessary information to grant the
Dvarian with the outside storage and uh since there is no substantial detriment to the public good and there is no substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. I would make a motion to
approve the application. I would second that motion >> with all >> I'm sorry and that would be with all conditions that was stated and agreed to >> contain the negative criteria professionals deemed necessary. >> All right, Miss Kathleen, we have a motion and a second. Roll call, please.
>> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Miss Cusana, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia. >> Okay, I'm not going to just say yes or no. I'm going to make a statement. Um, one of the things that I take seriously
for when I joined this board, the reason I joined this board was making sure variances were looked at in its entirety and that we just did don't rubber stamp variances. Um, and I can
tell you these board members do their do their work when it comes to the variances. Uh, hopefully I've done all my work as I've told you. I I've spent the last 10 days reviewing those videos. I reviewed the videos and then I I went back to older
meetings because there was some questions as to what was said and what wasn't said. So I I I do believe I took this serious for my vote tonight is going to be a yes because I do not believe that this variance is significant. I do and please understand
this is step one. They have a lot long way to go. Um, and if there is something that others deem we missed, it will be caught. But for tonight, my vote is yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein. >> Yes. >> Miss Bradley.
>> Yes. Excuse [clears throat] me. Yes. Mr. Paper, variance has been granted. >> Thank you. >> If I may, Madam Chair, was that a vote on the Dvariance and the preliminary site plan as a single vote? >> Yes, >> it was. >> Yes. >> Madam Chair, members of the board, board
professionals, and public all. Thank you and good night. >> Thank you. [cough] >> Make commission make a motion to close. >> Motion to close. >> Oh, motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor? I