The pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. This meeting
act notice of this meeting has been published on the municipal board and the appropriate newspapers. Roll call please. Mr. Martins present. Mr. Heyman here. Dr. Hoffstein
here. Miss Rosal here. Miss Bradley here. Do we have any resolutions this evening, Miss Cyprieni? We do not. Okay. And we have three sets of minutes. So, just bear with me because there variety of dates we're going to have to
identify who is eligible to vote. So, the first date is February 7th of 2024. Um, I think it's just Dr. Hosting, Mr. Heyman, and myself. All right. Well, that is a majority of those present.
Okay, Mr. I'm sorry. We need a motion to second. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Second, Mr. Heyman. Yes. Dr. Hoffstein. Yes. Miss Bradley? Yes. Our second set of minutes is from October. I'm sorry, but it would be appropriate
to call the other two and have them abstain. Okay. Oh, I apologize. That's okay. Mr. Martins, I abain. Miss Rosal abstain. Our second set of minutes are from October 16th of 2024.
And Mr. Martins, myself, Mr. Heyman was not here. Correct. Dr. Hson was here. Crisel. No. Right. Okay. May May I ask you this question, Madam Chair? Is there anyone who is not present tonight who was on
the board at that time? Shira. Okay. All right. So then let's not vote on those tonight because um so and if there's an opportunity if not we will invoke the rule of necessity. Okay.
Um and in case that needs to happen I would ask those who are not were not on the board at that time to review those minutes. I I I've reviewed it. I actually watched the meeting as well. Did you did watch the meeting as well? All right. All right. Well, let's see if
Miss Bernes is uh Mr. Bernes is available next meeting. If not, we may call upon that. Thank you for those efforts. All right. And last but not least, June 18th of this year, uh I do believe we are all eligible.
I need a motion, a second, please. Motion to approve. Second. Roll call, please. Mr. Martins, yes. Mr. Heyman, yes. Dr. Hoffstein, yes. Mr. Rosal, yes. Miss Bradley, yes. I do have vouchers this evening.
Excuse me for Madam Chair. I'm sorry. My apologies for interrupting. Um I didn't want to interrupt the voting, but we do have a resolution that does need to be voted on. May I approach? I think it's Sure. Okay.
And also I do have a question, Mr. Yes. My understanding is that you have been your seat has been changed. Is that correct? Uh, yeah. I think Okay. And were you sworn in in that new position? No.
Okay. Let's do the rearch. I thought the rearch was going to be and we we can do that. Okay. So, let's take a moment before maybe you can have this discussion. Um, is there a Bible?
on my phone. on my phone. I'm sorry. Oh yeah, we're going to proceed. As I said, traditional. I'm sorry. Are you sure there's no Bible over there? Okay.
Please raise your right hand. That's my United States. Congratulations. Yeah. Uh, no I we can do the resolution because you have all of the members the assignment of the different things. All
right. So, this is a resolution of the zoning board of the township of Jackson, count of county of Ocean, state of New Jersey, granting approval for a technical subdivision and approval amendment for property located at Harmony Road, block 4801,
lot 5.01. I need a motion, please, to approve the resolution. Make a motion to approve. Second. I have a motion, second roll call, please. Mr. Martins, yes. Mr. Heyman, yes.
Dr. Hoffstein, yes. Miss Rosal, yes. Miss Bradley, yes. Thank you. Papers to you. Absolutely. I'm sorry.
Resolution number 2025-18. Okay. I also have three vouchers in front of me. Uh, but we're only going to approve one for this evening because we didn't approve the minutes. Correct. For that one meeting, we're going to hold off on the voucher. No, the voucher could still be s the the minutes were prepared and it's
appropriate to pay for that. All right. So, we have three vouchers. October 16th of 2024, February 7th of 2024. Those are both in the amount of $100. And then the uh for this evening 71625 in the amount of 175.
I need a motion and a second to pay the vouchers, please. Motion. Yes. Second. We have a motion in a second. Roll call, please. Mr. Martins. Yes. Mr. Heyman. Yes. Dr. Hoffstein? Yes. M. Rosal? Yes. Miss Bradley?
Yes. Um, all right. Let's go ahead and do uh the reorganization and then we'll move on uh to the announcements. I would like to nominate Lynn Bradley to continue as chairwoman
of the planning of the zoning board. I second. Are there any other nominations? Hearing none. Roll call. Mr. Martins. Yes. Mr. Heyman? Yes. Dr. Hoffstein? Yes. Mr. Rosal?
Yes. Miss Braden? Yes. Are there any nominations for Thank you. Um, nominations for vice chair. I'd like to nominate Dr. Offstein for
vice chair. Are there any other nominations or a second? Or a second. I'm sorry. Okay, I'll second that. All right. Um, are there any Yeah. Are
there any other nominations? I would like to nominate. Is there a second? Can second motion. Well, actually, uh, you can. I know it's a tremendous honor, but does not carry
any, uh, monetary reward. I'll be happy to serve you. But is that a second? Sure. Okay. So then there are two nominations. Are there any other nominations? I know
somewhat. So what would be appropriate is we'll have the vote regarding uh Dr. Hoffstein first and if that does not uh succeed then uh there'll be a vote for Mr. Heyman, Mr. Mr. Martins,
yes. Mr. Heyman, no. Dr. Hine, yes. Miss Rosal, no. Miss Bradley, yes. It's kind of awkward, right? Congratulations. Well, who wouldn't want that
extraordinary position? Congratulations. That highpaying job. recording secretary. Excuse me. Sorry. Yes. We also um need to appoint a recording secret, right? A recording secretary. Yes.
And I think it's appropriate. I can I would like to nominate uh motion. Second. I think I can nominate. Right. Yes. You you still a member of the board. You can nominate people. Are there any other
nominations? Did you second that? Oh, I thought I heard her. Yes. Okay. Yeah. I knew there was a second. I just wasn't sure if there are any other nominations. If not, when the chairwoman's able. Roll call, please.
Mr. Martins, yes. Mr. Heyman, yes. Dr. Hoffstein, yes. Miss Rosal, yes. Miss Bradley, yes. and I believe we need an acting secretary as well. Okay. Right.
Actually, for the record, let me correct what I said. I said recording secretary to secretary. It's actually that's actually acting secretary. I believe it's the reporting secretary. Excuse me. So, we also need a nomination for the acting secretary.
No, that that was No, that was the secretary to replace Sheer. So, that's motion. All right. All right. Okay. The acting secretary will be fully covered here. Yes. So, we need nominations for the
acting secretary and I would like to nominate Crisel. I'll second that. Are there any other nominations? Mr. Martins, yes. Mr. Heyman, yes. Dr. Hoffstein, yes. Mr. Rosal, yes. Miss Bradley,
yes. Something here. Um, and now we are going to swear in our professionals. I I just well we I do want to say that there we need to adopt dates um the official newspaper the official newspapers remain unchanged. We could do that by one
motion and the meeting dates are as listed in the memorandum originally dated 6525 updated 61325. Does everyone have those dates? So I do um I will not be able to attend
the April 1 meeting as I have a holiday. It's Passover. So just you know for the record is Passover the first time. So I'll be unable to which one are we talking about the October 1st or the April 1.
I I also will not be able to and forgive my ignorance. It's a religious holiday. Right. No, no, I understand. April, October. It says October 5th, 1st and 15th. The 15th is pending cancellation replaced with October 29th. Correct. That's because of the holidays
in that month, right? Okay. Okay. Yeah. So, that's why they wanted to replace it just with one meeting in that month for the 29th. All right. You're not going to cancel the April 1st. just to make sure that we have the meetings that don't need a full board,
right? Um or if or if potentially we may have to discuss depending on our um application load at that point, we may have to discuss correct having an additional date. Um like they're talking about in October. So that's why I wanted to bring up October to make sure if me being in
April, we may have to choose another date depending on our load. Well, April, we'll have three Wednesdays. So there's a there's an alternate if you need it. Okay. All right, Madam Chair. Oh, yes. Sorry. Did we um Can I get some clarification on the October dates?
We're going to do the 1st and the 29th. So, the 1st and the 15th are both pending cancellation or just the 15th. It's both. Definitely the first. Sorry, say it again. Definitely October 1st. Okay. 15th. So, that that's going to leave us with
the 15th and the 29th of October for meeting dates. I'm sorry. Forgive me, Gina. Mr. Hyman, what's I'm sorry. The the 15th um is the end of the holiday of code. So, it's still holiday until nightfall. So, so I'm I'm unable to attend that meeting.
All right. And what about the the 29th? Is it acceptable? Correct. Yes. That's why we made those changes. So, do we want to just accept now that we're just going to have a meeting on October 29th? Yes. Why don't we do that for October
29th? If the load is such that the board would consider um an alternate meeting, then we can uh pick a date closer in time. Okay. And then April will Yeah, for April 1st, I think it would be appropriate to leave that on uh the
agenda, but again, we may have to change that. So, we need a motion and a second to accept the calendar. Correct. Correct. All right. So, we need a motion and a second to accept the zoning board meeting dates memorandum for 2025 2026. Are you including the
Can you just put on the record what we chose for October? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. What we decided for October? Oh, October 29th. Just the 29th. Correct. Correct. And as we get closer, should we decide or if we deem necessary, then we'll have a discussion about potentially the 22nd, but for now,
we'll just leave it as October 29th. Thank you. Okay. We make a separate motion for the newspapers. I I one motion for the the dates and the newspapers is acceptable. Okay. So I would make a motion to approve the memorandum of the dates and the existing
newspapers. We have a second. Second. Mr. Martins. Yes. Mr. Heyman. Yes. Dr. Hoffstein. Yes. Mr. Rosal. Yes. Miss Bradley. Yes. And as I think you may be aware,
the uh law regarding publication in uh newspapers in New Jersey is changing rapidly, but that was still appropriate to do for this year in this form. Excuse me. All right.
Any other? We did not do the announcements. That's why I was ready to go to you now. Okay. Uh so uh the announcements for this evening are that application number one uh Phillips Excuse me. Could I just interrupt one
minute there? I didn't realize you're going to the application. I just like to take a couple of minutes to thank uh on behalf of the board. Give a thanks to Bob Hudach who uh has served this board and has served on the planning board for
many many years. Uh he was always prepared. He is always knowledgeable. He was always gave an equitable decision and uh hopefully a future governing body will ask him to come back and serve again. So, thank you to Bob Wood for his
service. Thank you. Excuse me. Okay. All right. I'm sorry. So the announcements for this evening, number one on the agenda, Douglas Phillips is being carried. Um the uh was
a failure of notice and I'm sorry, do you have the new date? I'm sorry. Does uh Gina, do you have the new date? I don't have the agenda with the new date. Um, I think it was, let me see if I can I don't have anything on mine. My apologies.
I have nothing notated here, but I have a note from Dawn. That's um the next available date is September 3rd or September 17th, I think. But it would have to be number two if they chose if we chose the 17th. Okay.
Okay. No, I I I did see Full and she just uh said that he is trying for the se to get it on for the September meeting and uh that's so carry to the 3rd or the 17th G. She just said September. All right. So, we don't have the date on that yet. It's for offense. So, I think
it'll be question of whether he is able to get the notice in time. Um also application number three uh Hughes is um being carried
and notice will be required and that I'm sorry I'm sorry. No notice will not be required. Do you I'm sorry. Do you have that the date for that one? I I don't have the correct answer. All right. Right. So that will be on
September 7th through the chair. I had a question about that application. We've discussed many times in the past about applicants coming on being scheduled and then last minute being carried um without any kind of you know representation.
Um the suggestion in the past was that they be removed from the agenda and not be rescheduled. Um this was on our last meeting I believe and again it's being carried for the second time. Yeah it's been carried a number of
times. Um to that point what I would like to suggest is as we had discussed previously we um and I had circulated points received feedback from the board. are prepared ordinances that I would like to send to the governing body um
and with the representation there from this uh board and our request that would refine those procedures and also put as a the procedures regarding carrying of matters and it would be that you could
carry it once by writing after that you would have to appear before the board in person to request and the board would have the ability to do it. So, what I'd like to do if you could, I know this is something we've discussed numerous times, is circulate those ordinances. I wanted to wait until the new board
member um was available and ask you for input and if there's no negative input, then I will forward those to the governing body and uh hopefully they will adopt same. Thank you. Um I I will double check and send out an email if I am incorrect. But when I
spoke to Dawn, um if I'm not mistaken, the attorney had a conflict and had to be in another they were scheduled on our agenda. Then he had a an application in another town and when they rescheduled they scheduled
for tonight. So that was his conflict is my understanding. But I do agree with you and I'm in agreement with Gan. I do believe I have responded to your recommendations. I do agree with you that you know going forward we should submit right because we and and and as uh Mr.
Ryman said you know we've seen this time and time again where it's not one or even two but in you know a case like this will be now the fifth. Yeah. All right. Did you want me to explain
this? Yes, please. The professionals could raise your right hand. You swear affirm that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth. I do. I do. I do. Please state your name and position for
the record. Mark Roier, board engineer. Gina Zumalo, assistant zoning officer. Drew Pab, traffic engineer. Thank you all for your patience. We're going to move on to applicant number
two, Cardinal and Jackson Crossing number two, Adventure Crossing, amended preliminary and final site plan 776-6 phase 1- CD and F. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. Salvator Alfur just have to
step out. I'm sorry. Mr. Roire has to excuse himself. Good evening again. The this matter was on the agenda for a continued public hearing. Question was raised about the permitted residential density and an
interpretation of the uh ordinance for this zone. Uh the susa project, the venture costing project has been before this board on many iterations over many many years. Um the controlling ordinance is and we didn't bring any witnesses to
testify because um in light of the the written opinion from your attorney, we expect that we assume the board's going to agree with your attorney and therefore we're going to have an issue where we have to renotice if we have to go forward. Well, that's very nice, Mr. Alfier, but don't ever underestimate your own
eloquence. Um, and just I want to make sure that I uh have on the record that you're going to asking to this be married to be carried for this matter to be carried to a new date and that you wave any statutory defaults. Yes, but we can we save that till the
end because we have we need to fix pick a new date too. I just wanted to get on the record. Yeah, that's fine. So, um section 24457.2 which is the um highway commercial mixeduse zone that is in place for this application
um was adopted many years ago. And um subsequent to the adoption of that ordinance, the council adopted another ordinance 3324. And in that ordinance, the the council attempted to redefine how one calculated the residential density, but it was
ruled upon by prior attorney for this board that this application was protected under the existing ordinance under the time of application rule. So, we're living under the existing ordinance. The existing ordinance says that um the applicant for this for this
project is entitled to four residential units per acre. Um, and it just it says the tract is is what they refer to as the the area. I guess that would be used for the purpose of calculating. Um, it's
our position that all of the prior applications contemplated this project being one unified project. Um, since the initial approval, there was a warehouse approved and sold. There's commercial properties that are approved on the and built on the front of the property.
recently approved phases three and four for residential development. But it's our position that the entirety of the project is detracted under that ordinance. Therefore, when you take the gross acreage and multiply it or divide it by four, the residential density is
significantly higher than what you would do if you used the calculation where you only used the acreage for each section. Um we believe that the correct interpretation is the entirety of the project. I submitted a memo which gave
our position. Um a couple points just in support of our position. U one is that there is a section in the ordinance that is is called the technical subdivision and it contemplated that um the applicant or the developer of this project could would potentially sell off
portions of the project through a less formal subdivision process and we've used that um in the past. So it was always contemplated that it it was possible either for financing certainly or certainly for a sale that a technical subdivision would result in new lots and
then ultimate sale of a portion of the property. We did receive a general development plan approval at the beginning. We acknowledge that this project now under phase one is different than what the general development plan approval was back many many years ago.
But again, that GDP was a comprehensive review of the entire site, not individual components, but the entire site of what this potentially could be developed as. Um, we think that the interpretation that's being asserted now, contrary to our position, is really
an endound getting getting you to exactly where you would be if you use the new ordinance, which you're not allowed to use. And that would means you're going to take phase one only, the acreage from phase one only, divide by four and that's the number of residential units that you would allow.
Our plan as proposed um exceeds what would be allowed and that would result in a density variance. Um we submitted in our memo the reasons why we think this is a comprehensive project that should be considered as one
project, one property as opposed to the multiple sections. Um, the examples we used in our memo, which I'm going to get to in a second, were that there's shared access. Um, all of the components would use the main
access points on Route 537. Um, there's an internal private road or spine road that services the entire complex. For example, the warehouse project cannot get to the road, the route 537 unless it gets onto the spine
road and gets on shared common internal roadway to get to 537. The residential development you just approved um last month can use the common driveway as well. All the other components can use that common driveway to get to either
eastern or western access points of 537. There's shared signage for the entire site. uh there shared utility easements, storm water management. So the comp the project was developed as a unified project. Um
so our position is you should use the entire acreage of the complex and then divide by four to get four units per acre and that would be the density and if that were the ruling of this board then this project can proceed as is without that density variance.
There are other variances that we would have to prove during the course of our pres presentation, but that density variance would not be one of them. So, we're going to ask that the board make a decision on that. Mir, I I think you may have misinterpreted my memorandum to some
degree. The reference that I had made in the memorandum was to the removal, the portion, which I guess was phase two initially that was removed from the GDP. That is the part that I do not believe
should be part of this calculation. Okay. Well, I don't The problem is is that if you limit the review to only that point, the GDP has changed substantially. Um, but that section, it's not just the GDP,
it's changed. I'm sorry to cut you off, but am am I based on a factual misunderstanding? My belief is that that section phase two was affirmatively removed from the GP and is no longer
part of the GDP. That may or not may not be true. I don't know how it's relevant to this argument because again we're the applications no longer are protected by that GDP unless they're going to develop exactly what the GDP approved which is significant
because in terms of the identification of the tract as I understand your argument it if I can try and boil it down and maybe I'm I'm not understanding correctly it's this came in originally and received approvals as a phased
project for all of the this land this tract of land and that no matter what is that your position then you're always going to have to include all of that land that what happens in that land and I'm not talking just about selling off
but that removal from the GDP does not matter um and that no change that once the original approval was given simultaneously for the entire tract that the entire tract would always be
included and that the GDP is irrelevant. Is that your position? Yes, because we're interpreting the ordinance tonight, not the GDP and the subsequent approvals that occur. The ordinance simply says four acres per four units per acre of the tract. And
our position is that tracked is the entirety whether there was a GDP that had everything and then subsequently changed whether we got any approvals that are consistent with the GDP which many of them are no longer consistent with the original. So Mr. Alier your
legal position is that if there has been approve an approval for a complete tract there are no circumstances in which you would not include the entire tract in your calculations for the residential density. Correct.
Um, I question I have a question regarding this. Approximately a month ago, the same applicant was here before this board looking for a minor subdivision
for and this was in phases three and four. And then the position of the applicant was that all that we needed to look at, we being the board, all the board needed to look at was just the the land in that application. So do you see
nothing contradictory in the position that a month ago it was appropriate to look at only a closed section of the overall tract but now you are asking the board to look at the entire tract including the portion previously
removed. No, because and we stated it at that meeting. We did that subdivision and took about five acres off phase one and attached it to phase three and four for the sole purpose of avoiding this argument when it came to three and four. We wanted to get three and four approved
without debating or potentially litigating. So you wanted to have your cake and eat it too. Yeah. Exactly. U because in in in your the way you and there's nothing wrong with that but in your um what we felt especially Mr. Peters raised it in one
of his reports questioning how the density should be calculated we felt that we could develop phase three and four without any question with density which is our right and we never and we made it clear that we were doing that for the sole purpose of getting three
and four approved and now and we and we would agree that for one We said we would come back for one phase one and we would make the argument to consist with what I just did today. Excuse me. So
your position is that the units that were approved for three and four would come off the number of units available even under your calculations. Yes. Even though that was looked at at the
request of the applicant as an entirely discrete section. Yes. So if the board were to look at only this application and the acreage on this application, they would be acting only consistently with what the applicant had
asked them to do in phases three and four. No. If what we're asking you to do for this application, phase one, is to look at the ordinance the way I just described it, which would be the totality of the acreage, the totality of the permitted units, subtract phase
three, four units, and whatever is left can be built somewhere else on the project. In this case, phase one, which and your calculation would also include the removed uh phase two. No, we think phase two is part of the track and therefore it has to be included,
right? But I I I appreciate that that is what you were asking the board to do. But I'm not what my question was is if this board were to treat this application phase one just the way that it treated phases phase three and four
at the applicant's request, wouldn't that be a consistent position? No. No. Because again, we said why we were doing what we were doing because we knew that this issue was going to be an issue that the board was going to have an issue a problem with and we wanted to
get a project approved consistent with what we thought was your interpretation of the ordinance. So, um there's no inconsistency. We just didn't want we kicked the can down the road and we're now at the down the road where we have to deal with the can. So,
so the board as you said this this act has gone through many iterations um and and is also gone through litigation regarding phase phase two. Yes.
Yes. Right. And and so your argument for inclusion of phase two is just that it was part of the original application 10 15 years ago whatever that was. I'm sorry I don't remember the date of the
first application. Um, so it was there then and there's only access through the remainder of the parcel. So that those are the bases that you have for including phase two. Just one of the several that I cited,
but yeah, that's one of the reasons. And the litigation you cited um was that the neighbors at that time did not want a like top golf type facility there. So we had agreed as a settlement to remove that use from the permitted uses that
would be under GDP. That was really the only thing that we that was the reason for the litigation. The neighbors didn't want that use. And didn't did did that approval that they didn't want and that you ended up settling on include any access to
Anderson Road? No. Okay. So it was always contemplated that there would only be access through So so that really is I mean so you said that those are not the only two bases. One it
was part of the original application um that that parcel is part of the original application and has common access. What are what are the other reasons why phase two should be shared signage shared utilities shared storm water management. Right. And but that was all part of of
that original application. And so your position is that should be included for those reasons and that phases three and four should be included and the board should not treat phase one as it treated three and four for the same reasons.
Correct. Mr. Peters here comments, questions, issues, concerns. I was happy to watch the attorneys debate from a practical perspective.
When the general development plan was approved, there were 70 odd uses. There's also the ability to construct residential at four units an acre. The interpretation may have been a flaw
in writing the ordinance. The only new thought I can offer to the board is if the applicant developed sites 285 acres plus or minus. If the applicant developed 280 of it non-residentially,
he'd be entitled to come back here and say the last five acres I can put 1150 units on is 286* 4 is 1150. or are they entitled to build up to four units an acre if they meet the bulk
requirements for the zone? I don't want to get too far down into this. At the end of the day, if you use Mr. Alfier's argument, they keep selling pieces off as they find users for the property. Did they come down have one
acre left and say, "Well, we're entitled to build 286* 4 units on that one last acre or are we entitled to build residential subject to the provisions of the bulk requirements of that zone?"
Now, I just went far a field of the memo you received from Mr. Aieri and the memo you received from Miss Cypriani because we really didn't have any planning or engineering testimony. had respectfully two attorneys reading through the land use law and their interpretation of the
ordinance. From a practical perspective, is it proper to say to the board, if I'm down to one acre, I can still build 1150 units? And I have an answer for that. In the ordinance section 24457.2,
um item F has the residential development standards including the lengths of the buildings, the separation of the buildings etc. So to answer your question on an acre property you could not meet those standards but if the property was large enough to meet all of
those residential st distance standards then yes you could develop it on a smaller track. Thank you. Questions, comments. I I think we need it explained. Um
the the phase that has the warehouses and that is owned by another entity who purchase it. Where does that come into play with with with Mr. Ali's interpretation. Well, in Mr. Alfiri's interpretation, to
speak for him, though he's right here, it would be included in Mr. Alfiri's argument. So, the un under the ordinance that's at issue now. It's four acres. I'm sorry, four the density is um four
per the u acreage of the the tract. So the really the question is the tract under the municipal land use law itself density is the permitted number of dwelling units per gross acre of land that is the subject of an application for development including any
non-ontiguous land which we don't have here if authorized by municipal ordinance which is what we're we are do have or by plan development. Um so in Mr. Alfair's view since and again he is right here so he'll correct me I'm
sure if I'm I'm misquing him the since there was an original application for Adventures crossing as a whole that had section phases one two three and four and I think five at that all in it
that for now and forever that is the tract to be used for calculation of the density that that is the gross acreage of for every applic. What the reason I was singling out phase
two is that phase two was not only sold off um and because there is an argument that that the selling of different pieces would not change that if you're all and and and I I have some disagreement with Mr. Alfieri in the
fact that you you had he had they had a general development plan. They've had different plans for different uh aspects and different phases. I don't think that it is uh coherent to consider it all as
one parcel when it's been the subject of so many separate applications but phase two in particular was removed from the general development plan. The reason I had referred to litigation regarding that is following that litigation, it
was affirmatively removed um from the GDP. So if you're looking at what the tract is either you look back in Mr. view to the original approval which included all of the acreage
or you could look to the GDP and phase 2 has now been removed from the GDP which is part of my argument and the other part is as you recall since it wasn't that long ago that when it came to the application for phases three and four
that the applicant asked us to look only at that application for three and before in terms of calculating density, they actually did a minor subdivision from another section and added it on in order to create the
density for just phases three and four. So those are the factors that the board needs to consider that for this parcel under the ordinance that uh was in effect. This is
nothing to do with the new ordinance. We have to interpret the old ordinance. When it comes to calculating the gross acreage for this application for phase one and the number of residential units that
are permissible or or or there as of right obviously with variances other things be permissible that are there as of right. Is the calculation the entire original uh application or the original uh GDP
area or is that area reduced by the removal of section two? I'm sorry, Mr. I feel like I always have my back to you. Um um is it diminished by the removal of phase two from the general development
plan? Mr. Alfieri has stated that in his view um and he had cited a case in support of that that because there's only one access um and their shared utilities that that
would be um therefore part remain part of the overall tract. I will tell you that in my view those is somebody ringing You hear it, right? Yes.
Oh. Um, it's coming from there. I do. Okay. Um, sorry for the interruption. My view though those factors have weight they are not dispositive because there
are other kinds of development and I'm sure some have come before the board where there is um a question of access there they're clearly separate projects but they have a cross access or they have shared utilities that those factors
are indicative of commonality but they are not dispositive on that issue. So th that's really the question before the board and certainly I'll give Mr. Alfieri a respon an opportunity to respond but that's that's what you're being asked.
Do you have look at because it was part of the the original application included all phases of adventure crossing and the GDP originally included all phases as um so do you in terms of the gross
density the number of units that will be permissible in phase one. Look at and calculate that in light of the entire tract as it was at the time of the original application and the time of the original GDP which included phase two or
do you believe that since phase two was removed from the GDP not just sold but removed from the GDP that that portion would not be included? Um then I'm going to Skip for a second. Mr. Peters had also raised an issue on
whatever is left and I think Mr. Ali in essence agreed with this that um if the bulk standards are met, the bulk standards are applicable and could reduce the number of permissible units on their own aside from the density calculation. So you always have to look
at the bulk requirements no matter what the the application is to see if they're met. But also the last issue that I had raised was that the applicant had of its own valition a month ago asked the board
to look only at sections three and four and calculate the density residential density for sections three and four that was approved by the board approximately a month ago as a discrete unit. And I suggest that a universe where the
applicant gets to uh make that selection but the board does not that that is not necessarily required by the law. So you can either
take it as a whole can just cut off that section two that has been removed from the GDP um which I reduce the acreage and I'm not going to do math for you because it's not my strong suit but there's some number of acreage amount of acreage obviously that was in phase two that
that would then remove um and then the density would be calculated on the remainder of the tract that is still been part is still part of the GDP still part of applications before this board. In other words, you're taking section
two and almost grandfathering it in. Well, Mr. Alfuri is Yeah, I am not. It's been grandfathered in as as part of the acreage for the whole project. Yes, because it's the entire track. But just in response to one point, I believe
it might have been you, Mr. who asked us at the three phase three and four hearing, how are we handling that density question and my response was we're doing this minor sub to avoid it here but we're going to deal with it at the next phase one hearing. That was my
response because we did not want to have that battle and have this entire project potentially held up in that that on that issue. So that's why but my point I'm sorry my point is Mr. that you the board that the applicant
uh availed itself of that option but that also indicates that each application can be looked at it on its own each phase. We don't agree that that's the case but
you could certainly interpret it that way. So if I could just ask um I'm trying to understand the general purpose of the GDP um a little bit better because according to what Mr. Feler is saying is that like Mr. Hopsy is saying is that
it's technically grandfathered in. What is the purpose of that GDP? If things change drastically throughout the plan and things are removed and added, what is the actual purpose of it if not for
this? Well, Mr. H, the the purpose of the GDP is to avoid to some extent, but it is to provide a comprehensive development plan for a large track such
as this. You wouldn't see GDP for, you know, acre track. It's for a large track that's intended to have multiple uses. Um, and it is to provide a uh comprehensive and coherent plan for how
that large track will be developed. Certainly, there is a mechanism in the law for amendment of the GDP. In this case, and and I I don't want to put words in Mr. Alfar's mouth, but it appears that that the applications
have wandered away from the GDP to a a high degree. Mr. Alfiri is suggesting to you that the GDP is therefore and and again I'm going to put it in a strong way and you can can soften that Mr. Alfi is irrelevant.
That the GDP, you know, it was it was intended and it was amended a certain amount of times and then just kind of left by the wayside and and gone on to applications. But that it doesn't matter because it's not about the GDP even though that was the comprehensive plan
for this this entire tract that it's about the original application that was made prior to the GDP. So if it requires a GDP and we've deviated from that original plan like you're saying numerous times, what was
the purpose of it? Can I tell you from the applicant's point of view what was so first of all at the time that the GDP was now you could now you could look at it I'm just waiting for the right moment
at the time the G well first of all the reason one does a GDP is on a project of this magnitude um it's going to take more than five years which is usually what you have as a protection for a site plan so it's really It's it's a road map of a concept of how the project will be
developed so that you're protected in this case for 20 years from zone changes if you're going to develop in condition with the GDP. The important thing to note and and you would not know this because I don't know if any of you were here back then, maybe the chairperson was the GDP was done before this HCMU
zone was even created. And the GDP does not have a density number for the residential units. It's just a road map of what it's going to look like. But it didn't it doesn't it's before the ordinance was even adopted. So that's one of the reasons why we're saying it's really not relevant because we're reading this ordinance which was adopted
after the GDP and it simply says four units residential units per acre. Well, Mr. I just it's also true that in the law at um sorry the uh here we go uh
4055D-45.1 it says the general development plan shall set forth the permitted number of dwelling units the amount of non-residential floor space the residential density so all of those things would have been or certainly should have been part of the GDP
And the reason for that is again to have this comprehensive plan that's set forward. So Mr. Alfiri is correct that there have been changes in the local ordinances
during the uh life of this you these adventure crossings applications. But, you know, the the the ordinances and the
applications that were made, the obtaining of a general development permit, the removal of things from a general permit, I mean, there the the approvals of this board and the GDP are not a buffet from which only the most
favored elements can be selected. Um the applicant did get a GDP and in doing so indicated to this board this is our plan and this is what is
included in this plan both in terms of the uses and in terms of the land and that a a certain point for reasons that that don't necessarily concern us and we don't necessarily need know or need to know section two was removed from that
GP. So, isn't it kind of the same where if you remove phase two and let's say phase if it's grandfathered in and phase two decide to do something else, they would like using
the entire right now and and or let me ask it with my understanding is phase two and it is developed but it could come in and make an application. It has a separate owner. that's removed from the GDP. I mean, it
certainly would have to show in its application access and it would show that access through adventures crossing and as I said that is a relevant factor but not a dispositive factor because there are other circumstances in which that can be the case that there's only
access um through um another's property. So yes, that that has been and and and this goes I mean I don't mean to be facitious with this you know have your cake and eat it too um and facitious and cliched but there there is meat to that
argument or to that position which is that it is again saying you know it's phase phase two is part of this when we want it to be but not when we don't want it to be and though I will not go And I
think that Mr. Alfiri's uh position regarding three and four that was taken here that was like we we you can look at things discreetly when we want you to but you can't look at things discreetly when we don't want you
to. Um so you know I I from my perspective and my advice to the board is that phase two which has been removed from the GDP is not appropriately considered uh for the gross density but I certainly you know Mr. Alfi if you'd
like to be heard on that again. Well, just um one thing I neglected to mention because you mentioned the GDP and if we're focused solely on the GDP without considering all the other elements that I talked about, then we're missing some of the more significant points. Again,
the GDP was done under an old ordinance did not have a 4unit per acre density discussion of any kind. The new ordinance that we're working under today has that for the first time. Number two, The GDP did not have any warehouses. The
new ordinance created a warehouse as a permitted use and that's why the warehouse ultimately got developed as fa in phase two. But if but the focus saying since phase two was removed from the GDP, you should not include it. It's it's really what does what was the intent of the ordinance when it said
four units per acre. And that's really the the I think that the I would what I would say is that from my argument that what is critical is what did the ordinance mean? It was said 40 units per acre for the tract. What is the tract? That is
the question. And you're saying that because the original application and all of the other things that you put forward and I'm not um you know regarding the utilities and all that that it therefore is still one tract and that the removal from the GDP is not relevant to the
identification of the tract. My position and and my argument, but it's up to the board to decide, is that that removal um and everything that has occurred regarding phase two makes it that that phase two is no longer part of
the tract for purposes of the density calculation. So what when was the when was phase two removed from the application and when did the new
ordinance go into effect? When you say that when you say the new ordinance, we're not talking about the brand new ordinance. You're talking about the original uh the original goes back to right the original but the uh the highway commission the highway
commercial mixed juice zone thank you was adopted February 11 2020 and the settlement of the litigation that resulted in the remare property
predated that I'm trying to see if I have that exact date well the stipulation of settlement is dated It is October 9th, 2019. I don't know if there were a year before. So, 2019, I have it here, too. So, you guys know that I'm a bit of a nerd and I have notes from all these, as
you can see, all our meetings. And I don't what's really interesting is I don't know who asked the question, but the answer for Mr. Alfuri at that time, I think was Mr. Heyman, but I'm not I can't tell you for sure. His comment was yes, it was removed from their project,
but it was not removed from the tract. So he's I guess what I'm saying is I'm I'm a little torn here because he maintained even then and this is back on March 5th of this year when we were hearing testimony that although that track two
although that phase two was removed from the project it was not removed from the tract of land because it was still interdependent on the roadways and the utilities and all of that. So I'm a little I'm your faces and I'm I'm as pointed as you are like I'm not
sure where to go with that. If you had a GDP because it was over a certain size and protection from zoning where does that leave us? It's not owned by the same people. It but it's dependent on those other things. So where does that leave us? I guess that's my confusion.
Right. So that and that goes really to that question of what is the tract and Mr. Alfiri's position today is consistent with your notes that he believes that phase two is part of the tract because of this interdependence.
Um and you know my view that the the removal of that you know if if it in 2019 phase 2 was removed before the ordinance came into effect then not only is it not part of the tract today but it
was not part of the tract then at the time of the adoption of the ordinance. Now you know though so and and Mr. Alfury does you know talk about the utilities and there is interdependence as I said those are definitely relevant
factors I do not think that they are dispositive factors but that's that I will stop repeating myself and let the you know the board I'm sorry I'm going to I'm gonna ask you another question that's okay do we consider that it's no longer own
has the same ownership okay so under the the the develment plan and the ordinance, the fact of uh subdividing and a change in ownership is again not dispositive. It doesn't
necessarily remove it from the tract. So I just had a question I think it was lines of the track. So when we say phase two was removed, right? So at that time it was removed from what?
It was removed from the general development plan that had been applied for and granted by the board that was supposed to rule to to uh set out the plan for the development of this overall removal. Correct.
Right. We all agreed the GDP phase two is removed. Yes. Very good. But now we're saying it's not removed. No, I I think no. What Mr. G Mr. Alfuri is saying, Mr. GDP, Mr. Mr. Alfuri is
saying is that it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter that it was removed because that in in his argument that what determines what the tract is is the original application. That application for this overall site
predated the HC MU ordinance. It predated the GDP. At some point in 2016, 2017, something like that, there was an application that was made that covered this whole site.
Yes. Subsequent to that, there was an application covering the whole site and I'm including all the phases in that for for a GDP for all of that. Yes. All right. So before that happened,
phase two was remove uh I'm sorry and then the um after that happened the HCMU ordinance was adopted. So phase two is removed from the site and then the ordinance is adopted
removed from the GDP. I'm sorry from the So it's removed my mistake removed from the GDP. It didn't vanish. So right it was removed from the GDP. It is my position
um that that removal that it was not part of the GDP at that time. it's not part now that it is not part of the tract that the tract is phases one uh three four and five I never talk
about five but I guess it's still there um and that that those are the parcels in which it be calculated that that phase two removed from the GDP should not be contemplated Mr. Fury says, "Don't worry about the GDP. That doesn't
matter. It is the original application back in 2016 or 17. I'm sorry, I don't have that date." And the fact that phase 2 still has access through the rest of this of uh
Adventures Crossing, the Adventures Crossing site, and shares utilities with that site. When phase three and four were heard and passed, did you include that as part of your GDP in your calculations? I think you said
no. No. Did the phases three and four that that was passed last month. Was that included in a in a full GDP? Was the property included or was the that residential design included? Um the
property was included in GDP but that that those condominium units were not part of the the GDP. So you figure your numbers not on the GPD but just on that that area. The numbers have nothing to do with the
GDP because we're looking at an ordinance that was adopted after the GDP that established the four units per acre. That was after the GDP completely after it. Yeah. So I I think Dr. Raj
and Mr. Alfier will correct me if I'm wrong in the uh for the application that the board heard last month or decided last month for applicate for lots three and four the density calculation was done only on
lots of three and four. Yes. So if so I'm trying I'm trying to phrase the question correct yeah you have to talk to life I'm just trying to understand
because now that since it's not in their favor it was in their favor to not look at it before and then now it's in their favor to look at it as a Correct. And what I am suggesting to the board and that is is a um a definitely a
position to be taken that they asked for that uh for three and four and that that's all should be done. My recommendation is simply that phase two be removed and the fact that phase three and four were considered at the
applicant's request as a closed set application. Not looking at the uh the remainder of the sites um remainder of the phases and the rest of the tract which in my view does not include uh
track two um is supportive of that but not you know I'm not suggesting that is a position the board can take and Mr. Alfuri seemed to think that we were taking it originally to look only at the application so if we were to if we were to agree
with Criani saying that that would that would mean that they would require a density variance in order for this to be considered for approval. Correct. It would be it would they would certainly still be entitled to some number of units. Obviously they still
would be looking at the acreage for uh one three four and five. So there would definitely be a density calculation based on those that acreage. So they would be entitled to a number of units. I that number of units would be less
than the number in the current application. So on the current application to give that number of units they would need a density variance which is why Mr. Alfairi mentioned at the beginning of this time that they may not
have to they might have to renotice because that would be a D5 variance. All right. So if we go back to what Chris I'm sorry I feel like I'm beating a dead horse for you. I apologize but I just want to make sure we all understand. Crisel brought up the fact that when we discussed and approved last
month phase three and four, we only considered phase three and four. Correct. Correct. So if we're giving fair and equal treatment, then we're only considering phase one because you just said we could in we we could conceptually include 1,
three, four, and five and that would still reduce the number of units. But if we if we consider what Crisel said and we only consider phase one, we would only consider that acreage. Correct. Okay. Does that make does Okay. Yeah.
Um so to me it kind of boils down to any guidance that we have as far as the definition of a track. When we say we remove phase two, does that include removing it from the track? Is there any guidance or is it up to us to to
determine that it so there is not a definition of that term tracked within the ordinance. So and that really is at the heart of the matter. So you can accept the
interpretation that was given that what governs the tract is the original application and all of the land that included back in 2016
or and I'm saying 2016 might be 2017 but at that the first time that there was an application for this board before for this project just not that it's going to be relevant but just so the record's clear in 2017 there was only 75 acres that was part of
the application that was filed then um so I think we have to look at what was in existence when the ordinance was adopted in 2010 which was this entire adventure crossing project because the first application this applicant didn't own the entire what we call the tract subsequently he
the other courses oh thank you Mich so that then that is a question so what is the track the at at the time of the adoption of the HCMU
ordinance There were applications that was actually after the time that phase two had already been removed from the GDP. The ordinance was adopted subsequently. It had been removed from the GDP and
been the then was the subject of an application uh for the warehouses and that was where they had had the litigation and all of that. So there it was at the time of the passing of the ordinance perhaps still in common
ownership but it had already been removed from the GDP. Right. And so to me it comes down to at that moment where you said okay yep let's remove it. It wasn't defined remove it from where? So it right because
it wasn't removed from was the tracks. Well, I mean the I you right in in a basically you know the tract is the land. Yeah. Itself. So no, you couldn't say you were going to remove it from the land. It was removed from the GDP. It
was then subsequently removed from common ownership, but it does still have common access and common utilities. And so it was removed from the GDP and in theory removed from all calculations, density calculations, traffic,
all the other calculations. Was it removed from everywhere? No. But can I can I make a suggestion maybe only because this is so complex and there's such a long history um and Mr. Bordon just suggested it. If we agree that um you don't act on this
tonight, we'll notice for the density variance, you can have then Mr. Bordon come up, present the testimony, give you show you each plan, show you how it evolved. If that would help you. If it doesn't help you, then you want to decide tonight. That's okay, too. But I don't if that's helpful, we're willing to do that. Notice for the density. If
you we don't need it, there's no harm. And if we need it, we're just keep going. If that's helpful, we'll be glad to do that. Would that be helpful to the board? Definitely. Definitely. Thank you, Mr. Alerty. Thank you, Mr. Bord. Thank you, Mr. Bordon. So, if we could pick a date, I will
notice worst case on our situation, which is the density D5 variance and everything else, and we'll come back and we'll start with this point. We'll give you the whole It's going to take time unfortunately, but we get paid by the hour. So, I I only ask that Mr. Bordon speak into
the microphone. Okay. So, what's the next date that's available? Hi, Mr. Alieri. How are you today? Good. How are you? Uh, September 3rd is the first we can get on. We currently have no application scheduled, so I can give you spot number one. That's perfect. September.
September 3rd, 2025. Thank you. I think that would be very helpful. Good. Thank you. So, we'll you don't have to announce anything. We will we will renotice for September 3rd. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Enjoy the summer if I'm not back in August. enjoy the summer
and and I and since you said you wanted to do it at the end, I assume you still wave statutory defaults. Yes, we wave everything through at least the September 3rd meeting, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we're going to take a 10-minute break. We'll return at um I
think it says 8. It'll be 8:35. Thank you. call the meeting back to order. Before we move on to the applicant, if you could just give me two more minutes, please. Um, I was remiss in my duties. I need we also need a motion and a second
to reappoint our recording secretary Kathleen Bibsa and our acting recording secretary Gina Tumulo. Um so I need a motion and a second and just to be clear um I know that Miss Sriani talked about the changing dynamics in the state about
the newspapers but we never really put them up the names on the record. So it's the Aspbury Park Press and Star Ledger. So I just wanted to make sure we got that. I'm sorry. Are they not considered professionals? Well, Gina, not in this capacity. She's the acting recording secretary, so it's
not considered a professional. So, we need a motion. I'll make a motion to approve. Second. We have a motion. Second, Mr. Martins. Yes. Yes. Mr. Hyman. Yes. Dr. Hoffstein. Yes.
Mr. Rosal? Yes. Miss Bradley? Yes. Thank you. Now gladly move on to application number four. Kai lifeline NJ Inc. Signs varants 3535 location 90
North County Line Road. Good evening. Apologize. Michael Roberts on behalf of Kai Lifeline. Um presenting of Mr. Gordon in regard to the application for the varants. Mr. Bordon, I'm use a microphone. Do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you'll give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. And please state your name and credentials briefly. Certainly. Ian Bordon, president of professional design services, Lakewood, New Jersey, licensed professional
planner, testified. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. So, we're here tonight uh to talk about a sign var a couple of sign variances for High Lifeline. Uh High Lifeline is building is in the
process of completing a facility uh located on North County Line Road. It is located between in front of the Jackson Green Apartments next to Bartley Healthcare. So, it's on the north side of uh County Line Road. The site is about 5 acres. I had actually done the
site plan in 2005 uh with the planning board. It was approved and uh remained undeveloped for for many years and high lifeline uh bought it I'm I'm guessing two or three years ago and has been developing it. So the building is is substantially
completed and the site work has been uh partially completed and they are looking to complete the identification sign for the project. the the now first as an introduction to the board members that
may not know uh High Lifeline is a uh nonprofit organization. This supports families primarily of of sick children, cancer uh children. Uh they perform a variety of medical and educational
purposes and family support purposes. gotten to know them and it's an absolutely I'm sure my attorney here is much more familiar with it than I am, but knowing the people that are that are running the organization is run out of New York and this is this is going to be uh their main facility in Ocean County,
which is pretty pretty cool. Uh the building is around I I don't have the exact number here, but it's a single building. It was approved, frankly, as a shopping center back in 2005. And it's about 25,000 square feet, I actually it's 34,000 square ft and they're
occupying the entire building for this charitable purpose. Uh the approved site plan contains a sign located in the if you look at the variance plan that was submitted, we noted where the approved sign was located. It's located in the corner the front right corner or the
southeastern corner of the property. And that was a freestanding sign. Uh pretty typical for for shopping centers uh along uh County Line Road. It's permitted by the ordinance primarily. It's uh 16 16 ft high with an area of uh
75 ft and a setback of 30 ft. Actually an area of 100 square feet. U the maximum sign area on under the ordinance at that time and continuing today was 75 square ft. So we obtained a variance in 2005
for a 100 square foot sign where 75 square foot is is permitted. Uh high lifeline is proposing a very distinctive sign frankly in my opinion a very attractive sign uh that serves three purposes and that's
kind of the foundation of why we are requesting the the variances. The bas they're proposing a ground sign of a height of 16 ft. The area is substantially larger, 247 square feet and and and we have a zero setback.
We're proposing it right on the front property line. Uh the reason for the zero setback, and I'll provide some planning testimony in a few minutes, is we're moving the sign from the southeastern corner to the center of the property. They they believe centrally located it in the in between the
driveways u is is a good location. and we are limited by the um location of the existing driveway that's being constructed. The sign uh has basically three
components. The the top portion of the sign which is 57 57 square ft contains the and there's a color on the on the variance map that was submitted contains the high lifeline uh name.
Below that is 76 square feet which is reserved for donor names. They have some samples on there. So they want to recognize those individuals or corporations that that donate substantial I guess I'm assuming funds to the uh charable uh organization. And
then the uh the 144 square feet on the bottom is proposed to be a single animated sign to advertise the u the facility and events and that's again illustrated on the variance plan. So what we what we what we are required to
obtain for this v for this sign is is uh the following variances and and obviously the board professional letters properly called these out and I agree with all of their recitations. Uh first is that uh because this sign is mounted on the ground, it's it's
considered by the definition of the ordinance a ground sign. A ground sign has a maximum height of 16 of 6 feet, I'm sorry, 6 feet. We are proposing a sign of 16 ft. So it's the same height as the approved sign, but because the
sign extends all the way to the ground and doesn't have space below the sign, it's not a freestanding sign as the approved sign is, but it's a ground sign. So, in my opinion, that's a technical variance. The actual height of the sign is no different than what's approved, but under the definition of
the ordinance, that requires a variance. Uh, second is the uh uh sign area uh under B6G. These are all under the signed ordinance 244-207. The maximum area of a ground sign, again, technical ground sign is 30
square ft. A freestanding sign, as I mentioned, is permitted to have a 75 square feet, but we are considered a ground sign because we're, as I said, located on the ground. So, we are requesting a variance where 247 ft
are proposed where 30 square ft is is permitted. Uh I believe the comparison in my opinion should practically should be 247 versus the 100 square f feet that's approved but technically the variance is 30 ft permitted 247 proposed
the setback is required to be 30 ft for a sign of that area. We are proposing again zero square ft um and there's two final variances that all are the same component. One is section A20, one is
section D1 under the sign ordinance 244207. And both of them per pro prohibit animated signs. So um animated signs, I'm sure the board has heard in the past, are not permitted anywhere in in the township of Jackson. So um we've
done them rarely. Um venture crossing, funny enough, was one example where one was approved. But um we are proposing again the animated uh portion which represents 46% of the sign area.
Um and should also be noted that the sign is is located within a there's a 6ft shade tree and utility easement that that exists along the behind the front line of the property and the sign overlaps on top of that on top of that easement.
Um and and lastly, we do have two waiverss and then I'll circle back and do the planning testimony and some more technical testimony, but lastly, we have two waiverss required also under the sign uh uh ordinance. One is for the number of colors. The sign
ordinance doesn't allow more than four colors for any one sign and obviously has an animated sign. There's many different colors. So that that's a waiver. These are design waiverss as identified by the planners review. Um
and uh la lastly is under B6C the under the ground sign you're required to have landscaping at the base of the sign and we are proposing uh to have the sign extend to the ground. So obviously we can't do landscaping at the base of the sign uh because it would
obscure obscure the sign. Um uh focusing uh first on the shade tree and utility easement that was assigned during the site plan. Uh there are no utilities located in that easement. All of the water and sewer and gas are
located out in County Line Road in front of the property. That was really a technical matter that was required by the planning board at that time. So there are no utilities within that easement. That's not to say one might be extended there in the future. I cannot contemplate where how that would occur,
but having the sign over the easement would not preclude that from occurring either. In my opinion, the sign and the easement can can coexist. And similarly on the shade tree uh the shade tree aspect of the easement, there are shade trees proposed to be planted along the frontage. We will continue to plant
those u and they're not affected uh by this by this sign. As far as the variance is concerned, the property is 550 ft of lot frontage along County Line Road. So, it is a what I would consider to be a wide property. We did place the
sign in the middle of the site. Normally, when you're dealing with animated signs, one of the concerns you have in one of the in other ordinances, not not particularly in Jackson, but a design consideration is you don't want an animated sign located too close to a traffic signal. You don't want to have
the colors of the animated sign confused or conflated with with the traffic signal. In our case, we have no traffic signal located in close proximity. You have Barley Road which is easily uh 6 700 ft north of the property
which has a signal. But again, that's why we put the sign in the middle of the property. So to avoid any confusion or conflicts with any other adjoining signs or anything like that. And in my opinion that the sign would qualify as a C2
benefits versus detriments variance. I do believe that there's no negative impacts from this uh sign particularly because we're dealing with a charitable organization u that is building an absolutely beautiful facility. It's a very large facility. I think be befitting a larger
sign and u certainly in my opinion will have no negative impact on the uh on the zone plan or master plan. Uh lastly, the um the board planner did ask for testimony that regarding the performance standards found in 244 160
ordinance. These are the general performance standards that we include in most testimony but but uh certainly include those at at their request and that is uh does the proposed variance adversely impact noise, air pollution,
solid waste, radiation, fire hazard or lighting? basically general environmental impacts and in my opinion certainly the sign does not it does not generate any noise does not generate any air pollution or solid waste radiation fire hazard the as far as lighting
concerns the lighting aspect of that performance standard in the ordinance focuses on spotlights and flood lights none of those are proposed here the light this this sign will be internally illuminated and obviously animated so there's no spotlights on the sign that's
that's the where the ordinance lighting uh standard applies. Uh so in my opinion uh we we um we don't have any negative uh impacts on those uh performance standards. So in my opinion
the variance can be granted without detriment to the zone plan or master plan. I'm sorry Mr. I just want to get something clear regarding the easements. You referred to them being done during the planning application. Who holds the
easements? I believe it's dedicated to uh Jackson Township. I'm not positive on that though. I'm reading my variance plan. It says 6 foot wide shade tree utility easement. Doesn't say to whom it's dedicated, but normally they are. I should have added
that normally a shade tree utility easement, it's unusual in my opinion for them to be assigned to a commercial property like this, normally a shade tree utility easements are associated with residential developments. All subdivisions that we do and have done for 30, 40 years have these types of
easements because when you're dealing with a residential roadway, a 50- foot rideaway, typically the purpose for the utility easement is for not for water and gas or sewer. Well, it might be for gas, but it's for electric and cable.
That's really what the because they they're in in the case of subdivisions, the electric and cable are constructed outside of the rightway. behind uh on the front edge of the of the residential properties. So, in some cases and possibly even this board, I don't have
that good of a memory, we're asked to provide those as a checklist item for commercial properties and we always do. My point is that it doesn't serve any purpose because all the utilities in this case are out in the roadway and
but as long as the easement stands, we're not proposing exercise. We're not proposing to vacate the easement or change the easement. And honestly, I don't believe there's any prohibition in the in the easement that would that would restrict us from putting the sign on top of it. Certainly wouldn't propose
a building that's on, you know, on top, but the sign is not a uh in my opinion not a contradictory use. Yes. Just a few followup uh questions and comments. First, you already touched on the the proposed sign it. And just to
confirm, is that going to be replacing the already approved freestanding sign? Thank you, Mark. I should have said that. Yes, we're we're not proposing both signs. We're replacing the approved sign with this proposed sign. So, that sign will be will not be constructed.
Okay. And regarding the shade tree and utility easement, um you mentioned that right now there's currently no utilities within that easement. That's your understanding, correct? And should there need to be any utilities in the future, you it's your
opinion that they could still put utilities in underneath the sign? Yes. Um you've described what the sign will have on it, such as the business name, dedication plaques, and then the digital screen. You said the digital screen will
display um images and wording relating to the business itself. Yes, it would not be off-site advertising. Um it would only display events for high lifeline. When it comes to animated signs, there's concerns with safety. For example, how
often we don't want it to be distracting to drivers. Um can you speak about how often that the screen will flash or blink or move or would you be willing to uh provide testimony that you will comply with typical
animation guidelines for safety? I have not had that conversation, but I absolutely agree. We would comply with normal uh industry accepted guidelines. That's a very good point. It's not the intent to change the copy so quickly that it becomes distractive. And there are typically while Jackson doesn't have
standards, there's there's, as Mr. Romeer indicates, there's other standards that apply. We would certainly comply with those. Okay. Regarding um any site obstruction, it it's my opinion that the sign is out of any sight triangle from the driveway
entrance and exits. It would Are you in agreement with that, Mr.? Yes. Yes. It's not in any sight. Uh again, that's why we placed it centrally in the site to keep it out of any sight lines of the driveways. And the township ordinance section 244-207
describes all the specific requirements for signs. I believe Mr. Bordon touched on the ones that they're seeking design waiverss from. for example, know the the setback. Can you just explain why you need the zero foot setback?
Yes. Uh normally we wouldn't request that, but in the case of this design, uh again the design dating back to 2005, the front driveway parallel to County Line Road is located 20 ft from the rightway line. So we have a curb line
that runs parallel to the rightway 25 ft offset. So, um, we're we're basically the sign is 20 feet wide, so it occupies the space between the curb and the prop and the rightway. Um,
there's no sidewalk proposed or existing along the frontage. Is that correct? That's correct. That's all I have at this time. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Bordon, you had indicated in your testimony that the original approval
for freestanding sign received a variance for 100 square feet were 75 ft per minute. Is that correct? Yes. How long ago was that? That was 2005. So for 20 years, this property has had that approval. Correct. Yes. To best of your knowledge, has the have
the sign ordinances in town changed since? No, not to my knowledge. Um, is there any reason that the sign can't be smaller than 20t wide so as not to have a zero foot setback?
I I would say no. I would say no. Is there any reason that the um 75 foot donor space couldn't be put on the front of the building as opposed to the sign?
That's a question for my client who's not here. Um the answer is I I don't know the answer to that. I know it was very important for them to have them on the sign and you had akinned the size of the sign to the size of the
adventure crossing sign. Well, I just mentioned there was another animated sign. Are you familiar with any other 247 square foot signs in this area along County Line Road for projects that are 5
acres in size or for the building sizes that are 34,000 square feet? Uh, I don't know the exact area, but across the street from us is an existing professional plaza that has a sign that I would guess is is
between 150 and 200 square ft. It's not animated, but it's it's I can't remember the name of the complex. My son had guitar lessons in there. U, but they have the name of the facility. And in that case, it's more of a typical sign where they have all the placards of all
the business names. But that that's that's significantly larger than the uh than the assigned ordinance permits. So I guess my concern is that it's nice to want to sign this big and it's nice
to provide some testimony, but I'm not sure that given the site constraints that there isn't either a better location. Is there the ability to revise the parking layout inside the project so you could have the sign
further back or so that it be could become a freestanding sign or so that could greater conform to the variance that was granted? It just seems that we said we wanted a 16 by 20 sign and we want it out front and we want it to be animated. We want it to have all
of this information on it. Um, but I'm not sure that it doesn't have a negative impact on the zone plan or the zone ordinance because we specifically restrict animated signs. And it doesn't appear that there's an advertisement for
the use of the building in the donor spaces. And so, while the sign is a handsome sign, it just it requires significant relief from the municipal ordinances. And I'm not sure that to the
board members that there's been sufficient testimony to sustain the variance. Really, thank you. As far as moving this sign back farther, normally in in these cases, in normal shopping center or a commercial design would have the front
curb line of a property project would have parking spaces. In other words, you have cars that park headon facing the roadway. And normally we would just take one or two parking spaces away and move the sign back into an island that we create in the parking
spaces. In this case, however, if you look at the variance plan, it is a driveway that runs along parallel to the road. So to to the question that can we just make some modification to the to the parking area, the answer is no. Uh because
you know, well, you can always make modifications, but they they would be very you could flip the entire design. You could have the the aisle that faces County Line Road up against the building. Correct. And and that would take away
at least 20 spaces that that front the building. Remembering this is a charitable use for sick children. I think it's important to have those spaces close to the to the building and it's it's an approval that's been here for 20 years.
Yes. So, could could this could the sign be relocated further west or to the left on the drawing to the space where the westerly entrance drive is outside of the site. What what what could happen is we we
have islands looking right behind the sign. There's there's two islands there. Could the sign be placed in one of those islands? Yes. And then we'd have to raise the sign, the bottom of the sign, so that you could see it over the cars. Right.
Right now, we're proposing a ground sign. So, we would it could become more of a freestanding sign in that island. Have the bottom of the sign. Right now, the bottom of the sign, I have the map here. The approved sign has a clearance to the
bottom of the sign of 5'6 in. So we could maintain that same clearance say so you could see it the bottom of the sign over top of the cars. I mean that I think without I would need to discuss that with my client but from a planning and engineering perspective that that
could that could happen. Right. That would that would provide us with a 30-foot setback which is required by the ordinance that would eliminate that variance. Um it would it it would uh make are you providing
engineering testimony? No. Okay. Just be clear. Um so I mean that that would be an alternative to relocate the sign to the island and raise it. the same size.
I propose it to be the same size. Why do you need the animation? U I'd have to defer to my my client who's who's not here. If you if you eliminated the animation, if you had the donor plaques moved to the building
here, we have to introduce the donor plaques move to the building where more people who are interested in what's happening there will see the names of the people who provided the the structure. They would get more
recognition with that and and you could have a smaller and set it back further and and would be more in line with the ordinances that we have. Have Mr. Aaron Sharper sworn in as a representative for Kif Line, not as an
attorney, but just as a Hi, good evening. Hi. I'm sorry. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. I um Um, sure. My name is Aaron Troper and I
am a law clerk at Rosenberg Law Group. We represent Kai Lifeline as general counsel. And uh, just to Dr. Hoffstein's question in regards to the animation of the sign. Kai lifeline has many um
different events throughout the year and the purpose of the animation is to let the people know for example we have a toy drive that takes place about four or or five times a year. We have different events that we'll be holding in the
building to benefit these children. And it is our goal again not to have a sign which is going to be changing um as as as was brought up but we do want the people to understand and to know what we're trying to do and who we're trying
to benefit which is these uh sick children. I'm sorry I have a just a couple of questions. I wasn't sure just for the record. I didn't get I didn't get your last name. Sure. Aaron Tropper. T R O P E R
and I'm sorry, you're a a law clerk or Yeah, correct. At the Rosenberg Law Group. Just Yeah, that was that part was just for the record. Sure. Um but so I I think in terms of the moving sign and and I think you had had
honed on on a question that had the board and the professionals had asked. So how often would you anticipate that the message would change and it would would it also be flashing or is it just sort of that you would have the ability
to change the message? So it is my understanding that um it would change um as per the event. So, for example, um let's say if we're running an event, uh you know, so maybe one um one week prior or two weeks
prior, we would put up what the event would be, but it would not be changing such as a sign like that would be flashing different um events or maybe different pictures. uh instead is my understanding that it would be to publicize that um event and
then once that would pass perhaps we would change it to the upcoming event that would be further down the road. Mr. Dropper, please correct me if I'm wrong. When I first reviewed this application um for the LED sign, how my
interpretation of it was more so kind of like those new menu boards you see nowadays. So the advertisement itself would be stationary. It would just be changeable. Is that is that more accurate to say? So your advertisements there's not going to be any blinking, flashing, anything like that. It's just
going to be more so so it can um u be on a rotation correct and easily changeable. The advertisement itself is not going to be animated or moving in any way. Correct. Is that fair enough to say? Is that offer any clarity? That that's how I initially reviewed it. Anyway,
could that could that be a condition of approval? Meaning I I personally um have issue with animated signs. I hate to say it, but in front of this building. I find it very distracting every time I drive down the road here. I'm in front of adventure crossings, the ones that I
know of that are actually animated and they're flashing and a lot going on. I find it personally um distracting. So, like Mr. Bordon said, it doesn't distract, you know, as far as traffic lights go, but in general, I find that to be an issue. So, I personally have no
issue with the change from time to time. uh if you want to change it for an event, but I would love that could be a condition of approval. Yeah, please allow me to clarify. I think my terminology was probably a bit skewed creating that confusion. The the ordinance describes signs as not
being animated or changeable copy. We're not proposing it. I think I we're not proposing an animated sign. Right. It's not Disney World. We We've all seen those signs with the chasing flashing. That's correct. The words are moving. We're proposing changeable copy sign.
and a changeable copy as Mr. Troper testified that would change on more of a daily basis, not a not even more than once per day. Just two quick points for discussion. My apologies. Um
it's uh obviously illuminated um pretty much the whole thing. How bright are those lights going to be that close to the road? And the it doesn't specify on here. here. I mean, we can measure to scale, Ian, but like where this sign location is, how
far away from the entrance and exits of that parking lot is there just because I mean, county line, you're driving pretty fast on it. And if you're coming down and everyone likes to speed, someone's pulling out or pulling in. Are we discussing where they were proposing or
of the island like like you discussed? Well, in the in the proposed location as submitted to the board, again, it's the the driveways. There's two driveways into the property. U being we're on County Line Road, which is divided
roadway. We have right in and right out only. So, we have two driveways that are right in and right out. It's between the two. It's closer to the northern one. It's approximately uh 150 ft uh south of the northernmost uh drive. Again, as I with Mr. Roar's
questions, outside of the site triangle easement, if it were to be moved to the island, it will be another it would be more centrally located an additional 40 ft south of that drive. So, about 200 feet south of the drive. So, it's not in close proximity to
either drive. And the other part of my question, Ian, again, I don't know much about um that type of of LED changeable copy sign, but how bright are those? Because just my own personal experience, some of those really take your your eyes
some time to adjust as you go past. Is there any type of restriction that maybe we can put on it? Lumens maybe, I'm not really sure. I can speak to that. So, I I mentioned previously there's typical animated sign or illuminated sign standards. So, just
to hit on a couple, which uh I'd be happy to go over in more detail, but um so there's the a duration of how long an image should be displayed. For example, a minimum of 10 minutes before you change an image. Um limitation on the
number of characters just so it's not too much for drivers to read. Luminance, which says a maximum brightness of 5,000 nits is the unit of measure, which is candelas per square meter.
Um, dimmers at night, no audio, no political or obscene language. I'm sorry, M. Rome, where are these conditions from? Because there was a reference to guidelines before, but I think if we're going to have a condition
regarding that, it would be helpful to be ideal to identify the standard. So there there's none in the town in the Jackson Township Code. These are from the industry standard for other municipalities. I don't like the sign in the proposed location. I would prefer it would be in
one of the islands. I think that's too close to Cataline Road. And I completely agree with Mr. Heyman using the example outside of this sign outside this building. That is I mean in the change in the lights, you know, as long as they stay to the standards of, you know, it's not it's not flashing, it's not changing
rapidly, I have no problem with it. But I don't like it that close to Cataline Road, even though it's a divided road. We all know the type of traffic that's going, you know, to and from there. Um, so I would prefer that the sign be on the island. Um, and I have to be honest with you, I I
love Mr. Peter's idea of the donors being on the building. I mean, as someone goes by, are you really getting a good look? Think about this for a second. You're driving by. We're complaining about the flashing lights on here. Are you really getting a good look at what those donor's names
are? I'm not. So, so a couple points, you know, to your what you're saying. Um, I do think it's a good idea technically to put onto the building though you would look at a different application of such a size. They would have like Mr. Bordon said
before, they would have multiple tenants throughout and they would have those little placards on that big sign. I don't see this technically being different, but I don't see the purpose necessarily of having it displayed there. Um, my other question really is also the same intent of the sign is why
do we need this animated sign? Who is it for? Is it for the people of the building letting them know? My understanding is if you're part of an organization, then you would have some kind of communication from within notifying you of such events. What would be the purpose of displaying it to the
public? Um I was trying to get a better understanding of the intent for it and the need of that. You don't want to call it animation, more of that um illuminated sign. I took it is to the public. I'll let Mr.
Boyd speak to that. Um I agree with you that other signs have names of businesses, but this seems larger. I think Mr. uh Peters made a great point. This just seems much larger. Am I think about some of the other signs
we see in town? This just seems much larger. It's also because it's on the ground, right? If it was vertical and it would be in the air, it would be a little different. Um, but another thing is that I to me that I'm seeing missing from this would be the most important thing for me would
be the address of the site. The address is required to be on there. So, that will be on there. I just don't see it. I I don't I may not see it. I don't see it either, but that is a requirement of a sign in Jackson is to have the address.
Um, and then would it impede any future um development of sidewalks? No. Uh, in the location it is current proposed currently. Yes, it would. So, I think that would be an issue. Yes. We should compromise on.
So, are you is can you agree to that or do you need to confer with your client regarding Uh, moving the sign from the proposed location to the median or island. Yeah, we could we couldn't agree to
that. So, we'll relocate the sign to the uh to the island. We will move the uh donor uh placards uh remove them from the sign. Uh we will uh not increase the height of the sign. The sign will remain 16 ft
high. Uh but the bottom of the sign will be raised. So, the sign area will reduce because so it'll be more of a freestanding sign, not a ground sign. Yes. I think the changeable copy is important because they're advertising different events. It's not normally a sign for a shopping center just
advertising the businesses. In this case, they're they're advertising events. So, there is a need, I certainly uh see, to change the copy electronically. Uh but I think to applying complying with the standards that that Mr. Roire read out loud is
certainly not not an issue. Um I would just like to respond. Go ahead, Gina. Then we'll go back to Thank you. um the changeable copy signs that we're seeing is is becoming more and more popular. It's becoming more part of the
industry standards and I get that. It's a lot more convenient for you to change. Also, you have to please keep in mind um any events that they're putting out there, any other even temporary signs, that's all requires permitting, too. We have restrictions on how many you can
put out, for how long, etc., etc. Just something else to keep in mind. Um, but I wanted to touch base on what Mr. Bourne said about the donor plaques being moved to the building. Um, typically, well, first off, are they Mr.
Chopper, are they going to change at any time or they pretty much once you put them up, your donors are pretty much always going to stay the same? Um, so I believe these these donors would wouldn't change. I believe just from a zoning perspective, um, if they were to change, I mean, every time
you change them, we normally require a new sign permit. Um, like before we decided before the applicant decided to change the sign, the excuse me, the dedication plaques to the wall sign, a normal monument sign in a shopping
plaza, every time a tenant changes that small little tidbit, whether it be just a word or it be their their full business, that all requires a sign permit. So, I just wanted to put that on the record. And the last point I wanted to make is um a timer. Is there going to
be a time? Is the illumination of the sign going to be on a time? Is it going to be off at night? It's dim dimmed at night. Just dimmed. Yes. Okay, that's all my questions. Thank you. So, just to Right. Thank you. So, just
to readress the advertising of this animated or illuminated sign, changeable copy. Yeah. How however you want. I'm I'm saying that more for my benefit than yours. I don't like that. Make sure I don't conflate it anymore. So you're saying that it's advertising
certain events. I sort of mentioned before the events generally are not my understanding of such an organization is it's not being advertised in general to the public for the public. It's for the um for the organization. Well, it's for the public on behalf of
the organization. So as the example given for the toy drive you know announcing that a particular date is or dates is the is the you know by annual or toy drive for example. Okay. It is for the
events events to to get donations for the um yes that would be the example of the to you can have fundraisers there. Yes. Asking for the donations of toys for the toy drive. So in that in that case, you really don't have to have the
sign change more than once or maybe twice a day and just keep that as that's correct. Okay. So I think that should be in the resolution. And then with the I'm sorry, could you say that it be changed only once or twice a day?
Yes, they're fine with it. That's fine. So changed no more than twice a day. Yes. uh the less distraction on that road that we have people going 50 miles an hour. Understood with the uh I didn't get here
what Gina said the if the plaques are outside the building then they need to get approval. So our current sign ordinance allows one wall sign at I believe it's 80 square feet or 15% of the total square footage of the facade area whichever is smaller.
So, if you want to keep individual plaques, I don't know how we're going to work that if it's going to be eight different signs because then we're going to need a variance for the amount of wall signs. Um, if we can somehow, God bless you. Uh, combine them into maybe one donor plaque that fits that square
footage maximum of 80 square feet. Bless you. Um, then we can try to make that work. I don't know how you want to address that. Uh that's why I had asked if those donors are going to change because if we choose to Yeah. if those plaques are going to change because in a normal monument sign
every time a business changes that that sign on their monument sign that requires a new um sign permit. We're we're not we're not asking for a variance from the wall sign. Let's make the record clear. Right. I'm just saying if you if you have eight separate plaques and that's eight separate wall signs
lobby and and you you may be adding as you get more donors you you'll be adding to the signs if I if I donate I want my name if I donate I want my name bright up there I agree but I just want it on the record that that is what our current sign ordinance allows
like a tree of life or whatever but I but I would envision a a a particular part of wall facade signage placard one that would contain the individual placards of the donors. Well, think about a hospital.
Exactly. You have some that are as you walk up to the hospital. That's what I'm envisioning. So, I would think, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Trooper, the sign will be stationary, but they will add. So, let's just say Ian is the first donor, Miss Cypriani is the second donor. You're
going to have those names. Then, whoever else adds going to be added to it. Correct? Okay, we'll comply with the facade signage area requirements. Question is, how does that work? Meaning, what do they have currently on their building and what are they going
to be proposing for their building? Now, would that meet the guideline? I correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. B. He said they'll meet the So, that was the question. Is there a sign on the building currently? Yes, but it's substantially smaller than what the maximum sign area is permitted
to be. So combinate. So but it's only one now that you're going to do an additional how does that work? We'll do an additional one with these placards as one sign if you were with the individual placard and that would be a variance. That will not be a variance permit. We will comply with the percent.
That's not what Gina was saying. She's saying is you're only allowed one sign. Sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. There's one wall sign permitted. So you're saying there's already a wall sign existing on the building that's says Chai Lifeline. Now you're now you're requesting a second wall sign that is breaking down your donors
that I think I disagree in my opinion. Again going back to your this was approved as a shopping center. This this this always envisioned wall signage of individual tenants. There were eight or 10 different retail restaurant tenants
in the approval. My understanding is is that it's it's not the number of signs. It's the area of the total area of the facade signs as compared to the facade area. It can't exceed 50. Was the use changed? I'm sorry. Was the use changed?
Was the use was the use changed from a shopping plaza? Uh yes, it was. So you can't go by shopping plaza regulations. And also the sign ordinance specifically says it's one sign permitted per tenant.
So even if we wanted to go by that, it's only one tenant and I'm not trying to dig it. I just want everything out on the board. So when you come and do an application, I don't have to deny it. We have to come back again. I just like to be transparent and have everything on the floor at once. So through the chair, yes, we hear some testimony or
you're basically guidance from basically from that testimony. Then I want to keep it on the freestand. You're making it now you we we proposed a solution to do it on the facade and now there's hurdles being thrown at the facade. So, let's just leave it on the
sign as we propose it. And that's fine. Why don't we come back? I'm here. I agree. I thought I thought a charitable organization would be Mr. Bordon. It's not about it being a
charitable organization. Not one comment is about that. I understand. But Mr. Did you want to say something before we uh look before Gina looks at the date? No, I think we should just cover it all. Gotcha. Thank you. If you could please schedule us. Can we
come back in August? Ready. Jean. Oh, I'm sorry. He asked for August, so I didn't know if you wanted to go up to that. Yeah, I heard that. I I'm sorry. I thought you were taking a look. That's okay because I August I know what those what the days look like. August 6th, we have three applications
already. Um I mean, as long as they're well prepared, I I would I would imagine that we could come to a conclusion of this application as long as we're well prepared and everything is uh that we had we had brought to light has been
addressed. I'm sorry. So, were you saying that there is a date in August under the under those August 6? We have three applications scheduled already, but I can't imagine that in all reality that this would take very long by pending that all of our comments were
addressed. Do you think, Mr. Bordon, reasonably, that by before August 6th, a fair amount before August 6, you'd be able to make a revised submission um in time? But that was my other question. I didn't know if you would require them to read notice. Gene,
we will make the submitt by August 26th. Yes. August 26th. I think August 6th. No, no, I'm sorry. July 26th. I Okay. We'll make this submitt by July 26th. By and will have time to do a review.
Give you time to review Mr. Peters. Mr. Roire says yes. Mr. Peters is not weighed in. Excuse me one second. I'm sorry, Mr. I'm just questioning what are they going to be submitting for? meaning um just I mean there may be more testimony than we're expecting. Are they going to have
the donor's names on that? Are they We're hoping that they can come to some kind of resolution and make up their mind and bring a a a fully revised application to us. They remain the master of their application in light of the input from the board and I don't know there's a
member of the public so I don't know if there was any desire for questioning. So, is it going to be August 6 and you'll get the Okay. Just say I just want to the Yeah. No, but he Yes. He indicated unless I misread that head motion that he did not question.
I've heard the board and the zoning officer will take those comments to my client. We'll present a revised plan by July 26th, 10 days prior to the August 6. August 6. Are we requiring notice? No. Well, no. No additional notice will be
required. Okay. We'll carry it to August 6. Thank you. So, it'll be on August 6th. And just to do things appropriately, I will open this to the public. I know the gentleman has has already stated he doesn't need to come forward, but we will open this to the public. Seeing nobody come forward, we're going to go
ahead and close public session. You'll come back on August the 6th. We will. Thank you. All right. Motion to adjourn. All in favor? See on August 6th?