Right. Exactly. So, we don't not Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic
for it stands one nation under God indivisibley and justice for all. This meeting complies with the open public meetings act. Notice of this meeting have been published and the municipal bulletin board and the applicable newspapers.
Roll call, please. Mr. Heyman, here. Dr. Hoffstein here. Mr. Hudek, Mr. Rosal, here. Mr. Martins, here. Mr. Such here, Miss Bradley.
Leave it to Jay. Uh, do we have any resolutions for this evening? We do not. Okay. Oh, actually, I think that one was sent over by Mr. Sheay on the matter in which I had a conflict. I don't know if the board has
had an opportunity to review that. Okay. All right. I did not have a chance to review it. Did anyone else? So, we're going to hold this one over for the next meeting. Yes, you can do so. You're plenty of time. M. All right. Thank you. Um, any minutes for this
evening, Kathleen? January 4th. Okay. We have meetings for January minutes, excuse me, for January 17, 2025 and June 4th, 2025. I need a motion, a second to approve the minutes, please.
Motion. Second. Roll call, please. Mr. Heyman. Yes. Dr. Hoffstein. Yes. On the January meeting. No. On the June 4th meeting.
M. You could just abstain. Abstain. Mr. Huda. Yes. Miss Rosol. Um, yes. On the first one and on Jan the June 4th one. Mr. Martins. Yes, on both. Mr. Such.
Yes, Miss Bradley. Yes, on both. All right. I have two vouchers in front of me this evening. The first was for the uh zoning board clerk minutes of January 17, 2024 in the amount of $100. And the second one is for tonight's meeting, June 18, 2025, in the amount of
$175 for our recording secretary. I need a motion and a second to pay the bills, please. All right, we have a motion in the second. Roll call, please. Mr. Heyman, yes. Dr. Hoffstein, yes. Mr. Huda, yes. Miss Rosol, yes. Mr. Martins,
yes. Mr. Such, yes. Miss Bradley, yes. And Miss Criani, I believe we have announcements for this evening. Yes. So, number one on our agenda, Douglas Phillips um has asked that this matter be carried to the July 16th meeting. Um
he will have to provide notice. He did not notice in time for this meeting. Number two on the agenda has been withdrawn in its entirety. And that leaves us to number three on the agenda,
which is in the hall. All right. Um, no executive session for this evening. We'll have to swear in our professionals. Sorry, can I just ask one thing? The last the last one um where it says will renotic, is that still on for today or
they did provide that notice. So, they were told at the time that they would have to renotice and they did so and have provided the notice. Okay. And uh for the professionals, please raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you give this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. Please state your name and position for
the record. Mark Roier, board engineer. Ernie Peters, board planner. Do we have any matters for discussion this evening? Um, we do not. Okay. And no administrative approvals. So, we're going to move right along to applicant
number three, Swanborn LLC, preliminary and final major subdivision 662-1 approval amendment. Mr. Junko, is it on? Uh, yeah. Hello. Sorry.
Anyway, thank you for having us back and uh tonight uh Mr. Bordon couldn't be here so uh Graham McFarland will be testifying and I know that uh we were asked to make sure that uh he was here to continue cross-examination so we can
do that. uh or of course whatever you want to do is what we'll do in that sequence but we're prepared for that and also prepared to make a further presentation of the plans and some uh certain modifications and uh I would have two witnesses this evening Graham
and John Ray our traffic consultant so that's how you'd like to proceed I will say that Mr. McFarland is now available for cross-examination. He was not, in my recollection, he was not sworn at the last meeting. So, we
need to swear him and I'll offer his credentials, but I know you've heard from him before. Yes, you could raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you'll give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. And will you state your name and credentials for the
record? Sure. Graham McFarland, professional engineer, professional planner, principal of professional design services, previously qualified, testified before this board many times. This board accepts your credentials. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mr. McFarland is now standing for cross examination in
the continued hearing on behalf of the uh applicant. So, Mr. Junko, you're uh not preparing, not Mr. McFarland is not offering any new testimony. Jean or Miss Mr. Yes, we will offer additional testimony and
perhaps that should be done before the renew the cross. But either way, uh when we left at the last meeting, you had asked to make sure that we were able to present and continue the cross- examination. Personally, I would recommend that we take this testimony and then do complete uh
cross-examination at that point. Uh but of course it's your meeting with the permission of the chair. I'll just ask if the board members want to uh commence cross-examination of Mr. McFarland on Mr. Bordon's testimony from the last meeting or have Mr. McFarland start to
testify now and then you can ask him questions on this testimony or the testimony that was previously given. Hearing none, I'm going to suggest Mr. junk that you start and the board uh is uh and then put our testimony in now and then can do cross examination all at
once. Correct. Okay. So with that so uh Grant you uh have been familiar with this project and you've been aware of its development and processing. Yes. And you were at the last public hearing. I was. Okay. Now, based on that, uh, is there additional testimony you want to
present to the board concerning the application and any any man modifications you may have made to the plans? Yes. Well, we're here tonight with some, uh, revisions since we were, uh, before the board last time a couple of, uh, couple of months ago. Uh, there have been some, you know, a couple of
minor changes to the plan. And we also uh submitted the the um final subdivision plans uh for review which which contain all of the dimensional requirements of the proposed lots. Uh so up on the screen we have exhibit A. We have exhibit I guess it's exhibit A1
with uh dated June 15 looks like June 15 22 right 25. It says June 15 2022 on it but I think it's supposed to be 2025. I think that's that's a typo, but anyway, exhibit A1 is an aerial shown in the subject premises,
which has not changed since we started this uh this proceeding for the amended plan. Just shows the overall site, its proximity to the surrounding uh to the surrounding uh roadways. A2, if you can go there, Anthony, I'll just just go through this real quick. I know the board is familiar with it. A2 is the
approved plan. Um that shows the the original plan that was approved as part of the application. Uh most notably, this this plan did have access out to uh did have access along Denton Lane out to uh Whitesville Road, and that has been
changed on this uh on on these revised plans. A3, just going through real very quickly, is the uh the proposed plan that's now before the board. And you can really you can see the two revisions are
are a uh a culde-sac at the end of the roadway near Denton Lane and this application no longer proposes the improvement of Denton Lane. Now keep in mind that that improvement of Denton Lane would be classified as an
off-site improvement. Uh Mr. Ray, I believe, will provide some traffic testimony to uh confirm that the project still remains compliant with RSI's requirements, you know, without uh that construction of Dent Lane and without that third access point. So, the
application as now presented uh does show a culde-sac at the end of uh that end of end of that street near Dent Lane and it does not propose the improvement of of Denton Lane. Uh we also had some just just jump into one of the other technical questions that both of your
professionals identified. Uh Whitlock Avenue over here also has a culde-sac at the end of it that is in very close proximity to this road that loops around which is called Mahogany Lane. and both of yours professionals uh asked a a
question as to what the what the method of improvement should be between that culde-sac and between that mahogany uh lane loop loop there. Uh I think that's a that's a subjective matter that the board should should offer some insight. Two, I can uh certainly understand both
sides of the argument. one being that access should be prohibited so that uh somebody doesn't you know jump through the culde-sac to mahogany lane uh inappropriately. Uh but the other alternative being that maybe there should be some emergency access or
connection between those two to provide an additional point for for emergency access. So I think that's a subjective matter again not not really governed by uh by RSIS with or without a connection there. The project is compliant with RSIS. Uh these plans have been reviewed
by the fire bureau and and during its its review we never really got any comment from the fire bureau one direction or the other whether they felt strongly for one uh again for one solution or for the other. Uh but we would be looking for the board to to have some discussion and give some
direction as to how they feel that that should be handled. It is a little bit of a uh of a unique situation given the location of the culde-sac in close proximity to to that other other roadway. As a as a designer, what do you
recommend to the board? Well, again, I think it's compliant either way. It's a uh kind of a little a very unique situation. Uh I I I think we just need to have some discussion with the board and let's see what the opinions are and I think be be guided by what the
majority opinion of of the board is and and its professionals at that particular location. And then A4 is uh is just the frankly it's the updated overall development plan just showing those items that I was uh that I was just highlighting. Uh and
then A5 very quickly is something that we again need to have a little a little discussion on. A5 shows all of the detention basins that are now scattered throughout the project. They're identified as small-cale infiltration
bases in accordance with the new requirements to provide what's called green infrastructure design. I know the board has heard that term thrown around here in the last year or two years. Uh essentially the the process requires a lot of small scale infiltration bases to
be scattered throughout the development and that is what this updated plan uh plan shows. You can see we have identified um have identified them with with two colors with the pink and the green. Currently our plan shows fencing
proposed for the basins that are in pink. They are the larger basins that are a little bit deeper. The basins in green would be very shallow. They're gener they're generally about 18 inches to two feet deep. So we do not show fences for those basins right now. But
again, similar to our discussion about the uh the culde-sac of of Whitlock Avenue, uh I I don't think the ordinance provides a specific direction as to whether they should be fenced or not. Uh it's a matter of personal preference and to me very subjective opinion whether
it's better to have or not have the fencing for those basins that are very shallow in depth and will only contain water periodically. Uh so we would be guy again we would be guided by the uh the opinions and and representation of of the board
as to how uh how and where to put the fence and we'll we'll put whatever fencing the board the board wants or the board doesn't think fencing is is the best alternative we'll be we'd be happy not to have to erect the fencing as well. Before you leave that point, Graham, could you just give a little
detail about the uh topography or the slope around those bases? Well, most most important when if you speak when you would if you would take the microphone, we can't hear you at all. could use the mic. Oh, and I was using
the mic when I I thought I was. I'm sorry. Okay, Graham, with regard to the fencing, could you perhaps discuss a little bit with the board some of the topography around the basins so that they could uh perhaps come to a
direction for you? Sure. Again, all the bases are are very shallow on the order of 18 inches to 2 feet at at the most. The ones that are highlighted in green right now, um they're all excavated potential basins, so they go below the uh below the the surrounding grade at
their at their location. Uh very small footprints of uh of about 2,000 3,000 square feet. Um that occupies small portions of of the lots. Uh and of course, all all the components uh all the detention basins uh and ponds will be owned and maintained by an HOA. They
will not be owned or dedicated to the municipality. The the drainage system within the public rideways would be dedicated to the municipality, but the uh the detention basins would be owned by by an HOA. Uh so any any fencing associated with them would also be subject to uh
ownership and maintenance of the uh of the HOA. And what type of fencing would you propose if the board chose fencing? Well, again, it's uh it's typical uh in this town that we've used post and rail fences with with mesh. Uh or we could
use chain link fence, a a 4 foot high chain link fence with with with mesh. I I personally prefer the chain link fence because the uh the wood post fences, they last about 10 12 years, then they totally deteriorate. So, uh I I prefer a
black black chain link fence personally. Um but again, it's a matter of uh matter of personal preference. on the much smaller on the much smaller uh ones that you're not st you're stating that uh the basic fence isn't
required. You thought about shrubbery or anything? I know on other applications that's been a discussion that we've had rather than impose a fence uh you know shrubbery an option. Is that something you've thought about? Uh that would s that would certainly be an be an option.
Um the uh the flip side of it is that to in some people's minds the shrubbery doesn't doesn't provide maybe the safety measure that the fences do from a from a small child. Um you know the fence primarily provides a barrier for a for a small child. Uh shrubbery would not
provide that same level of barrier or protection. But again for these very small basins there's no clear-cut direction uh no guidance in the ordinance whether uh the fence is required or not. So I think it's really
again a matter of of personal personal preference of the Madam Chair. Yes. If I might to either Mr. Junko or Mr. McFarland um can you refresh the board's recollection on the form of ownership of the stormwater management facilities for
the project? Yeah, they'll they'll all be uh dedicated to the HOA. So, in this particular case, it's not our public works department has to go take care of them. Um, not the board's engineer. I've been doing this a long time, and I can
remember 30, 40 years ago, someone say, "Put a four or six foot fence around something." And if a kid can get in it, that's great. I'm 62 years old and overweight, and if I have to go find the gate for the fence, someone's going to drown. Um
the laws exist for a reason so that everyone plays by the same rules. State storm water manager regulations require storm water management fencing for certain situations. I think there is a practical aspect of this about how
you as the zoning board would like to see this project look. So, I forget they're 10,000 square foot lots, 10 or 12,000 square foot lots. 10,000 minimum. Correct. Um, do we want to have a 4 foot fence? Do we want to have a six foot fence? Do we want to just say, you know,
if it's something that's 18 in or two foot deep, it's a swell, not unlike the swell that's in your backyard behind your swimming pool. Um, so while the board does have the leeway to say this is how we'd like the streetscape to look
or the project to look, at the end of the day, if someone's going to ask the question, what's the law say? Law says puts up put up a 4ft fence. You good folks have the opportunity to say, well, is 4 foot fence the best idea given the number of
smallcale infiltration basins? These aren't the big old ones where we dig a, you know, 300 foot long and 100 foot wide and 8 foot deep hole in the ground. You need to have a fence around that. In these instances, these really aren't bathtubs in the ground. These are
shallow depressions. Um, so if we just want to say, what's the law say? The law says put a fence around. Um, but at the end of the day, I do think you folks have the leeway to say, you know what, I I think this looks good in our community. I think this also provides a certain
amount of safety or practicality given the type, the scope or the density of the subdivision that we have here, which is why give credit to Mr. McFall, Mr. Bordon preparing a document that says here are the ones that really need a safety fence
around them. You're the ones that maybe do, maybe don't. I'm not sure what the trigger is to say yes, you need it. No, you don't. So, when people who draft laws don't know the difference, they just say all of them get it. So, I apologize if that
wasn't as helpful as you would hope. Madam Gina, yes, Gina, want to piggyback quickly off what Ernie had just mentioned. Um, not speaking in official capacity from the building department, but just an FYI to keep in mind, the UCCC stipulates that fencing is only
required if the water depth is 24 in or more. I don't know if that helps or hurts, but I did just want to add that tidbit of information. Thank you, Mr. S. So, what I was going to say about this and because you mentioned the HOAs are responsible and
with these uh retention basins uh they're only as good as your HOA and living in a community where we have retention basins and I'm president of our HOA and we're actually faced with uh
they clog with the drainage over time, we leaves, dirt, debris and your retention basin at one point which would only hold up to 24 in of water at a time. Ours have filled all the way to the top and
because over time and we've had situations in our neighborhood where in the winter they froze up a little bit on top. We've had kids where I've seen where I've had to go out there and I've said to our management, we have kids out
there on the retention basins. It's ice. I don't know how deep it is. We don't know what's underneath it. And we're we're doing a project now where we have, you know, our landscapers coming in and they have to clean out the whole thing. I mean, we're our community was
built, I think, what 2004ish, 2006. So, we're coming up to 20 years, but these things need to be maintained by our HOA. And if they're not retention basins that once were supposed to be equipped to let water go out, now
they're full. So, me just kind of playing devil's advocate. I mean, you can't buy a five gallallon bucket right now without a picture on the side of it of a baby with a warning on it in a five gallallon bucket who could drown. So, I'm just saying
where's the liability and and I understand what Mr. Peters is saying. I mean, um, for aesthetic purposes, look, um, I don't know. It's a it's a tough call because I mean if you know, god forbid something happens and it was over just a
matter of saying let's put a 4 foot black chain fence around it and it could have possibly prevented something but just throwing it out there. Just thank you Dr. Austin. I would agree. I I would put safety first. uh particularly since
these basins are dispersed right between and next to buildings are going to have many young children nothing is isolated every five or six houses or whatever it is it appears that these basins are
there I would certainly like some kind of fencing around it thank you Mr. Martin yeah um Mr. Sut since he seems to have experience what that
sorry I was I was just saying since you seem to have experience with these things. Yeah. Would in in your experience would a sixoot fence solve that that problem? I mean I guess it would help for the kids. So I mean the reality you still have I mean for me as
a kid a 12oot fence wouldn't hurt me. I I mean I mean I was that kid that the higher the fence, the more of the challenge that I got to climb it. But is it somewhat of a deterrent? Sure. I mean especially for you know listen
if you have a a five, sixy old or someone you know a little guy but I mean that may deter uh I mean offense and and you know aesthetically there are what you were saying you could put a nice looking black kind of chain lick fence that
looks nice that it kind of just yeah let's it at least protects the community for you know if something does happen I feel at least there was some due diligence that the community took some
you know responsibility I mean can I mean listen in life you can't you can't stop you know anything could happen but I mean a little deterrent yeah what's it like Dr. Hopsine said I mean safety first. Yeah. Okay. J could you verify what you're asking
from the board? Are you asking for, you know, our opinion on the larger basins, the smaller basins, and all of them? No. That there's a very big discrepancy um and a difference between the size of the basin and the danger that it could, you
know, propose based off of the size of them. Correct. I mean, and you can see by looking at the exhibit, the purple basins are, you know, much much larger than the than than the small green ones. Um, so we believe that it's in a in an interest of public safety to provide the fencing around those larger basins. But
it's a smaller ones again that the ordinance doesn't give us a you know clear direction whether fencing is required or not. And again, I just think it's a matter of of personal opinion and very subjective whether people feel the fence is a is a hindrance or whether it's a a protective measure. So your
question is only by these smaller ones. Obviously the big ones you're going to be question is related to the smaller basins. Okay. So what is the size of those basins? They have footprints of about 2 3,000 square feet. So let's call them, you know, 50 by 50 feet, 50 by 60
feet, something like that. That's still nice size. Yes. They have footprints of 2 to 3,000 square feet. Something like that. Mr. McFarland, when you do your calculations, you usually take um what
100redyear floods for the storm water and so forth. So, worst case scenario, I know you said that some of these basins are 18 and no more than 24 in, but if we have one of these massive rain events that it seems that the whole country has
been having. What depth of water are we looking at in some of these? That's the two foot we're talking about during a 100-year storm. Okay? Because these are small basins that have outlets a few inches above the bottom. Okay? So on smaller storms, the water will flow in.
It will exfiltrate and then if it if the uh storm is a is more intense, the basins will will fill up and then the water will be let out through the through the outlet structure. And of course, these outlets will have grading on them to correct. Correct. And the
water is only at that depth for a short duration. Okay. So, you know, the way I look at this is that with such low depth in these, I think a sixoot fence is kind of a overkill. And what we're trying to
prevent is, you know, the little toddler from going in here. And I think a a 4 foot fence that's black almost disappears would be adequate for something like this. I don't know how everybody else No, I agree. Yeah. Sorry.
And I do I thought they were much smaller back about I did think they were much smaller. So I I retract that comment. I think they're uh too large to have just bushes. I agree with Mr. I don't know
that six feet is necessary for something like that. I would agree that something four foot would be acceptable. So just to you know follow up on that I agree with that. Uh I think a fence is necessary due to the size of them. I also don't realize the uh the size of
you know the it's about 50 feet long. It's in my opinion it would be necessary. The only question is for the aesthetics purposes would you be willing to put in bushes around that actually make it look a little bit nicer? Yeah, we don't we don't object to that. Either either putting uh some landscaping on
the outside or inside the fencing. Thank you. Um subject subject to having room to uh to make that landscaping work. Um so seems to me like most board members favor 4 foot high black chain link fence. I think that's what I heard. If
that's the consensus, I think we'll vote on it right officially tomorrow. Well, so I think that it would be if there is at some point a motion to approve if that would be one of the conditions. Okay. Um I would like to just piggyback
on something. So So the bush is around it. I think that's that's a great idea. You know, with kids out of sight, out of mind. They don't see it. Maybe they not so enticed to go there and try to skate on it or something. Um that sounds like
a great idea. We don't object to add landscaping uh around the fencing. So if we're done if we're done with that issue, we can move on to uh we're in full agreement with the board's request. Yes. So if we're done with that issue,
um we can talk about uh a couple of the technical items that that Mr. Peters identified in his review of the uh subdivision plan. Anthony, if you can go back to uh I think it's a
go back to A4 for me, please. A4 is already there. So A4 is the overall development plan that shows the layout of the uh of the of the of the project. There are uh a couple of lots that Mr. Peters and his review um properly
identified. Anthony, if you can zoom in for me in this this area first. That's the right spot. Uh, bring it down a little bit. You can get it right where I have the Can you see the pointer from where
you're sitting? Right in there. Yeah, right in that right in this area. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Perfect. So, we have a series of lots here 323 2221 on this radius. uh as shown on the Smitta plans, they currently do not meet
uh lot frontage or lot width requirement, but we did take a look at that today and we can adjust these uh this string of lot lines here for these one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. There's about eight lots or so. We can basically kick this lot line to the
right. Kick this line to the right. Kick that line to the right. Work that string out. All those lots would conform when we make that change. So we're not asking for any relief on those particular lots. So we'll make that change so so that these lots meet the 80 foot lot front and 100 foot lot width measured at the
building setback line. Uh the next one that that Mr. Peters Graham, can I just pin that down for the board and for our uh future and hopefully for the approving resolution speaking of lot 22 3.23
3.22 3.21. Is there any? Did I get all of them? I heard there were seven. Well, no. 321, 322, and 323 were the ones which were showing I'm just I'm going to say uh non-compliant on our submitted plans,
but we can revise a string of lots. Uh those three lots and some some of the um adjacent lots, we can revise a lot lines in that area so that they will all conform to the lot area. I'm sorry, to lot width and lot requirements. So, there's no relief required. they will
comply with ordinance requirements. Uh the next one is lot 1.21 which Anthony if you can go kind of down that way for me that makes any sense to you try to guide you try to guide you there.
Uh lot 21 is right down right down there. So I need this up just a just a just a hair. Lot 21 is is right in here. We also took a look at that and that lot does not conform but again we we can make a lot line adjustment there so that
that lot will also comply to lot uh to frontage and lot width so there will not be any relief required for that particular lot I'm sorry that's lot 121 that's lot 1.21 so that lot will conform uh then the next one that Mr. Peter's
question is Anthony, it's kind of up here. So, if you can pull down and I want to get I want to get right over here in that corner and you go up just a hair be perfect.
So, we have uh lot 8.28 28, which is right here, which is a kind of a unique lot because it has frontage on a a new proposed road, Mahogany Lane. It also has frontage on the culdeac of uh of Whitlock. Uh Mr. Peters questioned
whether the lot I think he questioned and Ernie, correct me if I'm wrong, but he questioned whether the lot met the lot frontage along the along the culde-sac, but the but it does meet the lot frontage and the lot width measured along Mahogany Lane. So, our opinion is that the lot does conform because I
don't think it needs to uh technically meet the lot frontage along two streets when those two streets are frankly they're they're connected. They just seem to have they just have two different names, but it's really one continual rightway. So, our opinion is that lot conforms the way that is currently drawn. Unless somebody
disagrees with me, that would be our our representation. And then the uh the last lot in question. And Anthony, if you can go down for me. I want to get down down there. So go up. Yeah. Keep going.
Uh and then go over. I want this piece on the side over here. And then bring it up, please. Uh that's good. The last one to talk about is lot 1.08 which is the existing pond and lot 1.09 which is one of the
proposed lots on a new culde-sac which is uh identified as Beister Bistro. I don't know who made that name. Um but what we have proposed here is we have a 20 foot flag created that will provide access to the pond. Again, the pond will
be owned, maintained by the uh by the HOA. So, when we introduced that 20 foot uh flag out to the culde-sac that created a I believe it's just a lot frontage uh variance here for this lot 1.09. I I
do want to confirm if it's lot width also, but I think it's just frontage. uh we believe that it's beneficial to have that have that uh flag created and have that strip dedicated as part of lot 108. The alternative would be we could simp we could provide this as an easement and
not have to have that dimensional relief for lot 1.09. But I think frankly it's just that it's only a uh a dimminimous dimensional relief requirement. Uh of course no impact to the number of lot no impact to the development of of lot 1.09.
Uh again, our testimony is that uh the alternative of providing uh the flag lot which is part of lot 1.08 not encumbering lot 1.09 with an easement is is is a beneficial plan and just makes for a better planning alternative and I don't think it creates any negative
impact to the zone plan or the master plan and would be entitled to the uh to the D3 relief under under those conditions. So that's the only relief that we're asking for in regards to any of the proposed laws. all of the other items that Mr. Peters identified, we we
can uh revise a plan to comply with all ordinance requirements. So, in regard to uh this particular issue and the access to the pond number three, you're requesting a variance for
the frontage uh of lot 1.09. Is that correct? Correct. With regard to that request, are you uh consider as as a planner and as an engineer, are you considering that this
uh the benefits of permitting this variance and that access way to the uh water uh to the storm water facility will outweigh any detriments to the design. And in that perhaps you could describe if there were any detriments
what they would be and of course you've already described the benefits. Yes, I think the benefit of having that that flag be part of lot 1.08 with with access to that lot being totally unencumbered uh and again not encumbering lot 1.09 with a with an easement. Uh you know we I think we've
all had experience with easements and uh sometimes they're not fully fully respected. Uh they lend some difficulty to the financing on those particular lots as well. So I think it's just a better plan. Uh again that has no negative impact of providing that little flag lot. uh that allows for unimpeded
access to uh to pond number three and will allow full development of lot 1.09 in accordance with ordinance requirements we for for every other item other than the other than the lot fage and the access would be maintained by the homeowners association. Correct. And
do you think this would have any adverse impact on the health, welfare or safety of the community? Uh it would not. So, um, Graham, are there any other points at this level that you want to bring to the board's attention? I don't I don't think so. I think that covered
what we wanted to talk about initially. I know there were some, uh, some comments in both reports about uh about traffic and Mr. Ray is going to provide some some discussion on on those items. Uh, we have reviewed both professionals reports and there are a series of technical comments that we will agree to
comply with. Before you do that, can I just confirm for the boards and my understanding that of the lots that you've identified in this discussion, you are only requesting the variance for lot 1.1.09
and that's a variance for lot frontage. Correct. The other variances that have been pointed identified by uh the engineers and planners for the board, you've addressed them by redesigning the plan to eliminate them. Is that correct? Correct.
So, uh you want to continue? Well, I think that's all I have on my direct right now. Uh subject to of course questions and and some discussion uh by the board. All of the uh remaining the plan remains the same as was presented at the last
meeting. Yes. Other than the items that that I discussed earlier. Yes. Are all these homes uh going to be available on the open market for sale to every to anyone in in terms of at the time of sale? What
I don't understand you mean on the open market? Can anyone buy any of these homes or is this going to be a closed um development only available to certain people to purchase? I I don't know that we're representing the developer and of
the land and that would be subject to whatever the home builder would do. Can we ask that question? I don't know the answer. I said is the developer here? Can we ask that question to the developer? Yes, the plan would make the project
available to any buyer and and these are going to be on the MLS listings as per all well I don't know most of the larger home builders don't use the multiple listing system they have their
own methods of uh advertisement. So uh I don't think that the uh it I can only say that it only makes sense for some development of this size to market the products properly and uh I would think if they didn't they'd be proceeding at
their own risk but I don't think that's uh something we can commit to or not. I don't know they would use MLS or through their own sales devices or their own sales department. I mean, if you any of the major home builders, they have their own sales departments that are in their
direction. Your tap dancing kind of answered my question. But let me ask Mr. McFarland another question. Um, we were you were testifying on another application and I
was questioning the size of the garages and whether a car could fit in the garages and you made statement that you build what your clients are requesting and um I notice in certain areas in
Jackson there's new developments that are going in and you you couldn't fit a car in a garage that that the home that was built and that of course affects the uh parking calculations.
So, is this going to meet the standards for a regular car to park inside the garage and count that as a parking spot or Well, the way that I can answer the question uh is is that probably an answer you're probably not going to like. It's probably the same answer I
gave you last time is that uh any plan that this developer the or the builder of the individual home submits goes through a building permit process. They submit architectural plans. We draw a plot plan. That plot plan shows whether it's a onecar garage or two-car garage
or no garage proposed. And it shows the uh the driveway, the off- streetet parking spaces required. Those number of parking spaces has to comply with RSIS requirements. And uh the township has has authored its own interpretation a couple years back on how to uh extend
the parking requirements because the RSI is only gives us up to, you know, five bedrooms. So, if somebody has a six, seven, or eightbedroom home, the township uh issued a a uh a memo a couple years ago that indicated how the how many park spaces are required for
homes with, you know, six, seven or eight bedrooms, whatever the case may be. Uh and every single home is bound to comply with those requirements. So, that uh doesn't mean that there is going to be a one car or a twocar or a threecar or a nocar garage. That is subject to
what the actual builder wants to build. But under any circumstance, they're bound to provide the off- streetet parking that's required in accordance with those requirements. So, because in looking at the plans and and I'll look at lot number 3.44,
it's considerably larger than the rest of the homes and it's on much more property. So, obviously, there's going to be more bedrooms in that home and requiring more parking. So, are you is your testimony that you are going to
follow all the RSI requirements and provide and and match those rules? Absolutely. The uh the or the the builder at the time is is is bound to there's no there's no exception that can be granted from that particular
requirement of off- streetet parking on an individual lot. That's that's black that's black and white. goes through goes through the township get looks up gets looked at by zone and gets looked at by the township engineer as part of the building permit application because you know one of the
developments that I'm speaking of is over on Whitesville Road. You look to your right and you see these homes that are under construction now and you you couldn't put a smart car in these garages the way
that these things were built. So, our professionals, do you guys have anything to weigh in on on this as it relates to the single family detached housing? Um, the developer acts at his own peril
based upon the residential site improvement standards and the density of the housing that's being proposed. Determines how wide the road has to be, whether or not on street parking is um permitted and then they have to provide required off- streetet parking in a
driveway andor garage combination. That's it. This application doesn't ask for a waiver of that information. Board's not granting it. Runs with the land. Whoever decides to build it has to follow it. As it relates to the the multif family or affordable housing
portion of it, um they provided plans and testimony. And I apologize u if if the board hasn't heard this testimony because this set of plans
I'm going to sound like I'm testifying for Mr. McFarland in a minute. This set of plans doesn't propose any changes to the previously approved affordable housing section of the site. That being said, they've provided off-
streetet parking for the affordable housing portion of the project in accordance with RSIs. They have the and they don't rely on parking in the building. They rely strictly on on street parking. Is that correct, Mr.
McFarland? Well, we we're provide the uh you know, let's call it those four um you know, satellite parking areas to serve the the developable housing units. Correct. Not relying on on street parking. So, at the end of the day, this isn't the first time this project's been
through the ringer, so to speak. They just they keep losing lots because of wetlands or this issue or that issue. Um but consistently, I can say that this plan has met the off street parking requirements. Okay. And lastly, if I may on that, the
last point, the reason that wasn't brought up is because our application is not seeking an amendment to that and it was part of the prior approval. Understood. Uh and lastly, I don't see any recreation area at all uh other than
a trail. Um and I think if you know what I'm feeling here is that you guys are creating a closed u development here. You have your own house of worship. You have your own um you know
and I I see no recreation other than the walkway. Well uh the the the ordinance doesn't require us to uh to provide any and this is an application that complies with all requirements. It's you know saved for the one variance at lot 1.09. So I I
would just stipulate that the plan's in compliance with ordinance. I understand they comply with the ordinance but being a responsible builder and giving the community what they need. Don't you
think that that would be a a good addition to this project? I think that's uh that's for the the applicant and and developer to decide if that's an element that they want to include in their application. And on this particular project, they uh they don't include any any uh separate recreation space other
than the, you know, the walkway. You know, I I get the feeling it it's like profits over anything and you know, every square inch developed without providing anything else. It's my opinion.
I'm done. A couple of questions. uh in a community this size and you're going to have a man I assume the builder is going to have some kind of management office or need a management office. Is that being
provided on site? If people have a problem and you need management I'm I'm not sure what you're what you're referring to. I mean this is a project for single family homes. There would be a separate management company for the affordable housing units. Uh but I don't
envision there being a management company for any other components of the of the application. The roads are being dedicated to the municipality. So they're they're public streets. Uh and it's it's simply individual lots being created in the format of a uh conventional single family home
subdivision. So I I don't think there's any plans to create any sort of uh you know separate management company. Let me give you an example. Mr. Such has a community that has 332
and they have a management office. Wesle where I live has over 1,400 homes. We have a management office. Both have HOAs, but you would need somebody who manages the dayto-day uh problems that can occur in in a
community like this. So all I can say is that right right now there's no plans to have any sort of management company involved in the in the project is my understanding. Again it's a it's a conventional uh single family lot subdivision. Uh that doesn't
rely on or require any need for something like that since the uh again the roads are being dedicated to the municipality. The HOA of course is being created for the uh the management of the stormwater management bases. So, I I'm I'm not sure what else you're
you're looking for. I think the other projects you're you're talking about may have private roads and other facilities that they own and maintain, which is not the same as this particular uh this particular project. So, what you're saying is the HOA when they they have a meeting maybe in in the local diner. Um
just another question. You're going to have separate builders. I assume the uh affordable housing will have the affordable housing people I assume the synagogue will have separate builder and uh who is who is the builder going to
build the homes? I don't know that that's been identified. This is an application for the subdivision approval. Uh could it could go it could go a 100 different directions as to as to who built the homes as to you know lots could be sold off individually. The project is being
phased phases could be sold individually. There's a there's a hundred options of how it could be developed in the future. And in what phase are is the affordable housing going to be constructed? Well, the affordable housing guidelines are very clear that uh there is an obligation to
provide them in a you know in a takedown schedule consistent with that that's tied to the the number of of uh market rate units that are being constructed and it has to comply with with those requirements. the the statutes do require a sequential
phasing that is in consistent with a percentage of the affordables being built uh with the u market rate. That would result in all of the affordables being built by the 90% of the market
rate and that would leave uh they would only be uh they would be complete by the 90% of the of the pro uh single family homes non market rate would be um only the restricted
n I'm sorry under this proposal any proposal here the affordable housing has a ratio that complies with the market rate and there is a cap that at 90% of market rate 100% of affordable has to be built and
throughout the development there is a schedule that is in that established as to the percentage of affordables relative to the market rates. So we will and our client will be in full compliance with that schedule. Mr. Could I just ask a question about that because
I I'm I'm and and I apologize for my ignorance on this topic because as you know the affordable housing is not part of this current application. Is the affordable housing being presented as single family homes?
Well, the affordable housing is in the I didn't think so. I just wanted to confirm that. So So it's likely they're going to be built much sooner. Yeah. But I just can't commit to that at this po point. However, because it what it doesn't make sense. I mean, you're not going to build half of an apartment
house. I Well, I was trying to point out that we will be in compliance with the regulation. I would suggest and I can't bind anybody by this. That isn't a very smart economic decision. It's wiser to build them all at one time, which is
most likely. Okay. But I cannot nor the applicant commit to that. we will be in full compliance with the requirements just because I Mr. referraland I understand is correct. There are a million different ways this could be done and it could involve selling off different portions and I'm seeing in my
head in that description an unfinished affordable housing apartment building that does not appeal correct but there there are certainly protection to guard against that and actually there there is a schedule on our overall development plan uh that does that does show when uh the
affordable housing units are required to be constructed as related to the number of market rate units And I'm sorry, which plan is that on? That's on our overall development plan. Anthony, if you can uh if you can pull it, if you can scan down for me, it's on the very bot very bottom of this this plan sheet,
Anthony. So, we do have that schedule on on the plan. No, back up to the previous plan, please. I think it's A4, I believe. Not that one. So, back up to A4, please. That's right. went too fast. It's too
fast for me. It's right there. So that is that is the affordable housing schedule that dictates by by which number of market rate units x number of affordable units need to be constructed. That's a that's a state regulation. Graham, everybody seems to be uh like me
not able to see it clearly. Perhaps you could just go through it and well you can see it up on up on the screen now and it and it tabulates that for uh you know when we have 95 market rate units 50% of the of the affordables
have to be completed you know 24 units indicated. So anyway that that schedule is in accordance with the state requirement has to be adhered to. There's no there's no deviating from that that schedule. Thank you. I'm sorry I somehow I I missed that. Mr. McFarland, can you just clarify on
the uh left side of the plan, East Veterans Highway, you guys are preserving the building uh near the project entrance, correct? And what's that used for? Uh I'm not sure what you're asking me
about, Mark. So, I mean, we have we have the um we have the community center, right? The shul up there, I believe. I think that's at the top of the paper on Hope Chapel.
Yeah. At at Jade and East Veterans. There's a recreation component here. Okay. So, my client advises me. I I I frankly just don't see it called out on the plan. Um, but that's actually a recreation It is a recreation component. It is a recreation component. It's shown
on the demolition plan as existing recreational building to remain. If you could just just clarify what that space would all be used for. At the time of the uh prior approval that was uh proposed and uh as
far as I know I it was not modified since then. Correct. Our plan shows that this building remains to be used for recreation purposes. uh for the project. There there is is there also an open space uh immediately
to the uh north uh east I guess? Yes, there is. There there are um actually three ponds on site which can be used for recreation purposes as well. Would you take a second, review the plan, and
then describe it to the board, please? Well, yes. The uh looking at the recreation area, uh that calls out a community center of uh you know, the building to remain about 3,300 square ft. Uh it calls for a shuffleboard and a playground area to be to be removed, but
then it calls for a recreation area with some open play field and some uh some play equipment for children. And then to the right is uh you know the um the pedestrian bike trail goes through the devel goes through good part of the development and then we have an existing
pond which also provides for recreation uh opportunities for the residents. Dr. if I recall that was where there was an old campground. Graham could you show it on the plan?
Yeah, those those components those components are along East Veterans Highway up here at the front of the site and you know that main pond is over here in this area. So there's a recreation component here and then the pond is here.
This is unchanged from the original or previous approval. Correct. Correct. Thanks for pointing that out, Mark. Now, are these the two homes that are on the lot already that are going to remain? Weren't there two homes on the original plan that were going to remain?
Two existing homes. Thank you. Yeah, there there is one home that fronts on Whitesville Road and there is uh one home internal to the to the development. All right. So that's not what the Correct. They're not in that portion. We
were just separate. Okay. Thank you, Dr. I'd like to get back to the HOA. Uh since you don't have one builder, there's a possibility that you can each each phase can have a separate builder. If each phase has a separate builder,
each phase may have its own HOA. How do you reconcile who's going to take care of the common grounds etc. If there are multiple HOAs whether it's one or 10 builders, they're obligated to comply with the plan and
the restrictions that are imposed to the plan. So you're going to have meetings of multiple HOAs getting together and arguing who's going to take care of what? Well, so are you saying Sorry, Dr. House. I'm
going to piggy back off. That's a great question. So, I did not ask the question when you said that about builders before. So, you're saying there will be more than one HOA. I was trying to answer the question that if there were more than one builder, well, they still have to get to build to
the plans and get the permits in the same process as my question specifically is piggybacking off to Dr. Hopkins. That's a great question. If you have multiple builders, will each builder section, so to speak, have their own HOA? Graham is shaking his head. No.
Well, I'll give you an example. If if you look for West Lake had two builders. One was Lenire, whatever it was called at that time. The other was Toll Brothers. And each section had its own HOA. And it took a number of years until both got together
and decided to make it one. But at that point, we had two HOAs, two management companies, etc. So, it's a possibility. Well, that's not what this application is seeking. It's proposing one homeowners association for the entire
project. Again, I don't I don't know the uh the design of of the Westlake in in detail, but but this project by its nature, uh the stormwater management basins are all interconnected. Um all all flow kind of in the same direction, all interconnected. So it only makes
sense to have one HOA that would maintain all of those. I personally don't see a circumstance that that more than one HOA would be created or would would have any benefit to being created for a project. something that can be stipulated in the resolution then. Absolutely. Okay. I would definitely do
that because like the water holes are all the basins that's so but again depending upon the particulars of that project how it was phased the phases could be more separate than you know phases phasing is proposed on a plant like this and a totally totally
different animal. Well I I think something should be put in resolution to one. Yes. Any other questions? Mr. McFarland, Mr. Omar, you have anything else? If Mr. McFarland agreed to address all
the comments in my letter, I'm satisfied. We There's comments on adding some driveways to certain houses that were that weren't shown. Um, and signage on the on the streets, that kind of stuff. Yes, we'll agree to work out all those details, address all your
comments. Um, and then were the dead ends meet? Did we describe? We didn't we never described the access. I don't think we had any uh discussion from the board yet about the that particular location in similar situations. Would
you have you seen say emergency access chain link or Ballards or something like that? Yes, it could be Ballards. could be flexible delineators to allow emergency vehicles to go through, but to, you know, deter uh the the regular traveling public from from going
through. And what was what's the reason for not connecting the streets? Well, it's not it's not needed to comply with RSIs. Um that that Whitlock Avenue is really not not part of the uh part part of the development. There are a
couple of uh single family homes on there that are going to, you know, maintain their rural character with a uh with a new culde-sac. So again, Whitlock Avenue was not part of the application. It would be considered an off- street improvement. I
do like the idea of emergency access in in case of an emergency. I think we need some from the board. I'm sorry. What did Mr. McFarland say? I said I think we need some some discussion from the board on how they feel about that Culasaka Whitlock Avenue
and and Mahogany Lane should be treated. Does anyone from the board have any questions? Maybe we should access and Denton Lane as well. Both too. Similarly, Denton is uh yeah, if you if
if if you feel that something should be provided at Denton Lane, we provide something. I'm sorry. Say it again. I missed the last part of that. You I'm sorry. you, Mr. McFarland, I missed the last part. I I think uh I think Mark was alluding to possibly
providing uh some sort of I'm going to say it a soft barrier between the culde-sac and between Denton Lane again, flexible delineators or something like that. Uh but again, it would be we would need some input from the board and there
are two you would uh at the time of final plan review, you can accept that any re reasonable recommendation. Yes, of course. But I would would rather have a little bit of input from the board because again it's it's one of those kind of subjective requirements that there's no specific standard for
it. So make sure we're all on the same page and give it its due consideration. I just think tonight's the right spot to have a little little discussion about it. So Mr. Roier, my concern was when Mr. McFarland was speaking earlier about not doing the improvements to Dent Lane and
then leaving then the culde-sac at Whitlock. My concern was emergency vehicles. You're talking all over 200 units. So I my concern was emergency vehicles as well. So this soft barrier would that allow would better be a that would allow better access? I hope I just said that right. Well, it would allow
emergency vehicle access but hopefully deter the general public from traversing through those points which are not designed for uh you know for primary or for uh permanent access. Madam Chair, yes, Mr. Well, I appreciate the the back
and forth with the site engineer before the board members make a decision on what they're looking for. I I recommend that you hear from the applicant's traffic engineer and we put those two together and come up with ideas. I think both Mark and I have some ideas about
what you can do to increase site safety. Let's hear what they're proposing first before we sort of decide without hearing Mr. Ray's testimony. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, we do present intend to present John Ray, our traffic consultant. He will certainly address
that issue, Mr. Martins. Yeah. Um, that was a great segue there. So, I'd like to come back to the variance, right? I think I appreciate you summarizing. So, one lot, the only variance that you're asking for
1.09 09 and you said the frontage so forgive by what about the frontage doesn't comply? Well, the lot frontage requirement is 80 ft and uh give me a minute. I'll find the
number. Yeah, the uh the lodge frontage is 80 ft. We right now have it proposed at 62.0 I think it's 62.0 or 6 feet. Uh and we have that that 20 foot wide flag lot. So if you added a 20 foot flag lot, it
would be 82 feet. It would conform, but it would be an easement to uh to provide access to the pond. And our opinion is that it's um it's, you know, no detriment to provide a one lot that has a lot frontage of 62 feet. It doesn't
affect the developability of the lot. The lot still meets the lot width requirement which is measured at the building setback line. Yes. So it doesn't have any negative impact upon development of the lot or upon uh the project in of course in my opinion. Okay. So this is a question for for our
experts. Um the rule does say 80. So why 80 and what about the 60 if there is really no detriment? Why isn't the rule say 60? So that's must be a reason. the 80s more designated for a typical single family
home to but in this case they just want to provide enough access to the uh the pond property for maintenance. So in this situation it seems to be appropriate to just uh divide it up this way because now's the ch now's the chance to divide it up and provide that
access rather than have an easement. Okay. So it's your opinion that as was stated that there's no detriment to it. It's just Yeah. Yeah, there really is no detriment. And just to piggyback off, I don't know if you caught um what the applicants professionals had said earlier, a lot of
times for um financial reasons and for mortgages and things like that, it kind of just reflects a little bit better if there's not an easement. It it's kind of like one solid property. Okay. It's really preference. Um but it it Yep.
Okay. Yeah, I did hear it. No, no, no disrespect or anything, but I'd rather hear it from from our own. Yeah, there you go. All right. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Uh, just a couple comments.
Um, regarding the lot that he was just referring to with that road that leads to the wetlands, are you going to propose a fence to restrict access? Now, now I'm not talking about around the entire wetlands. I'm talking about
exactly where that proposed road would be. Right. Answer. No, we don't have a fence proposed there right now. Um, but again, if if the board felt it was necessary, we' be guided by the opinion of the
board. And I don't think ordinance requires offense there. I don't I don't think there's any reason. No, it may not. But just for safety purposes, if you don't want people my opinion, I don't think we need a fence there. But correct. But if you want fences is very is very subject. If you want people not to go there, then
it would be appropriate to just put a single gate at the front of that lot or a little bit further back so that no one has access to that. Client said they don't want to put a fence up. Okay. But you you you vote.
I I'm sorry. Yes, fence. No offense. What did you just say? My client prefers no fence. But the board are the ones who voted. Uh the next thing is you asked for an opinion about Whitlock Avenue. Um as far as the concern with
emergency access, I would note that the proposal that we have in front of us today is different than the original approval. The design of the streets are very different. Uh the change from Denton Lane originally was going from Whitesville Road
almost, you know, straight to these veterans. Um now we have many 90 degree turns. Um I think that in general the makeup of this development is very different than it was originally. Although the general
proposal is more or less the same, but the design of it is very different. Um, as far as access from Whitlock, I mean, there's pretty close access in my opinion from these veterans. I don't see why it would be necessary. My concern is
the Denton Lane. Um, you mentioned something about that this is not in the plan. The original approved plan was that you were developing Denton Lane. Um, and it would be my opinion that it's important for you to develop Denton Lane so that there is emergency access from
Whitesville. Um, it would give the entire development more general access for the general public who live there as well as emergency vehicles. Now the concern I believe on the original proposal
was that vehicles should not travel as a shortcut from Whitesville to these veterans. I think that was that concern was eliminated by redesigning this development and putting in all these 90s. If you'd go down Denton Lane and
then you would hit Swan uh in order to get out of there, you would have to go to Jade and all around. I I don't think that the public would be cutting through there at all. I think it would be a benefit to the general neighborhood and for emergency access. Uh a lot more
important than it would be on Whitlock. That's my personal opinion. I would very strongly recommend developing Denton Lane for that purpose. Just keep in mind that that is considered an off-site improvement. That
land is not part of the application. That was part of the original approval. But did this amend that lane just state for the record dent uh those fronting properties are not part of this application and any improvement of denton lane would be considered an off-site improvement in my in my opinion.
I think Mr. to site. However, part of your original plan, part of the original was included. And just before you answer, I do agree with your suggestion. The only reason I mentioned Woodlock was because they do serve two different areas in the
project. So, that was my only concern when you talk about that many houses. I'm thinking from a safety perspective, just in the case of emergency, god forbid, more emergency. That was just my perspective. I do agree with what you're saying though. Correct. So to to address that, I think you were spot on with the
if they would put some kind of emergency access at the end of that so they could connect for emergencies. Um it would be very beneficial. How to regulate that private vehicles don't go through there is a whole another issue issue how to deal with it once you do that. But I
think that the bigger concern is the deadly access. I just feel that there's no access from whites for emergencies. Mr. Can I why decided to um remove that? I mean, obviously, listen, we're raw smart, financial reasons, I'm sure, is
part of it, but why did that change in the original approval? Uh, unfortunately, I I don't have a great answer for that particular um question. And I know that I I do know that there are other applications pending along Denton Lane and I believe
the original thought was that those other applications in this application would would somehow come together at the at the same time so it wouldn't would not become um this contentious issue uh to have the Denton Lane improvement
um you know as an obligation of this particular application. uh those other applications would would be required to fully improve Denton Lane and uh you know in in the real estate world as deals are made and uh properties come
together a lot of things change over time and I think the original plan was was to somehow um you know get them all working together and for whatever reason that kind of I I believe fell apart in you know in some fashion. Uh but again,
as we as we dive into the merits of this application, I think uh first of all, I think we need some testimony from Mr. Ray, who's going to really drive home what what any potential differences are between the approved plan and this plan without the Denton Lane uh improvement.
Uh but again it's it's in the world of real estate and land development that uh that is an ever evolving picture of where every property stands relative to its regulatory approvals and outside agency approvals and trying to get all these things uh these things buttoned up. I just want to clarify something
though. You have not abandoned the prior approval. You're seeking an amended approval. Correct. Correct. So if that's the case and it's not totally offsite then this is on the original approval on the approval then Denton Lane should still be there. This
is not a separate application. That's correct. But it's amended and that's part of our amendment and that amendment is based on So that's part of your request other development. That's your part of your request for an amendment. However, uh may I interrupt
the board and ask uh that you permit Mr. Johnson to be sworn in and give testimony on this issue. Any additional questions for Mr. McFarland before we Well, are we done with Mr. McFarland? Because we have to open it to the public then.
Is Mr. Johnson dropping in or is he is Mr. McFarland done? I'm not going anywhere. is just going to step in for to address this issue. All right. So then so for the limited purpose of discussing the Denton Lane, I'd like to
have Mr. Johnson address the board and and I think that we all welcome that. Just want to make sure that Mr. McFarland will come back up so we can open the and then I'd ask we'll interrupt for a moment Graham's testimony and return to him when Mr. Johnson is on your case.
In that case, I would like to call as a temporary intervening witness, Mr. Johnson. Johnson, you swear that the testimony you'll give this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth. I do. And if you could state your name, I know that
Mr. Junko had and your involvement in this project. My official name is James R. Johnson, Jr. known as Randy. Um, for the edification of the board, a lot of confusing um, questions that
shouldn't be confusing. So, I'd like to try and straighten out a whole myriad of questions that were asked by the board, if I may. This particular piece of property has been before the planning board and the zoning board for more than
a decade. Many applications, many litigations, many iterations, and I'll try and try and clarify as much as I can why some of the things are designed as they are. So, the culde-sac
that's proposed at Whit Whitlock was at years ago, this room would have been filled with objectives. Um, And when during those years, I think Mr. Peter was here for most of those
applications along the way, the objectors or the board felt that the residents that live on Whitlock didn't deserve to have all these residents going down their
private lane. So, Whitlock was out. They didn't want an exit to go out lot and the same condition existed at Denton Lane. If you look at the lots on Denton Lane, there's about I guess uh five single
family residences if you pulled in off of Whitesville on the right hand side. They also did not want this community exiting in front of their lots. So, at one point in time, there was an approval that had a culde-sac there stopping
because they didn't want an exit going out onto Whitlock. The reason that we changed it, the ask that we changed on this application is because Mr. Peters at the last meeting
asked the engineer if in fact he can I use your other way. Mr. Peters asked that since the original application was approved, this parcel
has now got an approval which mandates improvements along Dent Lane on their frontage. This parcel here did the same thing. So the improvements are required by this developer and this developer to
improve Whitlock to this point. We're willing to connect from here to here once they do that. But Mr. Peters asked a question. If these two developers do not improve this road, would we be
willing to build the whole road? And I said to the engineer, I'm not willing to do that because this whole road has to get torn up again by this developer and this developer's sewer that has to go through here. It would make zero sense
for us to agree to pave this road if these guys don't show up when it's just going to get dug up again. That's why we ask now for this. Um, so we we're we're going to pave this now. We'll provide whatever
barriers, temporary, fire, truck access, whatever makes common sense on both accesses. We want to stop here and not pave this until we're going to be back before this board uh probably planning
for this parcel land for the next phase. This parcel land for the next phase. It connects this entire pavement by three developers pave this room down to so is it my understanding is you don't
want to develop it now because will be ripped up by future developers which possibly have approvals. Is that my is that correct? Not possible. They do have approvals and an obligation to improve. Okay. Is there So, the reason why you don't want to do it is because you're waiting for them.
But no, no, I'm not. Wait. No. Mr. Peters asked a question at the last meeting. If we go first and they're not here, would we pave that road out there? To me, it's just a total waste of a quart million dollars for no reason. I'm sorry, Mr. Johnson. Did you say that
those two lots uh 20701 and 20601 that those identified parcels um that there are existing approvals on those now which require the improvement of Denton Lane? Correct. And are those approvals by the planning board? Yes,
ma'am. Is is there a way to develop that uh currently with sewer access and you're have it locked that way it's accessible later and you get reimbured for that? Is there some kind of a mechanism that can be done
that currently they should have this developed for safety purposes? Um that would be not something for the board. That would be whether the township has an existing ordinance. I am not aware of that. I don't know if Mr. Peters or Gina is aware of any such
ordinance. I haven't been here for six years. I don't know what's going on. The municipal ordinance does not take into account proportionate share at this point. Although in general that would be the legal standard. If I build something and I upsize it 20% so that Mark can use
it, when Mark comes in, he owes me 20%. There's nothing to the best of my knowledge available at the municipal ordinance level or nor is there a requirement between the developers along Denton Lane and the
applicant to do that. And making that requirement would not be the purview of this board. Madam Chair, for me, just in light of what Mr.
Johnson said, um I I agree with him even as far as with practicality purposes of what he was stating. So for me on my side, I agree with why and understand why Denton Road's not being developed.
Yeah, I I agree now that you explained the reasoning. However, um at the end of your culdeac there, what is the condition of Denton Road right now? Um, it currently is about a 12 to 15
foot wide cart pave cartway from this point here to all the way up through here to this residence and it's been um it's been paved over in the last
six eight years or so. I don't know. So in your opinion, do you think that an emergency vehicle could navigate down that road? Absolutely. Sure. So if we put up some type of barriers on your culdeac to that, for instance, if you go
to home school, back school up on the hill, there's some barriers there that allow emergency vehicles to come in, but no traffic. Yeah. My personal recommendation would be a chain that the
fire truck can just knock down the chain because I think if you put something else there, you're just gonna traffic is getting so bad in town. We all know that, right? And and uh it's because of Mr. It's going to No, it it's
it's part of life because of those D's. We have to recognize it's part of life today. It's going to be what it's going to be. If if that gets opened up, it'll be a thorough fair that people will be trying to go through there instead of using waste. Understood. Madam Chair, um I had
I appreciate Mr. Johnson's testimony, as I had suggested before as the board starts to deliberate, please get Mr. Ray's testimony in so we have a full pot when we start we can come up with an answer because here here's my suggestion. I don't often disagree with
Mr. Johnson. This project's been redesigned five or six times, so it wouldn't be a cut through. Question to the board is, it doesn't matter to Mr. Johnson, why wouldn't we allow this project to
connect to Denton Lane if and when the developers of the Denton Lane parcels extend the road, get rid of the emergency access, and make it a real access. Now that the residents of this project have a third point of access. I'm sorry. I thought that's what Mr.
Johnson had offered to do. I I agree, Ernie. Okay. I apologize. I agree. That's the way it should happen. No, I took You're not building it. I took offense, Ernie, that when you asked if those two guys don't go, would we build a road? And I take offense because it's their obligation to build it. That's
that's my point. My point is from a traffic perspective, and I haven't heard from Mr. yet. I think it just makes common sense when someone builds the road up to your project, you should connect to it or you should leave your project in a form that when Denton Road
gets extended, it can be connected to yours so that the residents of your community have easy access out to the street. I agree. But I also said that this is a future section right here that will by your comments will make us
connect that when that time comes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one question for clarification. Thank you. Um, so there's no way. So I understand that that the builders right now are
obligated to develop, right? Is there any way where if that doesn't happen then you become obligated to do it? I think that's what uh Mr. Peters suggested and that's what I'm objecting
to. Okay. So, so why I mean we all agree that it needs to be developed whether it's A or B but two two different things happen right historically if the other two projects that are now
approved weren't approved I would respect the residents that objected to say I don't want that traffic coming by my house to honor that will things have changed And now that those
two projects are going to come on board, it should be connected to Whitesville just for safety reasons. But why should I have to do it if those two guys are
Republicans? Understood. Understood. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I could remember all the way back to 2010 2009 when this first came before the board and at that time the people
who had the homes on Denton did come down and complain exactly as Mr. Johnson said they didn't want all that traffic coming past their house. Now that they're selling off the property and whatever they're doing with the money, it's okay. They don't mind it.
But uh yes uh also getting more traffic from Whitlock going out onto East Veterans. It just adds a power upon the hour. If I may, I'd like to address two other conversations that were going on earlier. One was about the homeowners
association and there only will be one and the other topic is the ask for that variance on that particular lot is to provide access for recreation to that lake by the community. And unless you have any questions,
that's all I wanted to clarify. I'm sorry. If if that's the end of Mr. Johnson's testimony, um we should open it up to the public if they have questions for Mr. Johnson. Open up to the public. Anyone wishing to come and uh question Mr. Johnson about
the testimony he just provided? Seeing no one will come forward. We're going to go ahead and close session. Graham. Uh Mr. Chairman, I'll ask Graham to return to the uh witness stand. So, it seems like that issue is
settled. Well, to Mr. Peter's point, we we're still waiting to hear from Mr. Ray, but certainly it's moved us forward as soon as once Mr. uh once Graham is completed. And you have any other question? Any
other information to present to the board? Nothing at this time. Any additional questions for Mr. McFarland from the board? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. You said that, Mr. I just wanted to hear what why there were the changes from the original approval
to the current you know the current proposal. Um what are the needs and differences um from the original to this if you could just expound on it because uh if I could say I think the only board member that's here since then was Mr.
Hoffstein. So if you could just most most of these changes are driven were driven by the changes in the stormwater management rules to provide the uh the green infrastructure compliance. Again as as I stated earlier you'll see a series of uh what's called smallcale
infiltration basins scattered throughout the uh throughout the project. So most of the changes were driven by uh the limitation to have those um every two and a half acres scattered throughout throughout the uh the property. Of course, that caused adjustments in in
lot lines and and a little bit of layout here and there and that that's most of the reason why the uh changes have been presented. That wasn't because of wetlands. Well, there are wetlands on the on the project and I believe there was some uh
alteration to the wetland lines as the project had gone through the regulatory uh process. So those were adjusted and taken into account in the revised layout. Any additional questions, comments? I'm going to go ahead and open it to the
public. Anyone wishing to um question Mr. McFarland or any comments on the testimony we've heard from him? I would now ask uh to permit I'd like to let me just close public session on that complete Mr. Graham and bring up John Ray. Seeing no one come forward in
regards to Mr. McFarland's testimony. I'm going to I'm going to close public session, but I'm going to ask that we take a 10-minute break. All right. You're the chair. And you can call Mr. Ray. Thank you. We're going to call the meeting back to
order. Thank you. Thank you. I would like to call John Ray, our traffic consultant. Okay. Mr. Ray, please come up to be sworn. Do you swear that the testimony you will give this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. And uh Mr.
Ray, John Ray, REA, professional engineer with McDonald and Ray Associates. This board is at least at least one. So, thank you. This board accepts your credentials. So, John, you you've been with this plan for a long time. There's some
modifications today. Could you describe to the board how that lane affected traffic? Sure. Uh and actually Dr. Hoffstein was pretty correct. He said, "I just looked at my job number. It's 2009." So I've been involved with this for 16 years. Uh what we're in for this
evening is an amendment uh because of the issues that Mr. McFarland raised with respect to the storm water regulations and the wetlands slight adjustments. Uh with respect to traffic, the plan that we originally had it had approved had 205 single family homes
plus the affordables. We're down to 193. So the new plan has 12 fewer sing single family homes than the one that was previously approved. Obviously the big issue here is we've eliminated the full-time access to Denton Lane and
there's been a big discussion about that and um Mr. Heyman had the right idea. I was sitting here listening to everybody. If there's going to be an emergency access to either Whitlock or Denton, it makes more sense to go to Denton Lane because that gives you access to
Whitesville Road whereas Whitlock only comes out the East Veterans Highway. So that gives you access to three county roads for emergency uh purposes. With respect to the need for a full-time access to Denton Lane, I I think everybody's pretty familiar with the
road network in the area. If you think about where these roads go, where they connect to, uh, based on my traffic study and my review of the layout of where the homes are, and everything, I think very few of the residents would use the Whitesville Road access, even if
we had it as a full-time access. And the reason is Whitesville Road just really connects East Veterans Highway to South Hope Chapel. So why would you use Whitesville Road? If you were approaching the site from the east, you'd just use Veterans Highway. If you
were approaching it from the west, you'd use East Veterans Highway. If you were approaching it from the south on South Hope Chapel, you'd probably just come up and use the South Hope Chapel access. Same thing if you were coming from the north on South Hope Chapel. If you just look at where Whitesville Road goes, all
it does is connect the East Veterans and South Hope Chapel. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a benefit to have that access. It would. I personally like to have as many points of access as possible to distribute the traffic as efficiently as possible. Uh but at the
end of the day, it it's not as important as you may think for full-time everyday access for the residents of the community. Having said that, I I do endorse emergency emergency vehicle access from the end of Denton to provide
emergency vehicles a way to get into the site from Whitesville Road. And uh really I guess that that summarizes it. I have no other direct questions and uh you of course your prior testimony remains in effect for the prior application. Uh yes uh we are in
we are inside three main county roads east Veterans Highway, South Hope Chapel and Whitesville. There are three signalized intersections at the three corners of the Could you very visual? Yeah. Yes. All right. Anthony, could you pull up the the site location map? And
then I'm gonna have to try to figure out how to use this. I'm gonna have more trouble than Randy. All right. Well, you could see the site there at the very top of the uh site map. That's the inter right there. That's the intersection of South Hope
Chapel and Veterans Highway. That's one of the three signalized intersections that bracket the property. If you come back down, Anthony, could you go to the um the map that we just had up there? That was that had a little bit more showed a little bit more area.
Let's see what we could find here. Ah, I think I have it. I just need the Yeah, I just need the other site location map if it's possible. Or actually, I could work with this. Right off at this corner right
here, that would be the intersection, the signalized intersection at East Veterans and South Hope Chapel. And that was studied. That's under county jurisdiction. If we come back down East Veterans to the West, it connects with Whitesville Road. And I don't know why
this isn't working again, but Graham, I got to buy you a battery or so, I guess. But at any rate, East Veterans Highway connects with Whitesville Road. So if you we're we're inside the middle of a triangle. And then over to the upper right hand side
of the map, maybe Graham can help me here. The upper right hand side is the intersection of South Hope Chapel and Whitesville. There you go. So we we are inside three main county roads. We have three signalized intersections that we analyzed for the county. They're all
under county jurisdiction. Yeah, I did. Yeah, I I I think I may not have been pointing it and I I don't want to blind anybody. Okay. So, yeah. So, I hope Mr. Hudach that somewhat answered your question. We're
in the middle of three main county roads and we studied all of those intersections for the county. And uh as as maybe some of the newer members of the board may or may not know, the county collects a traffic impact fee from every developer that gets a county
planning board approval. The fees can be quite substantial and they ultimately decide how the money is used. I think that's part of what got corner reconstructed within the last year or two. And so it's really up to the county as as to how they want to spend that
money to improve the uh county road network, but we will have to pay a pretty hefty traffic impact fee to the county. Any questions, Mr. Ray? I just like to clarify something if if I may. Yes. Um Mr. Ray, I I know you were
here in the room u during Mr. Johnson's testimony. Um and um the recollection you had just spoken about your view that uh with Denton that it
was beneficial but not necessary and that people but I believe um Mr. Johnson had testified there was a willingness to do a sort of an emergency access point. Yes. At Denton now and then when Denton
is completed um or the long portion of Denton by the other developers to join up with Denton. Correct. That would make sense. The only um thing I would say regarding that is I don't want to be at the meeting when I got to come back here and explain to the people that live on
Denton that this is what we want to do. connect them to this other development. Things can, you know, what I'm saying is things in the future, it makes sense from an absolute point of view of full traffic circulation for everybody. But, uh, as Mr. Dr. Hoffstein indicated
before, when we originally came forth with the plan for this property, the people that lived on Whitlock and the people that lived on Denton Lane didn't want any connection to the community. And that's why the plan is the way it is. And that could certainly happen again in the future.
But the but the approved plan that you're looking to amend does show development of Denton Lane. The approved plan does. Yes. The plan that we have in front of the board this evening does not. It's a culde-sac, but we've agreed to the emergency vehicle
access. Right. Which I think is the most important thing and and the other statements that were made by Mr. Johnson. Correct. Um and then just for the other point of clarification um regarding the idea of the soft access or for emergency exit at Whitlock, I
believe there was prior testimony that there was a willingness to provide that soft access at Whitlock and at Denton, but your testimony seemed to indicate something different regarding Whitlock. Well, I want to make sure that we understand the position of the
applicant. I mean, it's ultimately up to the board. I don't think uh Mr. Johnson has a preference for one road or the other. If the board decided you wanted emergency vehicle access from both Whitlock or Denton, it's not a big deal. It's really just whatever the fire department requires. It's a chain with I
think they call it a knockbox or something just so the fire department or the emergency services people can can get in. But but to me u as Mr. Heyman had indicated before it makes more sense if you're going to do one or the other to do uh Denton Lane because it gives
you access to Whitesville whereas Whitlock only gives you a second point of access to East Veterans. Madam Chair, um Mr. The traffic impact studies you provided um are based upon two access points.
Correct. Actually, the last one for the 205 was based upon having Denton Lane as well too. But but the traffic distribution I just looked at the report to Denton Lane was very minimal. But my question is is even if it's dimminimous, the addition of that traffic to either
of the other two intersections, would that negatively impact the level of service such that additional intersection improvements would be necessary? Additional uh intersection improvements would not be necessary. Uh we've already gone over this with the
county and just for for I don't know if you want you to go over what? Yeah. No, the uh the county has required widening at both the East Veterans uh access and the South Hope Chapel access to provide for turning lanes and we've agreed to do that. Um Graham's office has already
laid it out, given it to the county and I think they've basically signed off on it. There will be a widening and there will be turning lanes and they will still operate safely and efficiently in my estimation. Thank you. Hello. Yes. Um, so against my best
judgment, I'm going to ask you an open-ended question. So, you feel free to respond how you wish. Um, I just wanted some color or more clarification around um, your letter C. You know, it talks about that um, and maybe you have already and I I just didn't hit me. Uh,
where the service level was below E, however, MRA has been in communication and so on so forth. It It's on page two of of what? What report? Which report? Give me the date. Oh. Oh. Uh May 30th,
2025. Excuse me. Sorry. May 30th, 2025. Okay. Hang on one second. Just so that we get on the same page. I have it. It's in here. My My file is quite quite large on this. Sure. So I
just got to find I did bring the May 30th. That was a response to the Remington and Vernick. Yeah, that's the one we were giving. Give me a minute. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So May Okay. May 30th. I got it. Got it. Second page, letter C.
And did this start with no response necessary? But that phrase there where um some movements and approaches could operate at level service E. Correct. which we know is a failure. No, it's not. Okay, good. Level of service E only relates to
the amount of delay and an unsignal. I I I think I testified it the last time. When you get to level of service F and even level of service F does not mean failure. It just relates to the amount of delay that's present at an intersection. So, I can tell you what the difference between level of service
E and level of service F is if you just give me one minute, get the definitions. At a signalized intersection, level of service E is delay between 55 and 80 seconds per vehicle. Level of service F is delay in excess of 80
seconds. Seconds. Seconds of delay. Average delay. Yes. So that that's what it's related. I was thinking minutes when I read it, I think. No, no, no, no, no. Seconds. Okay. and um and and looking at that item from
the May 30th report, I I think the point was the county has asked us to look at that intersection and come up with some suggestions to get the E to at least a D, and we've done that. We've recommended northbound and eastbound
left turn lanes at the intersection. The county is aware of that and they are designing an improvement for that intersection and they are aware of the fact that we've already recommended northbound and eastbound left turn uh right turn lanes and as you probably are aware of but maybe not there are
multiple projects in the area that contribute traffic to that intersection and I'm I'm assuming the county is going to use the traffic impact fees to from everybody to do something and not tag one individual developer. Right. Okay. I don't get to decide it, but if I was the
county engineer, that's what I would do. Unfortunately, you're the one here. I know. And you're getting paid the big bucks, so Well, I I apologize. I know about that. He is. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that response. You're welcome.
Any additional questions for Mr. Ray? Mr. Uh can you just give us a little bit of uh information on how the house of worship would affect this application? Although you're not technically Yes. um have it on this
application. It was part of the broader application. Yes. The house of worship is part of the application. It's going to be up by South Hope Chapel Road. It's going to have a connection to the internal roadway from the development that goes out to South Hope Chapel Road.
And it's also going to have a separate rightin, right out only driveway to South Hope Chapel. That's what the county has agreed to. So, it is part of the overall development plan. I I'm assuming the expectation here is that a good number of the congregants will be
members of the community that might not have to go out onto South Hope Chapel Road. Are there any signals proposed on any of the No, no, not at the access points. They've been evaluated by my firm, by
your experts, and by the county. And turning lanes are required. Left turn lanes in particular are important, but not traffic signals. There isn't enough traffic to warrant signalization, even with the house of worship. Even with the house of worship,
Any additional questions for Mr. Ray, Mr. Peters, Mr. Roire, Gina? Okay. Thank you. And if there's no other questions, I'm going to open it to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward and discuss the traffic
testimony you've heard this evening, please do so at this time. Sir, could I ask you to raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you'll give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. And could you state your name and address
for the record? Joseph Rashudy Jackson. Uh my question is about with the traffic study now with the high school changing, the morning traffic is going to be more crowded with the extra students that are no longer at Jackson Memorial that Hope
Chapel and East Veterans intersection is going to have a lot more student traffic, a lot more bus traffic. How was that going to affect? Well, the these studies were done well before the board of education decided to close Memorial
and concentrate everything at Liberty. I would assume that they looked at that because it was their decision to do that. That would be their responsibility to look at their impact. Okay. They're not here to answer that how that's going to affect this. They got a phone number. Pick up the phone.
Call them. Yeah. Okay. Um the uh with the number of houses 150 add another 75 homes basement apartments in those homes and don't say it's not going to happen but add 75 apartment
homes how much more traffic and for parking is that going to affect this development? I thought we had this discussion at previous hearings and and I I I I thought that issue was worked out and there was an agreement not to have basement apartments unless I'm missing
something. I don't know if anybody remember that. That was Dr. Hoffstein, help. I thought there were not going to be basement. I agree. I thought I heard that at a previous meeting a year or two or three ago. So there's guaranteed no basement
apartments. Okay. and parking on the on on the roads. Is there going to be parking on both sides of the street? The streets are going to be 30 feet wide, curb to curb, and the RSIS permits parking on both sides of a 30- foot wide street.
Okay, that's what's permitted by under the state regulations. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Thank you for coming forward. Yes. Okay, because I have questions for the developer, too. Anyone else wishing to come forward regarding Mr. Ray's testimony?
Seeing no one else come forward, I'm going to close public session. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, would like the board to consider a uh a vote tonight and of course I would ask to board to approve the application based on tonight's
testimony. Number of variances that had been previously proposed have been reduced to the one which is a use variance and a bulk variance at the same time. And uh other than that, I think the application is in full compliance
with the regulations and with the modifications that have been made. And throughout the time I've been involved with the project, all of the comments from your consultants and from board members have been incorporated into this design over the years. And uh it's been
a pretty long time we've been fooling around with this. But in any event, tonight I think the application in front of you is very simple in for consideration because it meets all of the standards and the one variance is essentially dimminimous. The testimony
was that it has no significant impact. You have a peculiar I wouldn't say peculiar but not a common condition that that applies to the individual lot as a use variance in addition to being a variance. And in that case um it's a
very minor if at all impact which would satis and the testimony supports that and that would provide for a in my view adequate justification for the board to find it meets the standards of the municipal land use law in order to be uh
entitled to a variance. And in that regard, the minimous impact is what I would think is most important for the board to consider. and the fact that a project of this size is rarely impacted by one particular condition. And what
the board has done over this application in prior applications and the prior boards too have looked at this as a entire project and not only the impacts in any one location but throughout the uh general area and along both of the major roads that it surrounded. This
doesn't change that. In fact, I think it improves it and enhances it. Therefore, I would suggest that this is an application that this board not only has the ability to approve, should approve because of all of those conditions, all of the compliance and the lengthy period
of back and forth in the time we've all had both sides to study and come up with these solutions. I think that the applicant has dealt with every major issue that the board has presented over the years and tonight. And in fact, the
board has understood compliance and the minimal impacts of some of these conditions. And that brings us to, in my view, a very desirable project for the uh community and for the developer and that it should operate at an excellent
level of efficiency. Based on all of those factors and the testimony presented tonight, I am satisfied that there's an adequate point, an adequate record in front of you to justify the grant of the requested variances and to permit the approval of this application.
Of course, that's your decision, but I ask you to be persuaded by me. That's kind of my job here. But in any event, I think that my clients have taken every step to meet those conditions and our clients consultants have worked with the township consultants to come to this
point. This application is entitled to an approval in my opinion, which doesn't count as a vote, but I would like it to hopefully be somewhat persuasive. So, I would ask the board to approve the application. Thank you. All right, we're going to go ahead and open this to
Gina. I'm sorry. I just wanted to um quickly add a point that well to reiterate actually the fencing um that we had very early on in testimony kind of nailed down with the
4ft black chain link with plantings that be a stipulation of approval should should the board so choose uh to approve. Also, I did want to just touch base on that recreation lot. If we could just kind of nail down what that is
going to be or what's what we're asking the board for approval for just from a resolution compliance standpoint just so when those zoning applications do come in my office, I know specifically what is approved for approved versus what is being requested.
that may poss depending what I've seen in in recent applications depending what they're requesting in the recreation area if another variance for fencing or anything like that could be could possibly be triggered. Mr. Junker, can you give a quick summary
of the recreation area? Well, the recreation area is shown on the plan. Our clients have agreed to that and uh it wasn't modified by this application. It's part of the approved plan already.
Can you read it, Gina? It's very little. It's so exciting. Um, so my question was based off the RVE review letter dated March 27th, 2025 on page two where um it was outlined what the applicant was currently seeking amended preliminary
and final major subdivision approval to amend the approval previously granted by the zoning board with resolution 2023-17. The amended plans consist of the following. Number one, 190 lots for new single family dwellings, of which 12
lots include storm water basins. Number two, two lots for existing single family dwellings. I'm just going to skip a bunch. Number four, uh, one lot for a recreation area. So, that is why that was the basis of my question. And Madam Chair, if I may, um, the on
the full site plan on sheet four, it it shows what's proposed. And I can just clarify there's an existing community center 3,365 square ft to be to remain and then proposing a in the recreation area 60tx
100t open play field and then also a timber play set and and I understand that was part of the previous approval. If I may, Mr. Chairman. Yes. that particular design and those facilities
were part of a specific port part of one of the prior applications. I can't quite remember which one it was, but we went through it in detail and the size of the clubhouse or the recreation building was uh decided and agreed and those
additional facilities. At one point there was a proposal for a basketball court and the board felt that that would be too disruptive for the community and that's how we ended up with the site uh the uh recreation facilities on the site.
It also I think ties into the walking path. My apologies if my question was outside the scope. Again I was kind of based my question was kind of based off the Remington Vernick review letter. So if that isn't being any requests being changed to that then my question is
satisfied. Thank you. Thank you. So before I give it to the board, I'm going to open to the public for discussion. Anyone wishing to come forward and make comment can do so at this time. You still remain under oath. Okay. Um, I
was at home watching on YouTube and I said, "I got to come down here." So, I don't know if I missed about the recreation area. I know there's a community center, probably like a clubhouse with the recck room, but tot lot. I think he mentioned something
about a lot of 100 ft by 150. That's a very small lot for all them homes for kids to be playing in. I think they need a be a bigger tot. There's going to be a lot of kids there. They get they need to have some more green space.
And another thing, if we can zoom in on the map up there by the lake and the properties, the lot lines footage, is that going into the lake? Yeah, Mr. Mr. Rashi, this is this is you
had the opportunity to ask questions earlier that you have every opportunity to make a comment now. So, okay. Well, my concern was if the length of the of those lots are going into the lake, you know, I don't know if it's 120 feet
long and 10 or 20 feet in the lake but counting it as quote dry land. I don't know. That was my concern. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Anyone else wishing to come
forward and make comments at this time? Seeing no one else come forward, we're going to go ahead and close public session. Board is up for discussion. I guess I'll just start. So, what I'm being asked to vote on is two two very
specific areas. I know we spoke about a lot of things today, but is it right that the vote, the motion that's going to be made at some point, it's simply about the fence, whether it's 4T or six feet, correct?
No. No. I mean, you're right. So the application is an application for an amended uh site plan and preliminary and final site plan and subdivision plan. So that
plan actually has a number of variations from what was previously approved by this board. there's a reduction uh in the number of the single family lots, not a reduction in the affordable housing. Um there's a re uh
configuration of some of the lots. Um and there is the change that is proposed to the access point or to Denton Road. So there is an
application for approval of the overall plan. What you're talking about I think are some of and the the variance that was meant I believe there's only one variance. They've changed it. So there's only one variance that's being requested which is the variance allowing the
creation of the flag lot at 1.08 which then will um reduce the frontage on lot 1.09. 9 from 80 ft to I believe it was 62.6 feet. Then the other things
we've been discussing are conditions that could if the board wishes be put on the approval. those conditions um to this point are you know the standard conditions about uh compliance
with outside agencies and then the um the fence I believe there it's not a question of four or six you can condition that however you want the discussion from the majority of the board was for a 4ft black chainlink
fence with landscaping around Um and that was around the smaller detention basins. There's already proposed fencing around the larger detention basins. Um and then there was also um the uh
condition there was an acceptance of a comment except for the comments regarding uh lots 108 109 for Mr. Peters and Mr. Meyer's reports. Um there was a discussion about whether there would be one O HOA and a representation was made that there would be for the entire
project. Um there was also a representation made and you may want a condition on on not having basements in the projects. It was a condition also suggested that it would be um open to uh
all that for purchase and then the um discussion that was had regarding the access points at Whitlock and at Denton. Um there was a representation made um you want to condition it that there
would be soft uh access which we were described as a fend a chain um at both Whitlock and Denton. You could finish it on one or the other or both. And um that there was also
representation that once Denton has been developed by the other developers who have existing approvals requiring development that that the culde-sac portion of this project would then be connected to Denton. So those okay those
are potential conditions that the board. Wow, that was a lot. Um, okay. So, so to be when we this is all one. So, when we vote a simple yes or no, it's going to be No, no, no. Those were I Let me be clear. Those were some of the
representations and conditions that were discussed. Whether all of those or some of them or different versions of them are incorporated in what the board um goes wants to include. Should there be a
motion for an approval? That's absolutely up to the board. That's what you're discussing now. Okay. Yeah. I just I want to be clear whatever the how the motion is worded that I'm careful. If I say yes, I'm saying yes to which
one of all or all or what and so because there's a lot there obviously right. Okay. Thank you. Question to all the conditions that you add those are addition to what's already been
approved. Correct. So these are only for this regret to amend the site plan. So how does that work? Meaning the original approval for example had the house of worship that's not part of this
what amended site plan. How does that? So that is an existing. So this is if you think about it, there was a site plan that was approved and so everything that's on that site plan was there and would remain there except these elements
that are being amended here. So that's the reduction in the number of units, the reconfiguration, the access issues, um and you know any any other variations. So the things that were and again it's this is not a new
it's not an application for a entirely new site plan. It's an amendment of that existing. So the elements there the affordable housing the house of worship those things remain as part of the plan.
So from the um resolution standpoint for example how does that work out? I mean the old resolution is going to be amended because they're changing different parts of this. No. So we wouldn't be amending the old resolution. What we would be saying or what the
board would be saying should you choose to act in this manner is that you're approving the application to amend that site plan. So that any part of that resolution that does not refer to these aspects
that are being changed would remain in effect. So all the provisions of that resolution pertaining to the house of worship to the affordable housing to the things that have not been changed remains in effect. it. This
would be an approval only to change those portions that have been requested. Um and then any conditions that related to the changed portions, the change aspects would
depend on conditions and representations made on those changed elements. Thank you. I just want to clarify on that Benton Road. I'm sorry to go there again. I just want to make sure that it's being connected currently which is
not going to be fully developed until the other until the other developers um develop the road. Right. So that's obviously going to depend on you. But I believe that the representation made by Mr. Johnson was that the culde-sac be
created, but there would be that emergency access to what was described as a paved cartway sufficient for emergency vehicles and access. Now, so
it would be essentially the road would the the developed road would end, but there would be enough of an access. That was I think the suggestion um in the testimony of Mr. was it was a chain with uh
Ballard so that cars couldn't drive through now but emergency vehicles would be able to get through and that when Denton Road was completed by the other developers who have that obligation under approvals from the planning board then there would be a full connection.
So just to clarify, you said that it would be still the culde-sac. Would it end by that area of that connection in a circle like it's larger than the regular road or it would just be prepped to be able to get connected
already? I can't answer that question how it's gonna as I on the map, right? So you know I don't know Mr. Junko if you want to open it back up or or provide anything that because all I can say
clarification you know if they don't want to to to get that clarification on then that would be you would have to condition it on whether you were willing to have it be completed as the culde-sac as long as there was the emergency
access or if you were requiring that it be prepared for connection. I presumably with the absence of curbing etc. Well really my question is because it would just affect that lot 3.45 four.
If we don't have that and I uh I I'm sorry I did miss a condition before um which was the representation that for lots 321, 322 and 323
that there would be an adjustment of those lot lines um uh so as to provide 80 ft uh frontages which would require revision of the lines for some of the adjacent lot and that representation was made. I forgot to mention that earlier.
Um but to go back to the Denton park, it's right. So what I just said was um if it's just a regular road and it's not a culde-sac, it would affect probably lot 3.45. I'm not sure how that would play out, right? And and
so if it would affect that and you feel that that effect would require it either to Mr. Junko, you'd like to on lot 3.45
the culdeac would could be when excuse me when it connects in the future to Denton Lane. The culde-sac can just become a street. the the issue is will that be part of that connection. In other words,
straight bringing the line straight which our client would be willing to do. And I would expect that that is something that would be the most usual and common approach to modifying the uh
Swan Court. Well, it's actually Denton Lane and Swan Court intersection. Yes, we uh certainly can modify uh answer your question. I'm just asking how they are proposing. Um meaning if we're going to
have a if we're going to have a uh that circle at the end and then let's say in a year or two they're going to connect with it to Denton. Then you're having a straight going into a bubble then continuing straight like it's a little bit Yeah, I
think Mr. Mr. Junko was saying get some kind of clarification. It appears that uh Mr. Johnson is going to look at that issue and either confirm or revise what Mr. Junko said, which is that they would
straighten it out. Uh so so typically Johnson you remain under Yeah. Yes. Sure. design. So, as you see it on the plan, it would
be built as a permanent culde-sac today. That's a that lot 3.45 is a pump station lot. Once the connection gets made which would be straight through to Denton Lane that
half of the culdeac would be removed and curbing foot street so that go straight. Thank you. Right on. And the plan uh does show dedicated to the JTMUA that long
and that's not going to be an issue straightening it out later. question is when is that time what's going to trigger it I guess to require that correct yes my question my question is when are when are we going to what's
going to procedure going to be put in place to require the applicant to make that change from a culde-sac into a straightened Fine. Are you saying what would be the triggering event? Correct. I would believe it would
be the completion of Denton Lane. So that you would have to stipulate that. Yes. In the resolution. Yes. And that would mean that when Denton Lane was open to traffic from that portion of connection with this project out to
Whitesville. Thank you. Any other comments? I just want to make a comment um to the gentleman who came up and you made a comment and I feel it was uh dismissed and I don't know if maybe Miss Cypriani
can explain to uh in light yeah when this original application was approved memorial was Memorial and Liberty was Liberty now in light of Memorial merging to Liberty yes there's a whole new traffic pattern that was not considered
when this application was approved. So, I just want you to know these are county roads, especially people we live here. I don't want you to think or anyone in our town that this is a dismissed thing. And I
think if Miss Sepriani wants to explain exactly why we can't really get a new updated traffic study for this, certainly Mr. Such. So, Mr. Sure shooty what Mr. Sach is asking me to to and I think he explained it pretty well but
the you know additional part is that we can only um consider what's been presented here what the the traffic patterns that were required to be looked at then however though since those are county roads when the board of ed went
to make these changes um they would have had to review those issues with the county and it is the county that retains jurisdiction over those roads and how uh development on those roads needs to be addressed. So I I think that Mr. Mr. are
saying it's an obvious, you know, thing that we all know is happening in real time and is is going to have some impacts, but the board at this time on this application cannot require um this
applicant to make those um studies. Also, the uh to expand on that that we have to on traffic at at the entrance and and exit of the site. The the rest is up to the county. That's just the way
case law reads and we have to go by it. I just have one comment to make and it's a touchy comment, but it's been on a lot of minds. We are not an enforcement agency, but
hopefully that that when these homes are marketed that fair housing laws are followed by whomever the marketer is. I think that would uh go a long way to uh
make many people in the town uh not feel that it's a special uh housing project is being built for certain people and not others. fair housing laws uh are federal laws if I'm
not mistaken and everybody who has any any kind of uh house residents up for sale has to follow those guidelines. Yes. And um well and as for the affordable housing portion, the marketing of those units is dictated by
state law. Any other questions, comments, discussion of a potential motion? I'll make a motion to approve following all the guidelines that Mr. Cypriani
mentioned and anything else that that should fit in. All right, we have a motion on the floor in a second. Roll call, please. Mr. Heyman, yes. Dr. Hoffstein, yes. Mr. Hudek, yes. Miss Rosal, yes. Mr.
Martins, yes. Mr. Such, yes. Miss Bradley, yes. Granted. Thank you. Oh, is that what you call it? No. You ready, Gina? Miss Jennings, the floor is yours. Thank
you. Good evening. For the record, I'm Donna Jennings from the law firm of Wins Goldman and Spitzer. As the board is aware, the applicant is returning this evening to continue the hearing for its application seeking use and bulk variance approval to permit the use of a tent as a temporary shul at property
located at 263 Jackson Pines Road and identified as block 14001, lot 9 on the township's tax map. The property is located in the R3 zone. As the board will recall, the applicant presented testimony that the proposed shel is temporary and will only be used until a
permanent house of worship is constructed. That house of worship located at 217 Brewers Bridge Road has already been approved by the planning board and the start of construction is eminent. The site plans have actually been signed. We are hoping to get the zoning permit shortly and then we can
begin hopefully the construction. Currently, in addition to the tent, the property is improved with a single family residence, which is the residence of the Shul's rabbi, and will become an accessory use to the shul. The property is also improved with a pole barn gym, which is used as a wrestling school with
limited hours, open only in the evening, four days a week. That use received approval from this board in 2009. applicant has already presented the testimony of Ellie Halpert, the applicant's professional engineer, who described the proposal and the operations of the Shuel, John Ray, the
applicant's traffic expert, and Steve Rivera, who described the operations of the wrestling school. Tonight, the applicant will present the testimony of its planner, uh, John sitting next to me to my left to address the variances needed by the application. When the applicant initially submitted the
application, the proposed use, the shu was a conditional use subject to standards of ordinance section 244-115 of the township zoning ordinances. However, with the adoption of ordinance 31-23, which became effective in early
2024, the use was converted into a permitted principal use subject to the bulk standard set forth at ordinance section 244-46 G4 of the amended ordinance. As a result of the favorable ordinance change, the application no longer requires a variance from the conditional use
standards for the house of worship. However, there are several bulk variances related to the house of worship, which John will go into more detail with. Uh however also the applicant is requesting now a conditional use variance for the wrestling school at the rear of the
property to allow it to operate as a quasi public or private club because when it was approved in 2009 it was approved as a home occupation because Mr. Rivera lived there in the single family home. So definitely a little confusing good uh test exam for a law
student I think. Um the board planner has identified additional variances related to the house of worship which again I'm going to let John go into detail and um he'll also go into the two existing conditions related to the wrestling school. So if we could just
have uh John sworn in um we can begin his testimony which would really wrap up the application. But I do have in the audience our site engineer, a representative from the congregation and Mr. Rivera, just in case there's any questions that pops up that was not addressed the last time we were here,
but I'm not intending on calling them as direct witnesses. Thank you. Before you get started, sir, Miss Jennings, can I ask you a question? When this first and I'd have to go back to my notes to get the exact date I went there, so forgive me, but one of the early dates that was on the agenda, I went to the property
and there happened to be a woman there. She said she was renting. You said that the rabbi lives there. Correct. The rabbi and his wife live in the home. uh rentree the congregation uh basically Israel Burbam is the owner of the property and he's a member of the
congregation and he lets the rabbi live there thank you welcome I do certainly my name is John T is in Thomas. A I K is in Kelly. I N is in Nicholas A. I'm a licensed planner
in the state of New Jersey. I have been since I completed my studies at Ruckers University in 1992. I've spent the last 32 years doing this, testifying before planning zoning boards around uh across New Jersey and around the country. I've had the pleasure of appearing here on several occasions in the last two years.
Mr. Tik, I hope I pronounced that right. This board accepts your credentials. Thank you. And you did pronounce that correctly. Thank you. John, you've had an opportunity to review the application and the property and you understand the variances that the applicant is seeking. If you could go through in your
professional opinion, indicate whether or not you have think the applicant has satisfied both the positive and the negative criteria. Great. So, we are here uh this evening for I guess three different types of relief uh in kind of two different sets.
So the first thing we need is a D1 variance or a use variance to permit two principal uses on the lot. So initially we will have a shul and a private recreation use. That is what exists today and that's what will be there at
the outset. So that's kind of our initial approval that we are seeking to continue. Uh and then ultimately we will have a private recreation use which is a permitted conditional use in the district and a single family home that
will exist on the property into the future. So we will continue to have uh two uh use two principal uses on the property. they will just kind of change in the middle once the new house of worship that Miss Jennings uh mentioned
uh is up and running. So, and I guess we we'll have a time frame for when that uh transitions. Uh connected with that um we do need a D3 variance for a conditional use that does not meet all the conditions uh for the private recreation use. As we said, it was
previously approved as a home occupation. um the uh proprietor of that uh business no longer lives on the property. So, it's not a home occupation kind of by definition. Um but it it does meet many of the conditions for a private recreation use. We just do not meet all
of them. Um notably setbacks uh buffers. Repeat what you just said. Repeat that about the recreation use. Certainly. So, um, the recreation use
was originally approved in 2009 as a home occupation. That proprietor of that business, the wrestling school, um, no longer lives on the property, so it can't be a home occupation kind of by definition. Um, we
could have sought a conditional use for a home occupation without living there, but that kind of doesn't make any sense. Um, I'm a big proponent if it walks and looks like a duck, it's a duck. So, we need much more
of the private recreation use. Uh, we just need some relief um from a minor setback and uh and the buffer. So, and I'll detail that in a little bit. And then finally, we need some C variance relief or bulk variance relief for the
shul to permit an accessory use in the front yard because the home is an accessory parsonage to the shul and it's it's located in front of the the shul or in front of the tent. So, um that is a a variance there. We need a sideyard
setback variance uh for the setback of the shul at 40 feet where 50 feet is required. And then finally we need um side uh buffer relief where 50 feet is required and when we only have 25 ft on
the one side of the property related to the shul. Um so kind of three different sets of of of approvals and I'll take you through them kind of one at a time. Um, our engineer did a nice job of of describing uh the property and where it
is and uh and all that and that's that's shown up on A1. Uh you see the property indicated on the on the right indicated where the site is um and the location of the newly proposed um house of worship
is shown on the left near the clearing on the left there. So um you can see that uh they are in close proximity and as you know that's important for the congregation as on on the uh on chabas they they do walk to services as well as
on holy days. Um so again the site is 4.3 acres in the Arthur residential district um and uh we've described what what exists on the property. We have a single family dwelling, a shul, um a detached garage that is more associated
with the uh pullborn that's used for the wrestling school and some byumous concrete driveways uh and parking spaces. Uh the majority of the property uh that is not occupied by the shel and the wrestling school is wooded. Um so
specifically, so I can get the citations down here and they uh we want to make sure we get them on the record correctly. We need a use variance from section 244162 to permit multiple principal structures on a lot used for single family
residential purposes and that will be in the ultimate condition. Um we uh and your planner has also said we need a variance to have two principal uses on the property at the beginning. Um and again I'm not going to uh object. will
just uh provide the proofs uh for the for that use variance as well. Um likewise we need bulk variances from 2446 G4 relating to the house of worship and these concern the minimum sideyard setback which is 40 ft proposed where 50
ft is required. minimum landscape buffer which is 25 feet proposed where 50 feet is required and to allow the accessory structure which is the home um to continue in the front yard. Um we also need uh a conditional use
variance uh to we need bulk variances from 2446G relating the house of worship concerning the uses location on a residential access street. Um the height of the accessory structure though I believe we comply with that. The regulation allows
that height of the accessory structure to be up to 25 ft and it allows it to be increased as long as you have the corresponding increase in setbacks uh which we provide. So accordingly, I believe the 27 foot height of the
accessory structure for the residents does comply and to allow parking in the front yard and they would all be existing additions that we would seek to continue. Then in terms of the uh wrestling school, we need a conditional
use variance from section 244 uh 129 to permit the existing wrestling school to uh operate as a quasi public or private uh recreation use without complying with the building setback
which is 50 ft required and we have 48.9 ft I believe. Um and we have parking setbacks. Uh we we are providing 25 feet as a parking setback and uh the requirement is 50 feet in the ordinance.
Um we also need I'm sorry can you just go back a little bit? I'm trying to take the notes and so those numbers again with the school how much is required and how much for the wrestling school the uh the setback for the wrestling school the requirement is 50 ft and we we are at
48.9 ft. So we're we're off by foot 1.1 feet. Um and the parking setback uh we are seeking the same 25 foot uh buffer setback for the parking where 50 ft is required.
Um and then finally uh we need bulk uh bulk variance for the accessory structure which is the existing detached garage. uh the standard would be um would be 30 or 50 feet and we are at 21.3 ft I believe
um right I don't want to interrupt your train of thought you said though the book was 30 or 50 the the standard um the standard in the district kind of flipped flops back and
forth. Um the standard for the uh for a home is at is at 30 feet for a single family home. It's also the same for the shul um for the accessory structures. There's a standard in the ordinance for
accessory structures. If it's a barn, which this isn't, um that would be 75 ft. And then the other standards for accessory structures would be 50 feet. So, it's kind of a little bit all all over the map. I believe for um belt and suspenders purposes, I think it'd be
appropriate to say the requirement would be 50 ft and we are at 21. It's really going to drive me nuts now. 21, we'll just say 21 feet provided. And that is an existing condition for
that existing uh garage that is next to the wrestling school. Okay. Thank you. And I believe that is all of the variance relief that we are seeking. I gave you back your notice. Um there were some other uh there were
some other variances that that were mentioned in Mr. Peter's letter. Um I believe that I've explained um most of them. Um, I talked about the height again. It provides for the if you provide an exa an additional foot of
setback, you get an additional foot of height. Two feet of setback and you get an additional foot of height. So, we're well set back from the road. Um, so we are can avail ourselves uh to that provision. Um, the last element that was uh that was some question was parking.
Um and I think it has been appropriately correctly calculated now and we talked about it last meeting um that it would be uh 17 parking spaces required for the shul.
It would be um 30 parking spaces, 17 for the Shaw, 41 parking spaces, excuse me, for the uh wrestling school and uh three spaces required for the uh for the residents.
Um for a total of 61 parking spaces required, there are 67 physical parking spaces included. Um, and that does not that they include electric vehicles, but that 67 count
does not include the electric vehicle bonus, which would be an additional six spaces. So for the math it'd be 61 required and 73 provided
because we can't get a bonus that exceeds 10% of the number required. So then the maximum bonus would be six and we have eight total that are proposed. Good. So, in terms of the use variance,
our use varants testimony, uh the first use variance we need is to have multiple uses on the property. We have a shul and a um and a private wrestling a private club recreation school uh recreation uh use. Um
I I apologize for interrupting, but I No, no, please anytime. I don't want to get so far along and then have to come back and sort of refocus you. Um, as it relates to parking, um, I'm not sure that your
numbers add up to the numbers on site plan cover sheet or in our letter. Um, Miss Jennings, I don't know if you want your planner to run through the numbers or your engineer, but I don't think
the planner just testified to reconciles with what's on the variance planner in our report. Maybe we'll just leave it at that and come back to it later. I just I want the board to understand that I don't necessarily agree with this testimony as it relates
to parking at this moment. Thank you. Okay. Um so uh in terms of the the D1 variants um the first concept that that we'll talk
about uh for the variance for the shel and the wrestling school first of all the shuel is an inherently beneficial use as you know um so we would uh by definition meet the positive criteria as uh an inherently beneficial use uh does
uh promote the public uh the public welfare and the public interest. So the standard for the board is called the SECA balancing test. It's a case called SECA board of adjustment of wall from 1992 and again that very specific uh we have to identify what the public interest is at stake in this instrument.
Uh house of worship is inherently beneficial. Um the courts have held the religious activity itself as a furtherance of public morals and general welfare. identify the detrimental impact that will ensue from the grant of the variance in this instance in that we have a site that is uh about 50% larger
than set forth in the zone. We have about 4.3 acres where three acres is required. Uh we are substantially meeting the bulk standards in terms of lot coverage um building coverage etc. uh we are providing for sufficient parking um and I believe there certainly
will be sufficient parking whatever math we we uh we ultimately agree on uh we'll all agree that it's that it's enough um and so there are no detrimental impacts the site will be sufficiently landscaped and buffered uh even though it does not
provide for the full 50 ft and only has 25 ft. Um, is the board able to reduce any detrimental impact by imposing reasonable conditions on the use? The applicant is willing to comply with any of the reasonable conditions set forth in the board. Whether uh suggested by
your professionals in their letters, we have no objection. Um, and then finally, you weigh the positive and negative criteria and determine whether on balance the grant of the uh variance would cause substantial detriment to the public good and our negative criteria. All of our variances come to the
negative criteria. They all come back to those same uh two standards of not having a substantial detriment to the public good, not having a substantial impairment to the zone plan and the master plan. Um so if I may indulge the board, I'll address the negative
criteria once at the end for all of the variances and I believe that would be suitable. Um in terms of uh our ongoing our ongoing variance um that will be uh the variance from
244 162 um where where we'd have a second use on a lot that would contain a single family home. So we'd have a single family home and we would have a private wrestling school. Um in this instance that is a a
full D1 variance. Uh so we all the full standards come come into play and as you know that that roadmap is laid out by the case Medici VPPR from uh from South Planefield in 1987 uh before my career began. Um and again you know the
findings there's five findings you need you need to make. First and foremost uh that the site is particularly suited for the use. Second second secondly we need to talk about special reasons or the purposes advancing the purposes of zoning. Um thirdly, we need to uh deal
with the Medici reconciliation or widen the governing body, zone this property that way to uh to provide for the two uses. And then the final uh two as as always are the negative criteria that we not have a substantial detriment to public good and we don't have a
substantial impairment to the zone plan and the master plan. In this instance, in terms of particular suitability, uh we have a property that for better or worse has operated for exactly as this use uh since 2009.
So we have a history where this property has operated well. It's operated without incident, without complaint. Um we have a situation just where the again the homeowner and the proprietor doesn't live there anymore. Um so that is the standard. But in terms of all the
negative criteria, there hasn't been any detriment to having home and a wrestling school on the property. There's sufficient parking, there's sufficient buffers, uh the site operates well, it operates safely and efficiently. So there's there's been no issue and uh it has been there and then as part of this
approval uh the improvements that will be made in terms of buffering and landscaping etc will only enhance uh that condition and again um it'll continue to be suitable. Uh in terms of the special reasons uh I'd submit to you
there are three. A to encourage municipal action and guide appropriate use and development of all lands in the state in a manner which promotes health, safety and welfare. Uh G to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial,
and industrial uses and open space both public and private according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs in Jersey citizens. And finally, I to promote a desirable visional environment through creative development techniques and good civic design arrangement. In this
instance, again, we have uh we have two uses. Uh we have private recreation which again uh promotes the public health um and has been an active uh an active use in the township uh well used by our youth and now by our adults. As
we testified last time, we have uh folks from the from the congregation that are now uh taking classes at the private recreation facility uh for public, you know, for their own personal safety and their own personal welfare. So, um, again, a nice a nice compliment there.
Uh, there's certainly sufficient space in this site. The 4.3 acres provides for all the necessary parking and buffers and and activity uh for both uses. They'll be able to continue uh without an incident as they have uh for the last 15 years. And then finally, with the
improvements that we'll make in terms of landscaping and and site improvements, we'll certainly have a more desirable visual environment. I think the applicant and it's professional team has done a nice job of uh laying out the development, making sure that we have adequate access, we have adequate parking, we have adequate access for our
emergency vehicles uh and emergency responders in a way that is certainly represents good design. Um regardless, the proposal will have uh additional positive benefits. Uh we believe that there's sufficient space as
I said um in the short term the house of worship activities are there and they clearly promote the public good and as Mr. Ray testified we have minor traffic generation uh for the uses as evidenced by his uh by his traffic counts and his uh findings that uh there'll be no
detriment to the levels of service on the adjoining roadways. Um in terms of our uh in terms of our our D3 variance would be our next uh our next set of variances if you will. Um
there we have a uh a private recreation uh facility. Um there are several standards. We talked about how the Mr. Rivera talked about how the uh place operated. Um again that it operates generally in the afternoons into the
evenings. uh there's no conflicts with the uh with the shul in the short term and no conflicts with the residents in the long term. Uh minimum lot area of one acre that condition is met. The building setbacks uh that need to be met. Um the minimum sideyard setback for
the principal structure is 50 ft. The existing pole warn is 48.9 ft. So we are 1.1 ft shy of that requirement. Maximum building coverage is 25% that that condition is met. The condition for minimum unoccupied open space that
condition is 25%. Um that condition is not met uh because the open primarily because the open space will not be dedicated. The applicant is proposing to keep all 4.3 acres as private. So while there is area
in the rear of the property uh that does range between 15 and 35% um depending on the calculation uh that land will not be dedicated as open space and according we are not meeting that standard. So the area is there it's
going to be green back there. We're just going to keep it in private hands as opposed to having a public dedication. Um number six is no parking area recreation area shall be located closer to 50 feet to a side or rear property line. Uh the condition is not met or
proposed parking is 25 ft um is 25 ft from the side property line. Um swimming pools is not applicable. Uh and the off streetet parking requirements uh shall be met by 24 by 244-197. So for the uh wrestling school it's
4,100 square feet. The standard is one per 100. So there are 41 spaces required for the wrestling school and there will be 41 spaces proposed uh for the wrestling school. Uh right now there's less than that. Um and the applicant uh
and the wrestling school can operate with less than that. And I'm sure that if and when we get the site plan that the board and the applicant will certainly be talking about potentially banking some of those parking spaces uh as being excess. So um there are the conditions that we don't meet. Um the
standard uh for D3 variance is set forth again by a case coventry view board of adjustment. Uh and the standard there is um can the site still accommodate the use even though you don't meet those conditions. So does the site still remain appropriate to be a private
recreation school even though it's 1.1 ft closer to the sideyard? even though our parking is 20 at 25 feet, not at 50 feet. And even though we have uh open space in the rear of the site that's private and not dedicated and I think that it's clear first of all that it's
operated for the last 15 years that the site is certainly remains appropriate even though we don't meet those three conditions. Um and that is the standard and obviously have our negative criteria. Uh in terms of our um in terms of our bulk variances
um again we have uh the bulk variances related to the shul in the short term where we have a setback of 40 feet where 50 feet is required. We have a um and we have a accessory building in the front yard at uh which is not permitted. And
then finally we have parking at 25 ft as opposed to 50 ft. U in each instance I think these are uh these are C1 variances. They specifically relate to this piece of property. Um they are existing conditions on the site um that
are there today. Uh the um the home is in front of the shel. That's an existing condition. Uh the parking is currently much closer than 25 ft. We're pulling it back uh to be 25 ft to at least meet half of that standard. Uh we think that given the narrowness of the site a 25
foot uh a 25 foot parking setback is is sufficient and we will provide sufficient landscaping in accordance with the recommendations your professionals to make sure that that buffering uh is adequate. Um and then the existing uh the existing side
setback at 40 at 40 feet as opposed to 50 feet that would be a C2 variance. uh we think on balance the standard there is Poland vile planefield again um and it's uh the standard is is on balance that uh does the uh do the benefits of the overall project outweigh the
detriment of that one dimensional sideyard variant. So again, I think that in this instance, given the overall benefits, having the sh on on the site uh predominantly meeting the standards, having that one deficiency for that sideyard, albeit in a temporary condition, um is certainly a reasonable
accommodation, um and is uh on balance, I think, that the benefits of granting the the variance outweigh the detriments. Uh in that instance, um the um Sure. The last setback variance that I guess
we have to address is the existing sideyard for the uh for the um wrestling school has the detached garage that's really associated with the wrestling school. Again that side is 21 ft um whereas I guess 50 feet would be required which would be the
same as the principal building in that instance. Um again the garage has been there uh for a long time. it is uh well it's surrounded by woods uh where it's situated in the rear of the property. So again, I think that uh leaving it there, there's certainly no detriment there. Um
and if we have to enhance the landscape in accordance with professionals, we'd be certainly be happy to do that. Um but there's certainly no no detriment to to leaving the garage uh where it exists. Um the final uh standard, the final thing for the board to consider are the
negative criteria. Um there are two prongs as they say. The first prong is uh no variance shall be granted. It will be a substantial detriment to public good. Um so again in this instance we have diff really three different uses.
Uh we have a shul in the in the initial instance with a private recreation facility and then we'll have a private recreation facility with a uh single family home. None of these uses are noxious uses. uh they are all uses that are are permitted in the district in one
way or the other. Um they've been there uh for for some time at this point. They've operated safely and efficiently. Um there haven't been any detriment to any surrounding neighbors uh from any of the uses for that long period of time. Uh the underlying zoning already
recognizes uh the consistency of providing for these uses by including the house of worship as permitted use, having the obviously single family home as a permitted use and having the private recreation facility as a conditional use and uh we do meet the majority of those conditions uh really
with our our one detriment being uh the buffer for the parking. Um everything else is is fairly dimminimous in that regard. Um so um in terms of uh the uh various planning
community objectives um page page did miss a page. Um so um in terms of the uh in terms of the standards, you know, as testified by our engineer, um the proposal really does a
good job of kind of tying the different uses together and providing for the transition between the shul uh to the uh house of to the private recreation facility in the ultimate condition. Um the property appears to be a single family residence from the street. Having the the home in the front really makes
that uh really provides that to continue. All the activity really exists in the rear portion of the property which is surrounded by trees um and screened and buffered. The applicant proposes a rain garden to add some visual appeal and provide some storm water management and again the house of
worship is compatible with the surroundings in the short term and obviously the single family home would be as well. The second prong is that the variance should be not be granted if it will impair the intent purpose of the zoning plan and the zoning ordinance. Again, uh all three uses, house of worship, private recreation facility,
single family home are all provided for in the R3 district uh in residential areas. The intent purpose of the uh own the zoning ordinance mirrors that of the well. uh it provides uh multiple purposes of the zoning are advanced especially guiding the appropriate use
of development of all lands in the township in a manner which promotes the health, safety and welfare as the inherently beneficial use does. Um, it aligns with the following goals and objectives of the master plan amendment from 2023 to achieve a pattern of and
mix of land uses uh that meets various community planning objectives including the provision of quality residential neighborhoods, the protection of natural resources, economic development of community and creation of a livable and desirable community in the township. Uh, so the wrestling school is an integral
part of the of the Jackson community. The proposed house of worship is synergistic with a residential use, provides a community gathering space for local residents. This application was borne out again of the inherent need uh for the uh community to worship close to
their homes. Um we want to encourage the use of planning techniques so it will effectively integrate desirable residential communities viable commercial and service uses resource protection and open space to provide for limited non-residential development in residential zones while protecting the
existing character of the neighborhood and again uh much of this has been there uh for many years wrestling school for more than 15 and to protect the integrity of the existing residential neighborhood by ensuring that any new infill is compatible and well buffered. So they are all uh standards in your
current master plan that we believe are advancing and we are certainly in no way um impairing them. Um, so again, I think you have the ability to to kind of run down and and make all the requisite findings for D1 use for two uses on the
property for um whether it be in the short term or in the long term for the conditional use to allow the private resting school to continue and finally for the uh bulk variances that are related to the shel in the short term and to pro to the private recreation
facility in the long term. um you have the ability to make the requisite findings for the positive criteria. We talked about the purposes zoning will be will be advancing and finally I believe the the applicant has shown that through its uh site plan its buffering uh and
the arrangement on the property that we can satisfy the negative criteria not have a detriment to the public good and we are not impairing the zone plan and the master plan in this instance. So I think you can make all the requisite findings. I'm available for your questions. I got to tell you, you know, sitting
here listening to your speech, uh, what I see is smokec screen and and misdirection that we're not really focusing on the problem.
And I believe that this this application should be broken into two different parts. One being the school and that decision being made solely on that and that's the wrestling
school. And the other one on this tent, this tent that was illegally erected. And and can you tell me when the tent was put up? The tent was originally put up during co
during co was a long time ago. I know but it was permitted during co and I think as we explained in the very first hearing uh the rabbi of this particular shul is wheelchair bound. So they were originally doing their prayers in the single family home which they're allowed
to do since the rabbi lives there. Over time the congregation has grown. COVID hit. They went outside. They went back inside. They have to take the uh rabbi carry him down into the basement in order to have room for everybody to to pray.
Congregation has grown in the past 5 years. That's why they were we got an approval for a permanent shel. And so the tent accommodates them now. And I think you're right. You do kind of have to break this up into two because the only reason we're before this board is not because of the shel. It's because of
the wrestling school. The wrestling school triggers the two dev variances that we need because there's two principal uses on the lot and the wrestling school does not meet the conditional use standards. The shul itself only needs two bulk variances.
Otherwise, it is a permitted use now in the zone. When we first filed our application in 2023, it was permitted as a conditional use and we did not meet all the conditions. The ordinance was revised. The applicant does not want to see Mr. Rivera kicked out of his wrestling
school. But at the end of the day, I don't represent Mr. Rivera or the wrestling school. So if the board is not inclined to grant the Dvariances, I would ask them to make a motion to approve the Shaw because they're just both variances. But see, here's the problem with the Shaw. The Shaw was
erected illegally, okay? without any improve uh without any approvals and without any inspections or any regard to safety or or any of those things. It just got
erected and it's been operating all this time because you know we've how many uh postponements have we had a year and a half we've gone through uh that's mostly because of you guys honestly I've came here many times and sat here for hours
waiting to be heard so I don't really think that's very fair. Yes, we were carried and carried and carried and carried carried and carried while th this illegal structure continues to operate which which I don't think is
fair. You know, listen, if if that got erected next door to Maine, I'd have a problem with it. And I feel for the residents in that surrounding area that we might not have a lot here, but you
know, I I have to feel sorry for them and and I believe that these are two separate issues, the school and then the tent. I don't disagree with that part of your analysis. It is two separate issues. Right. But we're being, you
know, led to down a path that's focusing more on the school than it is on this illegal structure. The structure, that's why we're here seeking approval from the board. I can't fix what happened in the past, but again, the tent was started when COVID hit just like all the
restaurants put little outdoor facilities. Nobody really had approvals and eventually were pulled back in the interm. You have to understand, I know you've heard other cases regarding shooles. This particular community cannot drive on the Fridays
and on their holidays. So, they search and search and search for a lot near their community. This was a temporary fix, but the community has grown. So, they have gone out and found another piece of property and have an approval from the planning board and they have to build the shul. They have to be able to
worship somewhere. The ordinance has changed. They're now permitted. So, yes, you can deny the application and I would just recommend my client refile with the planning board and take out the the wrestling school. So, we're really still here because of the wrestling school and
I would be ashamed that Mr. Rivera, a school that's been going on since 2009 gets denied. But again, I don't represent the wrestling school. I represent the Shul. I recommended to them to get rid of the wrestling school. So, I didn't have to be before this board. Um, but you know, you guys have
to think about, you know, what you you want to do. I think at the end of the day that the the I'll get an approval from the planning board. We're not really asking for much with the the actual uh shel and parsonage. Well, you are asking for much because this illegal
structure has been operating for years and without getting any approvals whatsoever. You can't have a lawless society like this. You can't do what you want to do because you feel like it. I understand there are some extenduating
circumstances. The the the rabbi is handicapped, whatever, but you can't do this in in a town. It's it's just I don't think you can really look at the past. I think you have to look at the application before you and based on the
municipal land use law. Has the applicant approved their case? Not I'm sorry they're here 5 years later than they should have been. But you have to look at what's before you and your your job is only to enforce the land use ordinances, not the building code, not
anything else. We've dealt with the whole municipal court proceeding. That's a whole different issue. We basically satisfied them at the municipal court level. That case will be dismissed if and when we get an approval. I don't know how you guys feel about this. I've been doing a lot of thinking
on on on this also and I'm going to repeat. I don't know what should um first the the congregation should have the temporary use on the property to
practice their religion and use the shore. As was just said that the owner constructed the the tent without construction department approval, without plans, without
permits and so on. We don't know about the safety. There's also a question of of the state's fire codes. All of this comes into play and the tent itself in in my opinion is can possibly be an unsafe building and as I said in another
before the other application safety is a priority particularly when you have so many people attending uh the Jew because you have not only the congregation the the people who were there praying but you had their wives and you had their
kids and you're talking about over 200 people possibly who belong to this congregation. Uh when it comes to the U wrestling school, what you're asking for is basically putting a commercial property in a
residential zone. I don't care what you call it, it's still commercial property in a residential zone. when this variance was granted in 2009 and I was on the board and I voted for it because
he then wanted to use the school wanted to use the school as a home occupation and uh we approved it that even though it wasn't in the home we gave him enough leeway where he was able to put it uh further back on the
property. But once he sold sold the property that variance ended and when Mr. Rivera came up he told us well he signed signed a lease and he thought that was okay. Well signing the
lease doesn't grant him the variance and while he was in the process of doing this and continuing his business he should have consulted with his attorney at the time. My feeling is that the tent is an unsafe
and the best place to put the shel is in the building that's holding the wrestling school. It's 3,200 square feet. Gives more room than the tent does and uh the home should remain the principal
use. The the shore should be the conditional use and uh the should be removed along with the fence and all the other structures around it. When it comes to traffic and and parking, basically parking, I don't even know if
you have to go to a separate uh a separate meeting where we have to have another another plan. Uh most of this could be worked out by the professionals. So my feeling is that the school doesn't belong there and and the
sh should go into the building where the sh is and it certainly simplifies everything that you're trying to do. Basically the prime thing that you want on the property is for these people to have a place to worship until the
permanent synagogue is completed. So I'd just like to address two comments that you made. one, the tent itself, the structure again is not within the jurisdiction of the zoning board. You have a building department. I told you the last time during the municipal court
proceedings, we were required to go out and have everything in the tent inspected. On June 5th, I sent Dawn a copy of that report that was used during the zoning board proceedings, which basically says that everything related to the tent and the structure, the plumbing, the gas, the electric, the
heating and ventilating, the interior safety, all was in compliance. We then had the fire guy go out and take a look at everything and he issued a letter, let me see if I can find it, dated December 11th saying no violations were
found during this inspection. So there's been an unofficial inspection of the facility. Uh it is safe. So again that really again how we what we use what structure we use on the site is not a zoning issue. you're as you're be
regulating or deciding whether or not the use can go there. You're look supposed to be looking at the two variances that we asked for, not the use. The governing body already said the use is okay. You never look at what buildings that they're going in. Now, with regard to Mr. Rivera,
it's really um a legal issue, right? The use is exactly the same since 2009. There's been no change. he has kept it and stuck with the use that was permitted in the 2009 approval. So the way the wrestling
school is operating, you're really making a distinction without a difference. The use is not the sh the same because he had a home occupation. He doesn't live in the house. So, how could But the use that's going on in the pole barn is
exactly what's been going on for the past 16 years without incident, without complaint. I've read all that you had that you submitted and I have a problem with those because were
those the people that that did the work? No, he was hired separate. He didn't do any of the work. He came out to review it and to certify that it's okay. Again, you're focusing on an issue that is beyond the jurisdiction of this board. The safety of the tent is not the
board's concern. Excuse me, Mr. Peters. I'm sorry, Mr. Peters. If I might just, Miss Jennings sort of went into that lawyer mode where they start to testify a little. I understand your argument that there's
no distinction, but would you agree that the wrestling school exists because they got home occupation variance? Correct. I don't dispute that. They don't meet the condition of that variance anymore. Correct. Okay. Thank you.
Question. Um, so once the permanent structure is built, is the tent going to be removed? Correct. And some variance pertains to the tent. Correct. Correct. One of the sideyard setbacks and the fact that the tent is behind the single
family home which is considered a parsonage now that makes a single family home in the front yard. Accessory structures aren't supposed to be in the front yard. So those are related to So once the tent goes away, those variances go away. Oh, okay. That's where my question was. So once they're gone, it's
going to be correct. Okay. All right. That's Thank you. What's the timeline? As soon as the um shul is built. We're waiting to get the building permit. It takes about 18 months to build the structure. I apologize. I
I'm trying to listen and take notes. We started talking about sort of post removal of the tent and Miss Jennings, you suggested I didn't I didn't hear what you said about what happens with the existing house when the
tent comes down. It goes back to being a single family home. Jenny, my understanding Continuation of two principal uses goes down the application to shift the
two principal uses to the wrestling school. Is that correct? Correct. But the wrestling school is going to be classified for the purposes of zoning a quasi public conditional use
permitted in the zone. Quasi public andor private recreation club. Correct. Peters, I have a question. Um, over the course of the time I've been on the board, the comment has been made
multitude of time on different applications that once the variance is granted, it goes with the land. Correct. That's generally correct. You could put a sunset provision in the
resolution of approval expiring it. As as I understand, ju just for the record, I get yelled at when I give you your answer, right? When I don't let you answer the qu. You usually yell at me afterwards, right? Just want to make sure you take her outside afterwards as well. I apologize. I knew that was
coming. Sorry. would be sunset certificate of occupancy for the bridge structure.
Um and then that approval for that use would sunset and that would also be the trigger for the identification of the single family home as the second.
Correct. Would there be a period of time within which the tent would need to come down? We said we said that the use sunsets when they get a CO for the other building. My question is does the tent need to come down as part of this sun
setting provision? Yes. So I'd recommend probably 60 days after the CO because you need time to get people there. I don't know what the weather is going to be like. Okay. Some number of days.
So just to be clear the we've heard in the past that variances go with the land. In this case we would put in a sunset provision if it should be approved. We would put in a sunset provision which would mean that the variances go away within a specified
amount of days that would be agreed upon in the resolution that the variances will go away related to the sh. But then we also have to address what's going to be what structure afterwards. Correct. So, so it would be I mean and and I just want to be clear the variances do run
with the land, right? However, if this is essentially a temporary variance or temporary structure. So, if the board chose to approve essentially as as it would be conditioned on
the uh making two principal uses for the period, the initial period the uh and the wrestling school. and that upon the
uh acquisition of a certificate of occupancy for permanent uh Brewers Bridge that the varants use variance allowing for the temporary
structure of principal use would terminate and the tent would have to be taken down within suggest days of the issuance of that certificate of occupancy.
And that upon the removal of the tent and the expiration of that temporary variance, believe that there would be a change of a single family
home from an accessory use as a temporary to a second principal use in accompment. principal use of the rest of the school and condition.
Oh, I'm sorry, Gina. Go ahead. That's okay. Fully aware that we could pretty much write whatever language we want in the resolution uh pending board should should the board approve the application. I just want to clarify on the record. Um my record show two
different things. One is a letter from our um previous council uh which is a letter to Miss Jennings regarding that sunset provision or we also have a reference through our RVE letter um referencing code 244-171
which gives a one-year timeline uh which then would kind of gently ask the applicant to come back to the board prior to that one-year expiration to then ask for an extension. Um, just wanted to put that on the record as kind of a little bit more of a
more enforcement, a little bit more teeth in the game versus just, hey, yeah, um, in discussion, we thought it would take 18 months and it may take a little bit longer. Just wanted to point that out to the board as well. And if we want to put on the record, I mean, again, we can kind of do a little bit of
both if you'd like, however we want to write it into a resolution, but that is a tool that we have at our disposal. This application is just for use, conditional use, bulk variance. There's
not a site plan being proposed this evening. Correct. That is correct. Are you proposing to come back with a site plan? Yes. So I guess the the next question as respectfully as I can ask it is in what
time frame are we going to get to a point where doing the site plan becomes impractical because the other site's going to get built or do we still need to follow the site plan through to
fruition because of the wrestling facility? I guess I want to make sure that's clear so that So someone can enforce the resolution words you get a use variance and you don't do all the homework for the site plan in case you don't get the use
variance that's permissible under the land use law. Now the question is how quickly do we expect the site plan to progress if we know that we're already getting ready to start the construction of the building that would make the tent
structure move. So that's a good question and I Mr. Halper just told me that he is working on doing the site plan and he would it would take no longer than 6 months for him to file the site plan application and that I guess the other question is
even if I guess I want to make sure that the sunset provision talks about whether or not there's a need for a site plan if the tent's not there. Is the site plan still required for the
wrestling school in the back? You said you don't represent them, but it's part of this application. And I don't want Well, we we're ahead of schedule with the new Shaw, so we'll be taking the tent down in the year so we don't have to come back for a site plan.
I think somehow they're inextricably intertwined. I want to make sure that it's clear on the record what's going to be proposed and in what time frame. So I think when we come back with a site plan, it would be like a phase one, phase two. So obviously the
wrestling school needs the site plan um because they anticipate being there. Just wanted there to be an answer on the record. So if the tent is phase one and we get the site plan approved, I would think
that depending on where we are with the permanent shaw, we may or not not proceed with the actual improvements and just do the improvements that satisfy the wrestling school. But the responsibility to do the
site plan and install the improvements associated with the wrestling school would still be on the owner of the property. Is that correct? Well, that's an interesting question. I don't I don't know the answer to that. He's not here. I don't either. That's why I asked you.
I think that's got to get worked out if if we get to the point of resolution. Shouldn't it be the owner though? I mean, in all practicality, the owner is not the one living in the house. It's part of this application. The I would say the applicant who happens to be the property owner.
Correct. Well, that's what I was getting at. The the homeowner is the applicant. So, I would think that the responsibility falls on them. Yes. Okay. So, I'm I'm just going to throw this out there. 18 months from now. I I appreciate we we
sort of got through the use issues, the sunset issues, and the only question I have for Mr. Tyena is that we we sort of painted ourselves in a corner with having with calling the tent the
principal structure because it's a sh and it's an inherently beneficial use. And because of its location, we need a bulk variance. And because of its location, the existing house becomes accessory and requires a variance for being in the front yard. So I guess my question is,
is there anything that stops the applicant from providing the tent in a location which would not require that relief? Can you put the tent in front of the house at a setback
that wouldn't require a variance? You might have to have Mr. Can you tell or Mr. Halper? Probably not. Um, given the existing condition of the driveway, I do not believe we could locate the
tent far enough south to not require the same setback variance that we require with its current location. No disrespect intended. They have concrete sidewalks and air
conditioning. Are you are they going to relocate at all? My my point was is that I'm just My point was is that there because of where the tank got built? It requires a sideyard setback. Correct. Can you move it so you don't require a
sideyard setback? That's question one. Next question is is because it's behind the house, the house as as the applicant's profer becomes an accessory use to the tent. And so as opposed to asking to move the house, the house is the thing that's been here the longest.
Could the tent be placed in front of the house in a conforming location? That's as part of variance applications. You look at the alternatives. What could you do to limit the number of variances? So my simple question to the applicant and tonight we have the planner as a witness
is could you put the tent in a conforming location and I and I guess my response was based I'm looking at the pictures thinking how I guess that's what brought about my response. I think yes but I I think the question was from Mr. No, I mean I let
him No, no, I I'm responding to his answer in all due respect. I I can't imagine how you do that. I mean, look at all that's entailed with this tank. But also, we don't allow fences in front of allowable. I I got to ask my question. Mr. Tyena
gave a response. I don't have any more questions for him right now. Thank you. And what what on the off chance somehow someway financing or whatever being used to build the new shoe falls through. What happens then?
Well, because we're talking about sunset provisions, we're talking about we're using the word temporary. What happens? I think that that was point suggesting that any certain amount of time
there's 18 months that they were required to return. to ask for any extension beyond that 18 month period. Um it's
the things that the board can consider. Mr. I just referenced the fact that we know consider the front yard that is something to consider. I know that there's a lot of frustration
regarding the fact that um this was done and the proper procedures were not follow Jennings is correct in that the board has to consider the application before it now. Um the other part of that is to
Mr. Peter's questioning that you know we're taking the application as it is now. So there's the practical considerations gi the way that it's been done. But you are being asked to
approve these very specific variances regarding allowing for the temporary use in this location with these variances. That is the question before you now in addition to the questions
arising from wrestling school and the idea of the uh two principal uses in the shifting of those and to point to changing the nature of the
varants for the school which was there as a home occasion that time. Do you want to take that into consideration different of given the setbacks that require those
questions before the board. Absolut include the the school is so you're saying you're not here to testify. You don't represent the school. The application does include the school. Yes.
So if I have questions pertaining to the school specific, all those questions were answered at the last hearing. We had Mr. Rivera here testified. I I appreciate that. We don't know what those questions. So you gota let me finish my question or
you're gonna get in trouble. No. So um so let me know when Mr. Mr. Rivera was here. Okay, there it is. Okay. Oh, even better. So it was this concept of quasi
public. What? How can you define that for me? What's a quasi public? What makes it? It's in your ordinance under conditional use requirements uh section 244129. You allow quasi public and private club recreation areas, right? It's a
wrestling school, club, private recreation. It fits right into because my Why is it not a private school? Why is it not a public school, but it's a quasi public? No, no, you
permit as either quasi public or private club recreation area. So it's under the private club recreation area. Got it. We were just citing to the whole section of the ordinance which is entitled quasi public and private club recreation
areas. Okay. So so okay. So if we just label it private, same deal. Um I don't have to go into that definition. And so what makes it private is because the owner is a private owner or because there's public people going in there.
It's being used by the public. I don't have Mr. Peters. Do you have the ordinance? I don't have the ordinance in front of me. The whole thing privately owned club. Okay. Yeah. The reason I asked those questions is so I have to agree with Dr. Hoffstein that to me I just looking at
it right. So I'm trying to figure out the rules, but it just seems like it's a commercial use in a residential area. Now, you you're going to tell me, "Well, that that's shortsighted because you got to look at all these legal things." So, that's why I'm trying to ask these
questions, but the fact is that's what I see. It's a recreation use which is permitted in the zone. I don't know how else to The town permits it. But, Mr. Martins, don't forget it was approved that there was a variance granted for the wrestling
school as a home business. So, it's still it was a it was a I guess the point I'm trying to be clear on it was business then as well. Yes. When that variance was granted, right, which that's ended, right? Well, Mr. Hin explained to us how that was approved, although they weren't
happy about it, but it was approved. I don't think we heard that, but let's be clear. I don't think we heard they weren't happy about it. I don't think that's was on the record. I don't think that's what we heard. So, let's take that off the record. It was approved. It was approved. It had to come for a variance and it was approved. Correct. And the idea of that approval wasn't
that that was going to live forever. It it was it was approved as I mean forever a home business home occurs because it's not right. So just like we were told before don't consider the fact that um before it was illegal and you
did all this stuff consider what's in front of you now. So what's in front of me now is that that use of a a commercial entity is not um approved variance that there is no existing right no matter what happened in the past. Correct. Okay. Because you can't
have your cake and eat it too. Either you don't consider the past or you do consider the past. So you don't consider the fact that they had Wheatly consider that
operation without incident because it was originally functioning under an existing valid which ended at some time when he sold the property and moved out
of right then that terminated Right. And so what I'm being told by because the rules are if it's private or quasi public then it doesn't even matter. It's allowed, right? Okay, Jean.
But but it was approved as a business. It was never approved as a quasi. No, that's right. Today and there there's no question. Today as we stand here, it does not have variance protection.
that ended when as you said when he sold the house sold the property and moved out of the house that variance ended. So he does not have a variance right now. He is asking to come in on what is being
described as quasi uh public or private club or school which is uh a get this right. conditional use in the
zone. Um, but it doesn't m meet all of the conditions and that's the variances that have been requested. So that creates a problem if we vote on on this application. What happens if we want
and we want to hear further testimony on the on the school on the business? Yep. How do you vote on that? Mr. Ludex said we should be splitting this up two separate applications. It's two issues
and that that is absolutely a way that you can proceed to say that the application has been presented as a whole and that you know if you consider it as a whole then you're you know voting essentially
to deny it because it has been presented as a whole application and you believe that it should have been two separate applications. Well, Jenny's point at that point the sh application would go to the planning board and then the
wrestling school would have to so be it. That's how it has to be. Right. Right. Um, I was just going to, um, go to the 2009 resolution when the board made specific findings regarding the wrestling school, which I think you
should keep in mind because as was testified to, the hours of operation have remained the same as well as the days of operation. Um, you board said, and I think Mr. Mr. Hoffstein, you might have been on the board, found that the wrestling school will promote the best
interest of the community and is a good cause to help neighborhood children and the granting of this application can occur without substantial detriment to the public good and has been determined that it will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and the zoning ordinance and the benefits of this proposal outweigh its
detriment. So, you already made those findings regarding the wrestling school. Nothing about the wrestling school has changed. It is the same operation, the same operator. If I could anymore that's fair change.
So at that point you came and you called that school a commercial entity and that's why you needed a variance. Correct. I was not here in 2009 for this application. It was considered again a home occupation but the school it operates
the same. There's the Mr. Rivera just doesn't live in the house on the property anymore. My simple question is the variance was because it was considered commercial. Correct. We don't know right in 2009. So a home occ when the variance was granted right
a home occ. So at that time it was granted on those terms. Now the question is um um that the whether it is you know it's not being a home occupation and it's not
coming in as a an application for commercial activity. is coming in as an application for recognition as a quasi public and private club which is you know includes clubous parks, playgrounds, tennis courts, swimming pools and other
such activities which may be permitted to conditional use in those including this one and then it has the conditions. I I know there is a desire uh to handle something in full right now. We'll say
what the will of the board is. I will point it is 10 after 11. Yeah. To just no dis let me just finish my question if I could. So no. Yeah. I I actually didn't even ask it yet. So I agree with everything you just said, right? So my question is simple.
What has changed from the first time you asked for a variance where we called it a commercial use? The use hasn't changed. You just testified to that. Nothing has changed. But now it's called the quasi private. What's different? Because in your ordinance under the
definition of home occupation, it says such gainful employment or occupation of one or more members of the resident family. So the family has to live on the site in the home in order for be a home occupation. They don't
live in the home. So it doesn't fall under your definition of home occupation simply because nobody lives in the home that works at the wrestling school. So what's changed is he doesn't live there anymore. Correct. I got you. I'm with you. Okay, I
understand. I still don't like the fact that these these two things. So but at least now I'm on the same page. I feel like I I have struggled with this application for months over a year actually. Um but I understand that as a
zoning board we do not have responsibility or authority to to enforce anything. So my struggle was well they were operating illegally. It was it was erected illegally. They put in sidewalks. all those things. I've had
to recognize that we can't do anything about that. Right. Like you said, I can't consider that in my decision. What I'm struggling with is though because something was erected illegally. We're now and I understand that Mr. Rivera
moved before anybody said that say that. I get it. But I'm struggling with the fact that the rest of the school is being punished when I have to agree with Miss Jones. Nothing's changed except the fact that he doesn't live there. There's been no Hold on a second, please. There's been, as far as I know
when I spoke to Jeff about this a year ago, there's been no complaints. There's been no changes. There's been no problems. So, I'm struggling with the fact that I understand he moved. I get it. But what has changed in the operation on that piece of property?
Nothing from that perspective. So, that's That's been something I've struggled with. I have to recognize and accept the fact that we can't enforce anything. But I I'm struggling with the fact that he that business that and it is a
business. It is a to be clear, it is a business. Whether he lives there anymore or not, it is still a business. But he's the one being that wrestling school is the one being punished. I I actually add that one of the things definitely changes that you have 200
people attending the sh so you have more density but they're not there at the same time according to the hours of operation at the last meeting correct I'm sorry forgive me correct okay so let's
I actually have a Question for Miss Cyprien. Um, is that entirely true that the zoning board I understand the enforcement issue, but are we allowed to actually grant a variance on something that we've never seen a site plan on for
in the beginning? And that's my question because when I actually went and I read the law and before I was about to vote on this, the way I kind of interpreted it is the zoning board absolutely has the right to
deny a variance when there was never an initial site plan presented to us. So that's my question for you on a legal Applic. But total
simple way. This is unusual. Simple way that somebody bought and they wanted this site for this decide
that would not be operite. This is tricky one of But now this application tool is use. use
but it's very hard to ask. The only um testimony was to address Mr. Peter's question regarding the parking. I would like Mr. Halpert to square that away because I believe he said there was a issue with it. So I want to make sure
the record's clear. So what I believe is not Okay. Probably would take one minute to answer the question, but We're going to open We're going to open it to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward to make comments at this time,
please do so. I'm getting tired. There seems to be a glitch in the system. This was illegally built, but two years ago, nobody saw anything or says, "Hey," but to have these
inspections. Oh, we passed electrical, we passed. How could they pass if it wasn't approved? There is a a glitch in the system that got bypassed somehow, and that needs to be looked at. How can
someone get an electrical inspection on something that wasn't even approved? That's all. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I Miss Gina, can I answer his commentary on that? Hi, dear. Um, so they didn't get an approval
through the township. What Miss Jennings had read was they had their own private inspection done just for sake of saying that here's a licensed contractor with this specialty. They're certifying without a township approval that it is safe and that it was run through. The
way Jackson Township works, the process is you cannot go to a construction department and fill out any type of zoning per excuse me, any type of construction permit without zoning approval first. So, we're kind of putting the cart before the horse. We are demanding that they get their inspections and their proper building
permits, but this is their first step. But to come here with dirty hands, go back to square one, tear the thing down. Let's start with a clean slate and do it the right way. not come and say, "Oh, we got permits approved."
That's like rubbing rubbing it in your face. It's frustrating because it's not just here. It's happening on other issues that I brought up, but it's not for tonight. Other issues that were denied by the board and it's been operating for
a year and a half. No, sorry. Don had notated that anything to be carried, please use the August 20th date. I don't know if we want to wait that long. Uh August 6th has three applications currently on it.
Might be kind of large applications though, so I don't know how much further time required for this application. Yeah. And I have a hearing on August 6th already. Okay. August 6th is up. No, not here. Different town. July 16th
is reorgan. We already have four applications on there. I think she said August 20th. 20th. Unless you guys are doing hearings on Saturdays, you know. Well, we just noticed for this hearing, so I have to notice again. I mean I'm
why you get that normally you don't have to renotice yes thank you so application number two for 820 no notice required thank you Jean Motion second.
Everybody's in favor.