call this meeting to order. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. This meeting complies with the open public meetings act notice of this meeting and has been provided for both and appropriate newspapers. Thank you. Roll call please. Kathleen
Mr. Brezie here. Mr. Heyman here. Mr. Hudac. Mr. Martins here. Mr. Such here. Miss Bradley here. I believe we have resolutions this me this evening. Yes, we have four resolutions.
First- resolution authorizing property located animal rescue several meetings ago. to the board and professionals for review. Okay, we made a motion, a second to
approve the resolution, please. Motion to approve. Second. Roll call, please. Mr. Brezy, yes. Mr. Hyman, yes. Mr. Hudac. Mr. Martins, yes. Mr. Such, yes. Miss Bradley, yes.
The next two resolutions are both uh for fences. As you may recall, two meetings ago, we heard three uh fence applications. Two were granted and one denied. The denial is not on, but the two uh approvals are the first one
2025-15 for installation of a 6-foot solid fence and playground equipment in the front yard of pro property located at 20 Sunny Woods Lane, block 5802, lot 10. Um, as you recall, the two that were approved uh were uh were corner
lots. Okay, move to approve. Thank you. Roll call, please. Mr. Brezie, yes. Mr. Heyman, yes. Mr. Hudach, yes. Mr. Martins, yes. Mr. Such, yes. Miss Bradley, yes. Resolution 2025-16. That's the in for uh granting
variance for installation of 6oot solid fence of the front yard of property located at two Calvary Court block 3902, lot 97. This was also a corner lot and um this was the one with the 20
uh foot uh easement on the side and that uh condition is part of the resolution. Motion and a second, please. Motion. Second. Roll call, please. Mr. Brezie, Mr. Heyman, yes. Mr. Hudek, Mr. Martins,
yes. Mr. Such, yes. Miss Bradley, yes. Last resolution is JCPNL. It's resolution 2025-17 granting preliminary and final major site plan approval and variance approval. As you I'm sure recall, this was for various uh lots across various
zones. Um all of the conditions um were accepted in or incorporated into the resolutions and also the uh chart of variances that was prepared and put into evidence is also an exhibit to the resolution.
Move to approve. Second. Roll call, please. Mr. Brezie, Mr. Heyman, yes. Mr. Hudek, Mr. Martins, yes. Mr. Such, yes. Miss Bradley, yes. That is all the resolutions for this evening. Okay, we do have minutes this
evening from the May 21st, 2025 meeting. I need a motion and a second to approve the minutes. Please. Motion. Second. Roll call, please. Mr. Resi. Yes. Mr. Heyman. Yes. Mr. Hudac. Mr. Martins.
Yes. Mr. Sut. Yes. Miss. Bre. Yes. I also have a vow a voucher this evening from the township of Jackson for $175 for our recording secretary for this evening. I need a motion and a second to approve payment of the voucher. So moved. Second.
Roll call, please. Mr. Brozie. Yes. Mr. Hyman. Yes. Mr. Huda. Mr. Mr. Martins 100% yes. Mr. Sud, yes. Miss Brad, yes. Do we have any announcements this evening, Miss Cypriani?
[Music] Um, yes. Number four on the agenda. Sorry, I'm looking at the uh wrong copy. No wonder it's confused. Um, sorry, it's not number four on the agenda. Orino Gua
the Lobos um use variance 3519 um has been carried to August 6, 2025. No additional notice is being required at this time. Okay. All right. No executive session this
evening. Any matters for discussion? Matters for discussion. Correct. Um no no no matters for discussion. I and actually I'll hesitate and simply say on that um I had sent around um the uh suggestions regarding
procedural changes and ordinances. I'd received com some comments back. I will be incorporating those into draft ordinances. I will then circulate those ordinances and ask if there are any comments. If there are not, we'll and in the next meeting I get approval from the
board, we will send that them to the township council for consideration. Thank you. Any administrative approvals this evening? I don't believe so. Correct. Correct. All right. So then we are going
to move to what reads is Oh, no. I'm sorry. We have to swear in the professionals. Oh, yes. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Please state your name and position for the record. Mark Roire, board engineer.
Ernie Peters, board planner. Thank you. Um before we move to application number two, I see a number of people in the audience and I just wanted to make sure that everyone understood that the application for 747 Toms River Road Urs
No Gua Villa Lobos and I apologize if I butchered their name. That has been carried to the August 6 meeting. So there will be no testimony on that this evening. Okay. So we are now going to move to what is on the agenda is applicant number two Benjamin TAC
variance 3537 block 403 lot 8. Mr. Tag. Yes. Mr. Tag, I'm going to swear you in because I it appears you're here representing yourself. So your uh presentation will
also be in the nature of testimony. Could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you'll get before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. and please state your name again for the record. My name is Benjamin Tac. I am the homeowner of 16 Forenzi uh right here in Jackson
Township in New Jersey. Um as far as my opening statement, I moved here back in October of last year um in pursuit of more of a scenic life uh to give my children and my wonderful wife more of a chance at an American dream away from
the New York City lifestyle um which is very robust and very quick. um in pursuit of more of a calm environment. Um fortunately, we are in love with the property, in love with the neighbors, everything is great. But we realized shortly after that our property created
certain challenges as our rear property is shared adjacent with two of our neighbors. Unlike most properties that are backtoback with one individual property, ours is sort of aligned with two. So I would say about 75% of our property is covered, 25% seems to be
exposed. Um we have a very unique layout of our property which consists of not only a pool but a play area and some vegetation. Um the challenge that we have is that in that rear left corner there seems to be an exposed area. Um I have children and uh my children seem to
be afraid. A lot of the the dogs that some of the neighbors adjacent to me have. Uh although I love animals, I can't really control, you know, how they respond or they react to it. Um, so I figured that placing a shed in that unique central location would really
help me solve not only the privacy and security for my family, but also give us the functionality of the utility purpose of a shed. Um, ranging from mow equipment to pool supplies, pool equipment. It's just a central location
um that can be found there. Uh, some of the challenges we ran into when, you know, applying for the zoning is that we were told there are certain setbacks and I respect that. So, I'm here today asking for a variance um in pursuit of trying to help, you know, physically structure my property to help with the
amenities that uh we are set out to uh to look for. So, here you'll see the um this is the survey that was used when I purchased the property. I do have a fence around my pool right now that is a pool fence that I think borders around 4
and 1/2 ft. Um, it covers the interior of the pool and then you'll see that in the back lefthand corner there. That area is exposed. Um, I thought of putting things like shrubs, which I'm sure is just a generic rebuttal that most of you guys will have for me today. The challenge with shrubs is that it
takes time for it to mature and it doesn't really offer the sense of privacy or security as different weather variations will sort of diminish on that and it'll cause additional harm to the pool. um as you know as the shrubs need to be maintained there are roots there that can also affect the pool and um it
can cause some challenges. There are additional exhibits that I included um here today which would give you guys more of a visual layout. You'll see here that brown fence is the Excuse me, Mr. Do you have copies of these additional uh exhibits to provide to the board?
Yes. Okay. Thank you. If you want me to hand them out, I can pass them around. Yes, please. Sure. And I assume you want those admitted into evidence. There's maybe a third picture that wasn't added there. Just I had a chance before I got here to sort of present it.
Um so you'll see that in the back of this area there is um about a section there that's about 10 ft wide or maybe 13 feet wide. So visually it doesn't look like a lot of space through the picture, but when you're actually there is a good amount of space. Um if you look at the next slide, the next
picture, you'll see more of the reason for concern. Here you don't really get to see so much, but if you look there, so this is the 25% area that is sort of exposed to that wood wooded area and that's where the dogs will come in and you know when you have children running around by the pool, my kids are young,
it's just very startling and and frightening for them to you know want to react in such an environment. It's very unsafe and it's just really not uh you know not practical. Um my neighbors do have their own fences and for me to put up another fence on top of a fence I
think is beyond code. It's just it's ridiculous. Um so what I'm really trying to accomplish here is just put something in the back ideally. Um, I will note that in another exhibit I did a little research through the Oprah Act and I found that my neighbor adjacent to me on
the left side was granted a similar variance in the exact same location. Um, so I'm hoping that if previous leniencies were granted for a neighbor that maybe doesn't necessarily have a similar layout as me, um, as I have a pool and I don't think he does, um, but
the placement really just makes the most sense for this specific location. Mr. Jack, I just want to uh clarify something. So, in this zone, uh there's a 15 foot setback required from the side and your property lines. What are the
setbacks you're proposing? So, I would like to install a 10 by 20 shed. The width of that area that is open there is around around like 19 19.5. So, I figured 20 will just get me a little over and it'll provide more of a sound
barrier and a functionality of physical privacy that, you know, can pretty much allow my family to enjoy that uh scenic lifestyle that we promised them. Thank you. The question is, how far from the rear and side property lines will the shed be? It's a good question. And so
right now there is about a 13 foot distance from where that pool shed. There's like a little brown fence over there that has that hides the pool pool equipment like the pump and uh you know all that stuff. So if you go from that wall to the actual black fence, there's
13 ft there. So, I'm proposing to put something that is 10 feet wide, which will give me about three feet of distance, which maybe I can add something there on the sides or just leave a little bit of distance in case someone there is an emergency and someone has to, you know, get through. So, that's how far it would be. Three
feet from the uh side and how far from the rear? So, that's basically what it's going to be. Three feet from the rear. And then how about from the side? Uh which side are you referring to? So from the rear there's where the white
fence is, right? There's exactly where I line. Okay, got it. The white fence to that brown fence distance is right around 20 ft. So I was hoping to go right up alongside the fence. So on the property line, no on on the
property line. Yeah, no setback. The only setback would possibly be from the the other side if there needs to be a distance. I'm okay with compromising. I just think that this is the the best solution for this specific layout. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?
So, just to be clear, dogs weren't physically on the property. Um the back area is more of like a wooded area that is adjacent to the property behind me. The dogs are left out there free to pretty much roam around. They're big dogs. I would imagine that a 4ft fence
is not really going to sustain or hold a dog of that size from jumping over. Um, with me, it's like with my kids, all all they need to do is see the dog out there and then in their imagination, it's it's going to jump and it's quite frankly really possible. Uh, so to give them that level of, you know, security, I I
figured put the shed in that placement anyways and sort of knock two birds with one stone to really help solve the problem. Have you called anyone with regards to dogs running loose? I I have a good relationship with all my neighbors. I had written testimony today that I can submit from the neighbor that
actually shares the backyard. He understands the concern. Um I was told actually minutes before this hearing that he would actually have to be here present and that he would have to be sworn in and just unfortunately logistically it didn't work out to bring him here. But I do have written testimony stating that he understands
the need and the concern and that he is not objecting to it in any way, shape or form. I have a written statement from him signed. So you never called the town or animal control or anybody regarding these? I think that people are entitled to have animals. I'm a big animal lover
myself. So I don't think he's doing anything wrong. It's his property and he's allowed to have his dogs roam around his property. The the challenge is is that I have a unique layout that sort of shares our you know backyards and that area unfortunately is just really where this ordeal really came
about. And you you stated that you would have a threefoot opening on the side of the shed. So as long as you have the the distance, which is why I was answering her to go 20 ft, you'll
pretty much cover that area. Come out a little bit. So even if there is marginally, you know, a foot, two feet on the sides, it's not really going to be as visual as there will be something physically, you know, like as a barrier blocking them from uh from actually seeing or hearing or even just thinking about the dog just jumping through. I
mean, ideally, I would like to put it up against the wall completely, but if there are setbacks or or challenges with the zoning board, and you know, if that just does simply doesn't work, then I'm open to a suggestion. Um, you can just clearly see the layouts. I mean, there's really no room for me to put any
additional fencing here. My neighbor on the left has a white fence. The one on the back has a brown fence and I have a black fence. Any additional fences at this point is just going to, you know, be totally ridiculous. And may I ask how old your children are? Yes. So, I have I have one child that um
is 9 years old, another one that's eight, and another one that's five, and my wife is expecting. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional questions for the applicant?
Mr. Martins. Um, the microphone, please. I got a lot of question. Um, what was the what's the height of the shed that you're proposing? So, standard heights are right around 10 feet high. 10 feet. And that's more or less what we would be
going with, standard height. Yeah. So the other the other fences are from your neighbor and I guess but the black fence it's all yours. Yeah, the black fence surrounds the pool. So that part is mine and that's totally yours. Correct. And then after the pool fence goes the brown fence and
that that just basically provides the coverage from my other neighbor. And then that opening um to that other property that's also your neighbors. They just decided not to go not to have correct. Yeah. So, he has a very interesting shape to his property and uh
he has a pool area which that's why the dogs roam around there. He's not going to let the dogs roam around the pool. So, you know, he just lets him run around. He plays his games with them. And I'm a big dog lover so I can understand why he's there. It's it's just an unfortunate situation, but you
know, I figured uh this might help really solve the problem. Right. Right. Right. Okay. Um you mentioned about the written testimony from one of your neighbors. Is is that part of the uh No. Oh, I can't use correct. Because there's not an opportunity to question the uh
statement. Okay. Got it. So, really, I shouldn't even listen. I didn't hear what he just said about the test. Right. I can't question it. Although, I can because he's like what he said what he meant. He he didn't show me a piece of paper, but he he just said it. You you could you
could ask Mr. T a question. Um but we cannot accept the statement into evidence. Okay. Gotcha. Um, so your other neighbor, the one that didn't give you a test, does he have an issue, you're doing this? So, it's a good question. So, he actually doesn't really care for the dogs because he's a dog
lover himself. He has his own dogs. His dogs, I will notice, are a little bit smaller, so they're cuter in a way, in a sense, so my kids are not as startled. Um, it's really the adjacent one that I share the back with that is more concerning. Um, and there there is privacy fence there. So, I mean, even if
they run around, there's really no concern of them jumping over immediately to cause some some problem. Right. Right. And my question was more about does he have a concern about you putting a shed that's what 14 ft I think you said. Are you referring to the neighbor that got granted the variance and got the same shed? Is that the one with the
white fence? Yes. Yes. That Yeah, he has the same shed in the same area. So, I I would I can't imagine that he would have a problem. Right. So, your testimony is that he he's not meeting or he got a variance or something. and he's not meeting the the the setback requirement either. Yeah, I actually uploaded through the Oprah Act. I was able to
pull his variance and I've submitted it for the board to review today as well, right? It should be here. Yeah. Would you say it's this shed here? Yeah, it's a Cape shed that's all the way in the back. I don't know if you can really see it there. It's on the top, but it's in
the same Yeah, this one clearly shows. Yeah, it's the same It's the same concept, same idea, same location, right? Okay. Yeah. Um Okay. Well, thank you. Yeah. My really my concern is um and I see the other shed.
So, a fence would be six feet. Right. Right. Now, you want to kill two birds with one stone, but that stone is 14 feet high. So, um you know, it stands out obviously. Um and and that that's that's my concern. That's why I asked those
questions the way I asked them. I'm sorry. I thought you said the dimensions of the shed were 10 by 20. It is a 10 by 20 shed. So, I was just going to ask. Sorry. It's not 14. It's 10 by 20. How tall is it? 10 feet. 10 feet. Okay, that's a little better. But, uh, it's still taller than six feet. Yeah. No, I
I understand. But you got a good point that your neighbor has one, too. You can see it from your yard. You can see a shed. Excuse me. Every situation is unique and until um the zoning officer can speak on that. Just because the neighbor has one doesn't mean that this is the same situation or has the same
hardship. So, let's hold our our judgment on that. here from the zoning officer. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. I just wanted to outline what my concern was and maybe it can be addressed. Thank you, M. Mr. Tech, just two quick questions. Um,
just to clarify, you have an issue with the back neighbor, but you want a possible three-foot setback from that rear property line, but you want zero setback to the side property line. Why not switch it? Why not put it up against that rear fence and then have a three-foot setback off the side? Just curious. Sorry, I'm not understanding your question. Can you repeat that one
more time? Yes. So, you had um testified that you want a three-foot setback from the rear property line, and that's the issue that you're having with the animals. The issue is stemming from the right side, the open, but you want a zero setback. You want on the property line against the fence to the left side. Wouldn't you want it reversed? I'm just
want to make sure I'm understanding. Ideally, I would like no setbacks, meaning go straight against the property line. I offered it as as a settlement to try to compromise in case there was a a challenge here. Something you're open to. Understandable. Um, my just to follow up with that, it's just hard when
you're right up on the property line, especially with that number of fences, for you to maintain any any possible vegetation growth back there. That's why I offered the 3 ft distance. Um, my other question is, are you um requesting any utilities in the shed? Any electric or anything? Just going to be a basic
shed just for personal storage? Supplies? Yeah, supplies. Uh, Jewish, you know, items as well, seasonal items. Just personal storage. That covers it all. Not a problem. Thank you. Thanks. Any additional questions for the applicant,
Mr. Roire? Yes. Uh, just typically we would recommend at least a two or three foot setback from the property line for maintenance. I would agree with Gina. And that would be on both the side and the rear. Correct. Correct. So, Mr. Tech, what the engineer is
saying, what the zoning officer is saying that on the rear the rear property line and the side at least two to three feet. Um, would that is that something that you would be amunable to? Again, I I ideally like to run up
directly against the area to cover it thoroughly without having to plant or put up any vegetation. I think the the purpose of this is also to understand that there is no utilities that are actually going here. So the maintenance is very low. Um putting vegetation or other stuff will require maintenance and
it'll practically be impossible to really go behind there to strategically try to maintain it with such limited space. So I mean I hear where you're coming from. I understand it. If there's a real concern, I'm open to it. But just practically speaking, there's no utilities there. So there's really nothing to to handle there. Maintenance
meaning more so like the grass that's growing. How you going to weed whack or anything, the the grass that's growing back there or eventually 15 10 15 years down the road when your paint's chipping on on the shed, how you gonna get back there to paint it. That that's more the maintenance that Mark and I were trying to do. Part of compliance was to have it
installed with the same functionality of the actual home. So, the same vinyl siding, the same siding is very easy to replace. Yeah, I was just using that as an example. Maintenance of of the accessory structure itself as well as whatever vegetation is already currently growing, right? The vegetation that's there will have to be replaced. You
don't typically put a shed on top of vegetation. You want to put some sort of a slab. Yeah. Slab. So there's And but even gravel, I mean, weeds grow in there. So, and that's just something that we see, especially from a code enforcement perspective. So, um, I would just hate to see you request something, the board approve it, and then come down
the line it become a problem because it's really, you really can't access that, right? I think concrete would probably be the best solution there because that guarantees there's no shrubs or anything growing out of there. I think that would really solve the problem. Mr. Peters, do you have any input for
us? No, madam chair. Thank you. I I I did just remember what Well, not remember, but you brought up a question. Um, so right now the back of Black Fence to your neighbor's property looks very nice, clean.
um if it happens to get overgrown and stuff comes starts coming over to your fence, obviously you can't do anything about that because you got the shed now, right back to there's no space to go there and make any kind of maintenance. Um do you see that as a potential issue in the future? Not really. Have no
access to that. It's a good question, but there's really nothing alongside the actual wall itself. There's no trees within a, you know, 5 to 10 foot radius. It just goes further into the property. So I mean I'm also really good friends with the neighbors. He's a member of the community, member of the tribe. So, if there's a problem, you know, I'm sure
I'll work it out with him. Thank you. Yes, please. Okay. Um, just to remind the board obviously um, in this application, there needs to be a showing of hardship. The whether there's a unique physical condition, there's been some testimony about the conditions of
the property. I don't know in terms of uniqueness. um and whether those conditions create practical difficulties or undue hardship in complying with the zoning ordinance which is the 15 foot setback. Um you have to make sure that the you've got a determination the
hardship is not self-created. In this case it appears to come from the uh the lot and whether the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or impairment of the zoning plan. So those are the factors that you need to consider.
Any other questions or comments? Okay, I'm going to open this to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward to speak about the testifying on this application for this evening? You come forward to Mr. T. Can you just step to the side, please? Thank
you. Hello. How is everyone today? Fine. And if I could before you go, could you please raise your right hand? Yes, sure. Do you uh swear that the testimony you'll give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. And could you please state your
name for the record? Michael Dorenzo. Okay. So, um I live right across the street right in the community. Um, I could appreciate where you're coming from as far as moving into the neighborhood and wanting to appreciate
and enjoy uh the way our community feels and just the aspect of the community. My concern is with a unit that is 10 by 20 by 10 tall that will
this start to change the feel of the community. And when we're talking about putting a foundational slab in it, this is more for the zoning team. But I believe that would substitute or make this this building a building. And I just don't
understand being a homeowner myself and having a lot of these similar things that I have to go through how putting such a large shed up is going to get to the solution when that's a 20 foot span that could be
satisfied by three fence pieces which costs a whole lot less than doing a shed. So my question would be as far as the storage unit, you plan on storing things in it, correct? Excuse me. I'm sorry. Could you direct your testimony
to the board, please? As far as this being a storage unit, um I would like to know that this is only going to be used for storage, never for dwelling, uh never for any type of gatherings, anything like that, and that it would be
used just for those purposes. I would just like to feel confident in that. Uh the other thing is I know with my property I have an easement running through. I've been in a situation like this where you know I tried to get different variances approved and I was
told I could not do certain things because that is what the township has enforced. Okay. When I purchased my house, I was told about the variances and the things that I was able to do and
not do. Okay? Much like Benjamin, um, unfortunately, purchasing the house, knowing what you're getting into, knowing what you're purchasing, you knew getting into this what you were going to be able to get approved and not approved. And I think it is unfortunate because I do feel for
Benjamin with the dog situation. I just think that a shed is an extreme measure to try to cover up or block the concern of the animals. Um the cost of a shed 10 by 20. I looked into many sheds and
tried to figure out for myself what that would look like and what the zoning would be for me. How many feet off my neighbor's yard and I know that I would need to move that shed in a certain point. And now what I'm being told or hearing is that I could practically
build my shed right on my property line when I still need to maintain that the maintenance of it, the appearance of it, and that could possibly be justified and allowed. And I'm just kind of torn. It's confusing to me. Uh getting back to me
purchasing my house and me being on an easement. Unfortunately, I have about 10 feet of wasted space because that easement runs right through the the line of my property and I was told I could not build anything on it and I had to set my fence back 10 ft. Okay. So, I
understand where he's coming from and and I could relate to him. Um, but unfortunately the rules and the laws are the laws and they're there for us and to protect us. And I would just really appreciate if we would just abide by
that. Um, like I was getting to the point as far as the size of the shed for this for for the price of a shed like that, you could buy full grown shrubbery, bushes, trees, and you would be able to accomplish the same thing. Okay. Uh, also the comment as far as the
fence on top of a fence, uh, there's many neighbors who will do that and that small span of putting this fence up to where it will block out those animals, I still think would would do the same thing as creating this huge building. So, that's my perspective on it. I did
take the time out to come here and speak. Um, I just wanted my voice to be heard and I just thank you for taking the time to listen. Thank you. You have any questions for me? I do not anyone have any questions? Mr. I would just, you know, comment
that, um, I very much understand your concern. Um, and your property does, like you're saying, may have an easement, his may not have an easement, and each property is based on its own merits, um, the
topography and things of the same. Um, as far as the character of the neighborhood, you're you're saying that, you know, it's sort of setting such a precedent. Um, we did get a exhibit for the resolution for his next door neighbor, which has a very similar, um,
size shed. So, I think that, you know, he's not setting any kind of precedent and his neighbor next door to him has it. So, I think it is actually appropriate. Um, so Mr. Heyman, with all due respect, I believe Mrs. Brad Bradley
mentioned that those are different cases. We're talking about this case here and now. I don't know what went into the decision that allowed that to happen, but we're talking about this situation here and now. So, I think that's a different case that really
should not be brought up at this time. I agree. We don't know what correct. The other thing is, do we have the exact dimensions of that shed? Now, we assume it's the same size based on the look of the picture, but do we have the exact
dimensions of that shed and the reason or what that shed is being used for? So, as was stated, the the issue is really with this property. Obviously, the question of whether there's another shed could go to uh the uh character of
the neighborhood, but as I think you are aware, the shed itself, just having the shed is not the subject of the variance application. The variance application is only for the setback. That is correct. I am aware of that. And and there would be other places in the yard where I'm sure
you could put a shed, but I understand Benjamin's concern. If I could put a shed here, I block out the neighbors and I also have a shed. So, I understand that completely. Any other questions for me? Okay, thank you for coming forward.
Question. I heard some testimony about a pad going down. I heard some testimony about a pad going down, a concrete pad. Is that true? So, I was responding to uh one of the members here regarding to
maintenancing any areas around the shed and I suggested that if weeds are concern, you can put up a concrete slab that would eliminate that form of uh you know, maintenance. But I mean, if you prefer a regular slab that you know, a
regular um f uh structure, I forget what they call it. Uh we could do that, too. Well, correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't a um a shed typically if it is not built on a concrete pad, it's considered a
temporary structure. I think that more so relates to size. Nice. Okay. If I'm not mistaken, and um a 10 by 20 with on a slab or on the ground.
What is So, we've seen them be put on concrete slabs. We've also seen them just be anchored. Um some sheds nowadays, they're they're like kits that come with like flooring kits, Mr. Hudac. So, we've seen multiple variations. It's not uh necessarily a slab is required uh
depending on size but that would be building code related not zoning related. What are the requirements of you know a shed of this size? This is larger than uh this is going to require a um inspection
and a building permit and so forth. Correct. I believe it's anything over 200 square feet requires a building permit. So I think this would be exempt. But I think the question that you're trying to ask would best be answered by the building inspector so I don't want to misspeak. Okay. Yeah, I would I would agree with that.
Um and it we're considering this an accessory structure and it needs to comply with the accessory structure setbacks and uh whether it's permanent or temporary structure. That's that's a building department uh question. Based on the research that I
did, anything under 200 square ft doesn't really require anything other than a zoning permit. The only issue we're ch we're challenged with today is the the setbacks, the location of where this is going, which as an FYI, I have a shed in my
backyard. I had to adhere to a 15 foot set back as well. So, I'm having difficulty accepting your hardship. I don't really hear a hardship. If you pull up my zoning um
survey, okay, the the survey, I would like any suggestions that you would recommend on where a shed would go. Well, you have over a half an acre. You have a pretty big backyard, right? So, it's not a matter of you don't have the room to put that shed and and abide by
the zoning laws. I think what you're trying to do is kill three birds with one stone. One, close up that uh opening. Two, give yourself some storage. And three,
um give yourself as much yard as you can. So, you know, I I I don't I'm having a tough time. I can't really move any of the structures that are on the property. Um I have a playground, I have a pool, I
have a patio structure. These are things that are built into the ground. you can't really put a shed on top of them. It's just not practical. So, I think for this specific case, um although I hear my neighbor Michael and I understand his situation probably warranted different results, but this layout just really
doesn't offer me any other any other way to round it. I'm looking at this and I'm seeing wide open spaces all over your yard. So, I'm struggling with this one because well, part of the issue is you have a
beautiful home. Let me say that. Part of the issue for us is we like to go out and see it and you can't without going in your yard, which we would not do. So, I did drive by, but you cannot get a visual of your backyard from the street. So, based on this, it's very difficult
as compared to looking at the pictures to see what the issue is. So, my struggle here is It's a 15 foot setback and you don't want to have any. I'm I'm trying to put I am a homeowner in Jackson like you and I'm struggling
here because the simplest solution to me seems to be to get fence just to cover that area. But I understand you want storage. But on the on your thing that there is an area over there. Why not to the if you're looking at the diagram to the
right side of the property where that open Why not put a shed there? There is a playground that extends there. The survey was done back in 2016 when the house was created. The playground has since extended a bit further. It's a little wider. So, I don't really answering his question. I don't really
think it like you can understand it unless you physically were there. I mean, the property is open. Anyone's welcome to come by and, you know, physically inspect. I thought that was the purpose of signing off um to allow board members to gain access to see prior to the meeting. Um, but I think
the pictures I I sent just really show that the the issue at hand here and the reason for the variance is because of the setbacks and the the shed ideally would be placed in a in a decent area in the corner just to simply allow us to get that level of privacy. As far as the
the fences go, I think there are rules against putting fences on fences. Other than the lack of functionality, it just looks ridiculous. Um, I have a brown fence on one area, a white fence on the other area, a black fence on this area. I'm running out of colors at this point. I
think it's just going to look really funny. Um, so I think I made my case, but I I respect your decision regardless. Well, the brown fence could be extended to the corner. The brown fence doesn't belong to me. It belongs to my neighbor. No, I No, no, I
understand that. But I'm saying you could add brown fence there to where the white fence is and then that way that area is sealed off completely. To do that I would have to break my pool fence as it's on the property line itself the pool fence. That's the way it was
purchased the way I bought the home. So to do that I would have to connect to my neighbor and then basically continue and and try to attempt to attach it to my other neighbor. Um, also this fence, I will add, is not something you find locally. It's a very distinct color and
it was put in many years ago. It's already discolored. It just it looks very off. Any other questions? Um, Anthony, are you able to bring this up picture? Just the picture that you
shared with us. I think we'll Yeah. Okay. Um, so two things. So currently your black fence there, right? The height of that is what? Four feet. Four and a half feet, right? So for that section that um you have the hardship
because of the dogs. Could you just raise those to be six feet? They're standard size. So four and a half ft. Come in six feet. I don't know. I This This is the way I purchased the home. It's a standard pool fence that goes around. to do what you're asking. They would have to break it off and then but
again, it's it it'll solve the height issue, but the dogs being present there and running and startling the kids is is not something that you want your kids to be in environment when they're really petrified and afraid, especially when they're in the pool, pools deep. You got kids that are, you know, learning how to
swim, coming from a different lifestyle. I I really don't want to challenge them like that. Right. So, Right. Okay. So in your mind just raising it to six feet the one that's there now something that looks similar so you don't have to worry about getting a brown one or a white one or a third color you just the one that's
there just raise it up to six feet for that section that's not an option you feel it's not there's no sense of privacy there's still the issue of the dogs maybe now the concern is that they won't jump over but they're still present okay okay I understand um okay
so am I just so right now all the grass pass right even away from the pool. If you that's not enough space there to put a shed that would meet all the criteria. You want me to put a shed against right up alongside the pool? I don't Well, let me just be I don't want you to do anything. I'm just giving you options,
right? Things to think about. You might have thought about this already. Hey, what if I put the fence, you know, somewhere in that green area there and um and now I have to worry about the the zoning board. So, the same challenge you have on the left side, you have on the right. It's just strategically better to
place it on the left because um, you know, get more things accomplished in that specific location, right? So all that open grass right now, a shed would not be good to put there instead of the corner just I mean, you'll run into the same setbacks, the same issues, same issues, the same problem. It's just
strategically better to close off that specific open area, right? Okay. Thank you. If there is any preference going back to the members here as far as what you prefer for me to put on the floor, I'm I'm open to any suggestions. I just offered concrete. It's a more expensive project. Um, but if you feel that that
will help solve any vegetation issues or maintenance issues, I'm okay with spending it to do it. Um, but if there's I think normally the way they do it is they put specific wood frames and then they fill it up with rocks or gravel or something just as a foundation similar to what I already have over there. If
you look near the pool side, right after the stamped concrete, there is like sort of gravel um and rocks and stuff. So, I mean, they're probably going to go with the same layout unless you recommend to do uh concrete. I know that's directed towards me, but as a zoning officer, I don't get
a say in that. That's your question. I'll shift my attention. I just I just improved the location of it. Um, I do just want to point out one more point that the pool filter is shown on the survey at 15 ft off the left side property line and 15.2 off the rear property line. So, if we have a 10- foot
wide shed, either at a two or three foot step setback, keep in mind that that pool filter is going to be relatively close to that front wall, possibly the door may hit it and depending where the door is located. That's all I wanted to point out. So, just to be clear, you're saying that if he was to put it in that corner and
we said two, let's just say for the sake of this conversation, two feet off of the rear and two feet off of the side, it may impede the So, if we if we only have 15 feet to work with and the shed is 10 feet with the three feet off the rear property line, that's 13. So, you're only two feet to that pool
filter. So, I mean, ideally based on that, we could go two feet off the property line, two feet from the section of the pool, giving you ample amount of maintenance for both the shrubs or anything else that's in that area. And uh we'll still be able to get the width and the length,
which will still cover that that area properly. And this two below, two feet would be ample enough room to be able to use a weed whack or whatever to clean and maintain. Correct. Okay. Any other question? I don't see a problem without. Thank you. So, I heard
you. Sorry. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Uh board, it's up to us uh for discussion and a possible motion. Oh, I'm sorry. I did not close public session. Forgive me. We started talking. I apologize. Sir, please come forward.
Hi. Please raise your right hand. You swear the testimony you'll give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth. Yep. Yes. And please please state your name for the record. Um Frank Seno. I live on Forenzy Road across the street. And uh just a couple of things.
I think the zoning board uh is important because um you know keeps everything uh the integrity of the neighborhood. You know, everybody has rules. And then if you start setting precedent, you know, while others in a neighborhood all have sheds and everything that were built and located on the properties per zoning
setback regulations that too many uh exceptions, you know, it's just going to make everything haphazardly different. Also, uh as an eyesore and then uh he mentioned just about the dogs. I mean, it seems like a
a good idea would just put some kind of fabric along the fence that's open there so they won't see any dogs or anything because uh Uh it seems like a 10 by 20 foot shed just to solve a dog problem. It's kind of overkill. You could easily put a 5 by 10 foot shed set back per the
regulations and solve the same problem. And then um uh and again just finally uh I know when he purchased the home he uh with that with a pool in the backyard and he knew that the space was uh likely
limited for large uh sheds. So, as you guys have stated, it seems like uh any kind of undue hardship uh is, you know, I don't, you know, I don't see any undue hardship this way. The the neighborhood keeps a nice consistent maintenance. And again, uh uh
correct about the shrubs. Um I have I have a fence around my property between two fences. You get trees growing there all the time and it's very hard to cut, hard to maintain between any kind of structures too close to fences and everything. So there's the overgrown
shrub issue and everything. So okay, thank you. Thank you for coming forward, sir. Madam Chair, could I just make one comment? Just just to remind everyone in here, this board doesn't set precedents. It's been said already a few times this evening. Every case is a
casebyase matter. So there are no precedents on this board. So to respond back to uh one of my neighbors, as far as the maintenance goes, um like uh she had mentioned, there is an ample amount of space
underneath the black fence. There's about two or three um I think maybe like a foot off the ground or maybe like six inches off the ground where you can run a weed whacker there to pretty much keep the area clean. Is any Let me just do this before I forget again. Anyone else wishing to
come forward and speak about this application? Seeing no one else come forward, we're going to go ahead and close public session. Mr. Hudac, did you No, I purchased the property like this with the pool with the pool fence and everything.
Yes. the play area was expanded a little bit. So, the length and the the width, but the same location. Yeah, I hear you. [Music] Any other questions or comments for the
applicant? Microphone. What are we talking? What's the final two foot set back, three-foot set back? What's the base going to be? I don't know what the applicant saying he's doing or uh that's going to be totally up to us because there's been so much tossed around. I don't know what
the answer is. I think to like maintain everybody's um compromise in the level of trying to adjust to everybody's concerns. I think two feet off the wall, two feet from the pool equipment really works for everybody and uh it really accomplishes that uh that issues that
were brought up to clarify that you said two feet off the blue equipment. I think we're I think we're basing it off of the two fences or property line. Yes. So it would be two feet off this black fence on this side and I think two feet off
the where the pool privacy thing goes. that little section over there that hides the pool equipment. So, I would just leave another two feet just in case there's some maintenance that needs to be done. So, I don't know the exact dimensions and placement. I don't think that's on the survey. So, we just actually drawn up on the picture. I
measured it. Um, one of you guys should have the pictures if you still have them. What I mean is for zoning purposes for resolution, we need to have a exact um placement for it. I think from the property line. The survey should also give you that information as the survey
that was provided to me did include the distance from the pool privacy fence to the actual wall. I think if I remember correctly, it was 15 ft. Mr. Heyman, the location of the pool filter was just to keep in mind for the location of the setbacks if we were
going for two or three feet off that property line. I think where we are right now is we're discussing whether it be two or three feet off the rear and side property line. So, they're both going to be the same setback. Um, but I think the applicant has has offered a compromise to the board whether it be
two or three feet, but his original request was zero. Right. So, I just want to confirm that we're at two feet from the property line on both sides. Is that what it is? Yes. So, it' be two feet. He's leaving it up to your the board's discretion. Correct. Okay. Thank you.
Are we open for discussion? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Um, so I'll just give my opinion. Um, I think two of your residents use words that uh uh fit what I I think of extreme
solution and um overkill, right? So, if the hardship is the dogs, um obviously any type of six-foot fence would solve that problem. Um, and the shed just seems, first of
all, it's 10 feet, not six, so that's more. And it just seems like overkill. Um, the hardship was the layout. Um, if I may, I'm going to get to that. Right. Yeah. Um, as far as the layout and as far as the space available so you could
put a shed somewhere, right? Um, the decision to expand the playground was yours. You've decided that expanding the playground was more important than putting a shed there in essence, right? I understand the pool was already there, but you knew that, right? Uh the size of
the lot, you knew what it was when you purchased it. I can't see that as a hardship. You knew, you know, you could have bought a house with a one acre on it. I I just don't see the hardship. So, those are my Can I Can I comment,
Mr. Martin? Yes. Uh are you are you saying that the applicant should remove his playground, purchase different property? This is the property that he's of course has and that he's requesting this based off of what he's presenting to us. But what I'm
saying is so if I may I know you want to chime in, but right that's that's not what I said. What I said was that at the time that it came to make a decision, do I expand the playground or do I put up a shed? The decision he made was to expand the
playground. I'm not telling him to undo it. He made that decision. It was a trade-off. We all make trade-offs, right? He made a trade-off. Do I put up a shed or do I expand the playground based on the demographics here? He made that decision. Well, to frame just to frame it, there's a you know, the
applicant has testified about a hardship. One of the considerations for the board is whether you consider it a hardship and also whether you consider that hardship to be self-created. Right. So just understand your train of
thought. Um you're you're you're assuming that he had this debate. Um you know should I put in a playground or a shed? I mean to me it was it sounds like this is an afterthought. It wasn't necessarily thought out. So so I think I addressed that in my comments. I said
whether you've really physically thought about it or not, that's the end game. The end game is you have to make a decision right now. Do I put up a shed or do I reduce the playground? That's your decision. I I mentioned that that at the time it you know these things
progress, right? So once you have it now you're you're sitting with what you got. You decided to to to expand the playground and now you want to put up a shed. The an the question is can I do it? Do I have enough space? And our zoning laws say
you don't. Should Should he remove his pool because he wants to put up a shed? Give me a break. Is that what I said? It's the same. No, I said it's a trade-off. It's a trade-off. You make a decision. down. So, you know, in order to get a
variance, you have to hardship but frankly I don't see the hardship just to respond to both members of the board. Um I understand that you know the circumstances may look like we expanded the playground but the playground was
already there. There was really nowhere else for me to just shift and and relocate the playground. It's a physical structure that's in the ground. Um I I don't really see the logic in putting a shed right next to a playground either. So although I have half an acre, it it's
quite frankly really an illusion once you put the pool in there and then once you have the patio landscape that takes up about 80% of the yard, you're dealing with about 20% of area that's open to either vegetation or just general maintenance. So I understand the concerns and I understand that neighbors
in this situation might um you know may have went through similar situations and maybe were let down. I think my property size is just very unique and that's really the hardship. The hardship here is that most properties go are back to back. This is backtoback with two
separate neighbors and there's really no one solution. If I had my own fence from right to left, it would have been ideal, but I don't. I'm using one of my neighbors fences and then connecting with my own. Um there is I think there's issues putting fence on top of fences,
putting privacy screens. It's really not going to solve anything. The height is the same height. Um this isn't a massive structure. It's under 200 square ft. It's It's an ample amount of space to store general maintenance, mowing equipment. Um I've already explained that there is no electrical, no
plumbing. This isn't a frat house. This is just general storage supplies. That's really all it is at this point. Okay. Um I I I just have to say it because I think I have but kind of sidestepping the issue. Um, you have a half acre, you have a beautiful property, you have a
beautiful pool, you have all these beautiful things, the playground, right? Knowing that you have an half acre, having all those other things there, whether they were there before or not, whether you built them or not, it's a trade-off, right? Life is a trade-off. You could tear that down or do something
else and put up the shed. The fact is on a halfacre, you can't have all of that. And you want all of it. You want the pool, you want the playground, you want this, you want that, and you want the shed. Those are not in the zoning. He But in fairness, Mr. T, he has every
right as a resident to come to the zoning board to ask for a varian. Absolutely. I'm not saying against that. Absolutely. Of course you do. And I have the right to say I don't think you should get the variance. The of course you do. So just of course nobody I'm not saying. Absolutely. You're doing the
right thing. Oh, absolutely. better than putting it out there without getting it a legal permit and then finding out later. I I credit you on that. Absolutely. That's in no way am I saying that. Right. I I think that the question for the hope hopefully hasn't been interpreted that way by anybody here. So
So the question now as has been framed several times is you know there's an application for uh variance from the setback. The setback is 15. the applicant has modified his application essentially or his request to say that
uh he's requesting uh two feet on either side. He's testified about the conditions of his property and you know there really as as put forward by Mr. Hudach. It's a question of is there a hardship due to the conditions of the
property? We've talked about whether those things are self-created um or whether in the totality of the circumstances on this individual application you think that the variance should be granted. I don't know if there is more discussion or a motion of some
sort. I I have one more discussion. Would the applicant stipulate the storage only not used for any other purpose? 100%. Any other questions or comments? Does anyone have a motion? Just so I I will second that that motion. Not a motion. This is not
Smokeoky Robinson. No, I second that emotion. Motion. Understood. So, so there is a motion and a second to deny to deny. So, a yes vote would be to deny the variance to put up the shed.
Roll call, please. Mr. Brezie, Mr. Heyman, no. Mr. Hudek, yes. Mr. Martins, yes. Mr. search. No, Miss Brad.
Yes. So, you're the application for the variance is denied. Obviously, you could take the feedback here and if you make an application for some other variance or something, uh, we'll see you again. But this one was denied. There'll be a
motion, I'm sorry, a resolution probably at the next meeting. Okay, we are going to move on to applicant number well it's at applicant number one on the agenda. Applicant JPO Jackson LP Grand Harmony approval
amendment site plan 837-2 block 4801 lot 5.015689 and 10. Miss Jennings and um I'll remind the board this is a matter in which I have a conflict. Mr. Shay will uh be coming up here and I will
leave the room. Madam, can I have two minutes? Excuse me? Can I be excused for two minutes? The little boys room. Oh, Miss Jennings, just give us two minutes. Somebody has to use the gentleman. Thank you. [Laughter]
I know. instead of going. No worries. Good evening. For the record, I'm Donna Jennings from the law firm of Wend Goldman and Spitzer. on behalf of the applicant. Uh the applicant is here this evening seeking a technical subdivision to permit fee
simple ownership of the previously approved inclusionary housing development and an approval amendment to modify several of the previously approved buildings for property located at Harmony Road and identified as block 4801 lots 56 89 and 10 on the township's
tax maps. The property is approximately 45.6 6 acres and located in the LC zone. Over the course of several hearings, the board had granted a DU variance to permit multifamily housing at the property and a C variance for the height of the accessory clubhouse building. The
property will be developed with 195 residential units, including 40 affordable units, the clubhouse, and various other site amenities. With respect to the technical subdivision, the applicant is looking solely to convert the ownership structure of the market rate units for condominium to fee
simple ownership. This is done to improve the marketability of the units. There will still be an HOA to maintain the common areas. The affordable housing structure will remain a separate HOA and will have full access to all the amenities enjoyed by the owners of the market rate units. and the technical subdivision will modify the prior
approval solely with respect to ownership of the market rate units will not have any effect on the approved structures or the site operations. Um we have this evening with me uh Ian Bordon who will testify on behalf of the applicant and we are in receipt of one review letter from the board's engineer
uh dated May 22nd, 2025. Good evening, Mrs. Jennings. Uh so you guys heard me coughing from the background now. So you can hear me coughing from up here. So, I'm a little short of breath at the moment, but just bear with me. Um, so I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna kind of uh fill in the gaps a
little bit. Um, just and piggyback off of what Donna Jennings uh Miss Jennings just said. All right, I got that right. All right, so um this thing's got a little bit of a a tortured history. So, in uh 2020, it came before uh the zoning
board for D1 variance. uh in 2021 it came back before the uh zoning board for preliminary and final major site plan approval. 2024 it came back before the board again for preliminary and final major site plan approval. Um in this
situation there's there's been almost 5 years of engineering review which which is kind of wild. Um but it's also goes to the extent by which all the professionals at the township have have looked at this project which is which is a good thing. um bad for escrow fees on behalf of the PL the applicant but you
know good good for the township. So uh in February of 2025 the township engineer um the issue of lot lines apparently came up between the applicant and the township engineer in approximately February 2025 from from my
discussions with the township engineer and and the township engineer recommended that the applicant come back before the board for some kind of administrative approval. Um now so and just so the zoning board is uh familiar with the process what happens is that there there's different ways of obtaining um lot line approval. So one
one of the ways the applicant could have done it was would be by submitting an application to the DCA for condominium approval. DCA approves it that then goes to the township tax assessor. Tax assessor then uh gives lot and block numbers. So that that's one avenue but they they listen to the township
engineer filed for uh administrative approval uh and they're back before. So this is kind of the perfect example of a checks and balancing system actually working in a township which is kind of unique. We from our perspective the board we we typically don't see this
which is kind of for me it's I'm I'm you know a nerd so it's kind of it's kind of cool seeing the checks and balancing system play out. Um the applicant is uh using uh is seeking relief under under ordinance 244 57.2 for the uh technical
subdivision relief. Uh there's another ordinance which falls within the jurisdiction of the board. Uh it's 244-23 for that administrative approval subject to township um uh engineer writeoff which is a good thing which I think is where he was leading with with
uh requesting the applicant come back before the zoning board. Um, so this is kind of a perfect example of the checks and balancing system of the township playing out the way that it should be and the applicant operating in good faith and coming back before the board to resolve a couple issues that it's
kind of like a Maya Koopa situation where where the applicant, you know, probably should have had the lot lines hashed out in the last two uh preliminary and final applications, but they didn't for whatever reason. And I don't know if that's because they were, you know, going to seek the DCA approval or whatever it was, but uh be that as it
may, we're we're here now. Um and and really there's two different avenues of of granting relief, so to speak, that the board can take into consideration. Uh so here's where we're at. Have Mr. Bordon sworn in and he's going to go through it. And I think one of the things the board members should
keep in mind is absolutely nothing is really changing with the actual approval that you've already done. We've already started site improvements. It really is just uh an ownership of the market rate units, the ground beneath the units. So, no one's really going to know driving by, oh, that unit, somebody owns the
land underneath it, as opposed to, oh, that unit, they don't own the land underneath it. So, I don't think anybody is really going to know the difference. I don't think that's an engineering feat. I don't think it's a planning feat. It's really just a legal issue of ownership of the land underneath the buildings. So, if Ian could uh get sworn
in and we can begin. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Please spell your name and say your last for the record. Oh, we have to share. Uh Ian Bordon, president, professional design services, licensed professional
planner, state, New Jersey. And the board accepts your credentials. We accept your credentials. Thanks. Since we have no idea who you are. Thank you. Yes, the two attorneys have summarized it very well. So limit what I have to say which is a good thing. Um we we'll focus on the fact that you
guys did a good job not what what I might do doing our job for you. Come on. But but very quickly just I think it is a very simple thing but just we have four exhibits. Exhibit A1 is on the on the screen. The uh project is in in the yellow uh boundary.
You see the project is cleared. This this this aerial is about uh six months old. So the site improvements have been completed. Either three or four of the buildings are are are being constructed in this area. County Line Road is on the bottom here and then Harmony Road is is
to the right. Uh exhibit A2, please Anthony. And the two components of this application is the first the first one is what we call the uh um modification of building corners. Uh
and here we have you might want to go to the this is the overall plan. It's it's a little hard to see here. This was these these plans this plan and the remaining two plans were all submitted to the board. This is building uh corner display plan sheet one of two and
they're circled uh little red circles where we have a few buildings. Go to the third one, Anthony. I think it'll be easier to to see. Uh, and here we have various building corners where and here's to use one example where what we're seeking is
simply squaring off the building. See how the I'm kind of blocking it with the uh thing here, but the buildings were kind of cut in. We're just squaring them off. And we're proposing that [Music] um at buildings uh 14, 17, 18, 19, and
21. Uh this is will improve the floor plans of the buildings uh to a more rectangular footprint. we will maintain a minimum spacing between the buildings of 20 ft. Uh so that's that's the one request and then the second request as as mentioned was the form of ownership
and that would be the next sheet please Anthony as as noted um as a mechanism to create the fee simple ownership of the townhouse lots. We are seeking to subdivide those um to create small u
lots for each townhouse unit. the the lot lines would run down the sidelines of each unit, would encompass the front yard from the back of the sidewalk to to the rear yard, create a small rear yard and um and all the all of the uh
area um in between parking, uh roadways, recreation, uh clubhouse would all be under the uh homeowners association control as a common area lot. Again, this can be accomplished as was noted by
the attorneys as a DCA with a condominium filing, but uh fe simple lots being credited uh on a subdivision such as this would uh be better for mortgages and for title uh transfer to the future owners. These are townhouse
units. They will be purchased individually. Um so that that's really the extent of our request. U I believe Mr. Shay had mentioned uh 244-23 of the ordinance that is the application
procedures and uh as noted under item H of that is entitled administrative approvals and there are certain proofs required in that that I believe we meet and I'll briefly review them. Um and as Mr. Shay had noted there's two options under administrative approval. One it
can be granted by the township engineer. The second one, it can be created by the land use board whether it be the zoning board or the planning board. The township engineer has asked us to appear here. Uh so that's why we are here and um the performance criteria
under this section is that the changes have no effect on the purpose and intent of the initial approval. Certainly it does not. We don't change the number of units. We don't change the site improvements, the drainage, the parking, the access. None of that is changed by this proposal.
uh to continue. The changes do not diminish setbacks or location of improvements. Again, we're not changing any of those. Um uh does not uh does not increase the dimension of any building or facility beyond 10% of the original approval.
Again, the the building uh corner display that we did not even come close to to a 10%. and it's just a squaring off of a few feet of of of only uh I believe it was four buildings. Uh providing that all of the requirements or stipulations of the
approval have been met and uh we are not proposing to change any of the stipulations of the original approval. Again, this project has met resolution compliance has posted all the bonds is under construction. The site improvements have been primarily completed and the buildings are under construction.
So, in my opinion, we clearly meet the uh the limitations under the administrative approval section of the ordinance 244-23H. Um, and u request the administrative approval to allow us to file this subdivision map as a technical
subdivision. And um I should also note that a technical subdivision is permitted under the ordinance in the town under a different u zone. We had received a use variance for this project which is why that section doesn't apply to this property but the technical subdivision does apply in other zones in
the town. So we're simply trying to apply those standards and that just simply defines how the map is prepared and what it's required to provide which is what this map does. Uh but again it's a process we believe the appropriate process provide the ownership for the
individual town houses in a much better way than simply uh doing a condominium document. Thank you. Yes. Yes. I I do not um I believe we we agree to
comply. Generally the comments are met file law type comments. Actually, there is one. I'm gonna I'm gonna take one. Yes. Thank you. I almost forgot that. Thank you, Donna. Uh, yes. Item 12 of his letter uh asks for uh any restrictions or any proposed uses. I I
had mentioned that the townhouse lots are going to extend into the rear yard. So, the property lines extend along the sidelines of each townhouse and into the backyard. So, a common question on this type of subdivision is what would the individual townhouse owners be permitted to do in the rear yards? Would
they be allowed to put a shed in? Would they be allowed to put fences in? And the answer is, as advised by my client, Orleans is the is the builder here, that there are the DCA documents do not permit the homeowners to build fences or sheds. Having said that, the builder
Orleans will be building a uh 6ft privacy 6t high privacy fence extending from the rear of each building back about 10 ft. And the idea there is they have patios in the back of these units and the idea uh of that is to allow uh
if I'm on my patio, I can't see my neighbor on his patio. That that's the extent of that improvement. So that is a short piece of fence that will be identical between each unit to be constructed by the developer when he builds the building. Uh beyond that uh
there is and we accept a limitation in the approval that there is not permitted any other fences or sheds uh on any of these lots. Obviously the concern there is that if we don't limit those uh possibility is they could appear for variances and whatnot and that's not the
intent. So and they'll be uniform in nature. Right. So the fences will be uniform part of the original building. Yeah. That's correct. So, in addition to the any condition of this board approval, it's contained in the uh court filing of the
homeowner documents. Oh, I'm sorry. I read it wrong. It's been a long day. I read my my my notes wrong. Uh the sixoot fence does not does not end uh six feet from the the building. It goes to the rear line. I'm sorry, I read my notes wrong.
So the sixoot fence would extend uh to the uh to the uh to the rear line of the lots. Correct. Correct. That's correct. And the and the rear yard, the rear lot
line cannot be fenced. Um otherwise um I don't have any objection to the u to the Morgan engineering review. He he does make some questions like item 11 asks about the full scope of the HOA that was all discussed and approved in the original
approvals. That's all contained in the resolutions that already exist. The HOA maintains all of the parking, drainage, uh roadways, etc. I'm sorry. Are there any questions for the applicant? Mr. Roar.
Yes. um the subdivision of land. I I don't have an issue per se from an engineering standpoint, but I did just want to make sure those concerns were put on the record on how we would handle if there were accessory structures proposed. And I believe that if the HOA
documents specifically prohibit those types of structures, that would address my concern. I have not been able to review and confirm that yet, but that could be a condition of approval should the board look favorably tonight. Um, and also that the fact that the HOA
is still going to maintain the common areas that that takes care of another concern. Um, and if they agree to everything else in the letter, I'd have no other comments at this time. The applicant stipulates to that. Yeah. But I just want to make sure the record's clear.
The the future homeowners could put the fence across the back if they wanted. would have to be uniform with the fence that's already being installed by the developer. So it all be the same same all the same material, same height to match what's in between. Right. Exactly.
So you wouldn't have like the last person with the mismatch of fences all over the place which didn't look very and that's going to be set forth in the recorded documents which is part of the clerk's office and Yeah. Okay. I have a question. So we're on the same page. So the HOA is
going to maintain the common area, the roadways, all that stuff. Someone's backyard is no longer common. That is the up to the individual. So typically in a community, obviously HOA monitors, they police, if you will,
how everybody maintains their yards, their property. So what you're saying is it could be a free-for-all in everyone's backyard. They can let the grass grow. They could throw hundreds of toys. They could do whatever they want in their backyard because since the HOA is not
responsible for this. It's every individual homeowner's responsibility for their yard and what goes in it. That probably is more of a question for the actual developer as opposed to Ian. So, he can he's here. Maybe we could
have him sworn in, but maybe go through any other questions for Ian first and then we could have him come up. Okay. Sure. Anybody? Anybody else for Mr. Bordon or No, I think my question is more suited for Sorry. I think my question is more
suited for the developer as well. Perfect. I think someone over here has Thank you. Um my question is looking at the final plat for the major subdivision. We have a 20 foot wide drainage easement in the back of at
least building 14 that I can see. Um, how does the new proposal affect that? Ian, I'm sorry. I'm playing catch-up on this too. It doesn't affect that at all because it's showing that we are doing building 14 at least that bottom
that building 14 south. It's showing a red outline of your expansion of your building line as well as that deck. That doesn't that doesn't cross into the drainage easement because that's not shown on this building corner display. No, we didn't maintain the
drainage easement. Okay. There's nothing going to be in there. No. And no fence encroachment either. I know we were discussing fences and it's not proposed at this time, but I just want to put that on the record and test. No fences are permitted in the drainage. Yeah. Applicant will stipulate that. Yes. Okay. All right.
Anything else, Mr. Roire? Yes, just one more item. I just want everyone to be clear. So, the the HOA will be in charge of all the common areas, which includes the roadways, the parking lots, the trash pickup, the sidewalks, um storm water
facilities, uh landscaping and snow removal. Really, the only um the properties being divided off are are for the townhouse units individually. Correct. Just to piggyback off my other question, sorry. Uh the building extension that
you have labeled on the building corner display um plans that are it says typical in parenthesis. Are we changing the architectural plans from what was already approved? Ian for the rear corners of those units. Yes, just the rear corners. Was that provided? I don't
think I have a copy of that. Are we adding It's just extra space. We're not adding any additional rooms or anything like that. No. No. Is it just like a larger kitchen? Yes. What does that extension con consist of? Just a few square feet to square off the building. It doesn't
change the numbers of bedrooms or anything. Okay. And it's pushing that deck back as well. Correct. Yes. And the applicant will once again stipulate that. And then we're having stairs come down from those decks. I'm sure we are. I'm not familiar with that. Okay. Just nothing nothing
changes. You're you're getting into the original approval. Nothing changes with the decks from the original approval. Well, because you're saying building extension typical. So, we are moving back the building line. Then we are now moving the deck. And I'm asking about stairs because that would come into question the distance in between the
buildings also with your setbacks and make sure that it complies. That's okay. Yes, I didn't hear a question. I just heard a statement. Well, that just I'm justifying my question, Ian. So, you're saying nothing changed since the original approval, but this is saying building extension. Typical. So, you're moving the building
line back. You're expanding, correct? Because you just said you're adding living space. Yes. Not a bedroom, but just living space in general. Then you are moving the deck back. Everything is moving back to towards that rear property line. And then I'm asking about the
stairs because depending where they are could conflict your information on the space in between your dwelling units and your decks. And it also has to do with the setbacks. Well, this the stairs don't count against the spacing between buildings. Number one. And number two,
none of these building corner uh that we're seeking to expand are located near the perimeter of the project. So there is no setback concern. These are all internal buildings within the project. So there's no setback concerns. Defer to Mark on that
one about because we're moving the building extension as well as the deck. Everything's going to get pushed back. So I asked about the stair location because that may may or may not conflict with the space in between the buildings and the decks. And it also may cause an issue with setbacks. So Mr. Bordon had
stated that we don't count stairs for the space in between buildings and because it does it won't affect the setbacks for each individual lot. Is that accurate? I'd have to confirm that. Okay. So we'll
have to circle back to that. Yes. Thank you, Mark. Mr. computers. Any questions or comments? You madam chair. Mr. Bordon had spoken about the technical subdivision and I just wanted the record to be clear that
the ordinance itself doesn't define a technical subdivision except in a section of the ordinance that deals with particular zone. So that's part of what I would assume is the application this evening. They're asking to utilize the technical subdivision standards as part
of this amend approval amendment as it relates to what amounts to condo law. We don't take any exception to it. I just want the record to be clear that next guy down the road can't walk in and say, "I just want to do a technical subdivision." Technical subdivision
portion of the Jackson Township land use ordinance exists in one zone for the parcel of land out on 537 next to Great Adventure. It doesn't exist anywhere else in town. It's not defined in town. It's a subset of a section of an ordinance specific to one zoning
district in town. Um that being said, my my only caution both to the applicant and the board is this original application was a use variance in a site plan. There were some design standards. The original applicant wasn't
a builder. It was very apparent during that time. Mr. Stevens was the applicant's engineer and planner for that application. I I recall I was on the board. They initially put what amounted to boxes on the plan. So these builder
specific changes are not unusual. They occur when they reach that sort of threshold level where we're not 100% sure. I think the township engineer did the right thing by saying, "Yeah, you should just come back to the board and double check." Um, to that end, because
this was a use variance, there is no zoning, so to speak. They came in and said, "We're going to use, and I'm going to paraphrase, we're going to use the town home zone as a guide," which it's apparent they've consistently done that with these revisions.
Um, I preach this both at the zoning board and at the planning board where I serve as the board planner. It's important to make sure that when the board's done that the board through its
resolution approves what the applicants asking for in a manner that the zoning officer can process permits subsequently. Because when that doesn't happen, when the original builder of this project put boxes on the plan and the engineer at the time for the board
signed off on the plans and then a new builder showed up with new plans, the zoning officer said, "What's going on?" So, it's always important for the board to make sure that our resolution specifies what's being asked so the applicant gets what they're looking for.
And it's easy for our zoning department to process the permits when they come in. So, while this may seem like a lot of rigomearroll to get these changes done, it's important because we expect as the board of adjustment that the zoning officer does what we expected
them to have done. And the way to make sure that that's done correctly is by getting good testimony from the applicant and getting a finally worded resolution from our board of. So, I think we're doing that here this evening. I just wanted to point out to the board because there was a lot of
discussion about a lot of things. This is sort of the normal course of events when a project gets sold to another builder or a project gets approved by someone who's not going to build the project. Thank you. And ju just to be clear, so also what
was kind of interesting about 244-23 because I haven't really seen it a lot. I've seen it a couple times in other townships. I haven't seen it a whole lot. There's an inbuilt condition of approval inside of the ordinance itself which requires a township engineer to sign off on any changes that
that the board approves. So, so there's kind of an internal checks and balancing system that's built into it which is I mean kind of good for everybody, you know. So, so Mr. ROI is still going to have to do resol resolution compliance through his end um through his engineering and then there's also kind
of a double built-in um I wouldn't say veto card but I mean it's kind of um where the township engineer as has to sign off on what the board's got to do. So it it's it works both ways. It's kind of good. Yeah.
Madam Chair, I have one quick question for Mr. Bordon. Um, just so I understand, what about uh for things that fall under common? What about facade of the buildings and the roof? Where does that fall? Is that an HOA
issue or is that an individual home issue? Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Bordon? M. Jennings. [Laughter] Good evening. My name is Larry Dan. Hang
on a sec. You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Please state your name and spell your last of the record. Uh my name is Larry Dugan. D U G an I am uh with the developer JP Jackson. All right. You testifying as a fact witness
and testifying witness. What's your position? I'm senior vice president at the company. So, I'm responsible for land acquisition entitlements. I'm actually also I don't like to admit it, but an attorney licensed to practice in New
Jersey. I try not to. Um, my condolences. Yeah, probably. Yes, Donna will kick me. Um, I just wanted to respond to a couple questions from the board. I know there was a question as to the landscaping in this community. The way the HOA
documents are structured, that the landscaping will be maintained by the HOA, whether it's in the open space or on a lot, except if the backyard of the lot is fenced in, then the unit owner will be responsible. But otherwise, the
landscaping will be maintained by the HOA. Snow removal will also be by the HOA as well as the trash removal here. The HOA still has responsibility can come in and to cure that by by cutting
the grass and filing an assessment lean against that unit owner. The so the the building itself, the town home, the roofs, the siding are all maintained by the individual unit owner. So they will not be the HOA
responsibility, but the HOA has architectural restrictions in the documents. So someone cannot come in and paint their house pink or, you know, whatever do improvements. The improvements would have to be approved by the architectural review committee of
the HOA. But if someone's siding comes flying off in a storm, it's the homeowner's responsibility. Yes, it is. But then again, they decided that no, doesn't bother me. I'm going to leave my siding off. The HOA then has the right to step in and enforce some sort of
stipulation saying that it must be repaired. That's correct. Okay. Just one question, Mr. May. Um, just my understanding, so the the HOA has the right to step into my backyard and see
how good I'm doing. If the if the HOA receives a complaint about someone not maintaining their property, they have the right to enter upon that property and to notice that unit owner. If the unit owner doesn't
comply, then the HOA has the right to come in and basically fix it, right? But first obviously it has to be somebody has to make a complaint. You can't just go in there and I don't Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And just piggybacking off that. So so what happens is that most HOA
documents have like a probable cause standard in it. It's similar to code enforcement or something like that where um it's almost like a like a criminal type standard where if there's enough probable cause reasonable suspicion if you want to kind of use those layman terms then they have the ability to go
in and do an inspection. So it's some HOAs, the good HOA documents typically have a clause in like that for a provision for inspection. Well, I I as I think the previous testimony was, we were not involved at the outset, right? So we acquired the
property um from the the owners who got the use variance. Um it is preferable for the mortgage market and for unit owners to have fee simple because they
own the land right a lender it's easier to underwrite uh owning the house in the land than it is a condominium. Condominiums are subject to more underwriting. Um, the projects have to be reviewed by Fanny and Freddy Mack.
And so there's more availability in the mortgage market if the people own what I'm going to call fee simple as opposed to condominium. I can't answer that because we weren't involved in the use variance. any other questions? Oh, I'm sorry,
Gina. Hi. Um, kind of what we're running into and what we're seeing a lot in our zoning office is people finishing garages to add living space. Is that something that you will allow or how will you address it? We we don't allow it. Um, we will provide draft documents.
We have draft documents of the HOA to the to township professionals. I think that's a comment in the review letter. Okay. So you can provide comments, but we do not allow garages to be finished. Okay, that's regardless of what building it is, what ownership type. It's
regardless of what building, what ownership type, we're not permitting it whatsoever. Okay, thank you. Mr. Roar, Mr. If we wanted to get nitpicky, the the finishing of basement would invalidate
the parking for the site. I'm sorry, say it again. It would invalidate the parking calculations for the site. The site relies upon I'm sorry, garages. If someone were to try to finish a garage, it's part of their RSIS parking
compliance calculation at some point in time. Again, this is an entire site. The idea that we're creating individual lots for financing purposes aside, if people were permitted to finish off garages, they would be taken out of the parking calculation, and I
don't think the site will comply with parking. That's in the documents. So they don't finish the project. So I I think the town's fairly well covered. The applicants indicated it's in the documents. It's part of the original site plan resolution. It's
done. It's done illegally. It becomes an enforcement issue. Mr. Roar, you had a question earlier about something you weren't able to confirm about the steps, the deck. Uh the the question was whether the stairs would be included in the setback.
I was not able to locate any code that specifically discussed that. Gina, do you have anything on that? Just for the sake of continuity, how we review applications at this time is that we do include any stairs um as they do
have to abide by the step set stepbacks um and that does include the space in between houses. Um I haven't had the opportunity to work with a lot of this multi-dwelling um type
applications. So that's why I kind of deferred to Mark on that one. And if I mean we can always circle back and and try to get a little bit clearer of an answer. But I do um just I needed to make the point where Mr. Bordon was saying that
nothing changed. Yes, the dwelling was expanded and everything was shift shifted backwards. So, I just wanted that on the record. Thank you. Well, we're not seeking a variance. So, if they do the technical review and something comes up, then flag it and
Right. It would it would be kicked back to the board essentially. Yeah. Any other questions or comments? Given that there's no other questions or comments, you have any other witnesses from Mrs. Miss Jennings, excuse me. I do that to her like three times a meeting.
It's fine. No worries. Uh, no, no additional questions. That's our direct testimony. Do you want to make a closing statement now, or would you like me to open to the public first? I think you should open it to the public first. Okay. Uh, I'm going to go ahead and open this to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward at this time about testimony that you heard this evening
about this project, please feel free to do so at this time. We can combine general with cross just for purposes of Seeing no one come forward, I'm going to go ahead and close public sessions. Miss
Jennings statement. Uh so I think the fact that we not changing any of the infrastructure, the improvements are already started and it really is just trying to switch it out so that there could be fee simple ownership. Um again, I think it's really a distinction without a difference and we would respect that the board would grant an
approval subject to all the conditions that we stated in the record. Thank you board. It's up to us for comments and discussion and potential motion. Madam J. I'd like to make a motion. Mr. Brie, based on a testimony of our
professionals that this is not a rare occurrence. There's no major change. There's no bedroom count change. There's no traffic change. It's basically the same footprint except for a couple of square feet on the end of the buildings. The distance between the buildings still maintain over 20 feet and all the stipulations were set forth with the
HOC. I make a motion to approve. I'll second that motion. Okay, we have a motion. Second. Roll call, please. Mr. Brazie, yes. Mr. Heyman, yes. Miss uh Dr. Hoffstein.
Oh, sorry. Mr. Huda, Mr. Rosal, she's out too. Mr. Martins. Yes. Mr. Such. Yes. Miss Fred. Yes. so much. Have a good evening. Good to see you again.
a traffic engineer, Michael Intelli, a a design engineer, and Allison Coffin, a planner. Those four witnesses testimony was concluded. I placed on the record that um we had concluded their testimony. Those four witnesses were
examined by the board and we placed on the record that the board had completed their examination of those four witnesses. Similarly, the board's professionals examined those four witnesses and we placed on the record that that examination concluded. The chair opened it up to the public a
number of times during the hearings um sufficient so that each and every one of the witnesses who testified was ex examined cross-examined by the public. There was that was brought to a conclusion. The applicant asked for permission to come to this meeting tonight without
those professionals and they were expressly excused from coming to the meeting this evening. We have no testimony. I have nothing further to present to the board. There will come a moment when the matter is concluded. The objector's case is concluded and I'll
ask for an opportunity to do a brief summation. But this evening it's my understanding that the evening is for the purpose of Mr. Paul River who is an objector to present his case to the board and we're prepared to take notes
and listen. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. And at the uh conclusion of the last uh hearing in which this matter was considered, as Mr. paper said he had put these matters on uh the record and uh
rested reserving the right to make a closing statement after the objector's case which is his right and at that time um there was colloqui with Mr. Rever the objector um and he was advised that he
would be given the opportunity to present his case at this next hearing. He has that opportunity now. The board has been provided uh through um Secretary Dawn with a documents that
were submitted by Mr. River. Mr. Ver had stated his intention to have 90 minutes of testimony of course that we reserve or of his objector's case in total. Um obviously the board reserves its right
given under the law to uh cut off any uh duplicative uh testimony. Mr. River, did you want to proceed? Okay. Yeah. Um, Mr. Martins, uh, were you planning on leaving the room as you
have a conflict in this matter? Um, since I just had a conflict, I tell you there are two chairs up there outside. Okay. I like to borrow that that microphone while you're not using it. Thank you. And uh, Mr. River. I of
course would like to swear you in. My name is Paul Rivere. I'm at West Commodore Boulevard, Jackson. Bonnie River, 109 West Commodore Boulevard, Jackson, New Jersey. I'm going to ask you both if you're both
going to to provide testimony and I would ask that you provide testimony one at a time but if you could raise your right hand and do you swear that this testimony you'll give before the board will be the truth and nothing but the truth. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Okay. There is some
clarification. Now I know I am after a year of waiting I am only allowed to present my case once. That is correct. And right now we only have five voting members. That is also correct. Okay. The last time uh the uh
the attorney, Mr. Pap requested an adjournment when he had six voting members. He wanted a full seven. Now I'm concerned about me putting on my presentation now and having Mr. P ask
for an adjournment because there's five people up here. five uh voting members. And I'm also concerned if he decides if I decide to proceed, will he wait after he asks for his adjournment,
will he wait to make his final presentation among the people who will be voting? And that's and that's a sequential thing. And that kind of a sequence I am saying is unfair to me. So Mr. River, two things. Um, one, Mr. Pap
does have the right, as you would, to ask for a continuence of this matter. Mr. Pap is not required to make that determination now prior to your presentation whether he would ask for continuence on that basis. at equally um
you do have the right if you wish to ask for continuance because there are only five members you you have that right as well. Okay. And there's uh I have two more questions before I I just make my
decision asking the German. One of one is the have have the zoning members uh received my objection materials. As I stated earlier, perhaps you didn't hear me. Those materials were uh sent to the board uh by Miss Dagustinina. I can I
ask them if they've received it? No. Okay. You did. Did you receive the New Jersey D letter saying that this applicant has no no uh permits or or approvals whatsoever. All the information that you sent to Miss
Dagustinino was submitted by her um disseminated by her to the board. I'm just going to Did everybody receive that New Jersey D email to me? Yeah, I'm just going to pull them because I don't know if they if they're on board here. Yeah,
Mr. River, you don't have the right to pull the board. The information that you sent to Miss Agustinina was sent directly by her to all board members. Okay. Now, the last time we had an adjournment, it's required if you have
an adjournment over 30 days, you have to revertise in the newspaper. You have to renotice in the newspaper. I'm going to ask you if the applicant did that in accordance with the with the law. The applicant believe my recollection
was that this was carried with no uh requirement for further notice. Well, I don't know if he did. I'm want to know if he did or not. Okay. Oh, okay. Yeah, Mr. River, this is your opportunity to make your case, but I I I and I know that you have experience in these matters. So, I'll just remind you as the
objector, you don't have your your opportunity to ask questions of Mr. tape and his witnesses was when he made his case and put his witness or you had that opportunity. Um, so now this is your opportunity to bake your case. Okay. I
just want to cite the law. It's New Jersey SA 40 colon uh 55D- 10 and 40 colon uh
55D-11. It says if a hearing adjourned for more than 30 days, new public notice must be given. Okay. So that that's a point that you have made on the record and preserve that argument and your answer was there
was no public notice. My recollection in accordance with this I just want to get things clear. I don't want to get in back and forth, right? I don't want to get it back and forth either. So as I said, you have made your point. You have made are making your record.
Oh, okay. Well, I need to talk to my uh my wife about our decision on a German. All right. Um with the because I'm certainly not going to make my 90 uh minute presentation and then have him ask for an adjournment and then him have
his closing argument at the next state and I'm not allowed to say anything. you have the information. If you would like to take a couple of minutes uh with the boards, I would ask you to to have that conversation now and and make your
determination. uh we've discussed this. The big risk is that I do my uh objector uh presentation. Mr. Pap asks for an adjournment and then we get together again and Mr. Pave has has the last, you
know, presentation and mine is basically forgotten. Okay. So, we're going to ask for an adjournment or a continuation. Okay. So, you're asking for a continuation um of this matter in total so that you could put on your objector testimony
when there is a full board. Well, is he going to tell me that uh is he going to guarantee he's not going to ask for an adjournment after I do my presentation? I mean, that's fair to ask. It's just common fairness. I had had that conversation as I believe I told you before. I did speak to Mr. Pap
about that. Mr. Pap advised that he was not it was not prepared to make that determination until after he heard your your your uh case. All right. Well, I I believe it's most fair that after I
make my presentation, he makes his presentation and not have it be done his presentation done a month later with a with a new group of people. This is a very serious matter for us. Okay. There's I don't want to
All right. Through through the chair. Okay. Can I ask a question? Yes. attorney. Um my understanding is that if this were to go ahead and it would be adjourned before a vote tonight, uh any member that is not here tonight that
would want to be able to vote on it when they do come back would need to watch your objection that you're giving tonight. So that's not the point. No matter what it is, if there's going to be a vote with a full board, they would have all watched the entire thing.
Point. Okay. the point. So that that we just we want to go for the continuence because your point is not what we're is not the point we're making. Point we're making is that we want to give our our objector presentation and then have Mr.
P make whatever he has to say his summary and then the board votes. We want to do those two things together. I I and and I understand that that is what you desire. um that to the point that I had made earlier and Mr. Heyman just
made and certainly you have been in enough of these hearings be well aware that that frequently is the case. Many matters including this one are heard over multiple days um and multiple hearing dates and they're not always the same board members present. The board
members then watch the hearings and certify that they've done so. So, I understand what you're saying, but legally that, you know, the the the board's moving forward and the reviewing
of the tape and certifying of having seen it is legally sufficient for the board members to act. I thought you just gave us the option of doing that. I said that you had the right to request, make the request, and you've made the request. Yes. So in that in our uh in our estimation
our our uh objective case is very strong especially on the fact that there are no approvals and that's the law saying you have to have an LOI to even be heard on the board. Um, I think our our best bet is to wait
for enough people to hear our case uh to be the most effective. I don't want any more underhanded nonsense uh here. I don't want it. All right. So, Mr. River, you and Mrs. River, you've made your your request. I would ask you
that you give the microphone back to Mr. Pap and sit down and I'll we'll have some coll with Mr. P. Excuse me. to the board. I'm not talking about the board doing underhanded nonsense.
I did not refer to you or the board like that. I'm If you That's a misunderstanding. And if you if you took if you took it that way, I I apologize. All right. And I'm And I'm sorry if I did offend
you. I didn't mean to. I wouldn't do that to volunteers. I just want to get uh some truth on the table. Truth and I wanted some fairness. Okay. M Mr. River, you you have made your position clear. I I
ask again if you would give the microphone back to Mr. Pap and and have a seat and we'll proceed from there because I don't believe Mr. Pap is going to let let the board vote. I understand. Please, Kevin, you give him back the microphone, please, and have a seat so
we can proceed. Thank you. Oh, we can sit down now. Yes, please. Please do actually. She didn't tell me. She didn't tell me. She ran away. Madame Chair, board members, what date would you like us to return so that Mr. Riverier can make his presentation?
Um I know we're heading into uh just because I I know this issue had come up. Uh do we have dates available at this time? Uh Don had said anything to be carried. Please use the August 6th
date or August 20th. August 16th or 20th? Sixth. Oh, sixth or 20th. that um if this if we're able to get to the top of the agenda on the sixth, it works for us. There's only two currently on the sixth.
Two applications. I hope it's not a shed. And currently no applications on the 20th. Gene. All right. So, Mr. P, did you hear that? There's two on the 6th and none on the 20th. If I went to the 20th, would I have the
top of the agenda? I don't see why not. Then I'd ask that you place us on the 20th at the top of the agenda. Um, and notwithstanding the recitation of what Mr. River stated was the law. Um, I do believe that the law does not require renotice or republication when you're
before a board and the board takes action on an adjournment. So, I would ask that this matter be carried to the date of August 20th without notice of republication and that it be announced this evening as is permitted. Okay.
So, Mr. M review, did you hear this matter is going to be on August 20th. It will be the first item on the agenda on that date. Um, and it is being carried to that date without necessity for
further notice. Why wouldn't it be noticed? Because I as I said you you have made your record on what you believe is required. Do you not believe that legally that the additional notice is
required? So we don't have to follow the law. Is that what you're saying? No, I'm saying that our interpretation of the law is different than yours and we are not requiring that notice. We do not believe that it is legally required. You
have made your statement as to what your belief is and therefore you have preserved that issue. So with that on the record, we'll see you on August 20th. Thank you. Thank you.
Oh, I have more minutes too from when you were having your choking fit the other time. Okay. Know that he has a conflict. Same with Mr. Roire from Morgan Engineering. Um, so we are going to get started with Cardonali and Jackson Crossing 2,
Adventure Crossing, minor subdivision 1429. Mr. Alfury, I know I don't have to tell you this. I know you're well aware we take testimony until 10:30. That's fine. We know we only have five. That's fair. Uh, good evening, Madam Chair, members of board. Salvator Alfury on behalf of the applicant. At the last
meeting, we had concluded our presentation and testimony relating to the site plan aspect of the application. The board um opened it to the public and the public session was concluded too. We were unable to go to a vote because we
needed to perfect or get an approval for a minor subdivision to add land to this property so that there is no question about the residential lot unit density. Um, so we agreed at the last meeting to carry it to tonight, hear the
subdivision application. If the sub subdivision application's approved, then the density issues off the table and then you can go to the vote on the site plan. Reminder on the site plan, it was a variance free or is a variance free application. Um, it was multiple
hearings, I understand, and tonight we're here again just to discuss the subdivision and then request you vote on that and then immediately thereafter vote on the site plan. Um, Ian Bordon, our planner, is going to be our only witness. However, we do have our engineer here. If there are specific
engineering issues and the applicants present as well, if there are questions of the applicant, we'd request since this is a separate application that we have Mr. Bordon sworn in and qualified. Mr. Mr. Bordon, please raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you'll
give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? And uh Mr. Bordon, I believe you put your qualifications on the record many times. And it's possible the board may just accept us. This board will absolutely accept your Thank you so
much. And then just know for the record that um Mr. Peters did issue a report dated May 29th relating to the subdivision um which was one of the reasons why we couldn't proceed last meeting and therefore we're going to discuss as part of our testimony will address the comments that he has in this
report. So Ian would you run through the for the board what the subdivision details are please? Yes. So, uh, under the, uh, ACMU zone that applies to this project, the highway commercial mixu zone, there is a provision in the
ordinance, uh, that allows a technical subdivision. Earlier tonight, we talked about technical subdivisions and said it applies in some zones, not others. This is one zone where it does apply. So, we are proposing a technical subdivision
accordance with 244 52 or 57.2F 2F uh wherein it states that a uh technical subdivision uh may be submitted for financing purposes or marketing uh shall be submitted with an
approval of a site plan which we have the site plan application that we have completed testimony on u such a subdivision application I'm reading off the ordinance u such application shall be considered a technical subdivision and treated as a
minor subdivision thereby we have submitted a minor subdivision application and and most importantly without the necessity of obtaining bulk variances that would technically be required. In other words, each of the uh townhouse lots uh townhouse lots would
would run down the sidelines of each individual unit from the behind the sidewalk, i.e. the front yard to the uh to a point behind the deck to encompass a rear yard. Um, we're not required to show evidence of of compliance with any zone
requirements because that's done on the site plan level and we've done that already in previous testimony. Uh, just a couple of performance criteria um that I want to make sure we put on the record that we do comply with. One is that the uh technical subdivision may
not substantially modify or otherwise adversely impact the integrity of the development plan. And this of course does not. not the subdivision is simply a filed map does makes no changes to the parking access all of the things that we testified to on the on the site plan.
[Music] Um and uh lastly, if a technical subdivision includes the division of parking or other common areas, the subdivision shall be conditioned upon appropriate easements for parking access drainage. And uh the subdivision plan
that we presented u anything beyond the townhouse lots are uh that are developed that are within the development area or within the homeowners association uh property that will be owned and maintained by the
HOA. Um that does not apply to the affordable housing lot. The affordable housing lot will be a separate lot to be owned by the affordable housing uh component. So the the most important thing to talk about with the subdivision is and we have an exhibit just a single exhibit A1
which is up on the the screen. Uh we have discussed this in the site plan uh is that uh we are as part of the subdivision and this relates to the project density for the residential. Uh please re recall in my testimony at the last hearing that the uh the area of the
u the property as it currently exists which is shown in yellow that's lot 1.01 is 122.7 acres. So we're we're adding 5.5 acres which is the green from adjoining lot 2.01. Uh so part of the subdivision is
to incorporate that green area into lot into the property which then creates uh an area 128.2 acres which results in the density of 3.97 that I testified at the last hearing. So that that's a extremely
critical part of the subdivision and that was the part that we kind of left off at at the last hearing. Um otherwise referring to Mr. Peter's letter. Um I'm just going to read you a couple of the key points. These are
similar to the items that we discussed a few minutes ago. Uh item C on page four. The question is whether will any other accessory buildings are proposed. In other words, will the townhouse lots be allowed to have accessory structures?
And the answer is no. Um there that would be that's correct. So no no no sheds or other accessory structures will will be permitted on any of the townhouse lots. Um we are proposing uh well let me let
me go um it's not a question here but let me let me address this uh it's not really a question the letter but on the question of fences for the townhouse lots um there there is no fence this is I conflated my testimony earlier today the
answer I gave initially on The other job was actually the one intended for this job. This is what happens when you work 14-hour days. Um there is no fences proposed on these townhouse lots. Uh the only except for the 10-ft long privacy
fences that the developer will construct extending from the rear wall of each unit to shield the patios and decks from each other. So those those will all be No, no, sorry. It's uh six foot
high, 10 ft long between each unit extending along the sideline towards the rear yard. And the intention of that fence is just a short privacy fence to
shield the decks from each other. Otherwise, there's no fences along the remaining sideyard, nor the rear yard, nor is any sheds or accessory structures proposed. I'm sorry, Mr. Bordon, did you say that that was along the property line? Well, it is the new property line, the new
sideline between the units. Could it also be, just for clarification, along the demising wall between the units? Same thing. Yes, absolutely. So, it's going to start from the building. It's going to go out 10 ft so that there's a there's some privacy between each of the units. It will not
go any further from the rear face of the units than 10 ft. Correct. Nor will any other fencing be permitted. Correct. Thank you. I like the way Ernie said it better. Ian, can I just have a quick question?
Sorry. So, yeah, it's so the the six foot high solid fence. Yes. Okay. 10 feet out. Are we enclosing it? So we're not No. So just the divider. No. Okay. I just want to clarify. Thank you. Just a question. Uh whose fence is that? Who's responsible for it?
You don't know. It's either be HOA or Well, I mean, if it's on the, you know, dividing between the two lots, is there one fence or is there two? It would be the HOA. It would have to be. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, because there's one fence. That's why I'm
ask question. would be the HOA. Otherwise, we uh we agree to comply with the uh technical comments. Let me check for anything else. Oh, yes. Uh we we agree to comply with the technical comments. I do have two very small items
uh in the letter that I would like to ask that we not be required to provide and these are very technical things. Uh, and those would be on page five, item Q and R. The, uh, letter is asking for lot closure calculations and meets and balance descriptions for each of the 459
town houses. U in our opin, that's unnecessary. U surveyor from my office certifies the final plat before it's filed. Obviously, his license is on the line for any closure besides the fact that that all the townhouse lots are
rectangular. So, um, we don't believe that that's required. And as far as meets bounds descriptions, that's not required as part of the map recordation act. It's not required to file the plat. U any descriptions would be if if we were dedicating something to
the township, I would agree that a meets and balance description is needed, but none of these lots are being dedicated to the town. Obviously, there there are, however, easements on the plat that are uh well, they're not being dedicated to the town. So I would say that uh not
there either. We have drainage easements and site easements in the common area. Uh we could do descriptions of those if warranted, but those are not being dedicated to the town. Those are being dedicated to the HOA. Um Mr. Bour, I I'm not sure Mr. Peters
is well known for his ability to speak for himself, so I'm not speaking for him, but I do have my own question on that. And I understand you're asking for relief from the suggestion that you do meets and bounds, but and I I think we had had some conversation about this. I know for myself because uh they're town
houses and and you're looking for uh them to be fe simple lots. I'm still sort of struggling to understand what those boundaries would be. They're shown on the on the final map
that we had submitted to the board. subdivision. It will be by filed map. So the filed map, it would be just like if we had a conventional residential subdivision. You wouldn't do a meets and bound description of every home home lot. You would just they would just be shown on the filed
map. That's the reason that we're asking for I mean we can do it but it's just a lot of unnecessary No, I mean I think it's really as I said I don't know what Mr. Uh Peter's concern is and he'll express it I'm sure eloquently but for
me it really is that thing of if there's that common wall how how you're delineating where the property lies. Then as it relates to the easements, since many of them are drainage easements and things of that nature, we probably need to give you the
descriptions because even though the HOA is going to be the grantee of the easement, the town's going to have the ability to come in and enforce it in the event that there's blockages or not or they're not maintained. So, we'll probably have to work with your professionals on the easement documents.
Yeah, if I might, Madam Chair. Yes. Um, as it relates to Q&R, um, in our report on page five, lot closure calculations and meets and bounds for the individual town home lots, if the map, if the technical
subdivision is being filed by plat, then those are not necessary. However, because the town at some point whether through a blanket easement or through meets or through specific easements for the drainage structures and the drainage easements
that are located throughout the site, I think that is important to have not just for the exercise of doing it or the the fees associated with either Mr. Bordon preparing them or Miss Cypriani or I reviewing them. I think because the town is going to end up being having rights
to them. I think it's important so they can be verified out in the field. And while I don't want to sort of turn this into a survey or final plaque conversation, one of the concerns we had and we raised in the report is that these lots lines for the lots are just
sort of on their on the plan. At some point they have to be tied into the outbound plan. So once that occurs there's a starting point. Someone can say here's the property line you go this way this way this way. Just putting them out in the field without connecting them to the property line is
insufficient. Quite frankly, the applicant needs them as much as the town does. So you can recreate those lot lines in the field. Otherwise, what's going to happen is someone's going to build a unit, it's going to be in the wrong spot. It's going to be over a property line. So, we
do have a concern that the proposed lots need to be tied to the outbound of the property so they can be recreated just as the easements need to be. Right. And we we agree 100% with everything Mr. Peters just said. I
actually said it before him. So, sounds like Gotcha. Thank you. Um otherwise, we've agreed to address all the other comments. So, concludes our presentation. That's all we have on the sub. Okay. I thought you were going to keep talking.
No. All right. Any questions for Mr. Alfi or Mr. Gordon? Mr. Peters, Gina, anything else? Yeah. Um, go ahead. you first. You're the best. Pretty much the same questions like last time. Ian, um, for
the de I see the proposed decks. Um, no, I don't see any stair details. Are we offering stair? I'm just asking the the common questions that I I get every day during my plan review. I just want to make sure that everything is transparent and I know what to go by. Understand. I left my pointer. uh the
only the only place where we we don't we do not propose any stairs uh within the setbacks the site planes clearly we show the stairs outside of the front setback
but I mean like off the decks and the decks so there's no stairs and no decks within the setbacks is that what you're saying correct that only applies in phase three adjacent on the top of the exhibit adjacent to Mammoth
Road. There's about four buildings that it applies to, but we set the buildings back far enough so that the decks and stairs are outside of the required front set back to Mammoth Road. Okay. But we but we are allowing stairs. We have stairs to the decks. Yes. All right.
Because I'm not I from the plans I'm looking at, the most recent ones I have anyway, I'm not seeing any stairs proposed. Um, and are you having any um, protection for finishing garages because again that is something we see often and we know that affects the parking calculations. Yeah, I we I we
have no issue putting in the HOA documents that the garages can't be finished. Okay. That they have to remain as part of the parking calculations. Yes. Yes. Okay. I'm sorry, Mr. Charles, could you say that again? I just I I want to make sure the HOA docs will prohibit the residents
from um using the garages for anything other than parking or storage. They they may put a garbage can in there or something, but that's it. With the with the same point that if the garages were used for anything other than garage spaces, it would invalidate
the parking standards for the project because the and I'll ask Mr. Alfier and Mr. important. The applicant relies upon a garage parking space to meet the requirements of RSIS for this entire project. Correct. Not related to the subdivision, but related to the site
plan. Of course. Yes. Thank you. But the parking still doesn't meet the RSIS. Is that 18 ft, not 20? Correct. For the driveways. That's correct. But the numbers meet correct. and the the driveways actually
the driveways for the individual town houses are included in the lot for that townhouse. Madam Chair, if I could just ask one more question um to Mr. Bordon. Um you and I are familiar with the technical subdivision requirements of
this ordinance. Um, generally speaking, technical subdivisions aren't weren't anticipated for town home units. They were anticipated for the site plan portion or the commercial portion of the site.
While there's no restriction against it, can you just describe in 30 seconds the first two or three sections of technical subdivision portion of the
ordinance to describe how you believe this is applicable to the town home units as well? Yes. Uh the the the first sentence under that 57.2F 2F I noted in my initial testimony which is the technical
subdivision language there's uh four three different paragraphs associated with that. The first paragraph is and I believe this is the answer that Mr. Peters is looking for. It states it is acknowledged that excuse me. Yeah it's a
tough question after real long day but I apologize for clear on the record. It's it's not a tough question at all Ernie. It's just I'm just need a bottle of water. Uh it is acknowledged that a project to be developed pursuant to the subsection may be of such a size or type
uh to make sectionalization by subdivision or the use of different forms of ownership. That's the key uh a practical necessity. Therefore, a technical subdivision for such a project may be required for marketing or financing purposes. And this speaks to
the fact that the ownership of the units could be determined or or uh set or established through a DCI registration in a condominium mapping. But um the fee simple lots are proposed for reasons of financing and
mortgages. Um, and then it goes on to the sections that I did already testify about, which is that an application for technical subdivision may be submitted with an application for our site plan, which we have done in this case. So, in my opinion, the first uh paragraph of
that ordinance language uh allows the use of a technical subdivision for the ownership of the townhouse units as well as the affordable housing building. Thank you. Um to the board members I there had been
some discussion or I don't know if there were direct questions but there was discussion or in the site plan portion of the application about why or what or how are we doing the the subdivision for the town home units. We're at the subdivision now that
this is the proper location to have that testimony. it can be sort of reintroduced or referred back to when we get to this when we get to the site plan. I thought it was important that that testimony was part of this application because it had been brought up another application to the same
person. Apologize for being a stick with the detail, but I wanted to make sure Miss Briani had a real clean record as it related to the technical subdivision profers this application. I apologize for being longwinded. I'm done. Thank you. Thank
you. Any other questions or comments? That concludes our presentation. We'd request that you open the hearing up to the public and then I'll make a 10-second summation. No problem. You all heard that. I'm going to go ahead and open this to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward at this time about the
testimony that you've heard this evening, please do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward, I'm going to go ahead and close public session. 10 seconds. We request that the board grant the subdivision approval variance free. It's simply lot lines. Um and uh we've
addressed all the technical comments. Thank you. 10 12. But it's okay. Listen, everybody else made jokes. I can um board. It's up to us for um discussion and possible motion. Mr.
Breie, you looked right at me. I I didn't look at I get the blame for everything. No, I was going to blame it's it's been a tough application. It's been uh it's bifocated, which I never liked looking at. A lot of stuff has
been approved already prior to these hearings. There are some things I am not totally happy with. However, they still check all the boxes off and gave the presentation. Our professionals has drilled it. They've agreed with it. And with that, I make a
motion to approve. I second. I would just like an opportunity to make a comment as well. Oh, Mr. Breie made the motion. Mr. Such second. I heard that right. Mr. Such seconded. Yes. Would you like to make
your comment first, Mr. Lad? I was just uh asking if that uh motion included the representations that were made regarding the um just made during the presentation um regarding the
uh fences and all stipulations that were mentioned. Yes. Thank you. Now, Mr. Martin. Okay. Um Fury, you're standing up. You might want to hold on to something. I agree with you. Right. Wow.
Um, so just two things. That's because we both like Smokey Robinson. There we go. There you go. Um, the paintball I think you mentioned in the previous we right. Okay. I just wanted to get it on the record. Um, and in in addition, so
in the last uh time we got together, I asked kind of a throwaway line. I asked what Linda's way was. Who was Linda? Right. At the time I didn't know the story. So, um, I do appreciate you giving me the full story. At the time, I wasn't sure I should even ask. Now, I'm
glad I did. Um, so I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Um, with that said, I think there are many great things that that are in here. Linda's way being one of them. Um, you had a Mr. I just want to make sure you this is this vote right
now is only on the subdivision, not on the site plan. All right. Anyway, um if when it comes time, I'm going to vote yes. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? All right, we have a motion and a second.
Roll call, please. Kathleen. Mr. Brezie? Yes. Mr. Heyman? Yes. Mr. Martins? Yes. Mr. Such? Yes. Miss Bradley? Yes. Thank you. Okay. So, um, now if we can
open up the site plan application. I don't Okay. So, we're going to move on to applicant number five. Cardonali and Jackson crossing number two, adventure crossing preliminary and final site plan
839-2 phase three and four block 30001, lot one and 1.01. And Mr. Alfiri. Yes. Thank you again, Salvator Alfi. on behalf of the applicant. The the site plan application was subject of several pretty exhaustive um hearings, some of which I did, some
Miss Jennings and Mr. Feffer did. Um we believe we've addressed all of the technical comments contained within the various reports. Um we believe that uh that there are really no issues that were left unsaid. There are no variances
that were requested. there's some design waiver relief, but from a from a pure zoning point of view, it's variance free. Um, and therefore, we request that the board uh grant the approval subject to all the conditions that were contained in the various hearings that
took place, which probably will take too long to run through tonight, but the transcripts I've given to Miss Cypriyani, so she now has the record where she can create a comprehensive resolution if the board were to grant the approval. That's all.
I'm gonna Well, any questions or comments from the board? Mr. Martins, did you want to make a comment now or just is there a way I can just say ditto to what I'm saying? Absolutely. That's fine. Okay. That's fine. All right. Um,
being that there's no more comments or questions from the board, I'm going to go ahead and open this to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward at this time, please do so. Seeing no one come forward, I'm going to go ahead and close public session. Board is up for us to for it is up to us for
discussion. Mr. I'm just paying attention to the leader. Yes. To the chair. Yes. Um I just do two comments. I'm personally not comfortable with the fact that the driveways um are not compliant with RSIs. I think that
it's not fair to potential homeowners to have, you know, constant leaking on the vehicles being that they're going to be so close. I think that if they would minimize um the building just a little bit and they would get some more space, then they would be able to comply. I
don't think it's such a big ask. Um, additionally, I've asked from the beginning for a copy of GDP so we could clarify exactly the density and to date we still have not received it. I could respond to the second point. The density is not an issue on this. It
will be on the phase one application, but this application with that subdivision, it's now fully compliant with the it's less than four units per acre. So there's that's really shouldn't be an issue as as it relates to RSI. I assume I would have to turn that over to
Ian. Before you answer, Ian, I I know we sat here and they originally 16 foot and then you guys moved it to 18 foot, which I I appreciate. The part I don't appreciate is every time you meet RSIS,
you throw it in our face that we met the RSIS. We're heroes and we can't do nothing. Why can't we just get that to 20 foot the RSI and then that takes away the whole thing a little better for everybody. I don't know what you'd have to do with the side of the house losing
apartments or whatever. If that is the opinion of the board then we'll agree to do 20 foot driveways. I mean that was the the traffic testimony from Mr. supported by the board traffic engineer was that the 18 was sufficient. But if the board members
have strong opinions on that, we'll we'll create the 20 foot drive. Myself, I can't speak for the other board members. One, it gets us to the RSI standard, which we try to meet without any differences. And two, I think once you don't have the full 20 foot, somebody parks a little crooked, another
car in the street somehow. I understand. So that's why I like to go with 2020. It's up to my board me fellow board members. I understand. So, we we'll provide the 20 foot driveway for each uh each townhouse unit. Thank you. I'm good with that. Also, thank you.
Since board members are making comments, I want to make sure Miss Cipani has details specific for the resolution. Mr. Bordon, can the site sustain 20 foot wide driveways for every unit? Yes. So, we're not going to get when we're done
with the application. We said we could do 20, but we really can't because of this or the next thing. Each unit is 22 feet wide, so they accommodate the 20 foot driveway. Thank you. I apologize. It's I I need to make the record clear so that there aren't any any
postapproval questions, concerns, any zoning department issues. I just want I apologize for being a stickler, but I think it's important just to to button up the the density issue and the GDP. Um, my office
prepared a memo which is circulated amongst our team. At some point before you hear the phase one application, your attorney and the board will have that memo as to why we think we comply with density. But that's we we kicked that
debate down the road to the next application. The whole reason for the green on exhibit A1 was to make this site comply with the four unit breaker on this property. Madam Chair, if I if I could ask a question of the applicant.
Um what is the gross density for the phase three and four project? 3.97 which is less than four. Correct. Based upon the subdivision that was just approved. Correct.
Notwithstanding that phase three and four now provide less than four units an acre. We've not decided what the calculations for phase revised phase one. I don't know if it's a B whatever it is. We
haven't figured that out yet. Correct. And that's part of a different application. The application that's before us now which now has a density of less than four units an acre. Correct. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you. Any other questions or comments?
I I think I just want to put one comment on the record if I can. Um, so we are here to make a decision based on our head, not our heart. So my comment before about way and all the other stuff. I'm very confident that I can make a decision without being influenced
that way. I do believe we have a motion on No. Oh, okay. That was that was before. See, now I'm confused. It's time to go. All right. So, we've heard the discussion. Um, anything
else, Mr. Breie? Yes. I would like to make a motion. A very long application. And and and Mr. Mr. Martin, there is one part that is when somebody can be a personal part to a complex this size between Linda Drive
and the sign for the Vincara family being a decent sign. Uh when that family had it for almost 100 years and the only way Tony ever relaxed when he was aggravated, he'd go out and ride his tractor. So I think that means a lot. But beside all that from professional
standpoint, you checked so many boxes. You made con concessions like with the driveways and you worked along with this board in in a lot of patience for a lot of weeks, a lot of months, a lot of hearings. And with that and all the stipulations when you get them all done, uh, included, I make a motion to
approve. If need be, I can second. Well, either someone has a second. I second the motion. So we have a motion and a We have a motion in a second on the table. Kathleen, roll call, please. Mr. Brezie, yes. Mr. Heyman, yes. Mr.
Martins, yes. Mr. Such, yes. Miss Bradley, yes. Congratulations. And look, it's only 10:01. None of us saw that. Do we need a motion to close? We have a motion to adjourn.
Second. I already standing Gina.