this meeting to order. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. >> I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. This meeting complies with the open public meetings act. Notice of this meeting have been published on municipal bulletin board and in the applicable uh news sites. >> Roll call please. Kathleen. >> Mr. Hyman
>> here. >> Mr. Martins >> here. >> Miss Rosal >> here. >> Miss Kusano >> here. >> Mr. Seleia >> here. >> Dr. Hoffstein >> here. Miss Bradley >> here. >> We have any uh resolutions this evening, Miss Cypriani?
>> Yes, we do. We have resolution 2026-10 granting use variance approval on property located at 1435 Tom River Road, lot 23202, lot 31. This is the uh wrestling school application that was before us recently.
>> I need a motion, a second to approve the resolution, please. Motion >> second. >> We have a motion to second. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes. >> Miss Cusano, >> yes.
>> Mr. Seleia, >> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, >> yes. >> Miss Bradley, >> yes. >> Right. I don't believe there's any additional resolutions, but we do have minutes from the April 15, 2026 meeting. I believe that everyone is available to
vote except for Mr. Heyman. >> So I need a motion and a second to approve the minutes of the 41526 meeting. Please. >> Motion. >> Second. >> We have a motion in a second. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes.
>> Miss Kusano, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia, >> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, >> yes. >> Miss Bradley, >> yes. >> All right. And uh last but not least, we'd like to get our secretary um paid. And first of all, again, I'd like to say thank you to get those minutes done so
quickly. That was a lengthy meeting with a lot that happened. So, thank you. We have um a voucher for this evening's meeting from the township of Jackson in the amount of $175. I need a motion, a second to pay the voucher, please. >> Motion. >> Second.
>> We have a motion, a second. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Hyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. Yes. Miss Rosal, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor. >> Oh, sorry. Miss Cusanna, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia, >> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, >> yes. >> Miss Bradley, >> yes.
>> Right. There's no executive session for this evening. Um, any announcements, Miss Criyani? >> Uh, no. No announcements this evening. >> All right. Then we're going to swear on our professionals at this time. >> Please raise your right hand. You swear or affirm that the testimony you will give before this board will be
the truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Please state your name and position for the record. >> Steve Mer, CME Associates, Arthon, traffic engineer. >> Ernie Peters, board planner. >> Gina Tumalo, zoning officer.
>> Okay. Right. I do not believe we have any matters for discussion or administrative approvals. So, we are going to move on to um applicant number one, our only applicant for this evening, Cardonali and Jackson Crossing. Number two, Adventure Crossing amended preliminary
and final site plan 776-6 phase 1 CDENF. Mr. Alfiri, >> good evening madam chair, members of the board. Salvatore Alfrey, Clearary G, Kobe, Alfie, and Jacobs on behalf of the applicant.
Um, if I could just take a minute to summarize how we got to where we are tonight and then we'll be ready to move. We were here in March of last year um and presented some testimony u by our
planner, Mr. Bordon. Uh we were here in July of last year where we made arguments, legal arguments relating to the density issue that I assume the board's going to handle tonight. Um in September, we were here
just for the hotel portion of that this project which was approved. And then we were here in November again where um our planner and our architect testified. Um, we spent a lot of time in September giving the history of the density also
by our planner. So, um, I think tonight we were going to, our intention is after you, um, tell us how you want to handle the density issues, we're going to bring Mr. Bordon up briefly to just orient the board again as to what what we're seeking in this application.
We have our civil engineer and our traffic engineer. And then at the end of our presentation, whenever that is, we have to bring the planner, Mr. Bordon, back up to put proofs on for whatever relief we're going to be required. Um,
we've have reports that are rather old because we haven't made any resubmissions. So, um, there's really no new reports to discuss and that's really where we are. So, I don't know, Miss Cypriani, I don't know how you want to handle the density
issue first. Um yes. So, and I uh certainly prepared to discuss it, but I'd like for you to make any comments um beyond obviously the board has uh your letter from
uh see July 3rd of 2025. Um I don't know if you want to make any additional statements. No, I think we had a very lengthy discussion at that July meeting where we placed on the record our position relating to the
density and how this entire project is one tracked under the ordinance that you're reviewing this application under which is an ordinance that was adopted. There were subsequent two subsequent ordinances that were adopted that don't apply to this application. So, the argument is still the same. I don't know
if we need to get into any real detail on that. I'm sure the board members who were either here or listened to the tape. I do want to add just for the record that that after that July meeting, I did a new hearing notice and I included relief for density so that if
the board ultimately ruled that we needed a density variance, we didn't have to renotice and then the meetings have been carried since then. So there was no new notice required. Um so no reciprocating. I don't think we need to spend a lot of time rehashing what we've already been through. All right. Well, I
do have um uh something I'd like to place on the record just sort of framing the issue before the board discusses it. So, just so the board is aware, um there's a need for the board to determine the density issue at this point. Um because and I think Michelle
Ferryy just alluded to it the there uh the application is based on the idea that the density is calculated for the entirety of the GDP site and also including phase two. Um Mr. Alfuri and I had as he stated not only exchanged
letters regarding this topic and I think Mr. Peters had uh uh weighed in on a little bit on that as well. Um but I had raised early on that there might be a need for alternate relief in the form of a density variance. The density variance
was noticed but there has not been any testimony or reports regarding that um including for Mr. Peters. So we need to make that determination now before the board can finish the can determine the application as a whole. Um and
the uh sorry just to clarify the issue more formally um it's a question of whether the applicant may rely on the acreage that was originally included in the general development plan the GDP was
subsequently removed from the development to support its in order to support the residential density. calculation in the application as it stands and also whether the uh density calculation should be limited to the
phase one acreage and this application should be looked at independently. So you know this project was originally approved as a largecale GDP which encompassed approximately 283 acres of mixeduse development. That approval
established an overall development framework including residential density across the entire tract. There were but since then because of subsequent litigation and a stipulation of settlement a portion of the original GDP tied to phase two which was lots
five 6 19 and 20 were abandoned and removed from the GDP. when they I said they were abandoned. They were the subject of a separate application but they were removed from the GDP. The removed proposals were not reinstated into the GDP and are no longer part of
therefore in my view but this is for the board to determine of the approved development. The applicant after the removal of phase two obtained an amended GDP approval for reduced track comprising fewer lots and less acreage. Since that time, the
project has proceeded on a phased basis through a series of approvals tied to discrete portions of the overall property. The current application seeks approve seeks approval for residential development on a defined tract within the project. under the governing HCMU
zoning standards and those are the previous standards that are not in the current ordinance. The applica applicant as we determined um you know over a year ago uh is entitled to the benefit of the older standards under the time of
application rule. Um, so under those standards, residential density is limited to four units per gross acre resulting in a maximum permitted yield below what is proposed. But that's really for you to determine whether it's
appropriate because you're looking at the entire tract or some smaller amount of the tract, either just the application tract or the remaining GDP acreage without phase two. Um
the applications the applicant's contention is the density should be calculated using the acreage of the entire original GDP including lands no longer part of the approved development which would then avoid the need for a density variance.
The issues presented are whether the applicant may rely on the acreage previously removed from the GDP to support its density calculation and treat the entire historic GDP track as a single unit for density purposes and whether the applicant is limited for
density purposes to this application. In the phase one application, the GDP establishes density based on the development, its entirety is approved, meaning the track that is actually subject to the operative approval. Question is whether once acreage has
been removed from that approval can be part of the development and can be used to support residential yield. Also, when an applicant seeks approval for a specific phase on a defined parcel density or should density be calculated based on not parcel, not by
retroactively aggregating the previously approved lands. I won't go through the entire history of the adventure crossing project that was put forth by uh Mr. Peters in his letter
and also Mr. Gordon provided testimony for the applicant on several occasions regarding the history of this project. Um, for purposes of tonight, know that in 2019, the applicant obtained approval for GDP
for a largecale mixeduse development encompassing 283 acres. That approval included a residential component integrated with commercial, recreational, and institutional uh uses and established a phase development plan
extending up to 20 years. The 2019 approvals were challenged resulting in litigation that altered the project. A stipulation of settlement was reached in October 2019, which required the applicant to abandon development approvals for lots 5, 6, 19, and 20.
Those parcels were subsequently removed from the GDP. Um, and as we know that was uh eventually sold off and developed uh into the warehouse section. Just to orient people, the removal of those lots reduced the overall tract and altered
the configuration of uses and development intensity across the remaining property. Following the settlement, the development proceeded on a reduced track consisting primarily of lots one through four, decreasing the development area from approximately 283
acres to approximately 210.8 acres. Subsequent applications and approvals have proceeded on the basis of that reduced development footprint. After the settlement, the applicant returned to the board with a revised GDP revol reflecting the reduced tract. The
record reflects that this submission was treated as a new approval framework rather than a continuation of the original GDP configuration. During the January 15, 2020 hearing, the applicant acknowledged that the revised submission constituted a new application
and the prior GDP configuration was no longer operative. The applicant also represented at that time that phase one had received preliminary and final site plan approval and would proceed independently from the remaining phases. Thereafter, the project proceeded
through a series of phase specific approvals. In 20 um 1 and 22, the board granted preliminary and final site plan approvals for discrete portions of the project by resolution 2021-18,
resolution 2022-12, resolution 22-24 and as you recall, I don't recall the number the phase 3 and 4 application which was before this board um in the LA within the last year also proceeded did
on a sightspecific basis where density was calculated only for that phase of three and four. I want to note for the record that at that time the applicant asked the board to proceed that way, but the applicant also did preserve its
argument for purposes of this application that the correct density applica uh density calculation involved the entire tract. Each of the approvals I just mentioned was based on specific site plans, defined tract areas, and representations
made by the applicant at that time. Those approvals did not reestablish or treat the project as a single undivided tract for zoning purposes, but instead implemented the development through distinct phases and parcels. The present application seeks approve seeks approval
under phase one for a revised mixeduse project which includes 641 residential apartments. The applicant asserts that the density should be calculated by reference to the acreage of the entire GDP, including the lands were previously removed or no
longer part of this operative approval or application. Under the MLUL, residential density is defined as the permitted number of dwellings per gross acre of land that is the subject of an application for development. That's NJSA455D-4.
Likewise, the Jackson Township ordinance provides that a GDT establishes the permitted number of dwelling units and residential units for the development in its entirety, meaning the tract as approved and in effect. in East Hampton Center LLC versus Planning Board of East
Hampton 354 NJ Super 171 API 2002 the court emphasizes that a GDP track I'm sorry GDP defines tracked boundaries permitted density and the allocation of uses for the development which are all tied directly to land that forms the
basis of the approval in Sent Homes LLC versus Township Committee of Mansfield 372 NJ super 186 six law division 2004. The court recognized that a GDP is an integrated development plan dependent on the land area supporting it. There the
removals of a substantial portion of the tract materially altered the development and justified termination of the GDP. The court rejected the notion that a developer could maintain the same development assumptions after removing acreage that formed part of the original
approval. Here the original GDP was materially modified by the subsequent settlement resulting in the removal of multiple lots and a reduced tract. Once those parcels were removed they cease to be part of the development in its entirety and there is no basis to
retain density attributable to them. Accordingly to answer phase one, the density in my opinion and this is for the board to determine must be evaluated based on the land remaining within the operative GDP and more specifically the tract subject to the current
application. Zoning compliance including density must be evaluated based on the specific parcel and phase that are the subject of the application. The HCMU zone standards that are applicable to this application impose a density limit of four units per
gross acre which must be applied to the land area supporting the proposed residential development in Route 440 developers LLC versus planning board of Jersey City 2020 West Law 569160
aptive decision March 2nd 2026. The appellet division confirmed that in phase development, each phase must independently satisfy the applicable zoning and planning requirements. The court upheld the denial of an application where a phase failed to meet
critical requirements and instead relied on future phases to supply essential elements of the development. The court made clear that a board is not required to a approve a phase that is deficient on the assumption that compliance will
occur later. That same principle is analogous to the situation here. The applicant could not rely on acreage outside the tract under review or on other phases of the project to justify the density proposed for phase one. Each phase must stand on its own and
comply with the ordinances applied to the land before the board. Allowing the applicant to aggregate acreage beyond the subject tract would effectively decouple density from the land supporting it which is a result not authorized by the MLU
MLUL. The applicant's position seeks to revive the acreage of the original DP GDP for purposes of density calculation notwithstanding the subsequent settlement amended approvals and phased implementation of the project including
phases three and four in which they requested that it be considered only on the basis of that application. Any modification to a GDP must occur through a formal amendment process in Pagano versus Woolwitch Township Joint
Land Use Board 2015. Weslaw 4661524 API August 7th 2015. The court recognized that such changes must be pursued through an application and approval under the MLUL. A developer cannot redefine the scope of a GDP
through argument in a later phase application. Here there is no indication the removed parcels were reinstated through any formal amendment. The project has instead proceeded through instead proceeded through discrete approvals tied to defined parcels. The applicant's
reliance on alfier oldbridge Associates does not alter this conclusion. That case addressed whether parcels were legally incorporated into a GDP based on the approved application and governing resolutions, not whether functionally related parcels may be aggregated for
zoning purposes. The court ultimately rejected the inclusion of parcels not part of the operative GDP notwithstanding the relationship to the broader development. Importantly, Alfie confirms that development rights are tied to the plan as approved and do not
extend to configurations that are no longer operative. Whereas here, the project has been materially modified, the prior development framework cannot be invoked to support a new application. Applying these principles, the density analysis must be based on the track that is the subject of the current
application. To the extent that the permitted yield is less than the unit number of units proposed, that proposal would exceed the permitted density and require a D5 density variance. So obviously that was a lot and I that I
had set forth And I wanted to give the board the benefit of that analysis including the case law and the citations to the MLUL in uh considering the application. So
previously we had talked about on the density issue the removal of phase two. So I think the board should actually consider this in sort of two aspects. one whether or not the phase 2 lands
that were removed from the GDP should be considered as part of the density calculation and then secondarily whether the application density calculation should be limited to this particular application to the land to the acreage
involved in phase one this particular application. So I would ask that the board first discuss and consider the question of whether or not to include the phase 2 acreage in any calculation of density for this application.
>> Could I just clarify two points before you act? One is that um after the GDP was adopted and after phase two was pulled out of the GDP, additional land was added to the adventure crossing project, the western
portion and the HCMU zone standards that were that were living under for this application were adopted. So they were not in place during the GDP and Ian went through that in a more detailed sequence. But just I wanted the record clear that the GDP in and of itself does
not control our interpretation of how your ordinance should be. >> Thank you, Mr. Alfier. I appreciate that. >> Is it question time? >> Yes, that I I know it seems like I would never stop talking that moment has arrived.
>> Okay. Um, so question for Mr. Alfuri if I could. So in everything you mentioned, two things stood out, two case that were very um precise, specific, easy to understand that applies here, right? Uh
mentioned Sentex Homes versus Township of Mansfield and then the other case was Route 44 developers and plan those to me on the way you wrote it very specifically addresses this issue exactly. So my
question to you is do you have any other case the rulings that would contradict these two? >> So I think to distinguish those cases is that um you can't just rely on the GDP
for an interpretation. You need to read your ordinance and it refers to the term tracted. And the term tracted included the entire tract of land for the adventure crossing project. Not the warehouse, not phase one, not phases
three and four. Our position is the entire tract. And if you interpret it that way, and that's why those cases I don't think have any real relevance to that issue, then that's how you have to rule. If you think that tract is defined or should be interpreted differently,
then you'll rule accordingly. But we think it's the entire track because that was the intent we believe of the ordinance when it was adopted. >> Okay. Got it. Got it. So it comes down to the definition of track and that's why to me it seems like those two cases were were very prone, you know,
applicable here. But you don't but you seem to not >> agree that if this was only the GDP parcel, >> then those cases control. We agree. That's not what we're here for. We don't believe that has anything to do because that GDP has no effect. Um the apartments as proposed weren't in that
GDP. The ordinance wasn't in place during that GDP and that land a good portion of the land wasn't in place during the GDP. So things have changed drastically. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Trying to get my thoughts in place. Um
when when you came before us for phase one, that's the one with all the town houses. >> Three and four. >> Three and four. Okay. When we came for for stage three and four, why did you consider that as a separate track and not as part of part of the
general development? >> It was we we made it clear um that night and then Mr. Chipriani acknowledged tonight. We knew that this battle was going to happen someday and we did not want to tie up the townhouse project in that argument. So we carved that land
out so that there was no question how density would be calculated there. But we put on the record that we just essentially kicked the can down the road and we'll deal with density during this application. So that's the reason why we were upfront from the minute we filed it that that was our intent.
So I guess my question then Mr. Fury would be you talked about the difference between the GDP and the definition of what a tract is, but if phase 2 isn't owned by the applicant anymore, how can we consider that? because we and um when
you look at the HCMU zone, there is a section that talks about a technical subdivision and it specifically states that an applicant can come in without regard to the bulk standards and subdivide the tract into multiple tracks
or multiple parcels for the purposes of refinancing or ownership or selling. It specifically contemplated that these parcels that are part of the whole might be sold and or refinance financed to construct. So that was the ordinance says that not what we say that's what
the ordinance says. >> Yeah. >> So it can go both ways then. So if let's say phase two decides they want to build something they can use the entire track of to to make a point on their
density as well. Is is that what I'm saying like what you're saying? >> Yes. for well just to give you an example if if we have a 100 acre parcel just to and we decided to put um retail in 50 acres and residential in
50 acres but the ordinance says you can have x number of units for the entirety whether we put them spread them out equally through the 100 acres or we condense them into one section or the other it shouldn't matter the issue is how many units per acre so which is what we're doing here we have different
sections that were developed with different types abuses and the residential is more condensed into in this case two sections town houses and apartments. So, so to answer your question, yes, we could we could put the residential in a
smaller section of the entire track as long as it meets all the other standards of the ordinance like setbacks, >> etc. >> Right. >> So, so you couldn't wait until there was one acre left and then come here and say, "Well, I have to build,00 units on one acre." >> And you I read the transcript. You asked that exact question. Thank you.
>> And I said he if we met all the other standards the answer would be yes. If we could go up 300 ft and put up a narrow tower then yeah we could squeeze them in but the ordinance doesn't allow that. >> Thank you Peters. Any other comments for us?
>> Can I just I just just follow up in the technical subdivision section of the ordinance. It allows that subdivision as I indicated for the purpose of the application is to create a new lot for the purpose of financing or transfer of o ownership within the development. So
it was always contemplated that a track of this size with those multiple uses that's portions are going to be sold off. Other questions or comments? >> I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around like so you each phase you wanted
it to be looked at separately your to to get your favor like so it's on your side. But now with this one you want it as a whole because it'll it's in your favor. So, it's kind of hard to
like why why why couldn't we just do all of them separately because that's how you wanted it on the other ones. >> Well, we there's nothing we did that was to our favor. Um, we complied with the ordinance in every application we filed
from the beginning. Um, other than the fact that there was a um a parking deck that's not a permitted use in the zone. If that parking deck wasn't here, we would have been at the planning board for all this for the most part. So, we've always complied. We didn't do anything to our benefit. All we did was
not have this density argument when we wanted to get the town houses approved. We didn't gain anything. Uh we didn't get additional density. We didn't get any additional variances. We just wanted to make sure that we got the town houses approved without debating the density issue. But we didn't benefit otherwise.
There was no other. We didn't get any anything extra by doing it that way. >> Criani, if they hadn't if whatever, bear with me here because I'm trying to get my words together. If whatever they had wanted to develop in one of the other phases didn't have
anything to do with dense and wouldn't have raised that question, would we be here? >> If I unders hope I unders I hope. >> Yeah. So if I understood the question directly or correctly, the other applications,
to the best of my knowledge, and and maybe Mr. Peters, who has a longer history of this, can correct me if I'm mistaken, the other applications did not involve this issue because I do not believe there has been any application on any of
the phases or, you know, And any time that it came back which required this analysis those applications as I understand it the density issue there was not prior to
this application an application on any of the phases which required an analysis of the overall tract because the density in those prior approvals was within the standards for the tract
that was the subject of those applications. >> There was there was really no residential to speak of um that that there was residential but we never approached this kind of number to where we wanted to get the full four units per
acre calculation. So yes, Mr. Peters ready to add something. I I just in answer to your question, um pages three to five of our report go through the application history and which particular board they were at and what they applied
for. And so while it's it's not short reading, um it does go through in some detail what board they were at, what they were asking for, and what they received. And then at the end of our report on page 25 under variances and
waiverss, we list what we believe to be the variance and waiver relief that's necessary for the applications before you this evening, accepting out the the phase 1D hotel that we took care of last
December. So, to the extent that they've applied for something that's not permitted in the zone on the parcel of land that they're asking for the parking deck to be on, even though they have a use variance
somewhere else to have a parking deck, they still require for this application a use variance. So I don't know that the applicant or the applicant's attorney or our attorney has questioned that the jurisdiction of this application this evening is squarely here at the zoning
board and not at the planning board. Then we get into the subsequent if in fact we find that the density issue relates to the property that's left not the original track boundary they need a D5 density variance which also can only be
granted by this board and not the planning board. But again if as we go through these if if if we need to spend more time on them I'm sure between myself and Mr. board and we can go through the history of what's gone on so that you're comfortable understanding.
This application is correctly before our board this evening because they still need under the land use law a use variance for the parking deck. >> Mr. Alfiari, please correct me if I misspoke or wasn't clear. >> No issue with density. And if if the
board members um the the September 3rd hearing which um we provided a transcript of we went through all of these arguments already. Um so if you needed time to refresh that that would be the one to read.
>> So the the question goes back to that that what Mr. Alfairi has uh correctly identified as the question of what is the tract? So is the tract that is considered for the density is it the
tract that was considered and part of at the time of the adoption of the HCMU the adoption of the GDP you know since at this point you know is it is it you and Mr. Mr. Alfi, correct
me if I'm I'm you know oversimplifying or not saying I think Mr. Alfier's point or argument is that the tract was frozen in time at the point of the adoption of the ordinance. >> Correct.
>> Um and that whatever was within the tract at the time of the adoption of the ordinance remains the track that you need to consider. My position is that it you know was
whatever was in at that time it was then you know through the removal of that phase 2 from the GDP subsequent approvals for that that the tract has limited but that is certainly you know
an argument it's not 100% you know there there's not uh something directly on point regarding this issue of whether you the tract is frozen in time and then no matter sort of what
happens whether whether it's sold off whether it's removed from the GDP that that's still part of the tract because it was part of the tract at the date of the adoption of the ordinance. Um I think that in my view that the uh principles of the
MLUL in terms of considering something is an integrated project come into conflict with that reading that it was frozen in time and that nothing that occurs
including the removal from the GDP, the selling off the independent applications, um the the fact that this issue has not come up before doesn't mean that those other applications were not considered and I think there have been times when
the applicant's been before this board and has articulated you know that you know and looking at other aspects of the project you know sometimes it's okay sometimes it's not okay um you know things that have been removed and moved
within the project to a a substantial degree but that's really the consideration for the board. Certainly phase two was part of the tract or the overall acreage at the time of the adoption of the ordinance. So the
question is whether the subsequent events, the litigation, the removal from the GDP, the selling off for a different um project and the individual applications that have been before this board in the meantime have changed that
And just you asked the question I I answered it as a yes or no, but there's more to it. There's never a yes or no. The to so yes, the ordinance fixed in time what we consider this track to be. If we developed each section independent
of the other, meaning it had separate driveways, separate stormware management, separate signage, separate everything, I think the town's position is stronger. But in this case, this site was developed as a as a unified site.
There's common access points. >> So true. So true. >> For example, the phase 2 warehouse can't get to the warehouse site without going through phase one or phase three and four because there's only two access
points. Storm water management has shared SE portions. The um signage is shared. water and sewer utilities are shared. So, it's been developed as a single tract with multiple uses and now multiple owners, two separate owners.
So, I think that's the that's why we say it's fixed in time because this was a comprehensive development with multiple types of uses. >> I I do disagree that in the totality of the circumstances that it's not appropriate to consider
it. Certainly the factors that Mr. Alfieri has raised absolutely have relevance it that in terms of the integration of the site but these are also choices that uh were made some of them were made in response to the
litigation um that was part regarding phase two. Um and so if you consider the tract as a whole and sort of frozen in
time in that regard that doesn't the the counter balancing argument is that you know that the way that that was developed was not contemplated at the time of the original
approvals. that there have been a series of approvals and that to just sort of focus on that word tracked doesn't take into account the way in which the approval process has gone forward the way in which the GDP was um developed
and not you know with the removal of the parcels which is also something that has that idea of a unified plan um though there are unified elements each application has come forward forward. To
some extent, this idea of the shared um uh road system is not intrinsically different than applications that come before the board where the um road system is based on a cross access
agreement. There have been um an application within the last year before the board which is where the entire application is dependent on a road that has yet to be constructed by another developer um and then dedicated to the
public. So there the these are are things to be considered and the board absolutely should consider them. I don't consider them to be dispositive. I think that they are part of what needs to be considered but that also needs to be
considered the history of the project and I don't think the GDP is irrelevant and I don't think the removal because the GDP is also that planned development um or I'm sorry unified development plan and then the removal from that does
remove that aspect from the tract under consideration. Well, the original density on the 283 acres would have given you the,00 plus
home, 1132 homes. If you remove that phase two lots to whatever it was where the warehouse is, he said you would be left with 210. So even if you put both tracks together uh
just on that lot you would have been entitled to 840 and then subtracting the 500 subart from that you're down to the to 300 is what you would be allowed if if each track is
considered separately. >> Is that where you're getting the your 300 number from? Yes, >> you're using a 600 number and a 300 number and the discrepancy is >> if we backed out those lands and did the acreage calculation. Yes.
>> Which we don't think >> in my mind if you're splitting off >> phases with the town houses on >> created the density in this one area. You you said you knowingly created the density because you knew what density
you could use there without a problem. >> I'm not sure I >> basic >> you you on on phase uh I'm getting them mixed up already. >> Phases three and four >> three and four that's where the town houses correct where the town houses are. >> Yes.
>> Okay. where where the town houses are, we're able to build a little over 500 units, 505 or whatever it was. Okay? So, you knew you were going to be left with asking for the other 300 on
the last section, the last track that you had when you're really entitled to build a little over 300. I don't know what the exact measurements are of of the acreage. >> I'm not sure. I I understand you.
>> Well, if that's a question, >> if you could put on each track what you were permitted to put on the track, if the track you're talking about now, >> how many how many acres are there? >> I'm going to have to defer to Mr. Bordon. You're talking about just for
phase one. This the section that's phase one. Is that what you're asking? Yes. >> I'm not sure if we know. I don't know that answer. So, >> well, that would tell you how many homes you're allow allowed to build if that was considered a separate track. >> Well, that's a different story. I think
if if you rule I don't think you should analyze this issue to figuring out how many units we're going to get because that's not the test, how many we're going to get. The issue is which land do you count and then whatever you determine then we can figure out how many units we can get. So whether we can
get one more unit or 2,000 more units is really not relevant. What's relevant is what's the land area we use to calculate how many units we can get. >> Went through that. So you just said you could have built 1100 homes in one big apartment building
>> in one truck. >> Right. >> Picking back on that. So, if let's say you have a space where you can put a 100 homes and you decide to put that 100 homes in one little section, is that mean you're not allowed to build on the
other ones because you already have the hundred homes? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. We're not allowed to build other homes. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Well, I'm just So, okay. So that means if if you already exceeded all the homes that you needed to build on that entire track, no one can build anywhere
else that's an empty lot within that area. >> That's correct. Without getting a density barrier. >> Got it. >> Right. So the question is right now whether it's the the the for the density calculation is the track to be
considered the tract as it was at the time of the adoption of the ordinance which would be 283 acres or is the tract with the phase 2 acreage removed um and that would leave 210.8 8 acres.
>> Okay. Uh I'll just make a comment and then a short question. So I think I'm ready uh to vote when time comes. I'm ready to vote. Um just one very short question. Hopefully it's a yes or no. This is a phase development. Correct.
You agree with your proposal here. This is a phase development >> and yes. Yes. because a tract of this size never gets developed in one phase, multiple phases, but yes, multiple phases. >> Okay. Um, so that's why I wanted to get that straight. Um,
because again, simply two cases that that uh case law that you brought up here that to me are are very straightforward. Um, that one with the Route 44 developers, right? Simply says a phase development. Each
phase must uh must independently satisfy the applicable zoning and planning requirements. each individual phase. That's very clear to me that we look at each individual phase. That one and then
that other case that I mentioned syntax, right, where simply said the court rejected the notion that a developer could maintain the same development assumptions after removing acreage. That's very clear. You can't do that. If
you remove the acreage, then you have to recalculate. Um so th those two to me are very clear. Um I know there's a dispute about and you guys I guess figure it out somewhere. Uh but for me it's very clear
and and that's how I'm going to vote that um we should follow those rules anyway. Okay. Thank you. >> So if we remove the acreage that means they require a density variance. Got it. >> Correct. for the if yes there then
they're then they would either need to recalculate the density based on the reduced acres of 210.8 acres or they would have to apply for a density variance and I did say they have noticed for a density variance in the past but we have not had the reports and
testimony on that variance which is why we're considering this exciting question right now. I get I guess my comments kind of mirror uh Mr. Martins's because I read the both letters and the the
cases that were presented. I I just think it's very clear that um should be removing the land because everything got changed drastically. Just the way I see it, it's you know the
fact you started with a GDP, now the GBP doesn't exist anymore. Correct. >> Yes, that's correct. >> So we we're kind of kind of going at it from all different angles here. So to me, it's it's very clear with these two
cases um where we should be headed as a board. Did you just say that you agree that there's no GDP applying to this application? >> Yeah, no longer. Yeah, it's substantially changed. The GDP that was approved whenever that was is nowhere
near what the development has been accomplished to date, nor what's being proposed now. >> Correct. And >> and the ordinance came after. So this the newest all the development was designed off of the new HCMU zone
not because of the GDP because of the new zone new being whatever year that was many >> correct but generally a GDP is the want to call it the master plan of a development so you're totally disregarding your master plan building
something totally different you know you've removed certain specific speific integral parts of this application. Um there are many many changes that have happened since then. So you're saying is everything there's no GDP applying to this at all?
>> Correct. >> And it's just the tract. >> It's just the ordinance the HCMU zone ordinance that we've been working under since we started the approval pro not the the GDP process but the site plan approval process.
>> Thank you. So, we just need clarity if it you had two. I was a motion made or not? Just I'm sorry. >> Oh, I thought you were going to ask one was made. >> Miss Brianna, help me out here. under
the GDP would assume anywhere but especially on the record but under the GD following your line of question Mr. time and under a GDP we would expect phases. It's a huge project, all these acres, we would expect phases. In that case, I may be
able to look at that case differently. However, since there's no GDP still in place, I'm seeing them as indivi. Yes, they have the same owner. The applicant is the same for the application, each of the applications, but technically you've got individual projects. Now,
>> I would agree. And not only that, but on the prior applications or phases, we've said certain things and they said, "No, no, no. are focusing only on this right now, not looking at the whole picture. So the applicant in my mind specifically
took each phase and divided it from the next. Then now they're coming to us. Oh, one second. We want to put them all back together and use the density for this. Right. Well, and you know, m Mr.
Alfurio's argument is that the GDP stopped being relevant and when the HCMU ordinance was passed uh that certainly in January of 2020 the GDP was still
being uh part of the applications um and the HCMU ordinance was passed passed in February of 2020. So the
htmu ordinance does not refer it doesn't by its terms uh invalidate the GDP and that was obviously part of the litigation um in that one of the settlements terms
was the removal of that phase um from the GDP. So the GDP continued to exist. The applicant's argument as I understand it may have existed but it was not relevant
to any applications because they were simply presid providing or I'm sorry um applying under the HCMU zone. So all over the place. Um the HCMU zone has been amended several
times. Uh was amended in 2023 and again in 2025, but that amendment is not relevant to this application. Um so it was amended in 2023. The language of that
ordinance just establishes an HCMU zoning district. The applicant's position as I take it that it because the borders of the HCMU district or I guess this is a question
Mr. Alier, are the borders of the HCMU district contiguous with your claimed tract, this applicant's tract? >> Yeah, the HCMU zone is the just this
property, the this property meaning the adventure crossing, right? It doesn't carry over to any other properties in the town. It was designed simply for this project, >> right? and based on the fact that the zone is contiguous with this property and it only applies to this property.
That's sort of the basis and again correct me ali that of the claim that that's the tract. So the the language of the ordinance does not refly refer to it
has tracked requirements, right? It has requirements for different things. It talks about things within the zone and so the fact that the zone is all this tracked which at the time that
it was adopted in certainly included uh the phase 2 lands. That's where Mr. Ralph's argument is well it's basically it was a zone for our property and well I don't want to f but it was a zone that covered only this property
therefore everything in this property is part of the tract >> that's one of our arguments yes >> yes so yeah I'm sorry I was not tried to to limit you on that um but the language
of the ordinance itself simply refers to the fact that this is a zone. It includes those areas generally located in the south side of County Road Route 537 between the Interstate 194
corridor and the Hurricane Harbor Water Park. Um and then it has a set of different standards for and requirements for within the zone including height requirements etc that
were referred to earlier. So it doesn't require by the language of the ordinance that all applications
be made by one property owner. Um but it does indicate that so if you had an individual property owner then you know by Mr. Alfie's reasoning, any applicant
that own land in this zone could come in and take and and have the advantage of looking at the entire zoning area, which I don't agree with. >> Yeah. And I didn't say that either. I agree with if you're I don't I agree
that if you did that narrow interpretation, you're right. But that's not what we have here. But so yes, So then again as as we've said the question is for the board to determine on what constitutes the tract. Does the
tract constitute every all of the land within the HCMU zone? Or is it relevant to look at the unified development plan?
And is it appropriate to then consider removed the phase 2 acreage which is not currently part of that unified development plan? >> I think I can speak for everybody. If not, please correct me. I think part of
the struggle here is as Mr. Heyman point out earlier um other applications it's just consider this not this. So how do we now say okay take your blinders off don't look at these individual pieces don't look at part one part two part three part four part five
look at the whole thing and that becomes the struggle because we were asked to treat it one way on one phase three and four and we're being asked to look at the whole picture am I making sense here >> yes >> but I think I think that part of what
you need to look at is that for the other. Let's put three. Let's put three the the recent application for three and four over to the side for a second. >> If you look at all of the other
applications that have come under the HCMU zone that have come to you, none of them required you to look for these purposes at the other parts of the site. you have considered other parts of the
the site in terms of looking at traffic flows and uh uh traffic um density I don't want to use the word density there but I can't think of the right word but whether there would be lots of cars
>> um so this question was not raised by the prior application because it is density and density alone. That
that says you have to look at the overall density of the tract on the three and four application to take it off the shelf. The applicant chose to
tailor that application so that the number of units fit within the acreage of just phases three and four. And Mr. Alfrey said that they made that decision. They wanted that townhouse development to move. They
didn't want that to be caught up in this density argument which they knew was coming because it had previously been discussed on the record of Mr. Alfuri and I had discussed it. Um so they knew that there was an issue out there regarding the density calculation in order to make three and four move
quickly. They avoided that issue by saying we are not claiming any entitlement to density outside the three and four acreage on that application. But they did say on the record that they
were not waving the right that they assert to calculate density based on the entire HCMU zone. And I'm uh using that just to try and and create clarifying what they're which they define as the entire tract.
>> So if it was included the entire track on phase three and four, they could have built more homes. >> Yes. if they had made their application for three and four, you know, assuming satisfaction of bulk standards or or uh
variances of those st uh for those standards, then they could have put higher density in three and four. But then they would we would have been in this argument now of once you get outside the acreage of the
parcel that is the application that is currently before the board. What gives you an entitlement to that higher density? And in calculating that higher density, what is the overall tract that you are looking at?
So, it's been a lot of discussion and obviously there may be more questions and more people who want to weigh in on this topic, but essentially it does boil down to that question of what is the tract to be considered? Is it the
entirety of the HCMU zone or are we still relying on the fact that there was a unified uh development plan the GDP and that there was a removal from of the
phase 2 acreage from that GDP along with again the things that we've talked about that you know that um being sold off being developed uh differently from uh the GDP plan um and the individual
applications that have come forward. There's also as um Mr. Martin had alluded to the cases that I had cited and that certainly is a concept in the municipal land use law that you consider the application that is before you and
you get to consider those lands. Um in this case um there's also the issues that Mr. Alfie has raised regarding commonality um of road usage and I think the utilities and sewer. I may be forgetting
something he said. >> Can I ask a question? Maybe you guys can tell me. So the HCMU >> CMU Yes. >> Okay. That ordinance was built was designed specifically for this property.
Correct. >> Yes. And that was designed because of the GDP that was originally planned. >> I don't think so. I mean, I'm sure that was considered, but that wasn't the only >> But you had had you presented the GDP plan to
>> I don't I don't you mean >> council before they they created this ordinance? >> Well, the GDP had already been adopted prior to this ordinance. >> I understand that. But my question is, was the ordinance a reaction to what was on the GDP to give them because there
was nothing zoned this before? So, how did we how did you get a you know, you couldn't get this plan that you had until this ordinance was created? Correct. >> Correct. >> So, it had to be a reaction from the other one. that you certainly certainly
there there was a GDP that was public record at the time that the governing body adopted the ordinance. I will say that Mr. Alfieri is not in a uh position to uh speak for the mindset of the
governing body in 2020. I'm just in my mind I'm just trying to go down the steps as how all of this was created because this zone is just it's the only zone in Jackson is this this piece of property. So it had to be created as a result of some
development plan that was >> if Mr. Bordon can explain that part. He was more involved in how the ordinance was created. I really wasn't. If you want to hear that that's if you think that's important we can certainly tell. I just want to I'm I'm just trying to go
down the steps here because to me if it was then all of a sudden the GDP disappears. So it's kind of we're we're are we starting from scratch or you know it's it's
>> well Mr. the GDP did not disappear. It had still been adopted. It still was a uh a plan that had been set forth and approved by the board for the development of this property.
>> Mr. Alfier's position is that it was no longer relevant once the zone was adopted, but certainly still existed in the universe. And I guess where I'm trying to get as if it's whether it existed or not,
however you want to classify it, you know, these cases talk about changes to a GDP. So if it's still in effect, then this case to me is spot on. That's that's why I'm just trying to I
want to try and understand the steps as to you know how we we ended up where we started with a GDP now we have an ordinance and now the GDP we're really not following it anymore um kind of just you know in my brain I'm just trying to go round
>> well the applicant has not amended the GDP >> right >> because of the position of the applicant that the GDP is not uh was not was no longer relev relevant to the development of the site once the ordinance was put
in place, but the GDP had been adopted by the board. But that is a position that the applicant has taken. >> If the GDP was nullified, if you want to call it based off of the ordinance, then why wasn't a new GDP
on call proposed or required for this development? >> Well, I could answer that. So, GDP is not required ever. Um if the reason a GDP is applied for is because if a project is very large and you want to
have protections for 20 years from zone changes then you come and you get that master plan GDP approved and then you have 20 years to develop it and get separate site plan approvals. The applicant didn't feel the need at that point after this ordinance was adopted
to go and do a GDP. He went right into site plan. So there was no that's we just skipped that step. That's not something that's ever required. It's actually very rare that you go for a GDP approval. >> A prior to the adoption of the ordinance in order to create a unified development
plan uh at some point a GDP was applied for to present that plan as in its totality um for the entire area. And so that was adopted by the board and approved or approved by the board as the
overall sort of roadmap for the development of this area. The applicant's position is that once the ordinance was in place that the ordinance provided that the the only relevant roadmap and standards and that
the GDP no longer was uh provided that roadmap. When did you say the um HCMU zone came into existence? >> It was adopted on February 11th, 2020. >> I remember when when this first started
back in 2017, I think it was. And of course, this was a fantastic application when we first saw it. And I don't recall anybody even mentioning GDP. It was just a mixeduse large sports complex.
uh that that was being developed and uh everything was passed uh fairly quickly on that. >> So Mr. Mr. Bordon can answer that. Um that's true. >> I'm sorry. I didn't >> Mr. Bordon can answer that respond to that if you give him a minute. Um and he
was sworn in and qualified at earlier meetings. Mr. Bordon, >> he was but let's do it again. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And uh Mr. Warden, certainly your
qualifications not to step on the chair's line um have been accepted by the board previously, but if you could just state your position for the record. >> Yes, sir. Uh Ian Bordon, president, professional design services, New Jersey, professional planning state, New
Jersey. been practicing for 40 years and president of PDS for 30 and been in front of this board for more than 30 years >> where this board accepts your credentials. Thank you. >> And Mr. Bordon, I can't speak for the board, but for myself, I ask once again that you speak loudly and clearly and
hold the microphone up to your mouth. Thank you. So if if you don't mind, I'd like to address the history of the zone, but in my opinion, that is extremely relevant because that is the basis of the argument as Mr. Alferi stated.
Understand that in the beginning uh and I'm talking before this applicant was involved with these properties at all and they were simply undeveloped were uh partially developed with old uses but but undeveloped properties. All of these properties were in the highway
commercial zone. Obviously, the township has a lot of highway commercial zone. It runs down not just Mammoth Road, but it runs down County Line Road. Uh but uh importantly in the 2009 master plan which was the large master plan before
the 25 uh the 2009 master plan had a very distinct paragraph that said the the crown jewel of the highway commercial zone in Jackson is the properties between six flags and 195.
understanding a major objective of the 2009 master plan was to encourage commercial development. That's one thing Jackson has always lacked. Jackson doesn't have a state highway like how with route 9 or Tom's River with Route 37 and it's very difficult to do count
or highway development projects on county roads. Um so they that was in the 2009 master plan. These properties however were owned by different persons. uh three different entities owned what
is now called the 286 acre tract as we call it. Uh my client the C Mr. Cardelli uh put together the GDP. We got a GDP approved in 200 I believe it was 17. The GDP it's important to remember the GDP was
artificially modified by outside forces not the town and not the applicant. And what I mean is and it's in Mr. Peters's summary. Um the initi an initial GDP was approved for all 286 acres.
Residents along Anderson Road appealed that GDP and the settlement that arose out of that said you have to reduce the size of the GDP. So the GDP was reduced in area and amended and approved. It was at that point in time that the township said,
"We don't want our land our objectives of this master plan that's been in place now for more than 10 years to be artificially modified because of a couple of residents that were unhappy. Uh we we care about the residents and we want to protect them, but that's not
proper planning." So that's why they wrote the HCMU zone. And the HCMU zone was particularly written to only apply as as Miss Cypriyani read to these properties, the areas south of Mammoth Road between Hurricane Harbor and 195.
And and furthermore, and this is where the tract is so important, the ordinance was written in a fashion that these properties couldn't individually use the benefits of the HM HCA zone. The HCMU zone is an overlay. The highway
commercial is still there, but it's an overlay zone. But the overlay zone only applies if the tract works together. In other words, the individual I mentioned there was three property owners. Each of those three property owners couldn't run out and say, "Hey, I'm going to build four units per acre." Because they
didn't meet the tract area. It was purposely written so that none of the three could do it on them by themselves. The whole intent was to uh do it as a unified development so that they shared as Mr. Alfieri stated
uh traffic, water, sewer, storm water, uh proper planning in my opinion. U so that's why the tracked area is so important because without the tracted area the underlying uses are not permitted. Um, so that that is that's why the
tracked area and the tracked area was after the GDP and the and the reason it's after the GDP is because the GDP was artificially modified as a result of this litigation from from property owners in the town. I hope that clarifies hope that answers
your question. So it's a very unique how overlay zone to particularly address objectives of the master plan. Does anyone have the date on which resolution 2020-09 was adopted?
I don't have all >> Yeah. No, I >> multiple briefcases to >> Gina has everything. >> So, so and as I let me just uh >> Wait, wait, wait. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Bordon. What is the
acreage of the entire HCMU zone? >> 286 acres. So, it's 286 acres, but isn't it that the acreage requirement for the application of the HCMU zone is 70 acres? >> Yes.
>> So, but I mean, if you continue with reading the ordinance, and this is where the assemblage is required, the lot width and lot frontage is required to be 2,900 ft. That's where the assemblage is required
because none of these properties that I mentioned, these three different owners, none of none of these three different owners together, in fact, not even two of them together had 2,900 ft. >> Madam Chair, >> that ordinance was written particularly to require all three to be part of the
track. >> That's the frontage. >> The frontage and the width. >> There's I apologize for cutting in. just as we go along, I want to make sure the record's clear for for everyone. Um, Mr. Bordon had testified
uh that the original plan was sometime in 2017. It was actually in 2019 and the amendment that came through the court was in 2020. >> Okay. >> And I don't take any offense. I just want the record to be clear because
there is a long history with applications almost every year. So the first GDP didn't come about until 2019. Um the date of the memorialization of resolution 2020-09 was February 5th, 2020.
>> Thank you. >> As it relates to the comment that I didn't take any exception to Mr. Bordon's testimony, as someone said before, we can't guess what was in the governing body's mind, but Mr. Bordon was the
professional for the land owner who petitioned the governing body for this designation. And I can tell you that without a doubt the intention was always to have the entire frontage of 537 as
part of the HCMU zone. So it was always lot frontage requirement of 2,900 ft. There was never a breakdown of that. So if we're getting technical subdivisions or phases or any of that as it relates to the creation of the HCMU zone,
the bulk requirement always was 2900 ft of frontage. >> Does the removal of the tracked 2 acreage affect the frontage? >> Does it affect what
>> does it affect the frontage? I'd rather answer that question first. >> We say it wasn't removed, but >> Right. Right. But but if it were to be removed, it doesn't check 2 did not front on 537, did it?
>> It Well, there's no access on 537. There might be a portion that >> FA phase two fronts on the jug handle to to 195. So I I would say yes, it does remove frontage. Yes. >> And what would be the remaining frontage? >> I do not know.
Did what ordinance did you need, Gina, to look up? >> No, it's all right. Ernie found it. Yeah, >> it was just a memorialization of the GDP. >> Sorry. If we looked at it that being removed affected the frontage, how
does that affect? >> Well, it does. The the question is what the remaining frontage is. So the requirements for the operation of the HCMU zoning district are lot area of
70 acres which clearly that does not come into play and then a lot width of 2900 square feet a lot frontage of 2900 contiguous square feet and a lot depth of a th00and square Feet.
I'm not sure. >> No, I'm not sure if Ernie is trying to figure out where if Ian is the board. Mr. Peters, do either of you know if if we were to remove that track that was sold off, do we know what the remaining
frontage is? Not off the top of my head this second. I can try to review some of the documents we have, but um >> a lot I know. >> Wouldn't you have it or no? >> Yeah. Well,
>> is it just the jug handle? Is that where we're at? Just a procedural question. Um, will you need to open it up to the public before we vote? >> Yes. Yes. Okay. >> We can't give that answer without >> okay
>> scales. So the the that question uh really just has to do with um the remainder of the lot and whether that would uh still continue to fall within the HCMU zone. That is uh
to some extent a separate question from whether lot two the lot 2 acreage should be considered as part of the tract for the calculation of density for this application which is the question before the board right now.
>> Any additional questions or comments? I just if the front edge is less than than the settled on, could there be a variance to make it shorter at some time? >> Could it be a variance to
>> to make it fit within the lot requirements? >> Yes. >> Yes. Assuming that it was dimminimous, which it would almost have to be. No additional questions. Do you want to say anything before we open it to the public? >> No, I didn't want to say as much as I
did. So, >> all right. At this time, we're going to go ahead and open it to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward and make any comments or ask any questions about what you've heard this evening, please do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward, we're going to go ahead and close public session.
Board, it's up for us. >> I'm sorry. Someone just came in. I don't know if she wanted to say anything. >> We had We had just We're going to open it to the public and you were outside so I didn't know if you'd want to come for Okay. All right. >> Um so we're going to go ahead and close
public session. Um board, it's accept us for discussion. And maybe Miss Brandy, you could just kind of >> give us a little quick clarification. >> So, all right. So the the question before the board and we would need a motion either that the tract to be
considered for the density calculation for this application either includes the entirety of the HCMU zone or that the
phase 2 acreage should be removed from the density calculation that would again take it from 283 acres down to 210.8 acres. So those are the motions that I
can think of. I'm sure somebody can think of another but those are the basic things that the basic question that we're trying to decide that the board needs to to consider is what is the acreage to be included. So the arguments
in summary obviously the board's been here and had asked questions as well is you know is the GDP which was the unified development
plan um which from which the phase 2 acres were removed. Is that relevant to the determination of what the tract is? The applicant's position is that it is not that the GDP stopped being relative
relevant upon the adoption of the HCMU zone and that that is what applies and that if that is satisfied then you look at the tract as being the entirety of that zone.
The applicant had also said that the commonality of roadways and utilities and uh I think it was sewer and water infrastructure also indicates that the tract should be considered as a whole.
You've heard uh Mr. reporting statement on the development of this tract and um the development of the HCMU zone and that the zone was intended to work alto together. Um we've
uh discussed obviously everyone is in agreement that the removal of the track 2 acreage does not impact um the acreage requirement of the HCMU zone. It may or may not have uh some relevance. We have not been able to hear
testimony um regarding the uh frontage uh and lot width issues. But essentially it comes down to what does the board think is correctly and fairly could be considered in the density calculation.
When you think of this tracked under the HCMU zone and under the GDP as it was originally presented and to the board approved by the board in 20 most recently in 2020, does that continue to include the phase
2 tract which is no longer part of the GDP but is certainly still within the HCMU zone. >> Okay. So, I'll make a motion. Um, based on the case laws that we've been
presented and all the comments, um, I'd like to make a motion that we remove track two from the density calculation and move forward from there. >> I'll second that. >> We have a motion and a second. And just
so we're all on the same page, the motion is that we remove the phase 2 acreage. So the density calculation will therefore be based on 210 acres. I'm sorry. And a D right, a D uh D5
variance would be needed. Correct. We have a motion. So if you vote yes, you're agreeing that phase the phase 2 acreage would be removed and that the calculation would then be based on the 210 acres. >> Right. Motion, we have a motion and
second. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Hyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> Miss Cusano, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia, >> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, >> yes. >> Miss Bradley, >> yes.
>> Thanks. Um, quick break. Good. >> I just wanted to make sure synography. >> Can we take it? Can we take five? >> Just fine. >> We're going to take a fivem minute break. We'll be back. have something you'd like to tell us?
>> Um, well, I'd like Mr. Aliier to tell us. >> So now that the board made that ruling, um the applicant would like a little time to consider what to do with the application. I understand that we the July 15th agenda is available. So we
would like to carry the application to that night. We may submit a revised plan. Hopefully that complies with the density and then we don't have to talk about that anymore here. Um but you know we have we have to circle back amongst ourselves. That's what we're considering.
>> Have an application. >> We have an application. >> Thank you. To Ferris Cam to that date and then we also put Grand Harmony or whatever the actual name is, forgive me, to that date. But that was with the understanding that that would probably be moved once we have our official dates
for 26 27. >> Correct. because that July date is where where we normally reorg, right? Um so I believe Miss Jennings put on the record that their intent is once we vote in and approve the remainder of the um meeting
dates for the then the rest of the year then she was going to request a formal carry to I guess >> for both applications. >> I don't recall that the fair time specifically but I know that she didn't mention that that the >> I thought it was just grand harmony. Correct.
I definitely recall 100% the Grand Harmony would be pushed back um after that 7:15 reorg. I'm I am not >> quite sure quite so sure about the Tfer. >> Well, Mr. Aury, what we can do is we can move it to that date with the
understanding that there that's our reorg meeting and we do have one I believe that will be heard that evening. So, just you know just for a matter of timing so you're aware of what's out there. What's the one that's after that? Oh, you don't know yet. >> We don't know yet. >> It would technically be the first Wednesday in August, but it's not
official yet because we don't handle that until we >> So, let's take July 15th and deal with it at that point. >> Okay. >> All right. So, it'll be moved to July 15th. At this point, no additional
notice is required. Obviously, you know, depending on the scope of any amended application, that may or may not change, but we'll we'll discuss that. And so, um, any amended application, including all
issues with plans, will be in prior to that meeting. >> Oh, certainly. Yes. And we'll grant the board an extension of time to act through through the end of July just so we can figure out where we're going. >> Thank you, Michelle Fear. >> That's it. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Motion to close. >> Motion to second. >> Motion to adjurnn. All in favor? I I >> Thank you.