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. Sorry. This meeting complies with the open public meetings act. Notice of this
meeting published on the township board and in the applicable newspaper. Roll call, please. Mr. Brezie here. Mr. Hyman here. Dr. Hoffstein here. Miss Rosal here. Mr. Martins here. Mr. Such
here. Miss Bradley here. Okay. Okay. Do we have any resolutions this evening? We do not. Okay. And minutes from which meeting? I'm sorry. May 7th. All right. We have meetings. Um, excuse me. Meeting minutes from May 7th. I need a motion and a second to approve the
minutes. Please. Motion. Second. Roll call, please. Mr. Brezie. Mr. Heyman. Yes. Dr. Hoffstein. Miss Presz. Excuse me. Mr. Rosal,
yes. Miss Mr. Martins, yes, Mr. Sut. Yes, Miss Bradley. Yes. I should have asked you before we started, do you have a voucher this evening? All right. So, we have a voucher from Jackson Township for the recording
secretary for this evening's meeting uh in the amount of $175. I need a motion and a second to approve the payment of the voucher. Please. Motion. Second. Roll call, please. Mr. Brezie?
Yes. Mr. Hyman? Yes. Dr. Hoffstein? Yes. Miss Rosal? Yes. Mr. Martins? Yes. Mr. Such? Yes. Miss Bradley? Yes. Do we have any announcements this evening? Miss Cypriani? Yes, we do. It's very exciting.
The first one is that number on the agenda, James Hughes, 280 Faraday Avenue, um is being carried to the July 16th meeting with new notice required.
Okay. Um and another series of announcements is that number four uh powerhouse signs will be moved up to the number two position uh
both out of uh sensitivity and nicely u Mr. and had consented but also um and we'll put more on the record when they're back in the room um but Mr. Roer has a
conflict with number two and number three. So we want to do the other items and then he will be able to. All right. No executive session this evening. We're going to swear on our
professionals. You could raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you'll give this board will be proof of nothing but approved? I do. I do. Please state your name and position for the record. Mark Roier, board engineer. Ernie Peters, board planner. Gina Tumalo, assistant
zoning officer. Steven Maer, board traffic engineer. No matters for discussion this evening or administrative approvals. So, we're going to move forward to applicant number one, Edward Roi, Variance
3531, 353 Cedar Swamp Road. I'm sorry. Are you Mr. Obi? Yes. Um, I'm going to swear you in because I understand you're representing yourself and so part of what you will say will be in the nature of testimony. Could you please raise right your right hand? Do
you swear the testimony you will give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. And could you please state your name and address? My name is Edward Grovie. I live at 353 Cedar Swamp Road. Thank you. Please proceed. Uh I guess I'm asking Pull that
mic. I was going to say pull the mic. Yeah. Remember it's very difficult to hear in here. I'm asking for a variance. I put a front gate, an electric gate at the end of my driveway and uh I was looked to get that approved. Um I guess the the problem was
they said it was uh 5 foot. It starts at four fans to five. And I got the permit actually after the gate. My dog was hit by a car. I called the guy. I had a gate put in which I understand was my mistake. But I went and got the permit.
So they said at this point it was up to uh the committee to decide if that was going to work. Thank you. And uh I believe you had uh submitted the plan that's up there. That
correct? Yes. Where the yellow is correct. And also um the packet with your application there is a photograph of the uh gate fence.
Did you submit that photograph, Mr. Ro? Uh yeah, I mean I had my wife send it out, but yes, I g I took the I mean I have a picture here if you want to see a clearer picture. You just uh need to make a record Yes. what's before the board.
So the uh plan up there and the photograph in the application packet also uh there was a prior resolution. Yes. You have been before the board before. Yes ma'am. There's extensive resolution.
Uh so those that application of those exhibits those are the documents that you rely on. Yes. Anyone have any questions for Mr. Roi? So, what's already installed? What's already installed? Nothing else is going to be installed.
What's there is all that's going to be put up. That's it. Any questions for Mr. Roie? Could you guys some testimony of what type of fence is there? What he's proposing so we know for the record.
Yeah. And and just so um Mr. Robin, I believe Mr. Roy's testimony was that the the fence the gate has already been installed. So what is there now is what he's looking to. So if you could just state what it is. It's a steel gate. uh
starts at 4 foot, fans to five, and has 3/4 in steel poles that run from the top beam to the bottom and pretty much that's it. And does that surround the property or is that No, that's just that just closes off the driveway. That's it. The the
property is fenced and that area was open. So besides for the driveway, do you have a fence in the front? Yes. What kind of a fence is that? It's a a black chain link fence. 4 foot. That's what I want them to hear.
Thank you. Anthony, do you happen to have the photograph of the fence? The the chain link. Uh, no. The gate. I mean, would you like to see it? Yeah. Would you like I mean I have Yes. I was
just asking the general frontage in full. Understood. Any other questions for the applicant? No questions. Okay, Mr. Peters. Um, thank you, Madam Chair. This isn't Mr. Roy's first time here. I think he's
probably got an understanding that at some point brevity isn't the way to go. having to come back and visit his neighbors and pay money to do so. It's probably not the best way to do it. Um, however, I'm familiar with the previous application you have where he came in,
he worked with the board. The board was happy that he worked to put the best plan together. And I do remember we said, "Let's talk about master planning property." So, he had some things on there you didn't build immediately. Um, this one is pretty straightforward and I
hate to sort of dumb it down. either he takes it down or you let him keep it up. Not a whole bunch of middle ground here. What I might suggest to the board, if you have any reservation, is that if
you take into account the applicant's testimony that, you know, one end was four and the middle was five and you want to consider approving it. Perhaps there's some caveat that says at some point in time if this fence has to be removed that this fence cannot
be replaced this way. You either come back and get it sort of a temporary variance for whatever the life of the fence so to speak. Um or the board could say listen given that it's a uniquely
shaped gate. It's not the good oldfashioned pool gate where it's just a rectangle. it's 4 foot high and that's it. This is sort of a unique gate. So, under that circumstance, you could certainly grant the relief. If you're not happy in the front yard or on the property line and it's not what it's
supposed to be, you could certainly consider granting the relief saying that at some point there's a sunset provision. If you go to change it, come back to four feet or come back to the board to get something higher than four feet. Those are my comments for you this evening. Mr. Omar, you have any comments
for us? Yes. So, six uh 4 foot open fence would be permitted. It the current existing installed fence is 5T open. It's not shown on the survey. The survey was done in 24 and I I believe
I'm assuming that the fence was installed after 2024. It was actually after I came for the last variance. I didn't plan on doing it. I always had the driveway open and uh like I said a after my dog got hit by the car,
I just had the gate put up, you know. I mean, you could see my history of my permits. I always file my permits. I always do everything pretty much the way it should be. And this was one of those situations. Like I said, I apologize, but I had two, you know, three other
dogs. And you know, if you have pets, you get it. you know, I couldn't uh I just want the board to be clear. I I don't have an exact setback because it's not shown on the survey. I don't believe it's entirely necessary to go out and send the surveyors back since I don't
feel there's any sight triangle issues with this location. The right of way is 70 ft wide and the pavement is approximately 40 ft wide. This gate is back um approximately 15 or 20 feet from the street from the edge of pavement. So
I don't see an issue from an engineering standpoint. Okay. Given Mr. Given Mr. Peters and Mr. Roar's comments any Dr. Host. Yes. Is the gate uh remotely open or is it open all the time? It remotely opens this
way. It can open all the time. I can leave it open all the time, but I also have a cylinder that I can hit close. If nobody is home and and there's an emergency on the property, the fire department I have a I have a walk-in gate that they can walk
in and this the lever is right there. You move the lever and both gates open wide open. Any other Mr. Press? Any other questions for Mr. Roie? Miss Gina,
thank you. Uh, just wanted to comment on Mark's comment about not needing a new survey due to the previous variance that was given to Mr. Roie with the structure as well as the pool. We're going to get a final ASB bill anyway. So, we can that will always be in the file, the property
file as well. I just wanted to make that comment and the gate would be on the final survey is what you're saying. It should be. There's no reason why it wouldn't be. Yeah. Being that there's no more questions for Mr. Roby, I'm going to open to the
public. Anyone wishing to come forward and comment about this application. Seeing no one, seeing no one come forward, I'm gonna He looks around too. Seeing no one close in this case, I guess it is close
public session. board. It's up to us for discussion. Mr. Heyman, I just want to hear some kind of justification. Uh although it is already there. Um normally this needs some kind of criteria that we can base
on to give such an approval. Um so far I haven't heard any of that kind of testimony for justification. Mr. Roby, do you understand Mr. is asking uh for you to give some testimony to explain. I think you mentioned the
dog. Maybe you want to expand on that on why you put up the gate and why this gate. Uh it's when I called the gate guy, he had it in stock. He had it he was able to install that one whether it was for someone that canled or whatever
it was and I called them and had him put it in. If it wasn't for the door getting hit, I wouldn't have a gate in my driveway. That's, you know, that's the only reason I did it. It isn't to keep paper boys out or the gas man or, you
know, is it's that was the reason. And that gate was chosen because that's what he had in stock and he was able to come and do it and that's why we chose that. It really wasn't my personal choice if I was going to do it, but that's what we used. Right. And what what I mean
justification is justification for a variance. And if you would have put a 4 foot fence there like you have elsewhere, then you wouldn't need this variance. The fact that it's I have to drive my cars in the driveway. Correct. No, I'm saying is if you would have it
at 4 feet, then you wouldn't need this variance. The fact that it's five feet is what needs the justification. While I understand that, you know, this is what the, you know, fence guy had in stock, but from a land use standpoint, I need to justify why it can be five, why
4 foot wouldn't work in this case. It probably would have worked. This is what they had. It started at four. It went to five. He said he had it. And I was unaware when they put it in that that was an issue.
Otherwise, I would have questioned it and maybe gone elsewhere. It was a re recommendation from a friend that he could come. He's reliable and he was cheap and that's what I had done. Thank you.
Any other questions? Yeah. Can I? Yes. Um, your dogs, you currently have I have three left. Correct. Three. And they're big dogs. Jack Russell's mediums. The the medium ones. Yeah. Well, they're supposed to be small, but they're chunky. The reason I ask you is so I
have big dogs. 4 feet is not going to cut it. They Anybody who's my neighbor knows Yeah. My dogs are out there and Right. If I had my Rottweiler still 4 foot, she she would make it over. Correct. Yeah. Um No, that that's that's they're Jack they're Jack Russells. And
if Yeah. The intent is not to keep people out. Is to keep the dogs in. Keep the dogs in. Right. I'm I didn't put it up for public or I never had a gate there, never needed a gate there. After that, you know, my wife was heartbroken. I was It was actually my dog. So, I
mean, I still not over her, right? And uh you know, like I said, it was my fault. I didn't come for the permit. I just had the gate put in, then we put the permit afterwards. I understand, you know, if I would have asked questions first, I wouldn't be going through this.
But it's, you know, unfortunately it's what I did. I understand. Yeah. And and I heard your testimony on why you picked this gate. That's fine. If you were to ask me, my recommendation would be, yeah, go up more than four feet because that won't keep your dog inside. Anyway,
depending on the dog, obviously. Any other questions or comments? Well, it's up to us for discussion. Mr. Hyman had a question regarding why, you know, why that fence and why five foot. So, it's up to us for discussion and a possible motion. Sorry. Is there no further discussion?
I'd like to make a motion. Okay. Um being as fact how you put it up, you came in and you didn't realize five foot also that it's not five foot totally across the street. Five foot up and the way it does it looks very neat. the purpose for animal safety and so forth and the way it was done in your
explanation. I make a motion to approve. I second that. Just pressing is you wanted to make that motion for absent approval or with the condition suggested by Mr. Peters that it be
approval for this particular for this particular fence and not extend beyond right the life of this date. No, I I I agree. If I have to change it for some reason, we could make, you know, I'll make it the 4 foot and like I have no no
problems with that at all. I amend my motion to that. What's that? Give me a card. We have a motion in a second. Roll call, please. Mr. President, yes, Mr. Heyman. So, due to my concerns, I'm going to
abstain. Thank you, Dr. Hoffstein. Yes, Mr. Rosol. Yes, Mr. Martins. Yes, Mr. Such. Yes, Miss Bradley. Yes. Variance has been granted. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Have a great evening. Thank you.
Okay. Um, as Miss Cyprieni stated earlier, applicant number four is being moved to applicant number two, Powerhouse Signs LLC, Sketchers Unit number 114A, variance 3533. Good evening, members of the board. I'm
Jeffrey Donner. I'm the attorney for the applicant powerhouse signs, uh, who is also serving Sketchers, one of the tenants in the Jackson Mall outlet. Uh the application is about getting a variance for the number of signs that we
seek under the ordinance. Uh one sign is permitted per tenant at the Jackson uh outlet. But the problem that we have and which my client will address is that where Sketchers is located in comparison
to the various entrances that come into the ball, they are not able to be observed. And so people are having a tough time finding where Sketchers is. Uh what we're asking for the the we we don't run a foul of either the 15%
limitation on each affected facade or the 80 square foot sign area. We meet all of that. It's just the number of signs that we seek. And my client, Mr. Johnson, on behalf of Powerhouse Signs, will in fact explain to the board
exactly what the situation is. And I'd like to present Mr. Johnson as our witness. Mr. Johnson, would you please raise your right hand? You swear this testimony you will give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Could you state your full name and
position for the record? Uh, my name is Ryan Johnson. I'm with Power the owner of Powerhouse Signs. Mr. Johnson, you are Can we hear it? Okay, good. Mr. Johnson, uh you are familiar with the Jackson Walls outlet and the Sketchers premises
in that outlet. Yes, I uh Yes. Okay. And uh your position with powerhouse signs is in what capacity? Uh we're the we're the contractor on we're the ones that's actually going to be installing the signage. Okay. And and
why are we seeking Let me back off that that a little bit. How many signs are we seeking in this application? Uh we're looking for a total of four signs to be approved here. Uh they have one already existing that we put up uh initially so
that they could open the store and they've noticed that there's not you can't really see their sign at every angle coming into the into the outlet especially it's right on the corner of one of the main entrances and you can be right next to it and you can't even see that it's actually the
store. There's no storefront signage right there. Sorry just for clarity. So are you seeking three additional signs? uh for a total of four or four additional signs for a total of five. Four additional signs for a total of five. Thank you. So the existing sign
that you just described that's in place is that the name Sketchers above the main entrance to the premises? Yes, it is. Okay. And basically in terms of the height of that, is that only about as high as the doorway entrance into the
premises? Yes, it's it's just over the u the window area out front uh on the facade uh from across the parking lot. You you cannot see that sign with with all the the board has put up on the screen there uh one of the exhibits that
you have submitted to the board. Can you describe for us what the significance of that exhibit is? Okay. So, um really that just shows you where all the signs are placed and they're all numbered accordingly to which sign and it shows
the square footage style of sign and then um on the map it shows exactly where it's placed. Uh the main the main one that I'm that entrance that we're talking about that I brought up just two seconds ago here was um the road coming in from the right. that one. The
storefront sign is on the I guess that would be the southwest uh facade and looking from the southeast when you're at a stop sign right there, you can't even see the sign at all. So, some of the signs appear to be just a Sketcher
logo. Uh and the other signs also appear to be the name Sketchers. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Uh are the the logo signs depicted on the uh exhibit in front of us? Uh yes, there's they're on the tower number two and three. Uh
that's actually a tower that's higher and we're we're hoping to propose we are proposing um them on um a higher area on the tower so it can be seen from the entire parking lot. Now the sign that said position 1.0, what what how is that
different or how's that going to appear if approved? Uh that's one of their main line. It just kind of it shows that they're the performance. It's one of their branding uh efforts to help their business grow in the outlet. Kind of show their diversity. And the sign that
is depicted as 4.0 is that uh the the way that sign is going to look sketchers. Yes, that's the same one that uh is existing already. It's just they want to put it on the other side so that people can see it coming in from that entrance. Now, are there any current
examples of other tenants who have more than one sign and have used logo as well as name in their uh premises? Yes, right across the way there's American Eagle down there. And they have uh they have two building signs, one on the side, one
on each side, and then they have the tower signs as well, which are just their logos. Okay. Now, you've brought certain exhibits with you. Are they something different than what the board already has or the same? Okay. Yeah. Right. Is there another exhibit that
that is available that that can be put up on the screen? Okay. What what what is that exhibit? It looks like a building and it looks like one of the logo signs. Can you describe what what that is? So, that is the front um main entrance point where they're proposing
the Sketchers performance sign is actually over the front door. uh the existing sign, which actually isn't on here, but it's it's right dead center between the the logo sign on the tower and the performance sign. And then the other logo sign is up on the facade on
the tower, so people can see it from a distance. Yes. Okay. Is there another exhibit also that we haven't seen yet? Okay. What What is that depiction? And that's the that's the other two signs on the uh from the table of contents uh showing that's the same style, same
size, um same lighting, everything that was approved for the front sign with the township just on the other side so people can see from this entrance point. Okay. Do you have any other facts that you want to present to the board regarding the application?
Um facts? Uh, no. These kind of just show what the signs are made of, constructed of, uh, what type of lighting there is. Um, everything that's going to be here you used here was approved by these weren't these, you know, these extra signs weren't, but they are the same
exact style signs as the U one that was approved by the township for the front. Anything else you want to tell the board? Okay. Uh, normally I would bring a planner to a situation like this because I'm not going to be able to testify as
to hardship, but I'm going to make an argument that in my understanding reading the ordinance, the outstanding purpose is to find a way where each tenant can in fact properly advertise their business.
The hardship that I would argue without testimony, I'm not testifying, would be that if Sketchers is in a position where its signage cannot be seen by the people that are frequently this mall, that is,
I would argue from a legal argument only, a hardship. Also, I would argue under a C2 approach that perhaps in this instance because of the difficulty that Mr. Johnson has talked about and in
light of my argument that allowing this additional signage is a better alternative than what the zoning ordinance presently provides because we're also talking about serving a public that's coming to the mall for a
specific product which is well known and a quality product at at that. So, I would argue legally under both scenarios, we would qualify for that variance. And I would appreciate the board taking into account Mr. Johnson's
testimony and my argument and approving the application. Uh, does the board have any questions of us? Mr. Heyman. So, if you could just My understanding is that you have currently an existing sign in front of the store and then you want an additional one in the front besides for
up on top. Can you explain why the second sign of the front is necessary? Uh, just to really show the performance brand that's out here. It's a new brand and they're trying to really grow that. So, is there a reason why you don't replace the existing one with that one?
Uh, because that's their standard logo and they want to keep it that way. Uh the performance side is really just to to gear people into just working on the newer products and um you know helping with their well-being of profession. No,
my understanding was that you know people should be able to see it from every angle of the mall. Um which my understanding is that it currently would be meaning if you just if you would leave out that performance one then it would be seen from every
angle without it. is just for like you're saying promotional purposes. May I ask a question, Mr. Johnson, just to clarify one thing? Are we talking about the need to have the signage seen from every corner of the mall? Are we
talking about positioning signs so that in the entrances to the mall, these signs are seen? Yes, this one is the only one that will be over the the entrance. The the original one is off to the side. But yeah, it would definitely help with
the entrance. Any Dr. Hing? Yes. Has the uh ownership of the mall approved uh all these signs? Yes. Okay. Any additional Mr. Martins? Yes. Um I
just wanted to clarify. So currently there's one and you're asking for four additional, right? Correct. Okay. Four additional. Um the other shops around, how many signs do they have on on theirs? Are they limited to just one? Um
American Eagle was another one that had they had a total of four signs. Four. Yes. Okay. They have they have the two on the towers. They have their logo and then they have American Eagle in this same positioning that Sketchers has prepared.
And they're the only ones. So they're the only ones that you know of. Uh Yes. Okay. Yes. Yeah. What I'm getting at with that question was, are we going the other way now where we're giving you unfair advantage against your competition because now you
got four big signs there. Everybody sees who you are, all that great stuff and I'm Reebok and you can't see me or you can see me, you know, one I have one sign. So, that's not fair either, right? Um, that's why I asked that question.
May May I ask one question, Mr. Johnson, as a follow-up, to your knowledge, Mr. Johnson, is there another competitor of Sketchers in this mall that is competing for its business? I believe the mall may have some limitation on how many tenants
can be in each category of service. So, I'm not sure that we're talking about an unfair advantage. And I'll ask the question to Mr. Johnson. Aren't we really talking just about visibility and not our position visa via competitor in the mall? Yeah. I I'm not aware of any
competitor that's in the in the vicinity of the uh property, but um it's definitely about the visual, making sure that they're seen and uh from every angle. And I mean, go ahead. Sorry, I didn't I didn't mean to please finish. Um I mean, I think you do have a Nike
there. I know that, right? And I consider I thought you had a Reebok. Maybe not. I don't know. And I say you, it's not you, obviously. Yeah, Jackson. It's the shopping center. Um, but you you definitely have a Nike and I would argue that's a competitor. But well,
obviously all property owners and premises within 200 feet have been noticed. I don't believe anybody has shown up to object to the application, so they're obviously not concerned about it. Fair enough. Fair enough. Okay, that that's my question. Thank you, Mr. Peters. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a
couple of thoughts. Um, from a planning perspective, um, I'm in favor of the application. However, I would caution a couple of things. One, uh, because Eagle Brands has it across the street and we want that's not a good argument. I would
not take that into consideration. There are standards. The I believe the argument that the applicant's attorney made was that they have a unique situation. Everyone's familiar with the mall.
There's a side entrance and the side entrance creates corner lots or corner buildings. So, it would make good planning sense, pedestrian circulation sense, traffic circulation sense to have signs on both sides so that people can
see it. Generally, if you were the Nike on the opposite side, we don't want that eyes sore number of signs where people there are so many signs that people forget to drive their
car. I'm sure we've all seen that at this mall because it's a very linear mall from a driving perspective. However, if you come in off 537 or even the side street, having that corner and having that standout area to say, "Hey, that's the place where it starts or
that's the place where we're going to meet to go to lunch." I don't have a problem with with that. Getting it because we want it. We're getting it because someone else got it. We have no idea how someone else got it. So, I just want to make sure caution you away from, well, someone
else did it, so we should do it. This case stands on its own. I think the argument that the applicant's attorney made that for each direction that someone drives or walks, there should be within reasonable eyesight directional sign or advertising
signs for this site. Thank you, Mr. Roier. Yes. Couple follow-up questions for the applicant. Um the township ordinance has a very specific set of guidelines on what's required for the signs. Is it your intent to uh
conform with all of those conditions except for the variances that you're being sought tonight? So you'll comply with all the other requirements such as um the signs are specifically advertising for the business. They'll be structurally sound and secured to the
wall. They won't be motion signs. Yep. I agree. Yep. Okay. Um, I just want to give the board some information on the numbers. I'm reading uh the section on wall signs. It says each principal non-residential building may have one
wall sign not to exceed 15% of the principal facade area or 80 square ft, whichever is smaller. So, as Ernie has already spoken about, this is a corner building. So, I would feel it might be it could be appropriate to have uh
signage on on both sides of the corner. Um, so where one sign is permitted, they're seeking five in total. And then regards to the area, the architectural plans or the sign plans do list out the size. So, uh,
signs 1 2 3 and four that are proposed are 36 square ft, 33 ft, 33 ft, and 71 square ft. So, in terms of size, um, where a built where one business could could be allowed 80 ft, they're looking
for approximately double that permitted size area, which seems appropriate since it's a corner building. That's all I had. Thank you. Any additional questions or comments for the applicant?
Oh, I'm sorry, Gina. Forgive me. I'm writing I'm writing my notes. Sorry. Go ahead. Thank you. Um Jessica, two questions. Um can you please just confirm that the four signs that we're requesting variance relief for are all illuminated? Internally illuminated, excuse me. Yes, they are. Okay. And my
other question, just for general information, I know it's unit 114A, but is this comprised of multiple units that we've now turned into one or is like how many units would this be normally if it wasn't Sketchers? Like is it comprised
of four or five units? So, we do tenant fit outs at at the outlet. Sometimes uh a larger brand name will come in and they may only be listed under one unit number, but it actually occupies four separate units. Do we know that information? I actually don't have that information, but I I could definitely
figure out just because uh just looking on the one of the side elevations that you had offered. Uh page three actually is what I'm looking at it. It's pretty significant space and I could see at least two three doors just on this one side alone. So I'm assuming it's at le possibly three plus units. Yeah, it's definitely it's definitely a significant
amount of space. I know there is two um you guys would probably know it better than I would, but I there is two sets of doors under where the the first sign that we put in. Right. That's what that's exactly what I'm looking at. Page three, right? there there's but that one doesn't open like they don't use that they use the over to the left. So that is something just to keep in mind that
if this wasn't just one major brand name store and this was comprised of multiple smaller stores that it may actually be more intense on the sign the amount of signs excuse me. Thank you. Thank you to follow up on that. So would that if it's
if that is the case, would it need a variance or each store individually the way it was originally proposed to be built? Now that they're actually taking over multiple stores, does that actually even require a variance? Well, I don't think they're taking over. Um, and
please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think they're taking over. I think what Gene is trying to explain. So expanded. Think about you would have if this room was split in three there would be three separate stores but instead of it being three separate stores they made it one big store where some of the other stores are much smaller square foot. So it's it
when Gina says three it was originally would have been three smaller units but they made a bigger store. Correct. What what I'm saying is that if would have been three smaller units then we would then they would be able to have three individual signs. Correct. Now that if
it's three units and they're only proposing let's say two in front of there. That's my question. Yes, Gina. Just to address you, Mr. Heyman, if you look at um page two as well as um my Jeff's initial denial on their request,
it's references the burough code where it says each tenant or occupant with direct access to the outside may have one wall sign not to exceed. So, it does specify that it's each tenant or occupant, right? and that and that has to do with our sign ordinance not
being current and perhaps not having been drafted for this type of use. So certainly if if this type of use came in now and said well for each 1500 square foot tenant we'd like something or if we
if someone were to come to us with the planning argument or debate that hey if I have two store frontages if I buy two units can I have 120 square foot of space or two signed spaces? We haven't seen that yet. So, our as our ordinance
is written currently, it does say each tenant occupant that directs access to the outside may have one wall sign. So, if we want to recommend it up to the governing body or the master plan committee that maybe look at signs so that they're easier, they're more
businessfriendly in strip centers, I think we could certainly recommend that at the end of the year. But currently, the standard is this. I'm not discounting anyone's um common sense approach that if you have more or bigger there should be some economy of scale and you should get a
larger or bigger sign but currently you have to come here and make that proof and get the variance from this board. Thank you. I I I just like so that that's critical what you guys just brought up that that that changes at least in my mind, right?
Um in theory, you could have schedule one of two, sketch two of two because you got the different units and we would be okay cuz could although it says tenant which I agree is wrong. I to me that storefront would have been more appropriate. Yeah. I I don't want this
to devolve into a sign planning discussion, but if you think about it, when you have larger sites with longer frontages on state, county, federal highways, you can go a mile across the bridge to the next application we're going to hear and they
have a big sign out there. Why? Because you can't see the entire site from 537. So, they came in, they made a planning argument, they said, "This is how we're going to address it." And the board at that point in time took that information and affirmed that particular sign. So that sign certainly is bigger than 80
square feet. Sure. But so that's the reason as the applicant's attorney made the argument that they have a unique situation being basically a corner structure. Any additional questions for the applicant?
Mr. Donner, did you want to make a closing statement before I open it to the public? Yes. I just I I think I've covered all the points I said before. I don't want to restate that. I do agree that our application stands on its own and it's been argued for the specific uh
circumstances that we are facing. I would also again just argue legally that I believe that we are not doing anything to undermine the master plan or the zone plan and asking for this relief because of the reasons that we have asserted as
to why we need it. And uh I want to just say two things. I appreciate the comments of the board professionals. I appreciate the accommodation that the board gave us in moving us ahead uh ahead of a larger application. And I want to thank Mr. Deliri and his client for their consent in allowing us to do
so. But I promised them I would be brief. So on that basis, I'm going to shut down my case. I'm going to close my case. But I do hope we will get the relief that we're seeking. Absolutely. Um I'm going to open this to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward and speak about the application you just heard
testimony on. Seeing no one come forward, I'm going to go ahead and close public session. Board, it's up to us for discussion and a possible motion. First of all, where the signs are located, there's uh no interference with
traffic on uh 571 where where the entrance is. It's purely for for people who are coming to the mall looking for specific store. And uh obviously we don't see any other store owners have come down to complain that that it gives
them unfair competition. So, I don't see any reason for not approving the application. I'll I'll hold off on a motion until everybody else has made their comments. Any other comments, discussion? I just
have one comment. I agree with the planner on that the ordinance may not be perfect, but in one sense, I think it's good when it's like this that when you get the odd ball, they have to come in front of the board. I have no problem with that. To try to get an ordinance on signs that
fits all of them forever is not going to work in my opinion. Uh I understand the need for the signs in this one because when sketcher move from the one spot to the other, I think they triple their size and they are on that corner and you
don't know when you're coming in and uh when you look at the store itself, you don't know which door to go in. That's how big it is. So that's my comments. Thank you. Any questions, comments? Okay, I'd make a motion to approve. I second a motion. We have a
motion and a second. Roll call, please. Mr. Brezie, I vote yes based on my previous comments. Mr. Heyman, yes. Dr. Hoffstein, yes. Miss Rosal, yes. Mr. Martins, I like what you said. Yes. Based on my previous comments,
Mr. Yes, Miss Bradley. Yes, you're very Thank you, members of the board. We appreciate the relief and your time and attention. Thank you. Have a good night, guys. Mr. out here, if you don't mind, we'll take a break until 8:00 cuz you guys are
obviously it's only a few minutes. All right. Thank you. Good night. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of boards. Salvatore Alfuri, Clearary Gobe Alfur, and Jacobs. On behalf of the applicant, I think I'm lawyer number
three on this application. It's always a pleasure to speak, Mr. Alfi. Before you begin, I think there just a couple things we need to put on the record. Um, as you'll notice, um, Mr. to leave uh for personal reason and as you also know
and I have discussed at some length this evening um Mr. Rire the board engineer is no longer here um the I think Mr. Roer and the board both recently became aware that there he now has a conflict
in this matter um due to a longstanding or due to a member of his firm that has a long-standing relationship with the applicant and has done work for the applicant. Um Mr. Roer had not provided review on the
underlying application that engineering review was done by Mr. Peter. So that matter can proceed. However, Mr. had done the engineer review on the subdivision application. Um therefore that matter will not be able to proceed
until the board receives a uh subdivision engineering review which Mr. Peters has said that he would undertake. Um we cannot rely on that received by Mr. Roer because he's in conflict. I very much understand that the applicant would be happy to w the conflict to see
this matter come to conclusion tonight if it could. However, the law in New Jersey is very clear that a public entity cannot wave conflict. Um, that is not legally permissible. Um, so Mr. Aliri, I think that brings us up to date
with the issues that you and I had discussed earlier. Correct. So, um, what our goal is this evening is to finish the site plan application. um we can't bifurcate it and and ask you
to vote on the site plan without addressing the subdivision because there's a question of density. Uh which we don't necessarily agree with, but we haven't argued it because it really wasn't going to be relevant to this application. Um so what we're going to
ask, assuming we finish tonight, is that when we come back at the next meeting, we put the subdivision on and then ask the board to vote in a different sequence. to vote on the subdivision and then vote on the site plan and then the density issue goes away and then um we avoid that level of proof that we'd have
to provide um and um the density issue will come up later at some other application but not for this one. Um and council you agree that's how we're going to Yes. as we had discussed and I don't know if the board recalls the last time this application um was before Miss
Jennings was here representing the applicant and uh she had stated on the record that that the applicant was asking the board to go underlying application first and then the subdivision application for reasons Mr. Aliy just put forward that
creates an issue. So the applicant is now withdrawing that request for that order and the subdivision application will be voted on first and then the underlying application. Is that correct M? Yes, that's correct. Um so bringing
us up to tonight. Um this is the third hearing that we're having on this particular site plan application. Um you've previously heard testimony from Mr. Bordon, Mr. Ray, and a representative of Kahav. After the last
hearing, uh PDS uh submitted revised plans and also submitted the subdivision application. Um RVE issued a new report May 20th. CME issued the new report May 20th. We also renoticed for tonight because this application was carried to
a different night and we brought it on tonight. Um, and I think that brings us up to speed now. So, I'm going to have Mr. Bordon who has already obviously been sworn in and qualified to describe for us the changes that were made. We also
have Graham McFarland who has has to provide engineering testimony because no engine engineering testimony has been provided to date. U Mr. Ray is here and representative Kahab are here if if questions come up relating to their prior testimony or any new issues that
come up. Good. Yes. I have no other number of comments before Mr. Gordon presumes. Sure. You swear this testimony you will give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth. I do. And
could you state your name uh and uh well disposition on the records you're certainly have been accepted by Thank you. Thank you. Uh Ian Bordon, president of professional design services on behalf of the applicant. Thank you. They're already accepted.
Thank you. Good evening. Ian, would you describe and I'm not sure what's on the screen, but um you would you describe for the board the changes that have been made since the last hearing? Yes. There's uh three exhibits uh on the uh supplemental exhibits. What's on the
board now is A7. This was presented at the April 16th meeting. I'll be very brief with this and uh recall that at the April 16th meeting. Were you were I I don't Oh, here. Go ahead. I
have Sorry. No problem. Apparently, I took three. No, no problem. re recall that at the uh the conclusion of the uh April 16th meeting was I had
presented testimony and responses regarding to I believe it was 14 but there were planning items in the Remington vernick letter and then the hearing concluded with the board planner um agreeing to continue his review and provide a response to us prior to to the
next hearing and uh we do appre I do appreciate the fact that he did do that. So, we received those responses on May 5th. So, what we did is we uh we primarily addressed the items uh based upon those responses, but there were a few cleanup items. So, we we endeavored
to address those with the plans that we submitted then on May 12th. And that leads us to A8, Anthony, if you don't mind. So, A7th is the plan overall plan presented at the April 16th hearing. A8 is the plan that's been submitted on May
12th for this hearing. And uh we we've addressed the comments as it relates to density uh as it relates to coverage, building coverage, impervious coverage. We've widened the townhouse driveways. Recall they were 16 ft. We
had agreed to widen those to 18 feet with the traffic testimony with John Ray and at the recommendation of your board traffic engineer. So, as a result, uh, and this gets to the subdivision, but we we make reference to the subdivision in the top
of the plan here. So, this is the part of the property that will be added to the subject tract. And as a result of that addition, it's approximately 5 acres. As a result of that, the track, the property area becomes 128.23 acres
and we have 510 units. Recall it's 459 townhouse plus the 51 affordable. And uh so for 510 and the density then is 3.97. So the property meets the the density on the property. Um I know
that's u the legal discussion we just had but that's the how the plans are presented. Um the impervious coverage is 14.2% where 75% is permitted and and the building coverage is 7.4% where 30% is permitted. And those are items in the
planner subsequent review that there's no contestation on those items. So um um as far as parking goes u based upon the traffic testimony provided by John Ray the total amount of
parking required for the project is529 parking spaces. Uh that was for the uh 323 fourbedroom at 2 and a half spaces per unit as testified by Mr. Ray. 136 5-bedroom at the 3.0 spaces per
unit. Uh again, per that testimony. Um that number of units requires 230 guest spaces because you need one half guest space per unit. The 51 one bed uh the special needs units are the 51 units or
one bed special needs units, which the traffic testimony stated that one space per unit is appropriate for that. Um so that that total comes out to 51529. We provide 1611 physical spaces.
We're required to do 15% of the um guest affordable u and affordable u units as EV ready spaces. That that is a required number of 43. Obviously we can't count or I can't
count because the plans provide 40. So, uh, we will, uh, label the three additional spaces EV ready. Um, and the EV spaces are allowed a 50% credit. So, with the credit added to
the 1611, the total amount of parking provided is 1632 where 1529 is required. I would I would point out we have I have no no u objection to any of the items in the uh in the planner review.
Uh we do have a couple of waiverss uh we're going to get into both myself and Mr. McFarland. Uh but I would point out that the letter does at length break down the parking per phase and I don't in my opinion we're not we always strive to make it
proportional but we're not obligate. It's one project and the parking is for the project and we do understand the parking is separated with the wetlands in the center and we do strive to make it proportional but in my opinion it's not an empirical calculation that's linked to any ordinance standard. Uh so
I in my opinion we meet the parking. I did leave out one very important part of my description of what we did and that was the uh the board traffic engineer had we had agreed at the last hearing that while we met the guest parking requirement numerically there were two different locations one in phase three
one in phase 4 where the opinion was that the guest parking was not close enough to some of the residential units and that was the and and this A8 plan that was submitted added parking up along the front of phase three toward
closer to Mammoth Road as well as phase 4 uh closest to to phase three. So we even though we met the parking numbers at the last hearing, we added additional parking numbers just to make those spaces
u more uh equidistant uh to more of the units. Um there is I I mentioned the waiverss. Uh we we also have no objection to the traffic uh engineers comments. He had a very few small comments about parking signage and and
some some sidewalks. Uh two two comments on that on that letter. One is that uh the driveway with uh we are seeking a dimmin dimminimous exception from Rissus to allow 18t driveways versus 20 ft and that was discussed in traffic testimony
at the last hearing. There's no changing that. I'm just pointing that out on the record. Uh the traffic engineer the traffic engineer does point out we did provide the sidewalk. Remember, recall my testimony. We have sidewalks along all of the internal roads and there's sidewalk along one side of Linda's Way,
which of course recall is the main loop road that connects uh the existing signal on Mammoth Road to phase one. And um we we propose one uh sidewalk on one side for that portion of Linda's way
between phase three and and phase one on the right of exhibit A8. And that is because there's no units on the north side. All the units are on the south side. So in my opinion, there's no reason to have a sidewalk on the north side. Uh the sidewalk is intended to connect all the way from phase three to
phase one. The board planner uh does point out again we have agreed to to meet his letter but he does point out apparently we missed a little section up here by phase one. So we the intent is and and we do agree to connect to phase one but we don't believe that a sidewalk
is appropriate on the north side. Um I I don't know that that waiver is required. If if if the board professionals feel one is required. We believe one is warranted. We can of course provide it. that that's not something that we're going to stand on and and pound our fist on the table, but
we just think it's good planning uh to have the sidewalk where it's appropriate. We believe we provided the sidewalk where it's appropriate and and adding a sidewalk uh to the north side would would serve no purpose other than if somebody feels it's necessary because
of an ordinance. And then lastly, Mr. Board, I apologize for interrupting. Just so we're clear for the record. So if the board grants relief, it's the north side of is it Linda Drive? Linda's Way. Linda's Way. I just want to make sure. Yes, we we kept talking about it without giving it a name. Oh, I'm sorry.
U Yeah, and that would just be the portion between phase three and and phase one. Thank you. The portion of sidewalk along Linda's Way and phase three is on both sides because we have units on both sides. It's only the It's only the portion of Linda's Way where
there's no units on the one side. And lastly, and Mr. McFarland will provide additional testimony on this, as we are asking for waiverss, we have a number of very under the new green infrastructure rules, which he'll testify to on the storm water. We have a large number of very small storm water
basins. I mean, that's the the decentralized storm water systems is what the D is is seeking with these rules that were adopted a year or two ago. And these basins are very small. They're very shallow. Typically a basin area is 1,000 square ft. Some are
larger, some are smaller, and they're also very shallow. So, we're asking for a waiver not to put a fence around them and not to provide an access drive. We're trying to make them appear less structural, make them part of the landscaping. We always know that basins are a safety concern with depth of
water. We're very well aware of that, but these basins, as Mr. McFarland will testify have a low-level outlet uh that have a maximum depth of water after a storm of not more than 2 ft. So, and most are less than a foot. So, and u in
our opinion, you know, that is yeah, again, could we provide all those things? We can. If you require us to provide it, we will. But to put a 4ft high fence around all of these and I he might know the exact number. I designed it and I can't remember. I think it's
about it's at least 30 basins but and many of them are located in between units and and in backyard some cases the backyards of these units and to put a fence around each one of them would just make them to me my opinion would make them more of an attractive nuisance than
not having a fence Mr. President uh Mr. brought it out the first time. I'll disagree with you. Um, you heard of Iroima? I'm sorry. You heard of Iraima? Of course. You ever hear Ira Hayes? Of course. Ira Hayes
died in a puddle of water after the war. I understand. I myself, I don't know how the board feels on these basins. I don't see no problem putting some sort of fence. So, if somebody's wandering out there, they know it's there. A kid not playing. It helps deter a problem.
My opinion is you can do it aesthetically, but they need some sort of fence around them. Okay. Well, again, I have It's only my opinion. I don't know what the board wants. That that's our opinion and we're guided by the board. Yeah, Madam Chair, if I might um it might not be as forceful as Mr.
Breie. I like having him here. Um, but from a storm water management perspective, the new green infrastructure is meant to have the storm water integrated into the land as opposed to some of the ones we've seen over the last three or four decades, the
big bathtubs, the big holes in the ground. Um, so as it relates to generally the storm water management facilities that have basin depths of less than two feet, which Mr. McFarland may refer to as water quality type
basins. We don't take exception to the waiver for the fencing if there can be some form of landscaping or something that lets people know that they're walking towards something that could be a safety issue. I would reserve
the comment to accept out there's two units on the south side. I think it's Mountain Lane, the most southerntherly portion of the site. Um, where the basins are a little deeper and a little closer to the
units. And I just ask whether it's Mr. Gordon or Mr. McFarland at some point maybe we could take a look at between now and the and the end of the hearing whether there's enough room to make it safer or if we sort of get past
that when we start digging these big holes in the ground with the steep side slopes that people can't get out of those probably need protection. But I would not disagree with Mr. Bordon's testimony about the intent of the new green infrastructure standards. Um, I
look forward to Mr. McFarland's follow-up testimony as well. I think that's well taken. That's very well said. Maybe it is an analysis of not just a blanket, but there are some basins that are much smaller than others and southerns that are deeper than others. So maybe it's more of a surgical
approach to uh uh as Mr. Peter says, I I agree with that. Uh otherwise u I I follow. Okay. Uh yeah, I I just wanted to quickly present the last exhibit if we can do that. Now just if you don't mind going to A9, it's not something that we presented before and I wanted to just
show the board is we have an this is just an architectural rendering of the uh affordable housing building. Recall the architect from from Kadian offered extensive testimony at the last hearing about the townhouse units and that was completed but there was no testimony on the affordable building. So this is the
uh threetory uh colored rendering of the affordable building which is prepared uh by Tom Brennan architects and and the colors and the textures were designed uh to match the uh townhouse renderings that were uh provided to the board at
the last hearing and that's all that this plan was not submitted. Uh Ian, a couple follow-ups. First of all, um, the applicant agreed to eliminate the paintball use from the project. Correct. Most important thing I did on the planes, I completely forgot.
Yes, we eliminated the paintball use. Um, the pink. Ah, in addition, um, there was a there was a question about the percentage of affordables in relation to
the total number of units. We now add the affordables into the market rates, take that total and then apply the percentage. Correct. The planner had grossed them up as we call it. And we agreed and we did. Yes. So now there's uh 459 market 51 affordable. Correct.
Special needs that equals 510. 51 10% of 510. Madam Chair, since it's been in three of my reports, I would concur that we're in agreement now. Yeah. I finally got the message. You finally explained the arithmetic to me. There's and I know I know you agreed
to address all of the technical comments contained within both of the reports, but there's a few in the RVE report that um indicate that they that they might want some explanation. So, can can I refer you a couple of them? Um the first
one is on the signage which is on page 18. You want it? No, I have it. I just want to make sure we covered all the signage adequately. Page 18 of the RVE report.
Yes. If you go back to A8, please Anthony. Th this is this is a new addition to the plans is that Kavanian was seeking community signs. These are in my opinion not a not an identification sign like a commercial site. In other words, we have our
extensive Mammoth Road frontage. Our previous or current approval for the mixeduse residential commercial has very large commercial signs approved up on Mammoth Road. We are not seeking any signage along Mammoth Road. What we are seeking is a community monument sign,
two of them, one at each side of the project uh at the opposing ends of Linda's Way. And those are uh just ground signs with simply the name of the community and they they require variance
relief I think because of the size. Yeah. Uh I'm not going to disagree with that. Uh in my opinion this this to me in my opinion the signs are regulated. Internal signs are not regulated in my opinion. A sign if it's on the perimeter
of the site on the road it would be a regulated sign. In other words a directional sign. This is akin to a directional sign to me, but but but the planner uh feels that that they uh do require variances for area. So, I'm not going to obviously request that as well.
So, we should at least for the record have a clear um discussion of what the variance relief is and why we're asking for it. Yes. So, uh uh we have uh we call them sign one and two. Community sign number
one is located uh where the extension of the jug handle enters the uh uh the property. Um has a sign area of 54 square ft and a height of 9 ft and it is set back 25 ft from the
rightway. Uh sign two which is at the opposing end of phase 4 where we enter or exit from or to phase one is a smaller sign with an area 41.25 25 square ft, a height of 7 1/2 ft, and it's located medial adjacent to Linda's
Way. Linda's Way, of course, is a private road, so the technically the front setback for Mammoth Road is hundreds of feet, but it's it's located close to Linda's Way. Uh the signed ordinance regulates the maximum size of a ground sign is 30 square feet. So,
both signs uh exceed the this maximum area. Again, we have 54 and 41 where 30 is is permitted. And again, we could reduce those to 30 square feet if the board feels strongly. And then the uh uh the setback of sign one complies
if 25 ft is is required and we provide it. The letter asks for discussion on the setback for sign two. In my opinion, the setback is measured from Mammoth Road which is hundreds of feet. Because Linda's Way is a private road, there is no required setback to it.
Mr. Wood, how close to Linda's way is that sign? It is uh approximately 3 ft. And then lastly, we have the height of the sign. The maximum height of sign permitted for a ground sign is 6 feet.
Again, we have nine and 7 1/2 ft respectively for one and two. Um uh appine that the variance is required. we can comply with the maximum height if necessary as well. In my opinion, uh they would qualify as C2 variances,
benefits versus detriments because they're simply identification for the community. Um so they they don't serve any advertising purpose. They're not advertising anything offsite or even onsite. It's simply the name of the community. Um I'm not Madam Chair, I apologize, Mr.
Alfier. Um I don't take any exception to Mr. Bordon's testimony relates to signs. Um, I'd remind the board that if you, and I apologize for getting the report late. It just it's a big project. It's a lot
of stuff to check and double check. But if you look at page 18 of the report, there's a section of the code says where signs are permitted. And this particular zone, because it's a newer zone, isn't included. that in my opinion as the township planner and the board
planner is an oversight on the town's part. Um Mr. Bordon's first debate point or argument was maybe they're directional signs or if they're directional signs they're a little big.
So we called them ground signs. Potato potato six of one half dozen of another. I think if from the board's perspective when you look at this site plan for 500
units in an overall project that's 280 acres at some point you want to have whether you call them ground signs or directional signs you want to know where the housing is. So on balance whether we call it a variance, we call it a waiver, we call it a ground sign, we call it a
directional sign, I don't take exception to it because quite frankly I think it's needed. So while Mr. Bord and I may not disagree may not agree on what we're actually calling it in section 207, which is 15 pages of what we talk how
we describe signs in our ordinance. I don't think we're in disagreement that signs are necessary for a project of this scope as you drive along Linda's way. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bord. I'm now going and I don't know if this would be
for you or Mr. McFarland, but on page 19, um C1 talks about the Culver crossing being constructed and it ask for testimony. Yes. So that is the uh the I'm pointing at A8 to the covert that's between phase
three and four at existing stream crossing. Recall my testimony from the first hearing which was a long time ago now uh was that the previous I had worked for the previous owner to uh and with Ocean County was actually funded by Ocean County to construct a new covert.
So that covert was constructed in 2007. It was permitted in 2007 actually constructed by uh before 2012 and um so that cover crossing with the concrete covers and the curbing and retaining walls was fully constructed in
accordance with the stream encroachment permit. We are using that existing stream crossing for this project. Linda's way is using that existing stream crossing. uh there therefore we have appined that a screwman encroachment permit is not required from the D and the comment on the the
planner's letter is not questioning that is my understanding but simply asking us to provide a copy of that permit which we will agree to do. Madam chair if I might my concern simply is the covert legally
exists. We don't take exception to that. If you look two comments down on page 19, my concern is that I don't know what was approved. In other words, if if they approved a 50- foot wide culvert and someone put 48 foot of pipe in, then they only put a 30 foot wide road, they
probably won't have a problem putting sidewalk across it. But if they got approval for a 50-ft culbert and they put 50 foot in and they have they don't have enough room to put sidewalk in, are they going to need another permit? So, I think that's probably a something that
just needs to get reconciled whether during the approval process or post approval as part of resolution compliance. And so, I apologize if our revised comment for C1 seemed a little nitpicky as a standalone comment. I think if you
reconcile that with comment C3 about the idea that we're going to continue sidewalk along the south side of Linda's way um we question whether or not there's going to be the need for permitting in order to accomplish that right and that again we don't disagree
with the comment but we had uh we had planned this when we did that permit in 2007 always anticipated that a sidewalk would be required here and and we'll we'll provide the information but but it will show that I mentioned there's retaining walls that were built on either side of the covert and the
retaining walls were placed far enough behind the curb so that we could fit a sidewalk between the retaining wall and the curb. So, this was all pre-planned and the the comment asked for the details of that and we'll certainly provide those. And truth be told, this wasn't necessarily for this board. When
these plans get finished, the township engineer who inspects it says, "Well, do they have a permit to put the sidewalk and widen the covert?" Whereas normally you'd see a permit from 2025. That cover legally exists. I just don't recall how old it was until Mr.
Fordon told me it was 2007. The town engineer inspector is going to say, "Well, please show me that permit and the ability to put those that that wall and the sidewalk on the south side." Yeah. Apologize for beating a dead horse. It was more for clarity so that
the record's clear on their ability to construct these improvements. and and madam chair that uh other than storm water management comments which there are many of them in Mr. Peter's report we're going to reserve that for Mr. McFarland that concludes Mr. Bordon's testimony.
Any questions? May Yeah. Can I just ask a question regarding the Linda's way? So on the other side where I think there's wetlands, right? It was hard for me to see, but yeah, that's that right. Exactly. So So that line is the border of wetlands. So Lyndon's Linda's Way is
right on the border right next to to Okay. Yeah. If there's a stream doesn't encroach on it at all. There there's a stream uh Lahawei Creek it's called that runs from the north is up on this map. So it runs from the southern part of the property right all the way up and
through Mammoth Road. So, uh, that's why this coverty c recall, okay, the reason why, and I think maybe just a few minutes of background because I mentioned Ocean County being involved and one might and should say, well, why would Ocean County be involved? And that's a really good question because
recall that that the traffic testimony is you have a signal here and you have a signal over a phase one. and the the county when they dualized the road and added that center median envisioned uh a service road that would connect those traffic lights. That was part of our
testimony at the first hearing. So, because of that service road obligation, that's why the county uh was involved with that and that's why the permits were obtained and that's why it was all future planning being done because the previous owner knew that this site would
be developed for something. didn't know what it was but okay it was all frankly part of the county road improvements for Mammoth Road right so gotcha so even on the right side also wetland all wetland's all up in here all the way
through there it's not just that okay got it so everything that you see basically is white here and you see these two lines that are parallel that's the wetland and the wetland buffer so so you can see this serpentine line that's the wetlands and then that's the wetlands along the north side okay
Great. Um, and we're not disturbing any wetlands. One more question. You don't have to answer it. Who's Linda? Linda is Mr. Cardonali's wife. Okay. Who passed away from MS and and is the driving force behind the Linda Cardinelli MS center at
Center State and the the research that is going to be built as a driving result of this project. It's very it's very personal and very important. Thank you. Thank you. That's appropriate. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr.
Bordon sir? Actually yeah sorry I'm sorry Michelle this just for clarification because I are is Mr. McFarland addressing all of the other places in Mr. Peter's reports where he suggested there would be
testimony provided primarily. They're all primarily relating to um drainage and then we've agreed to address everything else. Okay. So on the just I'm looking at pages 35 and 36 utilities, lighting, landscaping and
storage of solid waste and recyclable materials where it says provide testimony. I think you did that last. Well, I did but we just agreed to comply with all of those comments as well. Okay. And and and I know Miss Cypriana, you um mentioned um off the record about
putting on the record any relief that's being sought. So I had tried to have Mr. Bordon do that during the course of his testimony because there's no variances. Um but there are the either the dimminimous exceptions andor waiverss that he discussed. The variances if they are if if they're going to be considered variances
relating to the signage we've covered and I don't there's no other relief thing. Correct. Thank you, Mr. Ali. I do appreciate that. Um whether Mr. Bordon or Mr. McFarland, could you just talk about garbage or refu pickup for the
town homes and the special needs as well as recyclable? Yes. So for the townhouse units, they are treated the same as every single family homeowner in the town of Jackson, which is each each uh
unit owner will be required to enter into a private contract with one of the township required contractors. Um and uh they will be roocants individually for those units. And that was the discussion that we had at the last hearing about the garages. Recall that these units
provide two-car garages, but there was a question about the width of the garage not being wide enough for two cars. But the testimony was that we've counted the parking for one car to be in the garage, which leaves storage area for the robo cans in the oversized, call it part of
the garage. Uh so that takes care of the townhouse units. Uh there is no refuge enclosures required. These are all robo cans. They'll be stored in the garages and brought to the street on on pickup day. As far as the affordable housing, we'll have a refuge enclosure in accordance with the township standards,
maximum height of six feet with solid walls and landscaping. There will be separate areas in the refuge enclosure for recyclables and trash. And uh we have received approval for all of this from the township recycling department.
Thank you. The last part that I I don't know and I know you're sort of the lead professional for the project. Um, I don't know if we ever talked about form of home ownership or common area ownership and maintenance. I don't know if that's you or someone else. That
that's fine. That that could be me. Uh, we are proposing that's really the subdivision. We are proposing a subdivision to create fee simple ownership a separate lot for each of the townhouse units. Uh, all of the roads and stormwater areas and recreation
areas would be in a common area to be owned by the homeowners association. There will be a separate lot created for the affordable housing building and parking. They'll be owned by the entity that owns and operates the affordable housing. Uh and
there will be shared u access to utilities and everything else uh between the two. But there will be fee simple ownership for the individual townhouse units with common area owned by the HOA and the affordable building to be owned by by that entity.
You want to talk about why, what, how it um I think I think we were going to wait till the next meeting to deal with all the subdivision. If I could just follow up with one
question, maybe this is not the right time and somebody else will be addressing it later. You'll be addressing it later, but um when you mentioned the subdivision u for fe simple ownership for each individual lot including or each unit including the town houses, how are you defining the
lot line between the townous? The lot line is defined, the side lot lines are defined by the the dividing wall between the units. So the units are 22t wide. So they're each lot is 22 feet wide. Uh the
front is extended from the road. The access drive in front. Um and then the rear line is behind the uh deck. Yeah, there's a small backyard and a small front yard. My question is really to the the wall.
two units. Um, I understand that the wall is a lot line, but it can't be entirely Is it the center point of the wall? Oh, you see what I'm saying? I do. Yeah, it would have to be the center point. You almost made my brain hurt there.
Making my brain hurt. No, no, it's it's a great question. Any other questions for Mr. Bordon Shafer? Graham Do you swear the testimony you will be given by this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. And
would you please state your name and credentials for the record? Sure. Graham McFarland, professional engineer, principal of professional design services. Uh, previously qualified and testified before this board many, many times. And this board accepts your credentials. Mr. Farley. Thank you. So, uh, just to to jump in here, I've been
tasked with, I guess, just providing some testimony and support related to the, uh, the storm water management component and the, uh, the grading and drainage components of the of the application. Uh, Mr. Bordon of course did did a great job describing many um
elements of the project the overall plan compliance with RSIS and satisfaction with ordinance requirements as well in in the overall plan design. Uh you can see by looking at the uh looking at the plan up on the screen uh the
project is such that the uh the topography slopes from generally from the north to the south. So existing runoff is is directed to the wetlands corridor which shows at you know essentially at the bottom of the bottom of the screen. Uh the proposed storm
water management plan will mimic that same uh that same path where runoff will be directed to that that same location uh through a series of smallcale infiltration basins. uh you've you've by now certainly heard the term of green
infrastructure uh and and BMP design that the D has has enforced and and for compliance with current stormwater management regulations. Uh in in essence those rules require us to provide one storm water management basin for every
two and a half acres of uh of development area of the project. It requires those small-cale infiltr infiltration basins to have what's termed as pre-treatment. Uh the the over the overall plan is to is an attempt to
mimic the natural hydraologic process where the runoff is distributed throughout the site promoting recharge to the groundwater and of course significantly reducing the amount of runoff um in the post-developed condition compared to the pre-developed
condition. As we look at the uh the big picture of this particular application, we have phase three and phase four. We have a total of I believe it's a total of 34 smallcale infiltration basins that are proposed scattered throughout the
project. Uh in its final condition, the runoff for the uh two 10 and 100year storms will be reduced significantly. the uh the 100red-year storm existing peak flow is estimated to be about 158
cfs. Under the developed condition, the peak flow will be about 29 cfs. So the project will provide significant reduction in the amount of storm water that is discharged from the site upon upon its uh upon its completion.
Each uh smallcale infiltration basin will have a pre-treatment function uh which is a separate area ahead of the main infiltration area of the basin that is designed to um remove pollutants and sediment and and whatnot from the storm
water to uh to improve the uh improve the water quality. Uh there's a small portion of the site uh that directs runoff towards Mammoth Road. Um that's only about one acre. There is a there was a separate analysis that we've done for that particular area that was
submitted to the county also shows a reduction in the discharge to that direction as well. Um, of course, Mr. Peters does make a series of technical comments on on this project. Uh, it is a a quite complex project again since it does
include the 34 smallcale infiltration basins. Uh, one one of Mr. Peter's first comments talks about uh you know some discussion about the points of analysis and comparison of of drainage areas and Mr. Peters brings up you know brings um
valid points that there are some discrepancies in the areas that are indicated in the report between the pre-developed and the post-developed conditions. However, when we look at the uh the context of of the of the overall project and these significant reductions
that are proposed, uh I I know that us crossing our tees and dotting our eyes to get those numbers compliance is not going to have any impact on the overall design. So, Mr. Peters is correct in in pointing that out for us and that's uh matters that we'll just we'll clean up in the uh in the design
report. Mr. Peters who also offers a uh some some questions about the uh the number of soil borings and the permeability testing that has been conducted. The new rules are very very clear that essentially there are two uh test pits and permeability tests
required within each SSIB. Uh we don't quite have that number yet provided. So we will agree to provide additional testing in accordance with the uh with the current current regulations. Uh Mr. Peters does point out that we do have we do have I think it's two or
three of the SSIBs on the plan that currently do not show a uh pre-treatment or water quality basin. That was just an oversight on our drafting and those will be provided. So that will be that will be addressed. Uh Mr. Peters also indicates that there are a handful
of the basins that uh do not provide sufficient storage to contain what's called the water quality design storm uh without any discharge. And we agree that we will address those comments and make those adjustments as necessary. And then Mr. Peters did have
a uh you know series of other drainage related comments. um some questions about pipe sizes and labeling and and and manhole and invert callouts and things of that nature and we will agree with all agree to address all of those
comments. As to a uh a a question that that Ernie brought up about grading in one area of the project, uh there are a series of units located along Mountain Way. design. There are a series of units
located along Mountain Way on the on the bottom of the project uh where their land area and their backyards is a little limited based upon the proximity to the wetlands at at the bottom of the project. There are I believe it's three smallcale basins located back here. Uh
we do have to button up some of the grading between those those units. uh we may have to end up putting a putting a couple of small retaining walls in there to account for some grade difference or uh work with some some drop footings when we get final architectural plans.
But the comment is certainly uh certainly understood and we'll agree to address that in accordance with Mr. Peter's concerns. Uh we we did have some some very insightful discussion about the need for
uh for fences around the small scale infiltration basins. Most of most of the basins are located uh you know between units in between the project where they're going to be clearly visible accessible. Uh there are again a couple of bases
located at the bottom end. mostly these these ones on are the units in in phase four on on Mountain Way. I I think Miss Mr. Peters made a made a very sensible uh sensible suggestion that that possibly fencing should be provided for those units based upon their you know
one their proximity to the units and two you kind of going to be out of the view of the of the general public and I think it would make sense to have fencing around those particular basins. I do understand that the uh the opinion of whether fencing is needed or not is is
really one that's very subjective to discuss and and of personal opinion. Um my my opinion is I I think we build way too many fences in this world for for various reasons. Um I don't support building building fences for you know
for 34 smallcale infiltration basins scattered throughout this project. Uh I believe it's it's it's more important to integrate to try to integrate them into the landscape and into the overall plan, but I also understand that it is a very subjective issue and you know the
board's going to have some opinion and frankly we'll we'll have to defer to uh how the board feels about the need for fencing around each of those smallcale infiltration bases. Uh keep in mind that they are they are only two to three feet
in depth. uh most most of the outlet structures or the outlet structures are either uh are between six inches and two feet um um depth. So there's the the chances of water standing in those basins of any significant depth is very
very limited. But we would certainly need some discussion and insight from the board and and other than that all the basins retaining walls everything else you just described would be owned and maintained by the homeowners. Correct. Mr. Bordon just clarified the uh the plan for ownership and
maintenance and that all components of the stormwater management system uh would be owned by the HOA and uh with with that being said again we would agree to to address any technical comments in Mr. Peter's report that I did not uh specifically address
um and that kind of summarizes where we are right now. I I have one question Mr. Fallen we may disagree on is three feet safe or six inches. I'm not arguing that point. But would you submit to working with Ernie Peter's suggestion of putting
some sort of landscaping or something to deter I that much on those and the other ones I I appreciate the fencing on those but I think my perspective only three foot of water for a younger two or three year old person going it can be very
dangerous. So we have to do something to get away from that especially with the density you have and the amount of kids you'll have there. So I just want understood. Um that's why I think for that particular item we need some discussion from the board and get a
sense of of how how we feel about it. Oh yeah, we certainly agree to work with Ernie on on on uh addressing landscaping. I think that's a very valuable um comment and thought process to try to again to try to integrate them into the project with landscaping rather
than with fencing. I was going to say with children involved with this many units, I would definitely think we want to are on the side of caution. Um I'm just curious just for my own edification, what kind of landscaping would you use to pro I'm thinking of a toddler getting loose. So what do you what do we do to protect in
that situation? Well, I think it would most of most mostly be I'm sorry, low lowlevel shrubbery uh that would provide some sort of barrier. Um, but again, it it's it the question of fencing,
landscaping, it's it's very very subjective. Uh, we could talk about it all night if we if we wanted to. And frankly, I I just think we need to have some discussion among the board and see how the board members feel. I would concur that with fencing of some
sort, split rail or some agriculture around it comes out to the same thing for a toddler is going to get through something. But something has to be done. That's that's all I'm saying. Thank you. That's all we have. Any questions or comments for Mr.
McFarland? Roughly quiet. Dr. Hine. No. Okay. Any questions, Mr. Peters? Gina. All right, Mr. Jury. That concludes our presentation. We
request that you open it to the public. Okay. Um, having heard all of that, I'm going to go ahead and open it to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward and hear about what you heard about testified this evening, please do so at this time. I'll just remind you the acoustics in here stink. So, if you could just please talk loudly into the
microphone for us. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Hi, my name is Tony Vincera. I'm the prior owner of that property and I thank uh Cardonali with the Venture Crossing. They're going to provide me with a memorial sign of my family's
history on that property by the stream crossing. Uh it's going to be like a 42 by 30 inch 36 inch uh memorial sign which has my family bought that pro my family bought that property back in
1926. So it's almost a hundred years it's been in the family and uh that's something that's very strange in nowadays for someone to have property in the family that many years. So, I'd like to I'm very happy that they're being
able to put a memorial plaque uh on that property and that stream crossing that they did. That was my money. I did that back in the day. So, I just figured I'd give that to a little a little history of the property and uh my position and I
thank the Cardelli and his associates for doing that for me. And that's all I have. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Vizakara Tony Tony I know you're a little deaf now but listen was that not only was it
in your family for almost 100 years I know how many years you drove a tractor and when you wanted to relax you went out on your tractor and worked those fields you know every inch of the wetlands I know every inch of that wetlands a matter of fact when I was about 10 10 15 years old they reserveyed
the property and my father made me walk around with the surveyor all through that swamp and So I would remember where everything was and then when Great Adventure came in that was another deal by itself. Correct. So that's when we switched over. But I know it's going to
be a nice sign, a new doubleace sign with the all my from back in uh the 20s. There's my uncle Frank, my father Antonio uh Fred and um my mother and now my got
married and my my wife Maryanne, her name's on that, too. You can't forget her. The these guys all know her. You better believe that. All right. Okay. Good. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I think it's definitely a tribute with
that sign and the name of Linda Drive. I think they both have such meaning there to the application. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward and make comment at this time? about it's about the for I just down for
snow like when on the sidewalks who's responsible of the homeowner association. Got it. That's it. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Seeing no Seeing no one else come forward, I'm going to go ahead and
close public session for this evening. Um we we need a date I believe. Right. So m we believe the subdivision phase u requires very little testimony. You may some may be some discussion but we think it'll be very brief. So I don't know if
we could I understand the June 18th agenda is packed but the June 4th might have some time on it. I I'm not sure but we're hoping. Um I I also just Mer You're going to have to do the
engineering review for that. I want to make sure that's You're my new favorite attorney. I'm sorry. You're my new favorite attorney. She's been your favorite. I know that's not No, that that that's not a problem. Okay. What? Because we had we had prepared a report
from a planning perspective. We just need to add the engineering comments and the mun and the what we used to call the map filing law comments, the title recordordation act comments that were probably in Mark's report. So, we should be able to accomplish that and get it to the board
the week before. There's only one problem. I hate to be the party pooper here. We will probably only have six members that evening. Uh Mr. Hudach is a conflict, so he will not be here.
Oh, we're not a use variance here. There's no devariance relief on this one. We're only here because you retain jurisdiction. Yeah. So, we're okay with that. Okay. Yeah. Can I just So, um we got an updated traffic report or comments from the traffic. Is traffic
going to come up again on on on this or we done? The the applicant is the master of their applications. Okay. So, They are not feeling that there's any need to uh address I think Mr. Alfier you said that
you were in agreement with the uh comments made by uh Mr. Baser. Yeah, he agreed with virtually everything that Mr. Ray testified to. There were a few technical points in his report that we've agreed to address. Okay.
And as it relates to the subdivision, the subdivision, there's no traffic relevant to the drawing of a lot line. Okay. And must be my computer. So, so, so the traffic report that I read, which is uh regarding phase three and four, I
believe, and that you commented on, that's not this subdivision that we're going to talk about. It's this site plan that we just talked about. Okay. The subdivision is simply to create that triangular lot line up above
that has no development on it. Yeah. I I guess my only point is at some point I would like to talk to somebody. I have a bunch of questions regarding regarding the traffic report. So to me it's not a settled case. Um we should finish tonight if because I would like to comment on your
comments. Um and other questions that I feel were not addressed last time when we spoke. Well, Mr. M do it tonight. We could do it at another time. No, we we should do it tonight. No, I was going to say let's address it then. I would feel more comfortable addressing it then
tonight. Tonight. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Um, so is it okay to start or Absolutely. Okay. But wait, we have to swear. Well, we don't have to Mr. Ray
has been sworn and you continuing under oath. I have been sworn. Yes. Uh, John Ray, REA, professional engineer with Mcdana and Ray Associates. Okay. So, my first was really about just
the date. So, I guess you did a traffic report. It was revised November 13, 2024. Is that the most current updated version? Yes, sir. Okay. And the older version was December 28th, 2022.
Correct. Correct. Okay. And so the comments that we received here, they related to what date? Which which one are we talking about? I believe the date you have on here is December 28th, 2024. It's on page what page is? I don't know. Page
two. Third bullet point. Is that just a typo? Should have said different date. That may be a typo. I apologize. that probably the latest 2024, right? Yes, it is the latest report that Mr. Ray submitted. That's the one you remember.
Okay, that's good. Um, so I just wanted to get that out of the way. Um, the other thing also because I was confused last time. So, the removal of the hotel, right? So, the original plan had two hotels in it, right? The original one that you kept referring me back going back to the
original for phases three and four. I think that's correct. Yeah. The overall plan though, the overall plan had two hotels in it and now this phase you're taking out one of the hotels but the other one is still there. Correct. No, there's no hotel at all ever.
There's I Let me just before he answers that because I want I I wasn't at the last meeting but I had the pleasure of reading the transcript twice and I know there's a there's there's confusion or questions about when we talk about the project, what are we talking about? Right. Right. So what Mr. Ray tried to
emphasize is that in analyzing just this portion of the property and comparing it to what was approved on this portion of the property, that's how he came up with the comparison of numbers. So when you talk about the hotel, there's no hotel on this portion of the property at all.
Right. But also your traffic report does refer to nicely that you you're looking forward to uh 2036 or whatever date it is. And it's the assumption that the whole thing is finished. It's completed. Correct. Correct. Correct. So that's part of
this, right? So I can't just ignore everything else because you've you've accounted for right on your the rate of growth assuming that it's all complete and it's holistic. Correct. Absolutely. And the Ocean County and the Ocean
County Engineering A little exception to your comment. Hold on a minute. I just I just wanted to finish answering the question. The Ocean County Engineering Department has reviewed the uh traffic study. They've asked for, you know, a couple of minor, you know, additions, but yes, they've got, it's been projected. The protocol for the Ocean
County Planning Board is to project traffic volumes 10 years out into the future. And we always have to do that. Correct. And when and when you you do that, you're assuming that all the phases are complete and all the phases are included. Yes. Right. Okay. So, if there is a hotel in a different phase,
it's part of this calculation. Correct. I'm going to try to explain one more time what I testified to at the last meeting. I'm going to do the best I can, Mr. Martin. I'm doing the best I can. Yep. A full and complete traffic impact analysis for all phases of the project
was done. That was the December 2022 report. It included everything that was in phases 1 through 4 that was proposed at that point in time. Traffic generation, growth, everything, right? The results of that traffic
study meant that we were required to do certain improvements to the signals on Route 537, which we've done, which the applicant has done. Those improvements are in, they're done, right? What has happened since then is that changes to the overall plan have been proposed such
as phases three and four. And all we've attempted to do at this stage for this application is to show you that the traffic generation numbers from the current phase three and phase 4 proposal are less than what was originally
assumed in the original report for the whole project. And we're talking about decreases of Give me a second. I got Yeah. You have it couple hundred couple hundred cars during peak hours. Yeah. And in some peak hours you have a decrease of like 200. Correct. Right. It's almost 50%
less. That was one of my questions. But um Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Oh, sorry. No, I don't mean I don't mean to interrupt. I really don't. And talk over you. I really apologize. So, stop me if I'm doing it. Please stop me. Um
Okay. Because so part of this you do refer to back to the original December 28th, 2022 traffic report, right? You specifically say it here that u you know it's a reduction. So so therefore the
adequacy that existed before in your old traffic report you're actually have less now. So that still applies. I think you say that here somewhere. Um remain val right. So I think it's page three. Therefore, conclusions reached in
our previous traffic impact analysis for phases three and four remain valid. That is a correct statement. Okay. So, so you would agree with me that it's okay for me to go back to those and ask you questions about that one because you say remain valid. I have the 2022 report here if you want to ask questions. Sure.
Yes, I got it here too. So, so that's good. So here's the So if we go to that and we go to page it's not numbered but the page in the back where you have a nice little looks like this. You have a nice little table here. Is this the 2022 report?
Yes. 2022. Got it. Y right. You have a nice table. Phase one, phase two, phase three, phase 4. Correct. What page are you on? Let me let me make sure. I don't know. It doesn't have page numbers. Uh, it's in it's in the appendix. It's
probably page Oh, it's the first page on the revised uh December 28th, 2022. First page of your 2022 report. Okay. Oh, table one, land use summary. Got it. There you go. All right. All
right. So, here's where my question about the hotel keeps coming up. So, in here, I see two hotels. One on phase one, 276 hotel rooms. Another one on phase four, 134 hotel
rooms. The hotel that's being removed, which one is it? It's the one from phase four, the 100. Great. So, that means that the one from phase one is still there. Correct. Correct. Correct. That was that's been my whole point. I'm sorry. I I misunderstood. And because
you need to um you look 10 years out. So it assumes that this hotel on phase one has been built. Yes. And the traffic from that hotel is part of this these calculations. Absolutely. Correct. Yes. Correct. That's where I was trying to get to before. Okay. That's good. Um
that's good. A few more questions. Good. This is going to take a little bit. I apologize, but we said we wanted to do it today, so we'll do it today. Um so one of the things that so we use this average right you use the 11th
edition of the institution what's this called institute of transportation engineering right and so when you look out 10 years I guess based on that they they give you an average okay if you're looking out 10 years based on historical for this type
of development right you're going to use a certain percentage and assume that growth no no okay go ahead Okay, we use the New Jersey Department of Transportation's background traffic growth rate data, the historical growth rate data for the area. The IT has
nothing to do with the growth rate that we assumed. That's all based on historical data that's published by the NJ DOT. They publish tables for every county in the state for different types of roads in different areas. And that's what you have to use. That's what the
DOT makes us use. That's what the Ocean County Engineering Department makes us use. I want to make it perfectly clear, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the only thing we use that for is for projecting the traffic volumes that will be generated by the different land uses that are being
proposed. The growth rate is something totally due to DOT. Okay. So, so let's just focus on the growth. So, you said for this particular area, does that area mean Jackson mean Jackson? Okay. And for this particular
type of development, it's got nothing to do. All right, let me back up. Boy, this is getting Okay, I'm trying to do my best. We can do it another day. Let me try to do my Mr. Martins. Let me try to do my best. The growth rate has nothing to do with the proposed land uses for
phases 1 2 3 and four. It's got to do with the historical growth on Route 537 over the last 10 years. And so the way we do our traffic studies, we do existing traffic counts. We then take the growth rate and
and in this case, we expanded the traffic volumes by 10% 1% per year for 10 years. We kicked the traffic volumes out for a 10-year horizon. And that gave us a base traffic volume to work with. And then on top of that, we overlaid the
traffic generated by the land uses in adventure crossing phases 1, 2, 3, and four. So I I understand that. So So let me let me just cut to the chase. Um your opinion based on all that was that this was adequate, right? I think it's not only my opinion, it's the Ocean County
and Monmouth County Engineering Department opinions because they approved the improvements improvements that we did out on Route 537. It has been reviewed not by one but by two counties and by your professionals as well. So I'm very comfortable that
everything is in place is adequate. Um in in the old you actually assigned letters to to some of them right. A B C D F. Correct. Right. So if you were to sign a letter to this adequacy, what would it be? Anything. Why not
assign a letter if you do it for other places? Anything operating at level of service E or better is considered to be acceptable. And at all of the signalized intersections out on five to two signalized intersections, we have level of service D is in David or better for
the design year. So that's an accept. It's an acceptable level of service. This is not like your kid coming home from school with a report card that's got a D. It's completely different. Anything E or better is acceptable. If you get to a level of service F, you got to do more. You have to do more
mitigation. I understand. So, so that brings me to your page nine, right? Where you actually listed out all the pieces and you assigned letters to a lot of it, right? And so my question was, why didn't you assign a letter to the first one, but that's okay. Um, I might just be confused. Um, so in there you do
have an F. Where's the F? The F is on CR537 Anderson Road, Burnt Cavern Road intersection, blah blah blah. And so the signage is going to make that better. Not the signage. The uh Monmouth County
has jurisdiction over that this section of Route 537. Okay. So, let me let me answer your question. Yeah, I'll just give for you to say Just give me a chance. I've got all night. Please let him speak, Mr. Martin. Please let me speak. Give me a chance for you to say to me, Mr. Martin, could you let him
finish, please? This is going to help. Thank you. Go ahead. Monmouth County has been studying that intersection. We're all familiar with that intersection at Anderson Road and I think it's Burnt Tavern on the other side of 537. That intersection has been
studied to death for the last 30 years because the county knows that there there's problems getting across Route 537 during peak hours. as part of Monmouth County's uh overall corer study for Route 537. They have decided to put
a roundabout there and they're designing that. So that's going to take care of that problem. That is something that the county is well aware of. They've been aware of this level of service F condition for many many years. They've decided to do a roundabout to solve that situation. So that's all that's the
answer. Great. And so what what I was going to just want to say what I was going to say was that if your answer to me is hey that's a mus county issue ocean issue I don't need to worry about it that's fair you know please say that and I won't you don't need to keep going on okay say miss Bradley so that we
don't have to that's all I was going to say uh that's more than fair if it's none of my business is none of my business you tell me it's Ocean County that's that's what I was going to try to say okay I got you on all those counts I think um all right so I'll just make I think I have some other things. But
bottom line is, you know, you tell me that the letter assigned to this is a D, and I get it, right? So, hey, as long as you're better than a E, you're you're a D, you're good, right? I think we heard testimony from people that drive those
roads every day, and we know it. We live here. I would suggest that Jackson and this uh Jackson crossings this development is better than a D. I understand law fine you as long as
you but we are better than that and we should be better than that and we know what we encounter today when we run when we drive those roads and we the statement has been made here that whatever was done in the past for those roads nothing to do with this
development didn't work those trophic studies did not work because it doesn't we know what we've encountered today so I would encourage you to be better than the D that was my Thank you. We We have certain jurisdictions that we have to
adhere to. The two counties we adhere to to their design standards and that's the best I can tell you. I got you. Thank you, Mr. M. I'm sorry. Hold Mr. President, hold on one second. I'm sorry, Mr. May. Do you have anything to say? No, I had nothing more to add. Uh,
we did issue the report uh yesterday, May 20th. Um, and essentially, uh, our comments from our original report on April 11th, uh, were either addressed during the testimony of last meeting or in the revisions to the plans that we
received uh, last uh, last week and there are a few or there are a few minor I'll call them administrative plan items that they've agreed to address in their compliance set. So, I have no further comments. Thank you, Mr. Thanks, Mr.
Ray. Um, going back to Anderson Road, I definitely concur with how long we've looked at this as a township and a county. I don't know the exact year, but somewhere around 2016 through 19. The council approved and went to the county to put a light at Anderson Road. And
then we got into the thing with the county who surrendered that part of the road to Mammoth County and the state. And you're absolutely right. It's been something studied for years. and every time we get this far with it, Mammoth takes it over and this is what they're doing. So, I concur with everything you
said there. I also don't like the idea, but you have it in your favor. You're the only business that has a D that's passing. That's all I can tell you. No, I we we all look, we all understand. I'm working with what the industry standards have given me to work with and that's all I can do. And and Mr. Breie, you are
correct. At one point in time, the county, Mammoth County, was looking at signalizing the Anderson Road and then they decided that signal would be too close to the signal at the Jackson outlets and the signal at the off-ramp from 195 and they said, "We're going to do something different." And that was quite a few years ago. Correct. I I've
watched your testimony, heard your testimony for enough years to know where you're coming from. And I've been here for too long. Yeah. Both of us. Uh and that all these future applications and building around everything's included in them. I understand that and I respect your report, sir. Thank you.
Any additional questions or comments for Mr. Ray? All right, Mr. Alfiri. Uh, before we got into the traffic, we discussed June 4th. That's still acceptable knowing this. We have the six. I know you don't you don't need it, but I was just wanted to let you know that. Yeah, we're fine with
that. Gina, that works for us. I think that's up to your discretion. Um I have a note from Dawn saying uh to please carry anything to be carried please put on for August 6th. Um however, Miss Ralph Fury said uh did
request that it would be a little bit sooner than that if the board and you miss Cypriyani if we feel like we could maybe squeeze it in. He did request about a half hour of time give or take if that timeline is still accurate. So I
I think so. Yes, Mr. But my understanding is that your expectation is that you're going to finish in total and ask for to vote on the subdivision and then the underlying
application. So, it's not just a question of the amount of time necessary for your presentation on the subdivision, but also for the board to discuss. So, I just wanted to make the board aware of that as well
that and I'm trying just trying to see what else we have on partners. Yeah. and it's up to the board looking at the applications on you know and and Mr. Alberry who I know you know this agenda because you have another application
on if you want to go on June 4th at the end of that agenda and the is willing that then we could do that. I I can't judge how long some of these things are. We'll try it. But you do understand we may not get to it. Understood. Let me just turn around
and make sure everybody's okay with that. We're going to be last on June 4th. Are we okay with that? We're okay with that. Okay. We'll see. Um, so we'd request that you make the announcement so we don't have to renotice for this one, please. So
this matter will be carried until June 4th. No additional notice will be required. Thank you. And I wasn't in the bill in the room when you started the meeting. The the J venture crossing one was on the agenda tonight. Did we announce that it's being carried to
July? We did. Okay. Thank you. Actually, no, we didn't. I know it's on the agenda, but I Oh, no. You No, that was it was not still on the agenda before. So, thank you very much for bringing that up. Um, yes. So, Adventure Crossing
phase one, it was originally on for tonight, the the request of the applicant uh three and four was moved up and that uh phase one application is being carried to July 16th with no
additional notice. Thank you. And it's the same 200 foot list. So they would have gotten the notice to be here tonight anyway. But and I appreciate you breaking that part of the record. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Thank you. I'm sorry. Not on the agenda in front of me
and so I didn't think about it. Motion to adjurnn. All in favor? I. Was there a second in there? Second. I second. You chew it all second and call it off.