Somebody heated >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> In order, please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. This meeting complies with the Open Public Meetings Act. Notice of this meeting has been published on municipal bulletin board and on the applicable sites.
Roll call, please, Kathleen. Mr. Hyman. Here. Mr. Martins. Here. Mr. Rozell. Here. Mr. Trummer. Here. Mr. Sleeky. Here. Dr. Hofstein. Here. Ms. Bradley. Here. I believe we have resolutions for this evening.
Yes. Uh and Um But We gave it to Gina. I but I don't have the resolution. [laughter] It's our fault. No, it's not his fault. It's my fault. We thought we were being selective, you know. Oh yeah. >> [laughter] >> Thank you.
>> Introducing the title. It's uh Oh yeah. Um so it's resolution 2026-11 granting sign variance relief to Powerhouse Signs LLC for Ulta Beauty. This was a couple of meetings ago, but
this was the sign for Ulta Beauty at the outlets. Not here. So we need a motion and a second to approve the resolution, please. Make a motion we approve. Second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please.
Mr. Martins. Yes. Ms. Rozzi. Yes. Mr. Tremor. Yes. Mr. Sleekya. Yes. Dr. Hofstein. >> Yes. Ms. Bradley. Yes. Okay, Kathleen, I don't think I goofed this up, but I thought we had minutes for this evening. You?
I just have the voucher. All right. I know I read them. All right, well. Thank you. All right, we have the minutes for the May 6th, 2026 meeting. Uh so we need a motion and a second,
please. Motion to accept the minutes. Second. Roll call, please. Mr. Hyman. Yes. Mr. Martins. Yes. Ms. Rozzi. Yes. Mr. Tremar? Yes. Mr. Selecky? Yes. Dr. Hofstein? >> Yes. Ms. Bradley? Yes.
And I guess most importantly we have our vouchers so we can make sure that our recording secretary gets paid. So I have a voucher from Jackson Township for $175 for this evening's minutes meeting, excuse me. So we need a motion and a second, please. I make a motion we pay the
bills. Second. All right, roll call, please. Mr. Hyman? Yes. Mr. Martins? I should have a question, believe it or not. So that voucher is for today, is Correct. Okay, not for the last time. Oh. Okay, yes. Cuz I'm here.
>> [laughter] >> Ms. Rozell? Yes. Mr. Tremar? Yes. Mr. Selecky? Yes. Dr. Hofstein? >> Yes. Ms. Bradley? Yes. Announcements this evening, Ms. Cipriani? Um yes, over one on the agenda, James Hughes {slash} 280 Faraday
Avenue, um that application has been withdrawn. All right, and we need to swear in our professionals. If you'll kindly raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give before this
board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. You state your name and position for the record. Ernie Peters, board planner. And it's I'm sorry, what was that? Gina Tummolo, zoning official. Thank you.
And we need that now? Yes. Okay, so we're going to go into executive action session for a few minutes. We're mindful there's an applicant waiting and we will try and be quick. That will be a resolution of the zoning board of adjustment of the
Township of Jackson to enter into executive session as authorized by the Open Public Meetings Act for discussion of a personnel matter. Second? Motion. Second. Yes. Mr. Martins. Yes. Mr. Rozzi. Yes. Mr.
Tremmel. Yes. Mr. Selecky. Yes. Dr. Hofstein. Yes. Ms. Bradley. Yes. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm.
>> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> Applicant number two on our agenda and I apologize. I'm not going to
attempt to butcher your name, so forgive me, but it is block 902 lot 31 on Harmony Road. I'm forward, please. >> Good evening. John Jackson on behalf of the Mark and Savages. I believe I'm close. >> Say that again for me, please.
>> Mark and Savage. Mark Sinkavich. Now you know why I didn't say it. >> [laughter] >> And um my my clients I'm here with Mr. my clients and Mr. Mike Intile who is our engineer and planner. I have a uh PowerPoint presentation uh
which >> Excuse me, could you hold the mic a little closer to you? I can. Yes. Sorry. It's good. That is actually really good though. Mics and the acoustics are not great in here. Okay, I'll try to keep that in mind
and speak slowly. It sounds like there's an little echo or something. So um my clients have bought property on Harmony Road. Uh they're long-time residents of Jackson Township and they want to move from their town home to uh their dream
home. And I'm here with Mr. Mike Intile, he is our engineer and planner. If I could have him uh sworn and then I'll qualify him and then I'll hand out our PowerPoint which uh I think is ready to go up there
consisting of 11 pages. Does it work? Yeah, it's good. >> There you go. I'm sorry, is the microphone working now? It's working. We're good. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth?
>> I do. And could you state and if you don't mind spell your name? Michael Intile, I N T I L E. Mr. Intile with the chair's permission, please give a brief overview of your
qualifications and credentials in engineering and planning. Good evening. Michael Intile, I'm a professional engineer and professional planner since 1991. Principal with Crest Engineering Associates located in Toms River and Millstone. I've been preparing subdivision site plans
for industrial, commercial, and residential properties for about 30 years and I've presented before this board a number of times. Before you proceed, Mr. Jackson, do you know the board's policy is that all exhibits need to be in 10 days before. That was not the case
here. It's up to the board if they want to allow this application to go forward tonight, but just because you sometimes appear here again, I thought it was important to make that point, but it's up to the board if they want to allow this These are all documents that are on
file. They're the architecturals. I just put them in a format that I can click through. Okay, so the documents themselves were submitted. There there might be a Google Earth photograph or two in there and as you know under the statute you can amend at the time of the hearing with supplement
or uh But anyway, I'll abide by the board. >> Yeah, does anyone in the board object to this manner of proceeding tonight? Please go ahead. Thank you. Um I was going to say to Mr. Intile this board accepts your credentials. Thank you. >> So just as a matter of housekeeping, I
have the buy-sell letters and the certified green cards. We had one response, no two no responses. They were sent out I believe on May 5th. So they go to you or Thank you, that's fine. I've actually seen uh the what you submitted.
Thank you. Those are the uh certified cards. And um I'll ask Mr. Intili to give an overview of the application, the zone, location, what's there now, general overview of what we seek to do while I hand out the PowerPoint for efficiency. Is that okay, Madam Chair?
Thank you. Mike, can you do that? Yes. Um so, we're 0.92 acres located on the east side of Harmony Road. Um we're in the R3 residential zone. Our property is 129.35
ft of frontage and approximately 273 ft of depth. To our north and south are R3 residentially zoned and developed properties. To our west is uh more of a forest R3 zone property and to our east
uh Harmony Road. The property itself is not in the Pinelands. It does not include wetlands or wetlands in the vicinity in accordance with the GIS and JDEP. Uh it is partially cleared, mostly an
open pine forest. It It doesn't have anything on it, so it's vacant property. Um the roadway itself is Harmony Road I mentioned. It has a pavement width about 35 ft and [clears throat] a right away 55 ft.
We are proposing a two-story single-family home to be built. Four bedroom, two and a half bath, uh with a basement. It's going to have a two-car garage, a driveway, and it will have a proposed septic field uh to service the the sewer and uh for
water a individual well. We do need a variance, uh proposed new variance. Uh there are four existing nonconformities, I'll call them, for the property. Uh we are 40,008 sq ft in overall size. I mentioned
129.35 ft of frontage. I'll just go through those existing nonconformities. Lot area requires 130,000 square feet. We provide 40,000 and 8.8 square feet. Lot width 200 ft is
required in this zone. We provide 129.35 ft. Lot frontage we meet at 129.35 ft. 100 ft is required. Lot depth is required at 400 ft. We are providing 309 ft. Can we click over to page five of
the PowerPoint just while Mr. Intille goes through these? Please. He gave me I will look at these. There you go. And the last um I mentioned the uh
the building side setback is what we're seeking the proposed variance for. 50 ft required and we're proposing 31 ft as the small side setback. And of course this is relative to the size of the property uh being 40,000 and 8 square feet versus
130,000. We have a narrow lot so um we're applying that setback that we feel is appropriate in terms of the size home um and the type of home which is consistent with the neighborhood at two and a half uh stories uh and
four bedrooms and two and a half baths and and a and a basement. So Mr. Intille Set the stage. We have an isolated undersized lot that was created by uh The by a subdivision in the 90s, correct?
Correct. 91. Yes. Under the MLUL an an undersized lot is a hardship unless you can buy or sell property to make your lot conform, right? >> Correct. And I'm asking for your planning hat. Thank you.
So, the the variance in the relief that's required here that's a derivative of a lot being 40,000 square feet versus these these are gigantic lots required here, right? >> 130,000. >> 130,000. Yes. So, with with that said, what what are the
setbacks that we're holding? The required front setback, we'll start there, is 80 ft. We're at 81 ft. Um the engineer's letter indicated 79 ft to the porch, I believe. So, that's a difference of a couple feet. We can push that back to meet that 80 ft to the from
porch. So, we're not seeking a variance for front yard setback. We'll make an adjustment. Okay. All right. We'll make that adjustment. We're not seeking a setback for the rear setback as well. 50 ft is required. 164.11 ft is provided. So, it's just the side uh the two side setbacks, yeah.
>> And with those setbacks, there's still pretty substantial room, right? What what are the setbacks that we're holding? We're holding uh again the 80 80 ft to the front. We are proposing 31 on the left side of the house and we're
proposing 34.3 on the right side of the house. So, just in your in your world as an engineer and a planner, um >> [clears throat] >> a 30-ft setback still a pretty good setback, right? It is. And how do we compare with the neighbors on either side in terms of the comparative
setbacks? I took a look at the left side, the dwelling that um resides at the left side of the property, which which the north. Um from a Google image, I'm estimating about 25 to 28 ft for a front for a side setback, excuse me, to that to our
common property line. So, again, that would be 50 ft required and um, we're measuring approximately 25 to 28 ft there. On the other side setback uh, for the adjacent dwelling to the right, uh, it's quite distant from the setback
there. Okay. So, Okay. So, that what about our building coverages and heights and all that? How do we match up there? >> we are conforming in building height. We're about 29 ft. I mentioned a two-story, four-bedroom home with a
basement to um, so we're at 30 29 ft, excuse me, 35 ft is required. Our building coverage uh, is 5.5% allowed is 15, so significantly less than what would be required uh, for the building coverage. So, in terms
of with the lot that we have, we're not pushing things. We're under on building coverage and that could be a indicator of over development, right? >> It is an indicator um, and as you can see from the plans submitted, it's it's not over developed in my opinion. Uh, mentioning that we're we're well below
the building coverage. Uh, and um, it's significant trees remaining and open space. I'm sorry, I missed What was your coverage? 5. >> 5.5% >> 5.5% Thank you. You're welcome. So, what one of the things when we look on the
the first page that has the elevation, I can see dormers and there's a high I've discussed that with my clients. There's habitable space up there could be, right? Yes. But, they have no specific plans right
now. Right now, it's going to be, you know, unfinished, but they would like to reserve the right. I I said my client said that would be a great mother-in-law. I said, "I hope your mother-in-law likes stairs." Um, but maybe they're older They have a daughter who's >> [clears throat] >> 10 years older than the one that lives with them. She's out of the house if she
stayed over. Anyway, point I don't know what they're doing. There is an attic that could potentially be used. What about the basement? Yes, there is a basement. What about the basement as habitable living space? There's there's no plan to
develop the basement other than for storage as the applicant has told me. Yeah, we we and I I have to confirm this with my client. That would be like for like recreation, man cave type place. I'm sorry. You you don't plan that bedrooms or anything like that. We'd agree no bedrooms, anything like that. Just uh
recreational space or that kind of thing that Mr. Would you agree that uh the use wouldn't uh the basement would have no kitchen, no apartment? Yes, we we would agree with that.
And any plans to use it as a general all-purpose meeting room or anything like that, school, daycare center? Nothing like that. It would be strictly uh she shed or man cave or that kind of thing. Send the kids down there to play,
TV, weights. Um you know, the conventional thing that people would use their their basement for, storage. Um but we would agree no living space in terms of a bedroom, no kitchen, no no secondary apartment down there.
Are the adjacent homes on one acre lots or three acre lots? They vary. Um looking at the tax map, tax map. Which I have the lot to the left of this property if
you're standing in the road facing is lot 33. It's two away. It's 1.06 acres according to the tax map. And the adjacent lot to the right of us lot 31.44 acres.
So, immediately in the neighborhood, less than the three acre requirement, right? So, so Mr. Antille, just in terms of the balancing and the positive and the negative criteria on the undersized lot, we have the hardship because of the size of the lot. Um, have you is the house
design respectful of the zone and in in a configuration that gives reasonable setbacks so that there's no negative impacts as a consequence? We think that the house size being just under 3,000 square square feet, it's about 60 feet
with the garage by about 40 feet. It is very consistent with the neighborhood and consistent with the size of the property itself. We think it's a good fit. The setbacks, as I mentioned, are being conformed with the exception of the side. And building coverage, we
already talked about it 5.5% versus 15. Right. And then under C2, do we advance any of the purposes of zoning as a consequence of having an aesthetically pleasing home, appropriate living space and appropriate locations, etc. Please address that.
>> think in terms of a vacant lot that's you know, possibly maintained, possibly overgrown at times, to to aesthetically turn that into a single family home that is taken care with a lawn and someone obviously occupying it and caring about it is a
much improvement. In terms of uh uh the variance being granted without substantial detriment to the public good, the type of development as I mentioned is consistent with the neighborhood. Um, it's well suited, single family home, it's certainly allowed in the zone
R3. The adjoining properties are similarly developed. The benefits, I think, outweigh the detriments in this case. We talked about the house being appropriate for the size of the lot and the neighborhood. In fact, if we applied, just as an
alternative the 50-ft setback to a 129-ft wide lot, we'd end up with a 30-ft wide house, which I don't think anybody would want to see in that neighborhood for sure. Um and I mentioned that the the four of the nonconformities run with the land.
The only variance we're seeking tonight is the is the less than required side setbacks. So, just skipping ahead, um in the review letters, there's a discussion about curbs and sidewalks. I have slide number three up on the screen. Um can you please uh address the request for
curbs and sidewalks? Yes, it's a county road, Harmony Road. There's curb on both sides, as you can see in the in the uh in the picture. There's sidewalk on uh only one side. And um it is addressed in your
engineer's letter. Uh we we don't think it would be and I'm I'm not sure he would either think it'd be appropriate for one side our side for 129 ft. So, I think contribution to the sidewalk fund would be appropriate in this case.
All right. So, um In in in your opinion, could the the var- as a planner, could the variances be here here be granted without any substantial detriment to the zone plan of the public of the the the negative criteria? Do we offend the negative criteria?
>> Yes, I I don't I don't believe so. The we have not detrimentally affected the zone plan. We are permitted use, obviously. We're meeting most of the uh requirements in zone um other than those that are run with the land that anybody would have to deal with developing this
property and the the structure's consistent with the neighborhood. So, uh with the chair's permission, if I may move to um uh the Mr. Wilder's review letter of May 12th, 2026, which I believe is his latest update.
Um the first uh numbered pages uh paragraphs 1 through uh 23 on page 1 and 2. There information what's been submitted etc. Right? Yes. And then he has a summary. We're located in a lot and block the R3
zone. Talks about the currently vacant partially wooded parcel. You're in accord with everything Mr. Wilder says there, right? Yes. Bulk variance new two-story single family dwelling with a basement and attic two-car garage covered front porch
rear deck site paver driveway etc. Correct. All in accord. So just you know, he mentioned the driveway and number of bedrooms. Do we meet the parking criteria? Yes, we meet the resis parking requirement of two and a half. We'll provide that with the driveway
course on the garage over providing four spaces. So we meet resis without a problem. So addressing the engineering comments, you know, there's D1 through 9 tree removal surveys. Is that accurate? Approvals from outside agencies. Just
from you know, 10,000 ft initially. Is there anything in in those paragraphs that you feel we should just jump to and address right off the bat? I looked at D1 through 9 as you mentioned. There's nothing in there that we will not address and
conform to. Um The storm water management is something that we will address with a dry well for the roof area in accordance with the Jackson ordinance requirements for the sizing of that. Um the grading will be will meet the ordinance requirements for the driveway and such.
Um the drainage patterns are not being changed. They consist from Harmony Road to the rear of the property at a slight slope and we'll maintain that. Um the garages already shown on the plan. There may be a shed or maybe
a structure added in the future. Of course, we'd have to submit a plot plan for approval for that we'll we'll take care of the fire approval as part of the outside agencies the easements are shown of which there are none on the survey.
Number nine asks that we address tree removal. And seeking approval from the township foresters is that something that we would do as a condition sorry I apologize for interrupting but I'm trying to follow so you're using the Ernie's engineering report.
Your book. Sorry got it. Yes we'll we'll do Mr. Peters I've in out of respect. Him for the for the end. All right okay so tree removal landscaping um.
No landscaping plans were provided is any landscaping anticipated or will existing vegetation be preserved. The the existing vegetation to the extent that it meets the grading and the clearing line join the
the disturbance which is as I mentioned some of the lot is cleared most of it is a oak pine forest which will be maintained with this application. So we look at slide four that's the street view right and you can see there's trees on either side and
where where the dot is that's kind of where the cleared out. Yeah the area there. Yeah LaCrosse Street you can see they're very large lawn area believe it's a single family home with a very large long driveway we're on the opposite side you can see our lot somewhat cleared
and the adjoining lots treat. And there's different trees we'll do our best to save what's there. So off street parking we addressed that we have we're in accordance with RSS. I jumped ahead to that.
Um and uh sidewalks and curbing, we did address that engineering comment. So, I I don't Oh. I just um Mr. Angeli, just to go back to your um testimony in regards to tree removal, um
I just want to put on the record that we do have a tree permit that was submitted. However, the number of trees being removed is not noted. Do you have a number for that? I don't, but I will get those to you. Yes. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. So, um going to page five,
conditional approval has all the outside agencies and we can comply with all that. Planning Board approval >> make application to Ocean County since it's county road for the driveway. Um I I mentioned Ocean County Health Department for the septic and well.
All right. So, I think I've covered everything in in Mr. Wilder's letter. And I don't know if it's your custom to pause here or if you want me to go through Mr. Um Matt, do you have any questions? Thank you. I appreciate your testimony.
Just a couple quick questions. Um so, you said that the the attic could potentially be used. I don't know what that means. So, the plans currently show a pull down stair. If you're going to potentially put
habitable space in the attic, so the pull down stair will be replaced with a traditional staircase? They they would just like to not make the representation that that attic will never be used. They could see doing the improvement. It's not their current intention to use it for anything but storage, but by the same token, I don't There's the 7-ft
high ceilings up there, so it could potentially be used. That's what I mean by that. Will it be used for bedrooms? It could be. Okay. Um regarding the the grading and tree removal, um because you are asking for a relief on the side yard setback, I and I appreciate the fact that you're
generally following the existing grading pattern. It does appear though on the north side of the left side of the house with maybe a little bit of tweaks to the grading, you may be able to save a 10-ft swath of existing wooded area. Again, I would just maybe just take a look at that to see if you can do it to soften
any impacts to any neighbors. Sure. We'll take a look at that, yes. Uh note number 19 on your plans indicates that the septic system has not been designed for any pump within the basement. So at this point, there's no proposal to have a bathroom in the basement?
Uh at this point, there is not. Okay. And then I guess the last question I have, Madam Chair, is um you noted that there's no existing or no proposed accessory structure depicted. Any future accessory structures would comport to the zoning ordinance. Yes, that's correct. We'll be submitting a plot plan
to do that in the near future. Okay, that's all I have, Madam Chair. I have a question for Matt. Uh are you okay with the plans for the storm water runoff and it's adequate for protecting neighboring properties? I did ask them to upsize the the proposed dry
well and and mainly on the on the north or left side of the property. Um while there is sort of a general swale along the common property line, as you get about halfway to the to the rear of the property, it starts to direct runoff directly onto the neighbor. So I would
like to see more storm water capacity or or storm water storage on the property just to ensure that we're not negatively impacting the property to the north. And we agreed to do that. Okay. I'll start Justin. No. I would just
You mentioned uh your possibility of using the attic in the future. Um does the septic size properly reflect that? I mean, if you're not putting that in now, would it be correctly sized for that for in the
future or you'd have to come back to get approval from the county, I guess? Yes, we would have to get approval for any change to the bedrooms that are now indicated uh with this application. >> Okay. Thank you. So, uh you wanted to go over Mr. Peters'
report? Yes, thank you. So, Mr. Antilli, Mr. Mr. Peters' report, um you've had an opportunity to review that on March 11th, 2025 Yes. or 26, I'm sorry. Um the first page is informational like Mr. Wilder's letter, he lists everything that's in
the file that's been reviewed. Um in general, um he talks about the residential zone, single-family dwelling, side yard setbacks, and then he provides a a zoning table. We're in accord with everything there.
Yes, I just wanted to say that we could get rid of the front setback he noted at 79 ft. And we'll push that to 80 ft. That would be for the front setback. So, it'll be 80 ft, so it will no longer require a variance. >> Correct, it will no longer require a variance.
So, Mr. I think we covered pretty much everything with the zoning ta- with the planning ta- And the engineering testimony covered a lot of the stuff that Mr. Peters did. So, in the interest of efficiency, uh
I I would ask if Mr. Peters could just say if there's anything specific that he needs to address from his letter or if you'd like us to go through a paragraph by paragraph, we could do that, too. Um before Mr. Peters speaks to that or the board, um the only thing that I
would like you had alluded, um Mr. Jackson, to the hardship criteria. Um I don't know if you're planning on putting up your client or if someone else would be able to uh testify to any attempt to obtain additional acreage. Yes, I handed
in the buy-sell letters at the outset. Maybe my microphone wasn't working. >> sorry. I did not hear you. >> Yeah, so we we have three buy-sell letters we sent out because of the geometry of the property that touched three. So, we sent them out. We received one person's response. They were not interested. The other two have not
sent out. And that May 5th I want uh yes, May 5th and the incorporated road I provided. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to confirm that the letters did did give the date of this hearing. Thank you, Mr. Perini. So,
That was my only question. >> Thank you, Mr. Peters. Um Madam Chair, is Any questions, comments? I have questions and comments. Respectfully to the applicant's attorney, he asked if I had any concerns about this. But at the end of the day, most of the
testimony covered what was in our report. So, there's no need to replicate it unless the board needs it on the record. Um Mr. Antelli, thank you for your testimony. I want to follow up on the pull-down stairs for the attic.
You and I practice engineering for a living and not architecture. But someone wants to put a staircase up there, your architectural plans are going to have to change. I need I need you or Mr. Jackson to reconcile that
if the revisions cause the building to be made wider, it would be in violation of the variance relief you're seeking this evening. You'd have to come back to this board. So, if someone doesn't want to have pull down stairs, you're going to have to revise the
architectural plans in such a manner so that the building doesn't get any wider, lest you would have to come back here for another variance, correct? I I would agree with that. Yes. That's the only question I had. The only comment I had for the board was
after Mr. Intelligli's testimony, Mr. Jackson said, "Well, no one wants a 29-ft wide building." Well, that's for you guys to decide, not Mr. Jackson. But yes, I'm bound to 149-ft wide lot with 250-ft
side yard setback requirements would leave a proposed or permitted building width of 29 ft. Doesn't mean that there's not an architect or a builder out there that can't build it. It may not be in keeping with the area,
but you can build something at 29 ft. That's where we are. Thank you. Question is, would it Who'd want to live there? >> [laughter] >> So, >> You would be surprised what goes on in the barrier island. Well, you're you're correct.
I stand corrected. It was Mr. Intelligli that said, "No, you know, 29-ft no one wants." And Mr. Peters is correct. You know, you could build a 29-ft house. I think I think I forgot I'm going to look it up in a minute. Might be a Lang. There's New Jersey Supreme Court case. It's a pool
case. Now, note me >> [clears throat] >> Right? They got a variance for a swimming pool. And in that case, the Supreme Court said the question on a hardship is not whether you can comply with the ordinance. Nobody would ever get a height variance, either. You could build
a ranch. You know, uh so so the idea if you what the Supreme Court said if people can't use their house in the extent that's reasonable or what's otherwise allowed under the ordinance generally for everyone else, and that can be viewed as a hardship. And that's
what our case is. It's a hardship. And to to build 29 ft as opposed to an appropriate house. Mr. Antiles' testimony also as a planner was that I'm going to paraphrase it. It wouldn't be befitting the neighborhood to have a very narrow house on this lot. So, we
think it's compatible with the development pattern. It's a you know, we think a very nice elevate. Um You know, I I I don't think it's as simple as saying, you know, it's it's a question of whether you can or not. [clears throat] I think you have to view is there a hardship, and then the balance shifts to
whether we're meet the other criteria under the hardship. So, thank you, Mr. Peters, and I I hope uh that that adequately addresses your comment. Mr. Antiles, forgive my question. I'm a little I overthink things. So, one of my notes to myself was I know that this was subdivided and
approved by the planning board in 1990. Which lot left or right? Either way, it still wouldn't be 3 acres is the point I'm trying to get to. Correct? I have not seen that plan, I'm sure. I don't know which lot uh was the one subject to
this application versus the other. Um I can find out and get that information to the board. I guess when I was going through, you have 0.92 acres. Right. And either you indicated they're both over a little 1 acre on each side, you still wouldn't be
at three you still wouldn't meet the three acre minimum that because of the rezoning, correct? >> Correct. Thank you. Comments? But there's no reason to believe there's any conditions on that subdivision. It was just a plain subdivision. Right.
Any other questions or comments? Comments? For everybody or or just for the person that's in front of us? For Mr. Jackson or Mr. Intile or our professionals. And then I have my clients as well if you have any specific questions for them. Okay. Yes. We'll wait on that for
We'll wait on that. Yeah. Yeah, this is more for so it was stated that the structure is consistent with the neighborhood. Right? Um so just as far as size two I would say two and a half family
right cuz the attic could become so two two story building. So is square footage wise anything like that or the other homes the same size as this? The the home to the left is a little smaller. The one across the street seems
a little larger. Um we don't survey those, you know, we look at Google mapping and try to determine the sense of the neighborhood. Right. >> Um and when I say consistent with the neighborhood it doesn't necessarily mean next door or just just in back of it or
in front of it, but generally speaking Jackson this area of Jackson you do see you see some older homes that are smaller. Sure. But the general trend is obviously taking advantage of the lot that you have, the size you have, and the allowable development criteria in
that R3 zone. Okay. Okay. All right. And then and I know we talked about the benefits without weigh the detriment. And and one of the comments was, well, it's better to have the house there than
empty lot. Right? I'm I'm trying to compare is it better to have a house there that matches that meets all the variances versus one that doesn't. Right? So is that where nobody wants a 20,000 foot
house or whatever comes in? Cuz that's really the comparison, not to an empty lot, of course. No. Most of us don't want an empty lot. Um but really the comparison is a house that meets all the variances so that it's basically an R1
or an R3 or one that does not. Yeah, our job is to uh to provide the proofs that um as you say, you could develop the property in conformance with the R3 zone and that 29 foot wide house. Right. But
is that meet the overall good of the neighborhood in terms of meeting the standards, conforming, and being consistent with the neighborhood. And my testimony would be that it is not based on what I observe, tax map, lots I
see, and what I'm observing uh with respect to this property. Okay. >> That's the short answer. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um yeah, one and this might be I'm not I don't know for who, but um
the my understanding is the purpose of the master plan keeping this as an R1. Um one of the reasons is um density. Right? That why they didn't just change it and make it an R3 since most of
is is an R3. Oh. I'm so sorry. Yes. It was subdivided back in the 1990s and it was an R1 at that time. Right? So some of the lots in the area a little bigger, they're over an acre. Some of the lots in the area, because I went on
the tax map and looked at all that fun stuff. Some are a little Some of the lots are a little smaller. I saw as small as 0.84 and as large as I believe it was 1.4 something. Um but it is an R3 zone now. It was rezoned, so it's an R3 zone now. So,
that's why they have the hardship. Got it. And since I think I reversed So, the reason for keeping it in R3 Making it an R3. No, uh It was an R1, they made it an R3. In in our current master plan
>> It's an R3. It's an R3. Correct. >> Right. Okay, so the reason to make it an R3 is so that the homes that are built there, right? Will will not be as big, right? Density will be smaller. You know?
>> I would respectfully disagree. Again, I went on the tax map and looked at square footage. Um I'm If I get this wrong, forgive me. I want to keep the record straight, but house number 880 something is 3,200 square feet. There were some smaller This is proposed to be just
under 3,000. There are some smaller, but there were some that were a little larger as well. If you go within like a half a mile or a mile each way, there are definitely some larger and smaller each way. Small smaller and each smaller and larger each way. Okay, thank you. Thank you.
Any other questions or comments? I didn't know if you were going to speak or not. No, it's actually I I like it. >> [laughter] >> All right. >> I said that. Sorry, being that we have no other questions from the board right now, I'm going to go ahead and open it to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward and
make a comment or have a question about what you've heard so far, please feel free to do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward, I'm going to go ahead and close public session. Mr. Jackson, any other questions, comments? No, just thank you. I have my
clients here tonight like I said, they want to move from Jackson to Jackson. They have their daughter in the school system. They raised one daughter, she's out of the house, and this is their dream home. It's Lang versus North Caldwell, the swimming pool case where the Supreme Court said the idea the notion of a
hardship is that you can't use the house like everyone else can. Like I said, no one ever needs a swimming pool. And and in this case, I respectfully submit that Mr. Montilli's testimony shows that the lot is undersized. We cannot acquire property, and it just lends itself to a
house like this. We're reasonably sized. We hold 30-ft plus setbacks on the side. We meet the front yard. We meet the rear yard. We're way under on the building coverage. You know, I think my clients have done a very nice job to have a relatively humble home that's suitable
for a new development that will also meet their needs. And I also hate, you know, just in the the last minute, I asked them, "What do you want to do with the attic?" And they said, "We don't want to do anything with the attic." I said, "Would you ever want to finish it?" It's got 7-ft. They said, "Well, maybe." I mean, that's their attitude toward this.
Obviously, the plan has pulled downstairs. That would need a building permit. They'd have to comply with all zoning regulations at that time. We just would like to leave that option open for them. So, but that's that was the last thing on their mind when they came in here. Thank you for your attention.
We think this is a great application. We're we'll hopefully we are hopeful that the board views it the same way. Thank you. Okay, board, it's up for us to for discussion. Yeah, I'm just sorry. Go ahead. Is there anything that we didn't discuss yet? Um
just so that the board is clear what you're voting on the conditions that have been discussed so far. Um or there'll be no bedrooms, apartments, kitchen, or commercial uses in the basement. Curbing will be installed, but there will be a contribution to sidewalk fund. Um the applicant will confer with the
township fire official, township forester, and obtain required outside approvals. The front set set back will be 80 ft, so no variance is required for the front set back. Um and they will add more stormwater capacity on the property to ameliorate any flow to the property
at the north. Um it's not uh precisely a condition, but um the engineer had noted that a change to the grading plan might possibly save 10 ft of tree stands, and the applicant agreed that they will look
at making that change. Um and just as you discussed, I think that um both Mr. Jackson and Mr. Achille had gone through the standards. It's It's a C hardship variance, um and we're claiming in this case that
the hardship is due to the shape um uh narrowness of the specific piece of property. Um that as stated, they had made the attempt to acquire neighboring property unsuccessfully, which is part of the standard. And then of course the negative criterion, whether or not there
is substantial detriment to the public good, and impairment of the intent purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. That's all I have. Mhm. Okay, board, it's up to us for
discussion. Questions, comments, issues? >> need to open it to the public? Oh, you did? I missed it. Sorry. >> yes. And there was no no no no no. >> No, okay, sorry. Yeah. There was no additional test >> looking attention. Sorry. Questions, Mr. Slakia?
So, my view is we have an empty lot with an applicant that's coming to us with a reasonable size house. Um I do know a little bit about the area. I had a family member that lived over in that area.
Um the fact that three letters were sent, one was received, that that person doesn't want to sell, tells you that people like it in that area. So, I think a house of this size uh fits well in it. Um thankfully we're not seeing a much
larger house. I might have a different of different opinion at this point. But I I I think it fits in well with what needs to happen on that plot of land. I agree with Mr. Slakia. I mean, proportionate to the neighborhood. It's
propor- The lots are a little undersized, but I mean, it's for me, the stuff I look at, it's actually a properly drawn septic. The well's 100 ft away. Except for the lot size, everything's right where it's supposed to be. So, I
mean, it's I I think it fits the neighborhood very well. I would agree it's uh uh consistent with the neighborhood, and there's really no reason not to approve it. Same. I know, the positive is there. I
don't see any negative. Um the only thing I would just ask if you could resubmit the plans. They're all pixelated, and they're a bit unclear to read them. So, I think it would be appropriate to have clearer ones on file. Thank you. >> [laughter]
>> Any other questions, comments? Need a motion. I was going to say if anybody would like to make a motion. Make a motion that we approve. If a motion is second, roll call, please. Mr. Hyman. Yes. Mr. Martins. Yes. Mr. Rozell. Yes. Mr. Trimmer. Yes. Mr.
Slakia. Yes. Dr. Hofstein. Yes. Ms. Bradley. Yes. Yes. Mr. and Mrs. Markiewicz and their daughter. Daughter. [laughter] Thank you very much. Thank you. Motion to adjourn. Motion all in favor.
Aye. Aye. Thank you.