I'm sure. Okay. >> No clue. Hollywood. What's that? That's what we get into this weekend. hereby publicly announce that in compliance with the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act, adequate notice of this reorganization of the
Jackson Township Zoning Board Professionals has been advertised in the manner prescribed by law. >> Call please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> here. Mr. Martins >> here. >> Mr. Tremor >> here. >> Miss Cusano >> here. >> Mr. Seleia
>> here. >> Dr. Hoffstein >> here. >> Mr. Bradley. >> Yes. And just for the record, Miss Rosal is expected at approximately 8 p.m. >> Correct. >> Are going to skip down to um discuss
reorganization of our zoning board professionals. Um we're going to discuss the attorney first that the only uh applicant was the firm that currently represents us Rostine Mandelstrom Ham and Cypriani. So we will start there. Uh
discussion please. Since uh since this is the only law firm in the state of New Jersey that thought they were qualified, I would make the motion to approve
the motion. I know the year apologize. >> So we have so well worded there, sir. >> So we have a motion and a second to reappoint um the same law firm who represented us last year. Um, so we have
a motion to second. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman. >> Yes, >> Mr. Martins. >> Um, yeah. I I'm just a little confused here. So, on on on our agenda, what part are we up to? We >> are at I. We are not having exe
executive session. We are doing it here in public session. >> Okay. So, we're done with all the other stuff. >> We did A through D and we skipped down to I, sir. >> I, but we're not doing the executive session then. >> No. Okay. All right. Uh, so yes.
>> Was that a vote? Yes. Sorry. Mr. Tremor. >> Yes. >> Miss Cusano? >> Yes. >> Mr. Seleia? >> Yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein? >> Yes. >> Miss Bradley? >> Yes. >> Okay. Next is our um engineer. Uh, the ones who submitted were Morgan Municipal
Engineering Services who currently represent us, CME Associates, Harbor Consultants, Inc., Nelia, forgive me if I butchered that name, Remington and Vernick Engineers, please. >> I just just uh
>> Thank you. Um, you read it correctly. I just want to point out on our paper it says Nelia and then by the next one it says Ninjia. So, it just swapped. I'm not sure. I believe it's NEG L.
>> Um, I would just make a comment. Um, doing my research on these vendors. Um, Neglia and Harbor, both of them are an hour plus away from us and they do not service any neighboring towns or anybody in
Ocean County. They're based off of North Jersey. So those two um I don't think particularly would be suitable for this board in my opinion. >> Excuse me. Which firms did you >> Neglia and Harbor?
>> What was your reason? >> They're both very far away from us. Um and they don't service anywhere any any towns anywhere near us. So, I don't think that it makes sense for them. I think that they're just fishing in the pot trying to >> And where did you get your information
from? >> They're RFPs. >> I know. I never received any RFPs from from e any firm on the list. >> Mr. Heyman, uh, excuse me, Mr. Heyman obtained copies from Dawn. There was a
um issue. They weren't submitted as they normally are. She did not get the number of copies she normally does. So it was one big massive file. So she broke them down. Mr. Heyman went in and requested the RFPs. >> Well, in the almost 14 years I've been on this
board, I've always had a hard copy and I wasn't informed that we should go in and sit there and read it. So I I think that that's just we're not doing the correct duty. We owe these people whether you think they should be
here or not. And I have nothing bad to say about anybody who's representing us now, but we didn't even give them the courtesy of having the whole board read their resumes and what they plan on doing for Jackson. And I don't see how I
could vote on any of these >> else have any input >> other than I agree >> Martins. other than I agree with Mr. Hley far as I wasn't aware that had to ask special permission.
>> All right. So at this point I I here's my suggestion. Um we can forward with the vote. We have some people who aren't comfortable in doing that which I do understand. or we can table uh the appointments for the other professionals and the ones who are existing professionals would still be our
professionals for this evening's meeting and then we can reach out to Dawn um and get uh you know see what we can do to try and get a copy like Mr. Hyman did. >> I I believe the second way is the way. >> That's that's acceptable. You can do
that. >> I would make the motion. >> Yes. >> I'll second it. >> Right. So, we're going to have a vote to um if you vote yes, it means that we are going to table the appointment for the attorney. We will um I will
reach out to Dawn tomorrow and try to make sure that everybody gets a copy. You may have to go in and pick it up. She said it was a very, you know, a large volume file. Um, so if you vote yes, that means that you want to table it and then we'll do some research and we'll have to address this at the what
to say the 7th. So the what is that? 21st >> through the sheriff. >> Yes. >> I can just make a couple more comments. Yes. Um so number one is I guess you'll when you do get the RFPs you will see that
um CME associates when they submitted their submission for for engineers Drew Pavick for conflict engineers the same for the planner is a different name Chris Dachchnney and then again for traffic engine you know uh traffic
engineer is Drew Pavick Um, so I actually emailed our current traffic engineer asking him why his name wasn't on that RFP and his response was that um, when we requested it. He was,
you know, the local uh, actually Drew wasn't available at that time from their local office in Howell and therefore he came in from further away. So he was not specifically looking to continue himself. who would be an associate of
his if we were to consider that firm. >> How about Steve Maser? >> Correct. Yeah. Yeah. So, I was in touch with Steve and that's what he told me. Now, just to um for one more point, um he did agree that for the applications
that he's currently on, if the board uh you know grants the approval for that firm, he would continue to finish up those applications. But otherwise, I would say that, you know, I think uh personally I'm happy
with the current professionals and I'll be happy to reappoint all of them. >> We have a motion and a second on the table to table the voting for the um remaining professionals uh not including the attorney.
Have a motion to second. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor. Yes, >> Miss Cusano. >> Yes, >> Mr. Selectia. >> Yes, >> Dr. Hoffstein. >> Yes, >> Miss Bradley. >> Yes,
>> I will reach out to Dawn tomorrow and um do what I can to make sure you get the information. >> So, she does have them now in email files. She'll be able to email them probably like 20 separate emails. They're all very large files. They're repetitive and
>> very timeconuming to go through. All right. So, uh, do we have any resolutions for this evening? >> Oh, wait. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. So, I'm sorry. Do we have any resolutions this evening? Right. No. All
right. We do um have one set of minutes from the 1217205 meeting. Um, Kathleen, I would just like to put on the record. We truly appreciate >> so complete it. It's We appreciate it. Um, so I need a motion and a second to
approve the minute meeting from the 17th. Everyone is eligible except Miss Cusano. >> Make a motion to approve and I would second those comments. It's been unbelievable this past since Kathleen has got on here. We got these minutes. It's something that we're honestly not
used to and very much appreciated. Thank you. >> I'll second that. Right. We have a motion to second. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Hyman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Martins. >> Yes. You made her blush.
>> Um, Mr. Tremor. >> Yes. >> Mr. Seleia. >> I want to first echo the same thing. Those meeting minutes, I I kind of look at them and as I'm going through them, I'm going, really? How many times do you actually rewatch it to catch everything
because they are >> in-depth detail. So yes, >> Dr. Hoffstein. >> Thank you, Kathleen. Yes, Miss Bradley. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Next, we'll move on to the vouchers. I have a voucher from the township of Jackson for this evening's meeting for
the recording secretary in the amount of $175. I need a motion and a second to pay the voucher, please. >> Motion to approve. Second. >> You have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia,
>> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, >> yes. >> Miss Bradley can vote for this. >> Oh, sorry. >> Miss Cusano, >> yes. >> Miss Bradley, yes. >> Thank you. >> Have an announcement this evening?
>> Yes. Application number two, Weiss for location 486 Clearream Road has requested to be carried to I think at least the March 4th me. Yes, the March 4th meeting. So we would need motion to allow that to
be carried to the March 4th meeting and um no further notice will be required because everyone who is here for that application, you'll have notice that that application will be heard at the March 4th meeting if the motion is approved. Um, Mr. Alfiri, just for the record, um, can you just put on the record why the
you requested it be moved to the 4th of March? >> Not sure if this is on it. Is it on? Salvator fearing on behalf of the applicant. We received uh reports from your professionals. The most recent one was December 5th, I mean January 5th.
So, we had a conference call today. U, we're going to be submitting revised plans. There were questions about um we only submitted the plans for the basement and there were questions about what the rest of the house was like, so we're going to submit floor plans of the entire house. There were um questions
about the pool fencing, whether it was compliant or not. My client wasn't sure, so we're checking that. Um the pool equipment is not reflected on the plan. They have to be we rather have a clean report when we come back. And if you remember, we were here for an approval for that application previously and it was a mess because they change
architects and we just want to make sure we have a clean presentation so you could focus only on the relief that we're asking for. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. So, we need a motion and a second to um allow it to be moved to the March 4th meeting. >> Make a motion. >> Second.
>> Roll call, please. >> Yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor. >> Yes. >> Miss Cusano? >> Yes. >> Mr. Selectia. >> Yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein. >> Yes. >> Miss Bradley. >> Yes.
>> Matters for discussion. Correct. >> Administrative approval. So we are going to move forward to applicant number one which is Green Valley Road LLC variance 3545.
Jiri. Good evening again, Madam Chair, members of the board. Salvatore, Alfie, Clearary, Gio, Alfury, and Jacobs on behalf of the applicant. This is an application to construct a new home on an isolated undersized lot.
We have um two reports. One from U Remington Verdict dated November 20th and the other from Morgan dated December 19th. I have before I introduce our witnesses,
I have a couple housekeeping things. Number one is since it's an isolated undersized lot, I sent buy letters to the two adjacent property owners. I have not re I'm going to submit them so the council or whoever gets it can mark it but um we haven't received a reply to
either of the letters. Number one. Number two is Mr. Porro when he reviewed the application in November sent an email about and he had two questions that he raised. One was that there's um a six- foot high solid
fence on the property that appears to have no approval on record at the town. Uh that fence was on the property when our clients bought the property. So they don't know how it was approved either. But if this is approved and the new house is being constructed, that fence will be removed. So that issue would go
away. There was also a question about the ownership of the lot, but that was subsequently addressed through um communications with the applicant. Um so who gets the bice? Madam chair, before we start, can I actually ask a question?
>> Yes. >> So read in the Morgan letter on the second page. >> Try to talk close to the microphone. on the second page of the Morgan um letter uh almost towards the bottom after the numbers, it says based upon the review
of the submitted application documents compared to the 2016 Jackson Township land development checklist. 2016's now going on 10 years. Is there a chance that we haven't updated or we
should reach out to whoever is responsible for it to get it updated so that making sure that we're we're looking at everything that we should you know I'm sorry I just want to make sure we're we're looking at all the proper
documentation. Some back from 2016 things have changed. >> That's something that you know the professionals can take a look at with the board to see if there's anything that's missing. to see if there's anything that's missing from the checklist or you know anything that can be removed that's really obsolete. So we should definitely take a look
>> and if there's anything new that has come on but that's >> thanks before we start Mr. area just before we start just to clear up some issues that may be correct
or not. Um, according to the the date of March 4th, 2024, the property is owned by 889 Green Valley LLC and the principles are Aaron Citroen and
Barbara Citroen, each owning 50%. So, uh, so the LLC currently owns a property. >> I I'm pretty sure that's correct. Yes. Yes. >> Okay. So, all decisions made will be made by the LLC through the um
citroins acting as offices of the LLC. >> Yes. And through the professionals that they hired. And if the uh application is approved and the LLC
uh rents out the property, he will the property will be with whomever lives there. That is the if the citrans are going to live in the house, they will have a a lease, >> rental, >> I assume so. Yes, that's typically how it's done. But I know the intent is that they're going to occupy the home.
>> Okay. And as an LLC, uh, I assume the entity will follow all the Jackson Township ordinances and and and, uh, laws regarding LLC's and rentals. >> Yes. Unless unless they transfer it into
their individual names, then yes, they would have to comply whatever the ordinance requirements are. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So we have two witnesses. Graham McFarland who's our engineer and planner and then Sam Figgman who is the architect. And we're going to start with Graham. So we request that he be sworn
in. Please >> solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth in this matter before the board. >> Just please state your name and company for the record. McFarland professional engineer planner services. >> Good. >> Good. Thank you.
>> It took a lawyer to show the engineer how it works. >> Mr. McFarland, this board accepts your credentials. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Grant. Would you run through for the board where this property is located? um and then get into details as to what's being proposed and what the
relief is that's required. Of course, Anthony, if you could get the exhibits up for us and if you could if you could start with A1, which is the uh which is the aerial Well, yeah, there there were separate exhibits that I sent in. This is the uh
this is the plan set that was submitted supporting the application. You should have exhibit A1 which which was the aerial. >> I can use a cover sheet perhaps. All right. So if you go back to the um actual uh two set plan, we'll use the
cover sheet. So what we have here is the the cover sheet for the application. uh it it is not marked as an exhibit, but it was submitted in support of the application. This does show the the location of the subject property known as block uh
13601, lot one identified as 889 Green Valley Road. The property has frontage on both Green Valley Road and and uh Clear Stream Road. So, it is a uh it is a it is a corner lot. The property is located in the R3 zone. It contains a
lot area of of one acre right now. Of course, in this zone, three acres is the minimum lot size requirement. So, so the existing lot does not conform to to current lot lot area requirement. The existing lot also does not meet the
current lot width requirement of of 200 feet. The frontage along Green Valley Road is about 172 feet. Uh the frontage on clearream road does satisfy the 200 ft requirement. Uh the lot also in its
current condition does not satisfy the uh the lot depth requirement uh ordinance require requirement in this zone is 400 feet and this lot is about 246 feet deep. So those are the three existing non-conformances.
Um which a lot which a lot is is is is constrained by. Uh the application tonight is to demolish the existing home and redevelop redevelop the site with a with a new single family house. Uh the
house is proposed to have a a um floor area of about 6,800 square feet which will include 10 bedrooms, garage, and will also include a uh a a a basement. Uh you can go to the next sheet for me, please, Anthony. >> Before you move on, I just I want to ask
one question of you. I'm over here. Um are there any residents within 200 feet of this house? >> Within 200 feet? Yes. So, why is there none listed on this page? >> Well, there there are properties within
200 feet of the of the um of the of the uh of the subject. Uh the property list is just not listed on that cover sheet. >> But that is one of the requirements that you're supposed to have. Correct. >> Well, yes, and we and we did notify those property owners. Mr. Alier did
send notices to all the adjoining land owners, >> but before you made that statement, we had no notice whether they were done or not. So, I'd like to start seeing that we are getting completed documents before we have the hearings.
>> I was say we're having a hard time hearing. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I said I you know, the fact that they're not on on this list. we didn't hear about them that they sent the letters out until the meeting tonight. I think it's important for us as a board to have completed documents
prior to the meeting and not where we're we're catching up as we're sitting here talking because what that does is it wastes time and we have full schedules every time and if one meeting, you know, one applicant goes long, we're taken away from other applicants and they're
the ones that get carried. So I think it's important that we start to make sure that applicants are giving us completed documents before they come in >> and and by completed document in this case you're simply stating that to put the 200 foot list on the cover sheet
>> for this for this application. Yes, this is this is this piece that I I see that's missing. Other applications is we can have other discussions but for this one that is the question I do have. Okay, >> Miss Crian, what do we do with that information that since they're not
listed, is that a requirement? And if so, what do we do? >> It's not a requirement that they be listed there. I think that's effective information, but it's not required. But it is of course required that that they be noticed >> and I believe the notice has uh been provided.
>> But as as a resident pointed out at a previous meeting, it is in the Jackson Township ordinances that before you come to a meeting that the res anything within 200 feet is not only listed but describes what is going on in each of those locations.
>> Well, and that's not actually unique to Jackson uh township. The law does require that the uh people within the 200 foot list be given notice not just of an application but enough information
to be able to glean what the application is. >> Right. But I I believe it we deserve to have that information. But it's certainly a requirement that the board can make going forward um that
it be listed on a portion of the application. >> Oh, no. I get it. I I know it's there, but it's >> it really that's something going forward if we want to put it in a different place so that that information is
readily obtainable for the board members. That's something you >> Madam Chair. >> Yes. Um, just so we're clear, the checklist does require the list to be on the plans.
So often because the plan is the first thing that's submitted so that the board can determine completeness and the applicant once deemed complete, requests a 200 foot property owner list from the tax assessor for the purposes of having the most current tax list to send out
notice. In this particular case, they simply didn't revise the plan. So in the package of information that the board members get to the best of my knowledge is a copy of the request for the 200 foot list and a copy of the 200 foot list. So
I don't want to mince words so to speak, but to the extent that it's required to be on the plan, currently the checklist asks for it to be on the plan. So to the extent that someone wants to say Mrs. Smith gets up and she lives at number six so and so and the only way to figure
out where she is is by a block and lot number. Yes, it it becomes easier for board members, professionals, the public to figure out where this is. Um, is this a dimminimous waiver? Probably. Is it a
fatal flaw? Probably not. Um, but to the extent I think everyone's everyone from the board is putting applicants that appear before us on notice that this information is required and is expected from the board going forward.
>> Mr. Alfur, you're a frequent flyer. So, have you taken that direction? >> Got the message. Yes. >> Isn't it also so who determines that an application is complete? >> So, the um current process has been that
Dawn determines completeness. Um, as you may recall, we had drafted uh I drafted an ordinance which had been reviewed and which we are uh going to request that the governing body adopt which would create a uh complete it's review level
by the engineer as well >> because that that that's where the problem is right in our in our view this is not complete because it misses that one piece. Um, >> okay, >> madam chair. >> Yes, Mark.
>> Um, also I don't believe we were sworn in with our professionals. Can we swear in >> Oh, you're correct. I'm so sorry. We So, before you go Thank you. >> And I really I apologize to everyone. The flu I said that email. I just took out half of my firm and so I had to go
to another meeting. I very very sorry not to have been here from the beginning. In that spirit, would you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> I do. >> Would you please state your name and
title for the record? >> Mark Roier, board engineer. >> Bernie Peters, board planner. >> Gina Tumalo, assistant zoning officer. >> Has the witness been sworn? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, there was um some confusion with the RFP. So, the only professional that was
reappointed was your firm. Congratulations. >> Okay. Okay. Good news. >> There must be something to that logic. >> I thank you very much. I thank you as much as if uh 10 other people had applied.
I really do appreciate it. Enjoy working with this board a great deal. So we will be revisiting the other professionals at the next meeting. So and for the record, obviously Miss Leu has left and Miss Cyprieni has taken
her rightful spot. All right. And Mr. Ro, >> yes. Just to uh answer Mr. Martin's question, um for a checklist item that wasn't submitted, technically the applicant either they can add it during resolution compliance to the plan or
they can request a waiver from the board and it's up to the board to decide if they want to grant a waiver for an item like that. So I would recommend we just require a edit to the plan for this application, but moving forward they have it from the beginning. And we make that kind of a board policy
because we get told lots of times, oh yeah, I handed it in to the official, we haven't got it yet. So, if it's not here, maybe we should start sending a clear message to the applicants. If it's not here as of that day, you may have to cancel yourself that day. And I I don't know what's legal. I'm just putting my
my thought out there. >> So, I mean, if we put it in the ordinance that I because really the question is becomes whether or not it's something it's jurisdictional. um is it jurisdictional under the land use law? Um we do have the right to require things through the checklist. A
checklist adopted by ordinance um and and require that for completeness. Um in that case though, if we said that it wouldn't be that we couldn't hear, they could then ask for a waiver here and then the board would have to hear them and make a determination.
>> That's their favorite thing to ask for a waiver. Just saying. But I mean I agree with Mr. selectia because he sat in the audience for planning for two years when I sat on the board and it's a major issue that you know it's it gets tiptoed around I
mean it's I understand everybody has a job to do people get paid a lot of money to manipulate the rules the best they can but at this point like my qu I have a question which this is on
1.1 acres how How much acreage do you actually need to build this house? The zone requires three acres. Why are we even here then? >> We're here because this is an application for an isolated undersized lot and we're asking the board for the
relief. I understand that. But I mean it >> well it's because it's a zoning board. >> Right. >> Right. So that's what Right. So that that's why we're they're not before the planning board because they don't comply >> and it's so frustrating and I understand and I'm speaking like an outsider. I I
understand the process but I'm putting it out there because I have people ask me all the time they they don't understand the process and in past history how many people have not been able to build a house because they only had two and a half acres and say if we gave relief on this what kind
of message are we sending? Well, I mean thing with the board is the with the zoning board is no no application, no determination of the board is presidential. Everything has to be taken on its own merit. And the way that the law is set up, they have the right to
come and ask and to set forward why they believe that under the standard set up in the law regarding hardship, etc., that they have a case. And they either persuade you or they don't. And if they don't, just
because they want the case, >> make a different application or they can go ask the court to uh say, you know, yes, we did meet the standard and the board was mistaken. >> That's the difference between the zoning and the planning to be honest. >> I get that. That's why I'm putting it out there.
>> Right. Exactly. Um so that's the difference between the zoning board and the planning board. The zoning board basically says it's a zoning board of adjustment. So if you don't meet the criteria, if you don't meet what the ordinances state, you have the right to petition like Miss Cypriani said, are they going
to convince us? You have to, you know, meet the positive and the negative criteria. >> That's the difference between the zoning and I get that question all the time. Why do you even hear it? If if it's a 1.01 acre lot and it's an R3 zone, why are you even listening to it?
>> Doesn't mean everything is rubber stamped. It doesn't mean that we have to agree that you know it doesn't mean that they meet all the standards of the law and that we have to approve it either. >> They have the entitlement to make the application. They have the entitlement to be heard and for the board to
consider and to vote. They don't have the right to a particular outcome except to the extent that they have put on proof sufficient to meet the standards under the law. >> I I greatly appreciate the response because now it's clear. >> Okay. But I also want it clear to
members of the board that we don't have to agree on this. So it's just it just seems like it's a gray area that I want to just let people hear it and see it that we are paying attention. >> Thank you. >> So just to respond to Mr. Tremor, um
this applicant, you know, application specifically, we're looking at it as a is an existing one acre lot, but it's zoned as an R3. as it's not that it's just out of character of the neighborhood necessarily. If they were to build a home there, it would be out
of character. It's just for whatever reason the town master plan has zoned this to an R3 and there are stuck with a 1acre property saying you know the other properties that are right there are also
you know oneacre properties. Now, a little bit further down, there are three acre properties, but for whatever reason, when they did the master plan, whenever they reviewed this specific area, it was thrown under an at R3 for whatever reason. So, it's not like it's
uncharacteristic in general. It's not even like, you know, they're requesting something that's like out of character. It would be very normal, you know, I know for us and for the the um everybody else, you look at it. Oh, it's R3 and
needs three acres, but here it's just an existing 1acre property. >> No, and I I understand that, but also they're just coming in going, "Oh, we only have one acre lot. Sorry." Where if you would have come in and said, "Hey, we bought the lot next door. Now we have 2.2 acres. You've made a grand effort."
And then that going >> just this particular conversation is kind of deliberation that the board will do at the end. But in the interim, uh, the applicant should continue to put their case on and so that we're not
making determinations before the case has been concluded. >> I do want to add for Mr. Alfury though, he did uh, do buy cell letters. That's what he stated earlier. He did do buy cell letters and didn't get a response. >> Right. So, and I just want to give so
the board is not prejudiced going in against an application because it's an undersized lot. I want to make it clear there's case law. There's a case called Dalmire which is an Ocean County case state of the it's the law of the state that's been around since Judge Serpentelli which is probably 30 or 40
years. And one of the prongs of the proofs that you need to submit to demonstrate that you have a hardship and that's what this board is here for to grant variances if there's hardships. And the hardship here is that we have an undersized lot and we can't acquire land
to make it larger. And that's what that by settle is that the board chairman. >> But you do understand that the people watching right now, you're using the word hardship in their mind, they're going, "It's only a hardship because you want to put this huge house where it doesn't belong."
>> No, it's a hardship because if we wanted to put a shed on this property, it's a hardship because you need three acres. We only have one. >> You understand what I'm saying? >> I understand. So, but I just wanted to put it in perspective that we're complying with the law and we think we when we finish, you're going to have you're going to be compelled to vote yes
because we meet all the legal standards. >> So, Mr. Shmer, really just in terms of of the process and where the deliberations take place. Um, let's you know, obviously if you have questions, you can go ahead and ask them, but in terms of the deliberative process, the applicant has the right to put their
case on first. >> Thank you. And um in the interim while that colloquy was going on, I was able to pass out the what we were going to mark as A1 that we thought Anthony had but he did not have which is the aerial. Um so we're going to request that this
aerial be marked as A1. Um and then Graham can describe in better detail the character of the area. Yes. And getting back to the application referring to A1 which is an exer an area exhibit which the board has been handed handed copies of. Uh you can see on on
this map the subject property outlined in in yellow again which has an area of of one acre. You can see the um you know the surrounding lots in close proximity to the existing lot. Uh virtually all of which are undersized lots as well. I
think there's you know there's one across the street. You can see lot 23 which is 5 and a half acres. Uh, every other lot that you see on this map has an area of 1 acre or just over one acre, which which was, you know, when these properties were subdivided under the
under the previous previous zoning and and and prior prior approvals. >> And then Graham, one other before we get into more detailed testimony, in addition to the hardship relating to the undersized lot, we also have the hardship in relation to setbacks because we're we're a corner lot. So, we have
two front yards and that >> corre correct. This is a corner lot which has to have uh two has to meet the front yard setback on each of the two lots and again in this R3 zone 80 feet is the required front yard setback. Uh this plan also shows over on its right
hand side a tabulation of the setbacks of the existing homes in the in the uh in the neighborhood or you know those which are in close proximity to this home. That is one one prong of the request for this variance is to show that the development proposed is uh is
consistent with the development pattern in the neighborhood and would not cause any significant negative impact to the to that neighborhood. Uh we tabulated what's uh shown on on on that that table the uh the 13 nearest lots. Uh, and you
can I don't know if you can see it's kind of kind of hard on that smaller sheet, but um, of the 13 nearest lots, there are seven of them that do not conform to the front yard setback. Uh, the front yard setbacks of those non-conforming homes vary from 24 feet.
Uh, there are there are one, two, three, four, five. Then then there are five of them which are 55, 56 feet. There's another one which is 68 feet. Uh, and then there are some that that that do conform. Uh but anyway, seven of the uh
13 nearest lots do not meet the front yard setback and that's a similar relief that we're asking for as we as we get into the merits of the application. Uh you can also see on this area right across the street of of Clare Stream Road uh on lot number 25 is a new home
that was under construction when this photo was taken. Uh this is dated in March of 2025. Uh that home has a front yard setback of 68 feet. You can also see although I don't have the square footage, but that's a rather sizable home that is being built on that lot as
well. Again, the proposal is to uh is to demolish the existing home, redevelop this lot with a new home which will have a floor area of about 6,800 square feet and include uh and include 10 10 bedrooms. Anthony, can you go to the
plan sheet for me next? >> Just one one quick question if I may. Does that 6,800 square f feet include the size of the basement? >> It does not include the basement. >> So, it's 6,800 plus the basement. >> That's correct. >> And how much how many square footage is a basement? >> I I think the basement is around 3,000
square feet. >> Talking about a 98, >> right? The architect will confirm that, but it's around 3,000. The architect is going to testify and he'll give you the exact number. >> Okay. >> Uh you can see up on the screen we have the uh the variance plot plan that was submitted in support of the application.
This shows the new home that is proposed. It also shows a new inground pool proposed in in the backyard. It shows the uh the driveway which will access both Green Valley Road and and Clear Stream Road. Uh this plan also shows the relief that is requested for
the application which are two variances uh actually three variances. Two variances for front yard setback. The setback for uh Green Valley Road is proposed at 69.2 2 feet. The setback to clear stream road is proposed at 57.8 ft
again where 80 feet is the required front yard setback and the sideyard setback on the west side of the property is proposed at 36.1 ft where 50 feet is required. Again, uh you can also see on
this plan I'll try to highlight it for you. You can see on this plan the permissible building envelope in this dash line which is very small. This permissible V building envelope I think it's only about 35 ft wide or so uh
which frankly is just not just not large enough to accommodate a new home to be built on this uh on this property. That would be very restrictive in the terms of what size home could be built. it would not meet the needs of of today's family and of today's families and is
not consistent with the uh with the pattern of development that has been uh going on in this portion of the town. I'm sure the board is is familiar familiar that uh in this particular part of town located along Clearream Road, Green Valley, and Denmark Lane. uh there
are more than you know more than a handful of homes that have been uh demolished and rebuilt or expanded similar in size to this particular home. So, I believe that this application to demolish the existing home and build a new home that meets the needs of today's
growing families to allow a homeowner uh the the benefit of redeveloping his property with a home that he that he wants to build for his own own personal use is consistent with the pattern of of development in the area and does not does not um
promote any negative impact to the to the area. It is consistent with the pattern of development. Uh, I believe that the variance relief that we're requesting for both of for the for both front yard setbacks again is consistent with the development pattern. As I I
said when I when I uh when we looked at the aerial, there are uh seven homes in the in the close proximity that have existing front yard setbacks uh that are all in the 50 50 some odd feet front
yard setback. And again, we're proposing uh 69 feet and 57.8 feet on the two fronting uh on the two front two fronting streets. Uh this lot qualifies uh under the hardship criteria for C1 variances
because the lot area does not conform to the zone requirement. The buy sell letters were sent with no with no um no responses to either buy or sell parts of of any properties. Uh this lot also satisfies a hardship criteria because of the unique shape and configuration and
constraints imposed by a a corner lot requiring two street frontages on an undersized lot which is very very restrictive and does uh meet the requirement of satisfying a hardship condition. uh the front setback and the sideyard
yard setbacks that proposed or that are proposed are consistent with the uh development pattern in the neighborhood and that's con as confirmed by a a case in Mammoth Beach a uh it's Chur Churro Kell case verse Mammoth Beach where
frontage variance does not impair a zone plan as long as it is similar to other homes on undersized tracks in the neighborhood and again this proposal to to uh to locate the home at 69 and 57 feet is consistent. The sideyard setback proposed at 36 feet
is also compatible with the neighborhood development pattern and you can also tell that by looking at the uh looking at A1 looking at the aerial map. Although I did not list all of the dimensions. Uh you can you can see that many of the homes in that uh in this
aerial do not meet the required 50oot sideyard setback as well. So that variance relief is consistent again with the uh with development pattern. I would also stipulate that this proposal does not violate traditional zoning purposes such as light air and
open space. Uh this application is proposing 10.6% building coverage where your ordinance allows 15% building coverage. So it's well within the permissible building coverage for the lot. I believe that redeveloping this house with a new home promotes a a
desirable uh visual environment. I believe that the proposal to redevelop this lot is compatible with the neighborhood development pattern and does not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and does not have sub substantial detriment to
the public good. We did get reports from uh from both professionals starting with Mr. Peter's report first which was dated uh November 20th of 2025. Uh Mr. Peter summarizes the application
and indicates the uh the existing non-conforming conditions which I discussed and he also indicates the uh the two variances that are requested for front yard setback and sideyard setback. Uh he also just just questions the
location of the uh pool pump equipment which is not shown on this plot plan but that will conform to setback requirements of 50 ft minimum. Uh so I don't take any exception to the variances that Mr. Mr. Peters has
identified in his letter. Uh and then he provides a couple of uh couple of comments in his letter asking for the number of bedrooms which I said was uh said was 10. Uh I talked about the square footage of the uh of the uh home.
The ingground pool will be will be surrounded by a fence with an with a gated enclosure in accordance with requirements. So there's no relief there that it would be in full compliance with ordinance requirements. Uh this application with the 10 bedrooms is
required to have six off- streetet parking space and we would also satisfy that requirement. So there's no relief requested there. >> And Graham the six is not garage. It's just on site between garage and driveway. >> Correct. Combination between garage and driveway. You can see the drive the
driveway is uh is has has quite a bit of length between its uh its L-shaped configuration between Clear Stream and Green Valley. So, it can obviously accommodate six cars easily. And then we have a letter from uh Morgan Municipal dated December 19th
where of course Mr. Roier deemed the deemed the application complete. He summarizes the application and uh he reviewed the um the uh the proposed plan and its grading and he indicated that it maintains existing drainage patterns.
Uh he he summarized our proposal to provide roof recharge systems which is an upgrade from the existing lot which does not provide any management of storm water. So this application will be a betterment of that particular um particular fact.
Uh and then he asks about the uh the number of bedrooms and the parking space of which I have testified to. Uh and he points out the requirements for sidewalk and curbing as indicated by local ordinance where sidewalk and
curbing are required or a contribution to the pedestrian safety fund would be made. uh we would defer to the pleasure of the board whether sidewalks and curbs should be provided or whether the contribution will be um will be required >> and that would apply to to both
frontages. Correct. >> Correct. And then he also provides some technical comments on on the ingground pool. Uh again we will comply with any technical requirements for the ingground pool that no relief is required. So that would be in full compliance with
ordinance requirements. We also have um architectural plans, but I think the architect is going to provide testimony related to those. >> That's all we have of Mr. McFarland. >> We can't >> any drainage problems.
Well, there are no problems currently and we are going to provide roof dry well systems to uh accept runoff from the rooftop. So, uh when this job is is developed, there will be less runoff from the site than there is today. >> Uh will there be any landscaping issues
since you're clearing the whole lot? >> Uh we don't have any landscaping proposed right now as as a part of the application or as a condition of the application. Uh typically we would we would like to give the applicant the flexibility to put the landscaping in as they see fit, but that is certainly
something that the board can offer some input on. And there there are a number of trees. Are all the trees being removed? >> No, the site is not going to be uh the site is not going to be um going to be clear clearcut. Uh we do have to file
for a a tree removal permit as uh as part of the application. We would we would walk the property with the township forester and if there are any trees that are worth saving, we would we would attempt to save them. >> And where the driveways are, are there
any sighteline problems uh entering the two streets? >> No, there would not be any problems. I think uh I think Mark commented on that in his letter and we would work out any any details for sight visibility with him. >> Okay. And you will abide by the lighting
particularly around the pool where all lighting will uh be faced down and away from the neighboring homes. >> Yes. anything to be built uh you know with the exception of the of the the two variages that were request and would be in accordance with ordinance
requirements >> and uh the the properties on septic um uh if the Ocean County Board of Health decides that a new septic system is needed, will the applicant construct an enhanced septic system in order to
protect the wells of neighboring properties? Uh well our our plan does show that a new septic system will be required. So we do have we do propose a new septic system. >> What about an enhanced as a protection since the properties are are close to
each other and they all have wells. How about protecting the wells? >> Uh if if the board feels that advanced treatment is necessary, we would agree to comply comply with that request. >> I think it would be a good idea. We >> we would comply we would comply with that request to provide advanced treatment.
>> Okay. Thank you. Since Dr. Hoffstein went through his checklist, I checked off one of my questions. So, I'm down to just one simple one. >> Um, it's on. Oh, okay. The frontage on Clear Stream. What is the setback that
you're proposing? >> The proposed setback to Clearream is 57.8 ft at one corner and 69.4 at the other corner. >> Okay. And you're saying that is in compliance kind of with the the houses around it? >> I'm saying that that's consistent with
the development pattern in in the area again by by looking at exhibit A1 where I where we tabulated you know the 13 homes. >> Agreed. And that's what I'm that's where I'm going to go to question that. So before the house across the street on Clear Stream was built, the closest
frontage, the way I read it is 91T. And then the new house, they came in at 68 feet and now you're pushing it another 10 feet closer. >> Uh just for the lot lot 26, the front edge is uh is 87 feet.
>> Okay. So that was the >> I know you probably can't you probably can't see it on that on that smaller scale. >> No, I I believe it or not, I think for change, I can see them. And just for uh just for reference, the uh the existing home on the property right now is set
back at 70 feet to clear stream. >> So the existing home does not conform to the current uh setback requirement. >> Uh it does not is does not conform to the current requirement to clear stream or to the requirement on green valley. The existing home is 60 feet to green
valley and 70 feet to clear. >> Right. But I all I want to point out is that as the new houses are being built, it seems like we're pushing it closer and closer to to the to the setbacks. So this is going to be the closest out of
anything that's on there. Uh this setback to Clear Stream will be closer than than uh than the other homes that exist along Clearream. That is correct. But this lot this lot is also different configuration than the other lots on Clearream. You can see, look at the
adjoining lot three, the adjoining lot four, the uh lot 14 across Green Valley Road. Those lots have have much more lot depth than this particular lot has. Uh this lot does not meet the lot depth requirement fronting on Clear Stream. So
that's a hardship. Uh and that's part of the reason why we're requesting the variance relief for that front yard setback on Clear Street. >> I'm not saying a lot of the other things. I just want to be clear on the the setback for Clear Stream is actually the closest that we've ever seen.
>> It it is less than the uh the neighboring homes. That's correct. >> Do you know what the setback requirement was when they built that original home? >> I know it was under the R2 zone, but I do not have that information with me. I
I I I don't I I don't Maybe I maybe Mr. Peters knows. I'm not sure. >> Well, my point is the house was compliant when it was built. We're assuming we're assuming so, but I'm I'm not certain. >> Right. So, it's kind of a mute point what it is now because you want to tear
down and rebuild. So, you can't technically just say, well, because they did it then, it's okay now. It's different rules. Kind of playing a little game. But, >> well, I'm not not playing a game that the test is if the proposal is
consistent with and does not uh impose any negative any significant negative impact upon the neighborhood. My opinion as a professional planner is that it is consistent with the development pattern uh of the area and it does not create any significant negative impact. >> Hope that would be your opinion. You get
paid a lot of money. >> Um that just to that statement because you're implying that he's not telling the truth. >> I'm implying that he's running a fine line which you have to do. I get it and
if it was over the top I apologize but you know it's Madam Chair >> I have a question as as we talk about the the variance relief and for
Mr. McFarland. Um, you had indicated that the required building envelope is shown on the plan. Correct. >> Correct. >> And that the width of the building envelope parallel to Green Valley Road
was about 35 ft. >> I think that's right. I I could scale it to make sure for you. >> Yeah, I think it's a little bigger. >> I was kind I was kind of guessing at it. I can tell you what it is. Uh actually I got about 40 feet wide Ernie along parallel to Green along
Green Valley. >> So how wide is the building envelope parallel to the lot three lot line where the ingground pool's going to be >> back back where the pool is. >> Yeah. >> Uh it's about 60 ft wide. And then how
wide is the setback or the building envelope parallel to Clear Stream Road? >> It is about 110 ft looks like. Yeah, about 100 pound 110. >> All right. So, I have a building envelope. It's 40 feet on one side, 60
ft on another, and 110t long. Um, that seems like a pretty decent space to build a house. It it it seems to me like you have a rectangular piece of property. It's longer than it is deep. And
your client's choice or the applicant's choice was to build a house which was quite frankly not consistent with this building envelope. It's a little more square. And I think you need to reconcile that because I guess I I'll ask the question. Could you build a
house on this lot that's conforming to the required setbacks? Well, of course, the answer is yes. A house could be built that that that conforms to the setbacks. Um, but we don't we don't have to prove that that that it's an impossibility. Uh, and yes, there are considerations as to which way
the house should be oriented. This is a corner lot. Uh, the existing house does have its frontage on Green Valley, and I know that my client felt that it was more, you know, appropriate to try to keep that frontage to Green Valley Road. So, that's why uh we chose to locate the house in this particular orientation.
You didn't design the house, correct? >> Oh, well, the architect designed the house. >> Okay. So, I'll ask him those questions, right? But you have a building envelope that's 40t wide along the frontage, 60 foot wide to the rear, and 110t deep in theory. Correct. >> Yes. Okay. Thank you. That's all, madam.
Chair. >> So, I noticed that except for the master, it's all listed as guest rooms. We should ask the architect. We're about the floor plan. >> Okay. How many bathrooms? >> We could ask the architect. >> Okay, we'll play it that way. Wait for
the architect. >> Martins. >> Yes. Thanks. Um, Mr. Peters, what's a building envelope? >> I'm happy to answer your question. We would normally ask the applicants
professionals to answer questions. >> Yeah. Sorry, I I asked you because you used that term. It's more about >> I'm not an engineer, so I don't know what a building envelope is. >> Sure. The building envelope would be the area within which
a house could be built based upon the required yard setbacks. So, as Mr. McFarland had indicated in his testimony there are a series of dashed lines parallel to Clearream Road, parallel to
um Green Valley Road, and then parallel to adjacent lots two and three, which would outline where the required setbacks for this zone are. And then within that area, you could build a house without variance relief. So we
refer to that as the building envelope. Yeah, that that was more like a dictionary kind of question I was asking because I just didn't know didn't realize what that term meant. Um so one question came to mind is so you
did say that you could build a home here conforming to um all the setbacks, right? I think you stated >> that that would that would be possible. Yes, >> that would be possible. So considering that where's the hardship then? You don't
have a hardship. You can build one. You can build a house on this R1 conforming. So what's the hardship? >> Well, the hardship is that the lot is undersized and the hardship is that uh the lot is is constrained by these
setback requirements that limit the ability of the applicant to build the home as proposed. And we're and we're asking the relief under under the satisfying the proofs that are necessary to show that uh you know really there's
there's two prongs to the test that it's consistent with the development pattern in a neighborhood and it doesn't provide doesn't um create any significant negative impact to the neighborhood. >> Yeah. Okay. But I think you get my
point. If if if there was no way to build it, then I understand there's a hardship. If you have a way of building it, you still get your f you still get your residential home just the way you wanted it. Um and and you meet all the
variances. That's why I struggle with that hardship. I understand the hardship if you couldn't do it at all, but you can. Okay. Um anyway, that's um so here's some of the other questions. So you mentioned that this is the size of a
home required for a um for today's family. Can you I what's can you define that today's family? Why do you think today's family needs
eight bedrooms, two master bathrooms, two sheds? I I I I didn't understand that. >> Well, the This is this is the home that my client wants to build. He has he has a right to uh to to present this application to request approval to build
this home. Absolutely. >> Uh it's what he feels is necessary for you know for his family and his for his personal enjoyment. Uh and that's you know the subject of the application. >> Okay. All right. Yeah. My argument was today's family. I I don't understand
that. I I wouldn't anyway I don't see this being today's family if if if we looked at overall Jackson families >> I think the the part of the answer is that um in the character of the new homes that are built especially
Lakewood's a little over 200 feet away >> right >> and the community in the Lakewood community have larger families and you you you've seen almost every application you get now has larger homes that's the character of the family that he's referring to Right. >> Not I wouldn't need an eight-bedroom
home, but that community in this area, that's what they that's what they're building. >> Yep. Yep. Yep. Um Okay. Uh because and I think we determined that house plus basement something over 10,000 square feet, right?
>> It was 6,000 and change plus the basement >> plus for the basement, which I think that was back and forth, but I think that was like 4,000. I I think you said three, but >> we said we would the bar architect would give you the exact number that >> know the exact >> Okay. >> 11,000. >> Um Okay. The gist of all my questions
that it it seems like a large home for a small lot, whether it's an R1 or an R3. I'm not even concerned about that. It's because as you said, there's a lot of R1's around. Um
but the size is what I'm concerned about. I'll leave the other questions for >> Yes. >> Mr. Heyman, >> could you just um tell us what are the setbacks for an R1? Would this be compliant for such? I mean, I understand
that it's not uh grandfathered in, but what would those setbacks be? I don't have I don't have that in front of me tonight. I think but I I think the R1 I'm not gonna answer. I'm not sure. >> We can look while the architect's testifying if you want.
>> Thank you. >> Unless Mark or Ernie have the ordinance handy. We could look it up. I did want to touch. >> So glad you asked, s you know. >> Of course. Uh R1 residential zone. Which setbacks would you like to go through?
>> Front and side. >> Okay. Principal building requirements for an RO1 zone. Front yard for a corner lot is 40 feet, 60 if on a major street, and sideyard is 20 ft. >> Thank you.
>> You're welcome. >> I'm sorry, what was the side? I missed that. >> Sideyard is 20 ft. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> So, you mentioned earlier, Mr. McFarland that the um coverage would be about approximately 10.6%. >> Correct. >> What is it now?
>> Now it is uh I think it's about 6% right now. >> So the existing home is 6%. You're proposing to make it about 10.6. >> Uh correct. >> Right. Thank you. Any additional questions for Mr.
McFarland? Uh Mr. Vermier. >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh just three items I wanted to go over were the sidewalk, the tree preservation, and then the driveway slash sight triangle. Um just for the sidewalk, the board should discuss the requested waiver. um
whether it's appropriate for the applicant to install sidewalk in accordance with the ordinance requirement or if a contribution is more appropriate here. So I'll ask the applicants engineer um their response on
uh on why we indicated we would whatever the board wanted we would do. Well, can you testify whether there's sidewalk in the area? I don't believe there is any sidewalk in in close proximity to uh to this home.
Looking at the aerial, I don't see any. So, if if there is none in the area, that can be a factor in the board's decision. And also, the board should weigh whether um maybe there should be sidewalks starting to be constructed because it's
a residential area. So I would ask the board to try and discuss the decision for that particular item. >> So I know in the packet of information we were told that this was originally I don't want to use the phrase originally.
The home was built in 1975. We know it in 2000 it was listed as an R2 zone. Correct? But it was still an undersized lot at that point. Um, I did have concerns as well about the sidewalk. If we're talking about um a
large number of bedrooms, obviously we're expecting children. So maybe in that area, that is something we, you know, as a town, we need to consider for the safety of the children. You're talking school buses and all those type of things. I do think that's something we should at least think about. Um,
so because in 2000 it was considered an R2 zone, it doesn't automatically, as Mr. Heyman points out get grandfathered in. Um I do have one question. The house across the street on clear stream lot 25,
right? That's 1.16 acres and has the 68 foot front yard setback. Do you know if they had if they got variances for that property? >> Well, they would had a variance for the uh for the setback. 80 foot would be 80T required. um their lot that lot of
course is under size. Um and I can tell you that I can scale the sideyard setback. I would tell you that I I believe they had a variance on sideyard setback to the uh to the left side of the home by
by scaling off the aerial. It looks like it's around 30 feet. Kind of hard to tell with shadows, but I think it's around 30 feet on the left side. Uh the right side setback was about 80 feet. So conformed on a right sideyard setback,
but not not the left sideyard setback. So that home had relief to uh to the front yard and to the left sideyard. I would say that of course could be confirmed by looking at their application. Again, I'm
just scaling off of the aerial map. >> Thank you. >> Any questions for Mr. McFarland? >> Hello. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, for the record, Graham Sal applicant, um, can we just please, again, for the record,
sorry to repeat myself. Uh, the sheds will be removed just because they're in a non-conforming location. >> Yes. Yes. >> Thank you. Additional questions, Mr. Roire. >> Yeah, just to follow up two more items. Uh the tree tree preservation ordinance
requires some tree replanting. Um the applicants engineer testified they'll get the required tree clearing permit. Uh if the uh board is aware there is a letter from the township's tree expert. She did comment on the appropriate tree
plantings. So if the board is comfortable, we can handle it by uh as a condition of approval requiring the applicant satisfy the township tree expert or if the board wants to see more progress or information on that topic,
we can ask for that um and carry because of that or either way. Just wanted to bring that up. And then the third item was regarding the driveway. There's two entrances, one on clear stream and one on Green Valley. I just asked the applicants engineer. Um, can you confirm
it'll be outside any of the Ashtto site triangle? >> Yes, it definitely are. >> And would you be willing to just show that on a plan as a condition of approval? >> Yes, of course. >> Could you I just had trouble hearing you, so I'm going to put in a condition.
How would you frame that condition? >> Um, regarding the tree clearing. >> No, the sight triangle. the sight triangle that the applicant would show the astro sight triangle on the plan on a revised plan. McFarland, I have an odd question for
you. If the you acknowledged on the record that the house could be built where you wouldn't need variances for the setbacks, right? If you did that, would that mean less trees had to be cleared? Not not I would say not necessarily. Um
again we're going to look at the tree clearing as we refine this plan and hopefully work through resolution compliance and meet with the uh meet with the township forester. Um but I I don't think that that would impact the amount of trees that are that would be need to be cleared for the house to be
built. Additional questions for Mr. McFarland. Mr. Sele. No, >> no questions. I just have some comments. Uh, in regards to Mr. Roer talking about the the trees, you know, the residents in this town have been screaming about
the amount of clear cutting that's happening and there seems to be no information that they can look at to see. So I think we should have a pre-replacement plan in place before approval on this
this matter just so that the residents can see that we are getting all the right documents required within the township not going outside agencies but within the township to make sure it happens. Um, in regards to the
sidewalks, um, I I think it probably makes sense to start putting in the sidewalks as these are being built. Um, I've been in this town for 52 years and I drove down Clear Stream back in when I first got my license back in the 80s and
the road was not very wide to begin with. So, if we're going to start having large homes with large families, um I I think we need to start making sure that we have all the infrastructure in place before these
things are built. Anyone knows, the way I look at things is infrastructure needs to happen before we we put up any more burdens. So, I I believe it would be a smart thing to put sidewalks in and not just contribute
Well, I would I would agree with Mr. Seleia and the chair with regards to the sidewalks, although that area particularly is more rural. Um, and I would feel that it's not as appropriate for sidewalks. Um,
nature of this home and the homes that are being built around it, I think would be beneficial to do it. Although the home that was just constructed across the street on Clear Stream does not have, but is always a first and I think that it would make sense to start here.
>> Any additional questions or comments for Mr. McFarland? >> Excuse me, Miss Joffrey. You can call your next. >> We'll call our architect. Thank you. Oh, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth?
>> And could you, using your microphone, state your name and credentials for the record? >> Samuel Flegman. F L I G M- N Bachelor's in architecture from New NJIT. Uh principal owner of Sam Flegman architecture and design provided
testimony in front of this board and similar boards throughout New Jersey in the past. >> Mr. Flegman, this board accepts your credentials. Thank you. >> Thank you. And Mr. Flegman, there a bunch of architectural questions that were raised, but before we get to the questions, um there's a floor plan.
There were plans that were submitted prior to the application prior to tonight. Could you just run through the board for the board, the floor plans and the design details? >> Sure. Um, I know there was a quick question about an LLC. I could comment
towards that that Mr. Citroen and Mrs. Citroen are planning to actually inhabit this house on their own. So, although it's under an LLC, the idea is for them to actually live in it themselves. They're relocating um and they're looking to live in within this area. They have kids with that live
within this area and uh throughout Jackson Lakewood as well. The design I think we can touch on it real quickly. Again, it's based off a 68 approximately 6,800 square foot first and second floor. Um the basement if we go I think
if there's a cover sheet that we can go up one sheet, I think it's listed. I don't know the off hand, but I would say it's definitely within like 3500 square feet if I recall correctly. The basement itself >> 4,087 according to the plan. >> Okay, there you go. Sorry. Um, so that's
additional square footage in the basement. Um, it's proposed to be a once a single family home that has four bedrooms on the second floor, uh, one bedroom on the first floor. they are,
you know, middle-aged and they're planning to able to have that bedroom act as their uh master suite on the first floor and they have additional uh five bedrooms in the basement for when they have larger gatherings. Uh like I said, they have uh kids within the area
and if for holidays when lots of people come over, this is a way that they can accommodate them by having additional bedrooms within the basement. Um, I can discuss specifics if there's any question. >> There was a question about number of
bathrooms and um, is there a garage? >> Yeah, there's a onecar garage. Uh, this is the basement so you're not seeing it here. I guess it's kind of that lower left hand corner. It's facing Clear Stream. um
number of bathrooms on the second on the second floor. There is three uh four bathrooms. Uh there's a his and her bathrooms for the master suite and then there's two additional bathrooms for the additional three bedrooms on the ground
floor. There's uh there's one bath, there's one master bathroom, and then there's probably like a two half bathrooms for the uh for the main living spaces within the first floor. Living room, dining room, family room, that stuff.
There we go. Yeah. So, you can see there's two half bathrooms on either side of uh the lower hand of the plan. And then there's, sorry, there's a his and her master bathroom for the master suite on the first floor. >> Yeah.
>> And the basement, how many bathrooms? >> Uh, let's go back to it. Let me see. Um, one, two, three, four bath. Four bathrooms. There's the idea is also there's a stairs from the back left corner of the house that's that has a
bathroom off it as well that's meant to act as uh a bathroom for the pool that's being proposed in the back of the in the back of the yard. So there's a way that they can kind of use that as a little bit of a pool house uh in the basement.
>> So those steps are leading downstairs >> correct? and that pool house that you have listed in the basement. So, there's room down there that that's where you're sending those stairs into. >> Correct. >> And what And what about on the I'm sorry,
going down further on the left hand side. What is Well, I'm guessing there four box three boxes hidden behind each other. one box with the two lines below it next to the
guest bedroom, bedroom one address, and then it has that box that looks like it's outside the house. What is that? >> Um, that's a side entrance that's going up to the on the on the on the first floor. That's a side entrance. So, the
the parking is kind of >> uh you can kind of see like where the garage located and that's that side entrance. >> Okay. So, there's no entrance to a basement there, >> correct? >> Okay. I just want to confirm what I'm looking at here. >> Yes. >> I just wanted to confirm what I was
looking at. >> Basement or full kitchens permitted in a basement. from a from a build first building code issue. There's no issue, right? Uh we've um I'm sure the board has heard of a Passover kitchen and from my experience,
we've filed them in the past and we haven't had any issues with building code. >> That doesn't answer your question. Is it permitted or is it not permitted? >> Let me ask you this. in normal designs where you'd have what I believe is referred to on your drawing
as a peso kitchen, wouldn't that be on the same floor as the regular kitchen? >> That's I mean there are there are designs that have it on the first floor and >> and so I think the board has a valid concern asking you have five bedrooms, four bathrooms and a kitchen in the
basement. I think you should try to answer their questions about Absolutely. And I'll ask the question. You indicated this is a single family house, correct? Correct. >> And while we've heard testimony a little from Mr. Alfiari, we've heard from Mr. McFarland, we'd like to hear from you that it's not the intent for this to be
used by a separate entity other than the single family unit that's going to build and own that live in the house. >> That's correct. >> Thank you. >> Yes. I I mean like you can see actually on the plan the only stairs leads from
the back which is from the pool area and you can kind of see the program that's programmed in that area is working as a as what I would call like a pool house. There's a there's a shower with a bath. There's a laundry little laundry room with a place for people to change. um
definitely does not read as any intention of having any rental and obviously if there's a concern we can put in a deed restriction. There's no there's no plan for having any besides a single family home. >> Well, I would like that in there and
also stating that there'll be uh no uh separate apartment in the in the basement. >> That's that's fine. Out of curiosity, what? Let me back it up.
The couple that are building the house, I I assume that they're older. You said they have children that live in the area. >> Yep. >> So, basically, just this man and woman are going to live in the master suite, >> correct? No children live in the house.
>> Well, yeah, they have children. They live in the house, but most of the church are living within the area like Jackson Lakewood must have a lot of children cuz everything's labeled as a a guest room.
Me as a firefighter inspector looking at it, this scream single room occupancy. That's kind of I think what some of the people are thinking. You have a kitchen, you have a laundry room, you have a side entrance, a separate entrance. It does
seem very awkward, lack of a better way to put it. No, it's >> side entrance is not to the garage. >> I mean, well, it's it's a it's a high-end luxury home, and that the intent isn't really for like people to
rent out rooms. That's not I don't if you look at the architecture of the house, it doesn't read like that. And granted, there are a lot of rooms, but it's clearly not the intent for for that architecture. >> I think guest room, it should say bedroom one, bedroom two, bedroom three. >> Understood.
>> You have escape windows in every what could be a single room apartment that has its own. >> That's a building code requirement. Any bedroom in a basement is required to have an >> That's not what I'm saying though. But what I'm saying though, it does look like
a single room occupancy because you do have its own kitchen, >> right? >> And it's in its own laundry room. So, and I understand you can deed restrict it. Who's going to enforce it is kind of what again I'm going to speak
for the people. Who's going to enforce it? So, it it's a very tough thing in my mind. This doesn't look good. Um something else I wanted to ask >> ask you a question
>> is the total number of bathrooms you didn't give that >> 12 >> 12 yeah >> sorry >> 12 a lot of bathrooms Um, >> sure. >> How big is the septic system for this
thing? >> It's it's meant to accommodate a 10-bedroom home. >> You have the room for it? >> Yeah. >> Uh, that's that's it for now. Thank you. >> Yeah, it was more for our council. Um,
hello. um the add adding that restriction to the deed out and so on. How is that law? Is that enforcable by >> I mean a deed restriction is enforcable to Mr. Tremor's point the way that a
deed restriction is typically enforced is by a superior court action. So if you the township zoning department, >> right, >> code enforcement um had, you know, reasonable uh proofs that the deed
restriction is being violated, you can get a court order um requiring enforcement. >> Okay. Okay. So >> but but so that's that's how enforcement would take place. >> Okay. >> Right. And just to piggy back on what Gan was saying, Mr. Martins just to get
um a little bit of reassurance for you. Um that is an option, but also if they were ever going to maybe get a attempt at a rental co that would be questioned why there were two dwelling units in one building because that's not typical and that's normally not not what's is not what's permitted in town.
>> So on top of what >> and that application itself would essentially be >> right that would that would turn a red flag to look into it further and on that is also on top of what Gene is saying. So if if if code enforcement or any other enforcing agency within the
township has has um any reasonable or or complaint or any reasonable doubt that that that is what's occurring, we do have um those actions at our disposal to to take it further if necessary. But yes, the deed restriction and also um what I've been doing for zoning reviews
is like personal use statements um also when it comes to finished basement, things like that. >> So that definitely is enforceable. >> Gotcha. Thank you. Y >> can I ask how it's enforceable? >> We can't just, you know, somebody calls up and complains, they call your office, >> they can't just knock on the door. Hey,
can we come in the house and and check? >> Sure can. >> Well, I don't work. >> You can ask to go in or you can go to municipal court and get an administrative search warrant >> and by that time everybody's gone. >> Oh, >> okay. Thank you. >> But yes, it is enforceable of course and
and but yes, on top of what Jean said, you I mean I come from a code code enforcement background. first step is always kindness and knock on the door and ask to take a look and and then use the the longer the longer route if necessary. >> No, absolutely. And the reason why I say that is the general public is under the
impression we can call you go down there and you know get denied access. There's not much you can do until you get to court which is a process. So I mean it sounds very simple when we like oh we'll just deed restrict it but it's not that
simple but just I want it on record. It's not that simple, but it is it is more of like a security blanket to just not to be a little bit more confident that that um the applicant is going to follow through with with what they're uh putting on on the record and what
they're proposing, but also I guess to to alleviate some concerns of the board as well, >> right? It does give you the ammunition you need if by some catch somebody like that. Yeah. But if since since a property is owned by an LLC, are there
additional inspections? >> Dr. Hoff, I wish I could answer that for you. Unfortunately, as not being a code enforcement employee, I don't really have Okay. >> clear answers for you and I don't want to make something up, but we can get back to you on that for sure. and and
LLC's they uh my recollection is under the ordinance there's certain things that LLC's have to provide in terms of contact information um and I identifying someone who can be reached on the property etc. in terms of an additional
standard for inspection. Um the there is no provision and that there there would have to be some real showing on why there was a rational basis for that. There's nothing in the law that allows prohibition of ownership
of a single family home by an LLC. >> A question to the architect if you're available. But why do there two master bedrooms, one on the first floor, one on the second floor? >> Well, they they currently want to live
on the second floor. Uh but being that they plan on living this home as they age, they wanted one where they can as they age, they can transfer and move downstairs to live on the first floor. >> But one master suite with his and her
bathrooms and his and hers walk-in closets will sit empty. >> Yeah. Correct. >> Okay. >> So, I'm trying to understand is if you can build a house within the setbacks, but you're building a bigger one, how
many people are living there that's going to be living in that house? And why do we need all that rooms if if it's only two people living there? Is that what you said earlier? the there the second floor has now a master suite with
three bedrooms and that's going to be used kind of all the time and then as as they you know if they host that they're they have kids with that live within the area >> they live within the area so they're going to be staying in the house also so
that's why you're having all that space when they live nearby towns that's what I'm trying to understand is if you wouldn't need variances if the house is smaller and we don't need all this space. So, I I'm trying to understand why you
need all this space if they're not really going to be living there and you don't >> really need all that space. I mean, the client the client is requesting the space because that's kind of how they, you know, that's the style that they they're looking to live with. And they
they currently maybe live in that in a in a in a large home. And it's sort of, I guess, what their, you know, what their design aspirations are for to live in a nice big luxury home and have the ability to host, have large gatherings,
holidays, summertime, and have all the kids over and everyone feel comfortable within the home. Now, I do get the the notion that um it's it's undersized. It's an undersized lot and but I think
like the testimony that Graham gave, it definitely is within the character of similar developments that have been built within this area. Um there are a lot of nice bit larger luxury homes that have been built within this area. So I
would I would I would argue that it definitely is within the character of the neighborhood that's being developed currently. >> And just as it relates to the occupancy, just assuming that Mr. Flegman said, "I know the family and they have 10 kids and therefore they need the bedrooms."
The zoning decisions you have to make are really not related to how many people are living there because they they may have larger families and a lot of times during Shabas kids stay over because they can't drive home. So, but the point is who's living there? >> But my point could be you could have a
large family that's going to live there. But I guess the point is because you're asking for a variance when you can build a home that's within the setback, but you're choosing to build a bigger one to to build this size of a home is what I'm
trying to say. >> But the fact that we had more >> the fact that there were more kids wouldn't be the zoning justification for it. So that's that's the only point. No, I I think that it it is and I think that the the tenor of the questions have been clear and the responses have been clear.
It's just whether or not that's going to be considered, which is that you're already, you know, um you have the the the fact that it's undersized lot, but there is not compliance with the setbacks because and the and the
testimony has been clear that this is the home that the applicant wants. But the board certainly could still consider the fact that it's a request for sort of additional variances aside from the undersized lot and and in that that the overall size and the
violation of the setbacks is something the board can consider. >> Mr. Peters, >> Madam Chair, to follow up on Mr. Rosal's >> comment or question to Mr. Flickman. While it may not make your client happy, given the building envelope that Graham and I talked about, 40t wide on one
side, 60 feet wide on another, 110 ft across the frontage, you could probably build a 10-bedroom home that's 6,800 square feet within that building envelope. Correct. >> Uh, questionable whether we can have it
facing Green Valley. It would be really more >> No, that's not what I asked. I said, I'm not here to make your client happy. I'm here to ask you a question which is could you build a similar size house within the building footprint that's available on the property? >> I think the answer is yes. There is
definitely the ability to build a a home within the building envelope that is provided with the R3. Um it would create more challenges in terms of >> I don't disagree with you but I think the the fair point this isn't a contest
about architecture. It's a variance application. So, you know, I give your client a lot of credit for wanting to spend that much time with his family. I I give him a lot of credit for being able to build a house this grandiose. However, the zoning board here's applications for variances. And in this
particular case, the design of the house could be different and be less and require a less intense variance or no variances at all. And I think that's there in lies the rub of is there a real hardship.
Thank you. >> Want to take a break while the chairwoman's out. >> That is your choice. She had a a sudden thing to do. She'll be right back. Um, if the board would like, uh, maybe
would this would be a good opportunity, uh, to take a 10-minute break. >> I second that. >> Okay. Well, I can't make a motion. I can only make a suggestion. >> I I'll make the motion. >> All in favor? Second. We all agree.
>> Any opposed? Absolutely not. Okay. now. Is it on? >> There you go. >> Okay. >> Thank you. But I wanted to figure it out. >> No, it's so hard to hear. So, just speak as loud as you can. >> Um, I don't so much have questions as I do comments.
Um, if I looked at this, the house sold three years ago. So, three years ago, it was what it is now. And again, I feel like it keeps coming up before this board over and over again. Someone buys property,
they know what the requirements are. They they have to find out what zones they're in. And yet it keeps coming up here where we're taking a square peg and trying to shove it into a round hole. It
didn't fit 3 years ago. Maybe that was the time to look for property that would fit this size house where you wouldn't have a hardship because the only hardship is the one you're bringing to yourself. It's just very sad because and we always say, "Well, this one did it
and that one did it." Well, there comes a time where we have to start saying, "No, we can't do it. It's too much now. You keep building all these houses, eventually they're all just going to connect and we're just going to have one big apartment building. It It's got to
stop somewhere." So, I just hope you guys really think about that. And sometimes you just have to say no. It's not a hardship. It's not a hardship. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward to make comments about what they've heard
testify to this evening? Seeing no one come forward, we're going to go ahead and close public session. Mr. Alfiri, did you want to make a closing statement? >> Yeah, just very briefly again, thank you for the time and input. Um, I don't think there's any dispute that the hardship, certainly relating to the size
of the lot exists and we've demonstrated that we can't improve or or or mitigate the hardship in any way as it relates to the setback variance relief that the applicant's seeking. Um, we think the more appropriate way of approaching it
is to look at the character of that that neighborhood and the R1 um uh characteristics. And if you do that and if you look at the pattern of development that's co that exists in this area recent pattern
you'll see that what we're proposing is consistent and therefore based upon the planner's testimony there's there's um adequate proofs to support the variance relief. We've agreed to um if the board were to grant the approval to install
the sidewalks to to provide the advanced treatment septic system um and to address all of the technical comments contained within the board professional reports um and there and and including a deed restriction and therefore we request
that the board grant the variance relief as presented. board is suffered. It is up to us for discussion. >> Um if I may, Madam Chair, just to to set the standard, I'm going to review the conditions and I also will review the
legal standard for uh this case for the board to consider during deliberations. So the conditions were those and Mr. Alfuri, if I say something that you object to, please let me know. um that the 200 foot list be uh added as
part of resolution compliance um in the form required by the uh checklist that the pool will conform to the 50-foot setback that um the sidewalks are to be provided. There's
supposed to be advanced treatment as part of the septic system. Sheds are to be removed. They're in a non-conforming location. This township's tree expert must be satisfied on the tree removal plan. Show the site triangle on the revised plan.
They have a deed restriction as a single family home and a condition that there be no separate apartment in the basement. So um the law regarding uh an undersized lot. So we have you know request here
essentially for uh two variances. One or three variances two of them being the setback variances and the other um the uh fact that it is in a R3 zone. Um
the standard for an undersized lot case is that the applicant is be required to carry the burden of proof on both positive and negative criteria. Um, you've heard testimony as far as the hardship for the positive and there was
some testimony that could be done without substantial detriment to the public good and discussion of the development in the neighborhood and other properties in the area. Um, he also must demonstrate that efforts were
made to bring the property into conformity with the zoning ordinance by attempting to acquire adjacent property. will be offering to sell the non-conforming property to adjacent owners. Um I believe those letters were provided and were discussed during the testimony.
demonstrate that um I'm sorry submit detailed plans to the prop proposed house uh which has been provided that's part of what's been discussed and the architect is testifying to attempt to demonstrate compliance with the use
sideyard and setback requirements and location of the house among other homes on small tracks with similar frontages. Um obviously you know in terms of seeking uh demonstrating compliance with setbacks there is not compliance with
the front and side setbacks for the R3 zone. There was testimony um that they comply with the R1 setback requirements. Um have to demonstrate the proposed use does not violate
zoning purposes such as light, air, and open space. And uh those are the things that are to be considered. Um obviously the board is familiar with the um positive and negative criterion which
obviously must also be proved in this bulk variance application. >> Criani has detailed it all out for us. U it's open for discussion. >> I I just wanted one clarification. Um >> the microphone for us. We can't hear you. >> You can't hear me? Now, now you Okay, I
got to I got to still kiss the microphone. Okay. Um, so if if if we Okay, the let's say we follow the rules of an R1,
then are there any setback variances still required? >> No, under the R1 standard, I believe uh Gina had placed on the record and there was also testimony. Sorry, I can't recall if it was from the architect or uh Mr. McFarland that um it would comply
with the R1 setbacks. >> Okay. >> Um which are 40 for the front yard and 20 for the side. >> Yeah, G. >> That's what I thought I heard. >> Yeah, sorry. >> I concur. >> No, thank you, Mr. Peters. >> Yeah, I just wanted confirmation of that. >> Okay,
>> that's all I wanted. Thank you. >> Yes, I'll I'll make some comments. Um, >> the microphone, please. >> I'm sorry. I guess the the the things that hit me with this application. Um, first and foremost, discussion as to whether we
can build a a house in that lot that is basically conforming. um kind of says to me, well, why aren't we considering that? Uh I understand it requires probably making it facing Clear
Stream instead of Green Valley. I don't know what the the detriment is of doing that. Um we talk about character of the neighborhood. Um, and we heard tonight, at least I heard
tonight, I won't put words in other people's mouths. Um, but I heard tonight that it's the charact that this is in character with what's being built now. Um, that may be true, but there is a character that a neighborhood has always
had. And where do we balance the new with the old? Uh um my concern leaving the house the way it is is we are setting a new low on this street for
a setback for a front yard on Clear Stream. Um I you know I kept bringing it up and I kept hearing it's pretty close to everything else. Well, it's 10 feet shorter than anything else that's been
there. Uh, so if we approve this as a 58, what's the next one going to come in at? Are we going to go 48 next time and say, well, it's pretty much in line with what what we're seeing. So, there's there's a lot that I think we need to
kind of um consider here. And I I I put forth and I know Jean you the way you presented it was that the tree expert would be done later. My comment was I think the residents of Jackson are tired
of seeing clear cutting trees. And I'm not saying you're clearcutting here, but I think it's about time that we make sure we're getting information from the tree experts prior to us voting yes or no. I think these are the
things that, you know, we we always talk about an applicant being complete when they come and present to us. Um, I think that's that needs to be true. We need to have all the information to make a sound
vote because that's the importance that we we we on this board find. Um, my the next item is, you know, I talked about I thought sidewalks were were better and it goes back to the whole criteria, you know, the comments of does it fit in
with the character of the neighborhood? Um, and you know, although I said we need to have sidewalks in there, well, technically the character of this neighborhood would say it doesn't need it. But if we're going to start making changes, and listen, change happens and
I I get it. Um, while I would like to think that I would love to live in a house like that, I would not want to have that many bedrooms because I don't want people staying, but everybody's entitled to their own opinion. Um
but so those are those are just some of my concerns as I'm contemplating where I'm gonna go if I'm voting on this one or not. Um >> and Mr. Lucky, this is not exactly on point, but since you were talking about um the tree expert and and what you need
to see on the application, we've had since I drafted the ordinance um changing the application, we've had uh some some changes in the board. So, I'm going to resend that out. Um, and so do not reply all. I'll put that in. But if
you have individual comments to send to me, looking for additions, um, you know, we'll be glad to consider that and, uh, discuss it with you. >> I appreciate that. Uh, but other than that, I think those are my comments.
Everyone else. >> Okay. So >> uh so I definitely hear um both sides the fact that it is bottom line it's an R3 um it would be 100% compliant if it was in an R1 but that's sort of you know generally
the way I perceive it is you know could you swap the home that would be compliant I get it but on the flip side if I look at it as a oneacre property as it is which the general
lots are in this neighborhood. Um it would be 100% compliant. I personally don't see an issue with it. I think it's not inconsistent with the master plan. Um it fits in with the character of the neighborhood. They agreed to put in the sidewalks,
although like Mr. like you just said, I don't think anybody else does have sidewalks there, but being that this is a significant, you know, upgrade. Um, and very likely there will be people, as you said, waiting for a bus stop on that
corner, I think would be beneficial. Um, to have the sidewalk there. I don't see any negative criteria. The positive is, you know, you're rebuilding, you're making it new, and it's beautifying the neighborhood. um as far as the concern with
sideyards. So over here we have two front yards. Um with Clear Stream, although the other properties on Clear Stream are generally do have a larger distance to the home, um those are all frontage on Clear Stream, not sideyards.
So this is technically it's two front yards, but really it's their side. So that because it's on that corner lot, um it gives that specific hardship to this property and I don't think it's setting any kind of precedent to any other
properties. >> Speaking of sidewalks, there uh lately the township and the county have gotten together to add as many sidewalks to Jackson as possible. and Jackson's gotten some grants to provide sidewalks.
So even though there are not sidewalks here, it's not to say they aren't needed. There are other places that would just as rural where we have sidewalks now. Second, the new Bassa plan was just passed and I'm
sure almost every area in town came up. This should have been one of them. and the people who wrote the new master plan kept this as a R3 zone. They certainly
had an opportunity to change it to an R1 and therefore make more people compliant and uh avoid so many trips to the zoning board. Uh second, what has me
thinking is is that the applicant can build a conforming home which would eliminate the hardship to eliminate the variances and still accomplish much of what they are looking
for. So that's part of my consideration. Well, I'm going to go with Mr. Selecti over there. Um, where do we draw the line? It's a big concern. I think it's a little unfair that
uh Dr. Sheldon had just said that these applications keep on coming to the board, forcing our hands constantly. We have a piece of property that we could build a house that fits. It's very simple, but it seems constantly almost
every meeting we have, somebody's trying to fit a bigger pair of shoes in the shoe box than can hold. And I I think it's a major concern. It's what everybody's screaming and hollering about.
And it's causing a lot of confusion in the town. The house itself, it's beautiful. Really beautiful house. I mean, I get it. But also, like I said, as a firefighter inspector,
it draws a lot of concern that there is a possible different use, especially if the owner who's building it decides two years from now to sell it. You know, again, deed restriction. I get all that.
U but again it's setting a lot of precedents. Dr. Sheldon just said the area was kept R3 for a reason and as a past member of the planning board that is part of the reason to keep these
things from happening. So I mean it's the average person's going to look at it and wonder is this some sort of transitional home? Does it have a greater purpose down the road? So, it's it's a very concerning application to me and
I believe we have to draw the line somewhere. >> Thank you. >> For the sake of speaking up, um I do agree with most sentiments of my board members. Just everyone said it more eloquently. From the time I looked at this, this was a struggle for me. Part of the struggle
is the fact that they kept it in R3 zone, right? The question is why? Why did we keep it in R3 zone when the majority of the homes in that area are are approximately an acre, a little over an acre. So, I was struggling coming in, but I
have to be very honest with you. The fact that you can build the home where and not require the variances is a is an issue for me. Um, it's non-conforming. It was non-conforming when you purchased it. I understand that there were changes. The house was built
in 1975, so who even knows what it was zone or if it was zoned at that point. In 2000, it was zoned as R2. It was changed at some point to an R3. But the fact that you can build a home that would meet the requirements or in you
know situated in such a way that it would meet the requirements is a struggle for me. I do appreciate um all the things that you're willing to accommodate. The sidewalk I think that is important. I've been in Jackson a long time. The town is changing and it is a corner lot. So to me, sidewalks are
important there, even though it's not necessarily needed because you have other it's not necessary around in some of the other areas, but this is a corner lot and with school buses, I think that's important, but the fact that you can build a situate the home in such a
way that it conforms is an issue for me. Um, you know, again, I appreciate all the other accommodations, the pool conformity, adding the list, the septic, the tree expert, all of that's great, but I'm struggling with the fact that you can build a home on this property
that would conform without having to have all the variances. It's not going it's an existing the nonconformity isn't going to change. Just to be clear for the record, it's still going to be um an undersized lot in the zone. That's not going to change.
That has been that way for at least since 2000. Um, but I'm struggling with the fact that you can build a home that would comply if you re if you re uh situated on the property. I just want to add so Dr. Austin and
Miss Bradley both talked about the the master plan staying the same as one of the few residents that attended the public forums for when the new master plan was being drafted. Um, one of the
the comments that kept coming up is, you know, the density. And looking at density, I don't want to look at it as eight apartments on a oneacre lot, but it's also a density of what you're building
within lots. And the fact that they kept these 3es, you know, I think shows that they wanted to keep this neighborhood. Maybe, maybe not. They just may have ignored it. I don't know. But it it it kind of tells me and I have to go with
it is that they wanted to keep this neighborhood as close to what it was where the new master plan came out. No. So as I mean the the the application is
as it is right you know the uh the board a number of people have expressed you know struggling with the uh setback uh variances as well as obviously the underiz lot variance which everyone um
is aware of and that would not change based on the size of the home but the applicant is the master of the application. And the application before the board now is for this home situated this way. So you know
question really is whether feel the criterion has been met uh for the undersized lot. If you feel like it's also been met for the setback variance. Okay, since everybody's sitting here,
let's continue. Uh, I'll make a motion to deny the application. >> I'll second that. >> We have a motion and a second on the floor to deny the application. If you vote yes, that means that the variances will not be granted.
Okay. Roll call, please. Um, Mr. Selectia does not vote. Kathleen, right? >> Yeah. >> Mr. Heyman, >> no. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremer,
>> yes. >> Miss Cusano, >> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, >> yes. >> And Miss Bradley, >> yes. Thank you. >> Thank you. I type all the time and I never get any
better. Sorry. am to 8:00 PM Monday to Saturday. We we just felt it was important to have that flexibility. We kind of envision that warehouse building really, you know, being used by by a small contractor or or so and he may have a need to come
there at at 6 or 7 o'clock at night sometime. So, I think there's a possibility that those hours are uh you know could be could be needed. Uh for the lease for the two lease parking areas, we showed them on the plan, you know, with fencing. We tried
to uh tried to organize that space a little more than what has been going on on on on the site recently. Um the number of tenants is actually, you know, is not fixed and will vary depending upon market conditions and and and as as things change. I know Mr. Falserano
testified last time that he has, you know, a few different people that are uh storing vehicles on site now. And that same operation, I think, is is essentially what would continue. So, we're not looking to impose a condition that says it can only be leased to one
or two people. Uh we would like to have some flexibility that it could be could be leased to anybody who is going to comply with the with the requirements that may be attached to attached to the approval. uh the landscaping business. Uh again, there's really two components
to that. There's the the front portion, the smaller portion where it's a storage of some, you know, of some products and and materials. And then there's a a back portion where landscape nursery stock is currently uh currently grown and then, you know, taken to be installed at at
customers um you know, customers properties. So the plan shows those two separate areas. Uh within the storage area, there are some bins for materials such as stone, sand, and mulch to be stored. Uh we added a detail for those push bins.
We provided some requirements for height limitations. Uh also uh would like to have area for a couple of rolloff containers for storage of other materials including in brush, stumps, vegetation and and clippings. Uh
what the landscaper has been doing right now is he does he does have a couple of rolloff containers that he does bring you know brush and gl and grass clippings to uh temporarily stored until till they get disposed. We would like to be able to continue that use as part of
the landscaping business and again and then again we do have the landscaping nursery stock area. uh hours of operation we say from uh you know from seven to seven and as related to all activities there's no manufacturing to be performed at the
site this application is for the multiple uses as indicated uh but they're basically um you know store out outdoor storage uses uh you know p primarily uh we do anticipate deliveries being made by single unit su trucks for
the restaurant business uh tractor trailer trucks do make deliveries for the shed add prefab buildings to the site. Um you know that has been going on for some time and that that would continue in the same fashion which it has been done and then various vehicles associated with the landscapers business
will enter and exit the site during the day in the course of conducting their business activities. We do have uh we did get review letters from both professionals on the uh updated application
and going to Mr. Peter's letter first uh dated December 29th of 2025. Um this letter contains a lot of language because there's um you know there are several variances required
with the application. There are actually a lot of design waiverss that are required um because we're not looking to make a lot of site upgrades with this application. I don't think they're necessary for the type of outdoor
storage uh and for the low inensity uses that are proposed. Uh of course, Mr. Peters does indicate the uh the uses that are not permitted in this application which is why we're here before the board and just confirming that you know the restaurant the office
retail the warehouse the lease parking land you know basically everything that we're seeking is not permitted in the zone because frankly we're in my least favorite zone in this whole town which is a limited commercial zone. Uh it it it is called limited commercial because it is severely limits what anybody can
do. Um and the board has seen several application applications uh for properties in in this zone. Um and then Mr. Peters does point out the bulk variants that are needed. We don't take any exception to the bulk variances that he identifies. I think I I spoke about
them last time as well. And then he spends a lot a lot of there's a lot of um lot of comments in his report that relate to waiverss that would be uh necessary and I don't take exception to
any of those and we would request the the relief uh for from those waivers or for those waiverss based upon the plans that are as they as they are submitted. Um some of them relate to uh you know bulk
storage areas being screened and you know landscaping and things like that. And I we had testified previously that these these uh uses are all contained in the back part of the property and that there is limited limited view of them from the street and that's part of the reason why I think this there's
justification in granting these uh these variances and approving this project. And then we're also re in receipt of a letter from Morgan Municipal dated January 2nd and uh that that letter summarizes the application talks about
the you know the wetlands which we had discussed last time. Um talks about the uh the 8 foot tall chain link chain link fence that we have added. Uh Mark talks about the buffer requirements and agrees
that that buffering is not required under town of ordinance because the adjoining properties are all zone commercial. Um although they may have residential use, they are not zoned resident, they are not zoned residential. So uh ordinance does not
require does not require buffers. Uh Mark and I did have discussion about the EV parking and we I think we're in agreement that the plan that we've submitted complies with EV parking requirements. Uh of course curb sidewalk to be
determined by the uh by the board. Um there is an existing sign which a variance was previously granted under the prior approval but the board feels necessary to grant variance for that sign setback. Again, we would ask that to be granted.
And then Mark does point out that your ordinance does require um you know, pavement structure design. Most of this site is accessed by a gravel driveway which is which is uh adequate and suitable for the uses that are proposed
and for the low intensity use of the site. and we would ask for waiver from having to pave the site or you know introduce any additional impervious paving. I just don't think it's necessary for this type of application. So I think I um you know I did go
through the v the variances that are needed last time which there were uh three or four of those. We talked a little bit about the limited commercial zone and that you know it's called limited commercial zone for a reason because the only thing that it
permits are uh you know medical professional offices, continuing care, assisted living facilities, rehab facilities, daycare centers, preschools, some other you know you know churches, mini storage facilities. It doesn't give a lot of flexibility in in what it
permits. Uh in support of this variance request, the application must satisfy positive criteria and you know must must address the following items. Uh the application must relate to a specific piece of property which certainly this application is is proposed for for one
one subject property. Uh must advance at least one purpose of the MLUL and I believe that this application advances at least four purposes. Um, I believe this development is proposed in a manner that will promote public health, safety, and and general welfare. Uh, I believe
this application provides adequate light, air, and open space. We're trying to make use of an existing site uh without the need to construct additional buildings, without the need to construct additional pavement. uh preservation of the environment, natural resources proposing an
application on a property which does have some some limitations does have some wetlands, wetlands buffers and riparian buffer and we are not proposing any disturbance within those buffers that would require permitting from the D.
Um MLU also talks about provide for a variety of residential, commercial and industrial uses in order to meet the needs of citizens. Uh this this board I know has has seen some other applications in the past that discuss
the need for uh parking areas whether it be for uh you know passenger vehicles or for for trucks. I think that that that is an item for which there is definitely a need in this municipality. Uh this the ordinance
um in in this town is very is is frankly very restrictive in what it allows for outdoor storage. and an application such as this satisfies satisfies that that need. I believe in this case a commercial use being proposed in the commercial zone
substantially conforms to the intent and purpose of the master plan and I believe this site is well suited uh to this particular use uh this this application uh the site has direct access to a county arterial roadway doesn't have any
access or doesn't create any demand to municipal roadways the plan calls for an organized process of the uses proposed in a matter in a manner that respects the environment and the surrounding properties and satisfies the general welfare by providing adequate ingress and egress by limiting the storage uses
to the rear of the site and keeping them out of out of view. The uh the uses of low intensity along a commercial corridor. There's no land clearing proposed. No additional impervious surfacing proposed. Uh the impervious coverage proposed with this application
is is about 7.4% where 60% is permitted in the zone. So uh just confirmation that this application is of very low intensity. The site is also repurposing existing buildings which protects the environment and preserves natural
resources. This site is is of a unique shape given its orientation and its its frontage compared to its depth. It has limited street frontage making it well suited for this use which does not rely on street visibility nor additional street
frontage. many of the other uses that are permitted in the in this zone uh you know would have much more reliance on having adequate street footage for their success. Uh the proposed uses with this application do not have that reliance.
Uh the surrounding properties are zoned for commercial use. So the proposed use is not incompatible with the with the neighborhood. So I do believe that this site is well suited to the proposed use proposed uses based upon its location, current
condition and uh and lack of sewer service. Uh general welfare is served if the use is particularly fitted to the location uh of the property. The applicant is not required to demonstrate that the site cannot be used for any other purposes. U and we don't have to
show that there's uh a hardship with the with the application. As to uh negative criteria, we have to show that the application can be can be approved without substantial detriment to the public good and with without substantially impairing the intent and
purpose of the zone plan or the zone ordinance. I believe that this application satisfies satisfies that test. Uh when we consider the low intensity use proposed, we would offer the project would not produce any negative impact. No noise, no pollution,
minimal activities on site. there's not going to be any manufacturing. There's not going to be any uh you know really construction activity on the site. Uh the commercial use in a commercial zones we submit that it will not substantially impair the intent or purpose of the zone plan. I believe in
it it uh it advances the purposes of the of the master plan by promoting um commercial uses on on this particular property. One one followup, Graham. Um, in terms of out, assuming this were approved,
outside agency approvals, um, you mentioned Ocean County that I know we have an application filed and they took action with some conditions. Other than that, what other outside agency approvals would be required? Um, we'll we'll have to get approval
from Ocean County Soil Conservation District. Uh we are not proposing any activities right now that would trigger a D permitting. Uh so I don't believe there are any state level permits. I think that's all that we would need for uh successful execution of the project.
>> I'm sorry I have a question just because going through the notes of the last hearing on that topic um there was discussion of having a condition of getting an LOI. Uh yes and I'm sorry an LOI application
has been submitted and is pending with the DA but I that is not a permit that's why I said that's not not not that's not a permit for a uh for disturbance and we also we also did have some discussion about uh the landscape nursery stock
because that is stored uh in a um category one riparian buffer. We did not have an opportunity to get to uh to research that yet, but my opinion and my understanding of the rules is that that that activity is not regulated by the
riparian uh buffer rules. >> Well, we at the last uh hearing there was a discussion of having a condition that encroachments in the wetlands and riparian buffers would be removed. >> Correct. But we we don't have any
encroachment to the riparian buffer proposed and my opinion is is that my understanding of the rules is that this application is not proposing any clearing or land grading in the reparium buffer and that's what those rules
regulate. uh if the board want us to get an interpretation from the D, we'd be happy to do that as a condition of the approval, but my opinion is that it is not a regulated activity, but the D is a judge and jury, so we're going to leave that leave that to them.
Uh we do not have any other activities proposed um that would trigger uh permitting from the D land use uh regulation. Yeah, ju sorry just on that on so the letter from the
>> the letter from the D. Um are we going to require that? I I I >> Yes. So you're talking about the letter of interpretation the LOI. Yes. >> Yes. Okay. >> That's being required and there was a testimony that they've already submitted that application. >> Okay. Yes. Thank you.
>> So I just want to make a statement. I was there today looking at the grounds. Um I spent quite a bit of time back by the repairarian buffer. Um, I would
urgently ask that the applicant agree that if this board deems this applicant application okay and we approve it, I would ask that the applicant review
what's back by the repairarium buffer because when I was there today there were 15 about 15 wooden pallets sitting in right next to where all the trees are in
the referian buffer. Um, there was also a metal there was a metal stand. The only thing I can say it it looked almost like it was a uh a hunting a hunting stand sitting in right in the area of the
repairarian village. Um, there's just a lot of cleanup that needs to be done and I don't think we should be waiting to do that. I think that needs to be something that we make sure gets done sooner rather than later.
>> That that we um the applicants here I think he heard you, but yes, we would certainly agree to that. Is he nodding? Okay, good. >> Yes. a part of I mean a big part of this application is trying to uh trying to get this site organized. I've I've told
you know I've told told the applicant told my client that it seems like every time I drive past this site there's another shed that's closer to the highway. >> Yeah. Um, and we've tal we've talked about that and I've I've told him that, you know, if we get this application approved, you're going to have to scale that back and going to have to comply
with this plan. And that's why we're coming here with a plan that is trying to organize it in a fashion that um, you know, I think is beneficial for his use, meets the purposes, but also gives, you know, gives Gan gives gives the zoning office something that they can enforce
and they can have a plan that says, "Okay, this area of the site's supposed to be for the sheds. I don't want to see sheds ripping out to out the Commodore. >> No. And my comments what I just said were specific to where the repairarian buffer is. There are other things in
that lot that need to be cons looked at. I can tell you right now there is a an area threequarters of the way back that has about 50 pumpkins sitting in it. Not sure why you need pumpkins on this lot.
Um, behind the tractor trailer, it looks like there's two extra gasoline tanks sitting right down on the ground. Not sure that's a good place for them, you know. Those are the things I just walking around. I think it it really
needs to get an overhaul, you know, and I think that's something that we should, >> right? And we don't we don't >> I know we can't require we can't force, but >> Right. we don't we don't dispute those facts and and this this application is here so that we can get all this stuff
again organized hopefully approved everybody agrees what's going to be where and that's how it's going to continue uh in in the future I get and I do have one other sorry um in Mr. Peter's letter, he talks about a
that Broadway Avenue, the property is 105 ft east of Broadway Avenue, which is a paper street, but when I did my research, it made it look like Broadway Avenue was running through this property. Can you confirm that Broadway Avenue is not running through this?
>> Yeah, there are there are some some maps that show Broadway a running through the property. I've seen that as well, but it it does not. I mean, if if you look at um if you look at the cover sheet, if an Anthony, if you could pull up the cover sheet for us from the uh from the plan
set, the cover sheet does, you know, does clearly show where Broadway A is, but I have seen on other maps as well that it shows Broadway going through the site. And we scratched our head as well, but it does odd.
>> Your classic Jackson paper street. >> Sorry. >> Your classic Jackson paper street. >> No, but we I mean we we did a survey of the property. Broadway is not on on the property. >> No, it it's very common. It happens.
>> Last time one of the neighbors had spoken and you mentioned Julia Graham about the 8ft chain link fence. Last time I think it was stipulated there would be slats for some privacy. That was was still remain. >> Yes, we we proposed the 8 foot uh chain
link fence with privacy slides. >> I prefer the chain link. I think it's more durable than than wood fencing. So, and less visible. >> Yeah. The questions from Mr. Martins. >> Yeah. I I just um so I like the plan. I
like the new plan. It looks great. Um my concern is and I think you hear this is that what's happening today is not what's planned for right and so really I just wanted assurance and probably more from the applicant that there will be we
will be strict right no more you know a free-for-all nice cities to a friend or something like that we're going to follow this plan and and and someone >> Yeah. Okay. You don't have to speak. Yeah. >> No, no, no. He can't let you finish and
then we could have him comment. >> Oh, okay. Yeah, that was really it. I I I just need assurance that you're going to be on top of it, right? We're going to make sure that, you know, this is important to to you, to us, uh us being the neighborhood, um and the w and then
the the wetlands and all that kind of stuff. We're going to be strict. You're going to follow these plans. If I'm satisfied with that, I'm I'm good with the application. >> Can Can we have Mr. files around did testify and was sworn in. So, can we just have him respond to that? So, >> yes, but not from his seat.
>> No. Come on. >> And you? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, you heard the comments and there were concerns were expressed last time we here. So, >> so I think that what Graham was trying to state is once we have a plan in place,
then we'll know what we can do, where we can do it, how we should do it, and also I can delineate better for the tenants and also establish an actual lease which is each individual tenant which will state the rules that they must abide by and therefore if they don't and whether I see it or you see it and somebody
needs to be removed from the property, it will all be delineated in their lease once everything is approved on the plan. >> And and how often are you to monitor that five to seven days a week, >> right? >> All day pretty much, right? >> Pretty much 10 to 12 hours a day.
I mean, if I make an effort, and I should, to drive through every morning and every night when I come in, when I leave, it should be fairly easy to do what you guys want. Thanks. Thank you. I think it would be easy if we just went through each of the items uh separately
as you have on the statement of operations. First one you have the restaurant pizzeria which is fine as far as I'm concerned the way wave is and way it's operating. The next one you have is the
shed the shed and the prefab building. Um right right now the sheds are all over the place. So that was all the chants will be in that one area that you're describing. >> Yes. The intention is to put a >> you have them back in back at a
restaurant by the by the refrigerator unit by the storage area. Those will all be in that one one place. >> Yes. In the fencston area. As um gentleman was there today. I'm sure that he saw that from the last time that we
were there, there's far less sheds behind what will be the future office because I've told him he's got to start selling them or moving them so that everything could end up back there. >> The uh prefab building that you have, uh there are four offices in it. What What
are the offices for? I could see one for the shed business. What are the others for? >> No, the shed office will be in what was the residence before of my previous landlord. the the garage building will be either for one or four tenants.
>> I'm just talking about the the uh what's called the fe prefabricated building display garage storage sales >> 25,000 square feet. >> I mean there's a big prefab building
that the shed guy selling. the current trailer that is being used as an office. I'm going back to my notes from the last hearing and there was that the current trailer used as an office was going to be removed. >> Yes. When when the home is converted to
an office, then that will be removed. >> I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to, Dr. Yeah, if that it says it right on on the plans, one-story frame building to be converted to sales office. Okay. That that will be the sales office
will be for the shed business. >> Yes. Yes. I think I understand >> because there were three other offices in the building. >> No, there was the the home that we're requesting to turn into an office and then there was the temporary trailer office that was there.
>> I don't the plans that you're showing it shows four offices. a a the break area for employees. Which employees are those? >> Oh, that will be Sorry. That's the the house that is when you're coming down the main drive down the center. It's the
house on the left. >> Correct. Yes. That's what the intention is to turn that into that office for the shed company. >> Just the shed company will be operating there. >> Yes. >> And what employees will be using it for for a break room?
I'm assuming both his office staff and maybe the >> there's an office and then there's a closed patio there. >> Well, that's existing patio is there. We're not changing the footprint of the building at all. >> I'm just asking what what are you going
to use it besides an office? It says something about a break room. >> It's just their office. >> Just an office. So, nobody will be stopping off to eat their lunch or >> I'm sure they they will the guys >> the employees of the employees of the shed company. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> I'm sure we'll have a break room where they want to have lunch whether it's inside or the guys who are installing and leaving and coming back and forth from the site, but it's only for the shed company. >> And then you had the uh warehouse
building where you have one to four tenants. Uh any idea what type of tenants will be in there? >> Hopefully, you know, working professional contractors, plumbers, electricians, people who need storage. I would love to have one guy take the whole thing and deal with one
tenant, but you never know. You might have people who need less space. So, as many as four. >> And to be clear that there's no bathroom or offices there. It's just purely it's like a garage storage. You're also stating that it will not be
used for mechanical repair or service. >> It should not be known that in their lease >> and you will have no storage of hazardous materials. >> I think the only thing that came up the question last time was they asked me
about gasoline cans for the landscapers and such and >> No, no, that's just in the warehouse building. Well, I mean, if he ends up renting some of that space, that was the one thing that I don't remember who raised a concern about last time that I said the intention, I'm sure, is to fill your
cans in the morning and have them empty by the end of the day. But I'm sure if it's a half empty can either. >> I think we're sort of >> we're getting out of the witness's ability to answer questions. If the landscaper or a tenant is going
to have a gas tank, >> underground or above ground gas tank on the site, >> it's not permitted. It wasn't asked for. >> So if someone's going to drive a vehicle in with a bunch of 5gallon gas cans
and put gas in vehicles, I guess my question is why don't you do it at the gas station? >> No, I don't mean that, but I mean like >> a guy can't store gas on the site. That's what the board's asking. >> Okay. from the summer that I did landscaping. You go to the gas station,
you fill all your equipment, and then you fill your extra cans because you're not coming back to the gas station during the day. You hope that you've done it correctly where you've used all your gas during the course of the day. If you come back with a trailer and there's a gas can that still has gas, he's not going to dump it in the grass. He's going to keep it for the next
morning or put it in his mower for the next morning. That's all I'm saying. If I said anything else, I'd be lying to you. Well, you can't store gas. >> If someone has a five gallallon gas can in the back of their truck, I don't think that that's what we're trying to
regulate. I think the idea is we don't want someone to have a 500galon above ground fuel tank sitting out there to be used by anyone and everyone. >> Absolutely. I agree. >> Yeah. There's no gas tank of that type proposed.
Are >> you any comments on that? We we do say in the statement of operations that it would be subject to local fire requirements. >> I see that. That's what I'm reading from. >> Very gray area because then every every homeowner has a five gallon gas can. So it's
>> it's a given. >> I think what excuse me I think what Ernie is trying to delineate there's a difference between the five gallon right >> tank on the back of your thing or being put in your talking about a commercial >> an actual station. Correct. And he's saying that no more than just a
basic landscaper gas can may have gas. So that's fine. >> Then you have the least parking. Uh what kind of surface will be over those areas covering those areas? >> The gravel that's there now was intended. >> Okay. Now what about fuel leakage or
fluid leakage from all the trucks, buses, boats, cars, uh fuel tanker, um whatever. I mean, there's every type of vehicle that one could imagine sitting
all over the property. Uh how are you going to prevent any of the leakage from going into the ground? I don't know. >> Well, either it's permitted or it's not. If
we're going to have an environmental problem with all this happening, then they can't be there. I mean, what what's going to prevent uh drainage into the ground, into the groundwater, into nearby wells?
I mean, I I've never seen so many different vehicles in all states of repair just sitting there. And as I think you said before, some of them have been there for for for years, >> right? So, we one of the conditions we've agreed to is they all have to be
in working order and registered. Um, where we know that some of the vehicles that were there, and I don't know if they still are, are neither were neither of those. So, they're going to have to be removed. So if you're going to have working registered vehicles, the odds of that type of spillage is really minimal.
But we would consider whatever the board or professionals suggest as >> Yeah, Madam Chair, I think this is where we run a foul of responsibility. Um, well, I'm sure Mr. Fzerano can run a business. I'm not sure if he's meant to
be the the gatekeeper of leases to anyone who wants to bring a vehicle in and not have an understanding of if the vehicle sits there for a week or if it starts to leak. It's his responsibility. It's not the town should go out and and
inspect the site every week to make sure everything's getting done right. If he can't present to the board a plan that says, "Here's how we're going to make sure that this is an environmentally safe use on the site, then perhaps the board shouldn't consider it."
I don't think it's up to us to set forth the standards. The standards are very straightforward. If you want to put something out there, it has to be safeguarded. So, it's on stone. That's one bad thing. There's no protection for
motor oil or gasoline leakage in a stone area. Those are things that can be done. If this was the municipal public works department for refueling school buses, there'd be a way of protecting it. So what they're asking
for A isn't a permitted juice, B is on stone, and C is being leased out to anyone who wants to come in and drop a vehicle off there. I think there needs to be a better protection than Mr. Ferano is going to walk around the site respectfully because he's there all the time.
At the end of the day, if there's an issue, I I question Mr. Alfier and Mr. McFarland to put something together that safeguards the town so the town doesn't have to babysit the site. Okay. And we'll we'll bring Mr. McFarland back up in a minute u to to
cover that when you finish just in case there's other questions for him. >> Now, the the lease spots, will they be le individual spots be leased to individuals who own a specific vehicle?
So, I mean, it could be one person who owns one truck, or I guess someone who owns multiple trucks may want to rent four or five spaces. I couldn't say each one was going to go to one person or or the other way around. >> How many vehicles do you anticipate could fit into these two areas that
you're proposing? >> The larger area behind the fence guy could probably fit about six to seven trucks. I'd have to measure them out and figure out what is standard for an individual space. My intention was to mark them out with at least some posts that have some kind of reflective uh
materials so that they can see their spaces. Um, and then the lower space, uh, the intention, I think, is still the continued l use of the mechanic down the street, but he has to clean up his act and and get the non-working cars out of
there to use as as overflow for his small lot um to move vehicles in and out because he does work for himself, but he also does work for some of the local dealerships. So, he's bringing in cars and moving them out constantly. >> So, you're going to have vehicles there that are under repair? Well, they
wouldn't be repaired there, but >> but they would be in all states of repair. >> I suppose you may have something that that's brought in was in an accident and leaking all over the place and he may decide he doesn't have room. He'll keep it over over in your place.
>> We'd have to make We'd have to make some type of stipulation with him that only vehicles that could be driven on and off the lot could come over there. >> I I just think a lot of more thought has to go into these parking areas. Uh let's just move on just to touch the
other the landscape business. Uh right now there's just piles of stuff sitting in the middle of it. Uh you're saying they're going to be bins so all the uh top soil and gravel and >> Yes. >> stone will be Now you're also saying
that you're going to have brush and so on that are coming from landscaping sites left on left in that area >> in a in a rolloff dumpster. He's >> well I I think the sport has been down
this before as Mr. Briani knows and uh uh somebody had this and was manufacturing mulch and manufacturing uh top soil and uh uh >> well Mr.
>> is there any intent of him to do this >> if if you'd like I'll ask the questions. >> Um >> my guest >> Mr. Alfieri uh can you just confirm your that Mr. Ferrarano seen the statement of operations and agrees to them.
>> Yes, I saw them. >> Okay. As it relates to the landscaping business, can we put a condition that says there'll be no stump grinding on the property? >> Sure. >> That we had discussed at the last meeting in August that we're going to
limit the amount of materials. So, I got a paragraph from Graham, which is great, but it doesn't indicate the amount of materials. Often, we'll say that you need 10 yards or 20 yards or a 12 by 20 area, no more than six or eight foot
high. But at this point, we're just relying upon Graham's undimensioned plan and a document that doesn't have any numbers in it to say, well, that's how we're going to limit what goes on out there. So, I think the board member expected a little more in terms of what
the limitations of what was going to go on the landscaping business. If the landscaper came in here and he was the applicant on your property, we'd ask him, "How much stuff, where, how often do you do it? What machinery you going to keep on site?"
But unfortunately, you're here, so we have to ask you those questions. the other issue that was brought up. So again, I'll leave it to Mr. Alfie and Mr. McFarland to discuss limiting the amounts of materials that are going to be on site. And I guess the last thing
that was discussed at the meeting as it related to the landscaping business would that that there would be no retail sales, but I don't see it in this document. >> So I think that needs to be added >> and that and that's agreed. Yes.
I don't know if I covered all your concerns. >> You have. Thank you. >> Followup question to something Dr. Hoffstein asked. I don't think you answered. You said the first parking area there'd be approximately seven spaces. You'd have to measure it. You know, I don't think you gave a specific
number for >> I I never thought to measure it and figure out how many vehicles could fit there or the depth or the size. question. You want to bring Mr. McFarland up? >> Yeah, I'd like to bring Mr. performing up to talk about the um
I know he don't want to come up but he's coming up anyway. >> So Graham you heard the concerns particularly relating to this the area where the vehicles are going to be stored and potential spillage of fluids etc. >> Right.
>> What alter paving is obviously an alternative is >> well we were we're really not we were not looking to pave the entire site. I don't think that improves water quality. Uh the pavement itself contains so much, you know, petroleum and hydrocarbons. Um
the the the plan right now calls for the site to be graded so that all all runoff is directed to the to the stormwater management basin by over by overland flow. Uh so that would provide for uh some water quality measured by the
overland flow going through the going through the gravel and then within the within the uh stormwater management basin there's a separate separate water quality for bay that is um required to be provided which is proposed in accordance with the with the current
rules of the D stormwater management BMP. So the storm water management basin would provide uh would provide appropriate water quality measures for for those uses in accordance with adopted uh with the adopted state standards. So I think there is adequate
measures in in place by the stormwater management basin that is that is currently proposed and again the there there we got I think the discussion got a little got a little off off target. Um, you know, we're we're we're we're
accepting a condition that the vehicles are going to be in operating condition. It's not going to be junk cars. It's not going to be cars, you know, waiting to be repaired someplace or cars that have been been in accidents. They're all supposed to be in in good working condition. That's a a condition of the approval. That's one of the reasons why
we put that condition or put that requirement in the statement of operations. and give us a number of how many you anticipate >> of how many >> how many vehicles will be they'll be leasing parking to >> I I could I don't have that number tonight. Um you know the areas are
clearly identified on on the plan. Uh, I mean, we can we can do some math and come up with with estimates here tonight, but you know, hopefully during resolution compliance, uh, I could I could do that math, you know, subject to review of your professionals and and we
agree with what whatever the the number is, the number is unless the board felt it was important for some reason to assign a number of vehicles to the to the approval. Um, what we assigned was a portion of the site to the approval. We
assigned the land area to the approval without putting the number of vehicles on there. But again, if the board felt that was important, that is something that that could be derived, but I don't have a number for you tonight. >> Would you be able to do a not to exceed number?
>> I'm sure we we could probably be the easiest thing >> can if I if we have to. >> Back to the surface. I understand that you're not looking to pave or anything like that. Um but how do I think we need
a well I need a better answer as to okay it may come in working it may come in working but what if it's leaking how what are we doing to protect we have neighbors right and although I understand the whole concept of the storm water basin how do we pre how do
we prevent it from getting anywhere near that wetlands buffer >> well that that's what the storm water management basin is is designed to do um again It includes our water quality for bay and then that in it includes the
component of of uh of infiltration uh you know and if we go go to the the D guidelines they'll tell us that you know this is how you design it and it's going to provide water quality and going to protect uh any degradation uh of the
surrounding um of the surrounding water or the wetlands >> would and I don't know if this is would like a curb or something around the perimeter, avoid sheet flow of anything beyond where you're trying to >> Well, the ne the next the next step or a
or a belt and suspenders approach is we could introduce um you know a manufactured treatment device uh ahead of the water quality component of the forbay in in the lease parking area to give us an extra measure
of protection uh against degradation of the of the groundwater. So, I mean, we would agree to do that if if necessary. >> I'm sorry, could you repeat that, Mr. McFarland? >> A manufactured treatment device. Uh, the DP again through their stormwater rules has
a list of manufactur manufactured treatment devices that provide uh additional measures of water quality control. Uh, we could introduce one of those or or possibly two of those into the design to give us an additional level of protection. And you said
something about one being placed at the uh the building or one in the parking. >> Well, they would they would be for the lease parking areas. >> They would be to collect runoff from the lease parking areas uh prior to discharge to the smallcale infiltration
basin. >> Thank you. And as to the uh the questions about the um the amount of material to be stored uh and this and the area devoted to the to the mulch and the stone. Uh we did
show a detail of the storage bins on our on our plans. Uh our plan does call for our plan did indicate three storage bins and then each of those storage bins
would be uh 12 feet wide by 18 feet deep uh and a max maximum height of six feet. So we did provide some uh some information as to the amount of materials that will be stored on site and you know how many bins are proposed.
So there are dimensions provided for that activity. >> I'm sorry. 12 by 18 by a maximum height of how many feet? >> Maximum height of six feet. And there are three of those storage been proposed and that is on the plan. And the detail is included with dimensions on the plans that were
provided. I asked the applicant while Mr. Mfall was talking to come up with a maximum number that he believes could be stored vehicles. I'm not sure if he has an answer yet, but I just called him over for that reason so we could come up with one.
Not yet. Okay. So 50 So 50 vehicle maximum in those in those areas between a combination of cars andor trucks. >> That includes both areas. >> Yes, >> both areas. >> So that was 15 or
>> 50. We're looking at about five or six tractor trailers. >> That's what I think. >> That's what I think would fit there. Yes. How many of them are going to be tankers? >> I don't know. I don't have tenants yet.
>> I've been saving that one because that's kind of the gray area. I don't want to cause your problems, but >> tankers could be a major problem. >> They should be empty when they come back in. >> Ah, that's a key word. >> And we can stipulate that on the lease and also, you know,
>> but see, that's where the problem comes in. You're parking on gravel. There is no runoff from gravel unless we're having a monsoon. It goes into the sand to a uh retention system which has an
oil separator in it. You need a imperous surface catch that water. So now you're getting into a big expense. And with the tanker there, you need to have curbing or booming just in case a
valve opens up or let's say has a liquid in it and it gets very cold and freezes. So there's an issue with the trucks are a problem for you. >> I guess we could do no tankers.
I >> mean, I personally wouldn't want a tanker in my lot. But >> so if it's going to be tankers, that's a whole another thing. >> No, no tankers. And it make you make a very valid point. >> Good. Because I hated seeing them there.
>> Have a Mr. Hyman. >> Thank you. Uh this is where maybe Mr. Tremor could chime in here. Um I'm seeing that you're delineating a 24 foot gravel drive aisle. Um, as well as
there's fencing to delineate the different areas. I'm just trying to, you know, see how that would work in case of an emergency. Um, you have trucks stored there. You have going to have other vehicles stored
there. I don't know if you're st, you know, you're stacking them, you know, one vehicle behind the next. Um, and how they're going to be able to be maneuvered without playing rush hour. Um, and if there needs to be a fire apparatus getting into there, that
should be able to turn around without any issue. I'm not seeing how that would play out here. >> We could stipulate that it be subject to the U fire officials recommendations. >> And do we get any review letter from them? I didn't see anything.
>> We we we have one. I don't know what the date is, but it may >> Yes. when when the application was initially submitted, we'd submit it to the fire bureau and they approved it. Um, that goes back to 2024, but I'm happy to resubmit this. >> So, this this changed a lot because you're making a specific aisle, um,
drive aisle, and you are blocking it off with fencing. So, it makes the maneuvering a lot more difficult. >> I'll be happy to resubmit this plan to them again, but it's it's not significantly different from the plan that they approved, but we'll submit it to them again. >> Okay. Thank you. The other thing I had
was um while I understand the gravel is being graded, what is preventing it from constant need of maintenance with tractor trailers, vehicles, landscaping coming going? There seems to be a lot of
vehicular and truck traffic that it should constantly be needing um to be maintained. And what kind of mechanism do you have in place? >> It will need to be maintained. No question. It'll be the owner's obligation to maintain it in a suitable fashion so
that uh ingress and egress is adequate and emergency uh you know access is is maintained. It absolutely has to be maintained. the advantage of having a landscaper. >> Other questions? >> Oh, Mr. Roar, I'm sorry.
>> No problem. Couple engineering items to catch up on. Um there is there there's an existing site identification sign that currently says exist U Enzo's Pizza. It looks like there's an additional sign panel. Mr. McFarland, is
that the case? >> Yes, that's correct. And that that is shown on our on our plan. >> And if there previously was a variance granted for that location, then I would recommend the board consider granting a variance because since the sign's being expanded. So, uh that would be my
recommendation. I have no issue from an engineering standpoint because there's 9 ft of clear space below the sign. So, there's no issue with sight. So, really, it's just up to the board if the additional sign should be granted for variance. Um,
second item, Graham and I already spoke about the site triangles. Previously, Ocean County, it's Ocean County road. So, the Ocean County Engineering Department required larger sight triangles previously and now uh Graham agreed to revise the plan to provide the
the Ashtto design site triangle. So, it's it's actually a little bit smaller. Uh what else? Let's see. The curb and sidewalk. The board again should just discuss whether they feel it's appropriate to require the sidewalk to
be installed or in lie of that a contribution to the pedestrian safety fund. Mr. McFarland, can you confirm if there's any sidewalk in the area? >> I don't believe there's any sidewalk in in close proximity to this uh this property
>> and I my records indicate that you were requesting payment in Lou. Is that the case? >> Yes, at this time. Yes. And then regarding the the areas for the shed sales and the leased parking
right now they're shown fairly close to the property line. Um where accessory structures are required 15 feet. Maybe the board should consider just backing up the footprint a little further away from the property line if
they're going to put sheds or vehicles. Perhaps 10 or 15 feet might be appropriate. And then finally, regarding any runoff from the uh vehicles being stored on the lot, the applicant agreed to some type of manufactured treatment device which
would help improve the storm water runoff to try and catch any pollutants or oil with like an oil water separator. But ultimately to properly uh catch any any pollution an impervious surface like concrete would probably be the best the best
method to prevent pollution from getting in the ground. >> I'm sorry. Say that again. >> The best solution to prevent any runoff from getting into the ground with pollutants would would likely be in my opinion an impervious surface like concrete. While there's a lot more cost to that
and and there's more runoff from that area, at least then it would address any concerns about pollutants getting in the ground. >> Um just two things um to either Mr. Alfier or Mr. McFarland. In the statement of operations, the last
paragraph, all activities, can we add that there'll be no above ground storage tanks? >> And can we verify that there'll be no vehicle service or repair on site? We seem to put it in a warehouse building. Then we say in all activities there'll
be no manufacturing, but there's nothing in the all activities section that says there wouldn't be any vehicle service or repair. >> Yes, that's my that was the >> Okay. And lastly, um I promise, um are there any plans for an upgrade to the
septic system given the expansion of the site? No, there are not. Um there's there's no bathroom proposed in the warehouse building and the uh conversion of the uh single family house to an office would not trigger any need
for a septic system upgrade. the flow is actually reduced as we go from single family house to uh to office space. >> My question is is does do you think that this application requires you to make an application to the Ocean County Board of Health for review?
>> Uh well I I I do not believe that it does. >> I'll leave that up to the engineers. Um I think there's obviously a concern. There's there's a building that's been there for a while. Um so I'm sure the septic systems been there a while. Um, at some point in time when we expand the
use, you should probably bring the septic system up to current standards as well. Thank you. >> Yes. >> Another two items. Um, you mentioned about the lighting in the area that you don't want to add more lighting. You'll
just repair whatever is not working. Um, my concern with that though is that your statement of operations says that you'll be operating until 8:00 p.m. for the warehouse and for the lease parking 7 p.m. On a day like today, it gets quite
dark by that time. I think it would be a little bit more appropriate to have proper lighting. >> Unless you do have a neighbor next door, >> right? Just for um for clarification, the warehouse building, there is one existing light right now. And then every every door would have to have a light,
which I don't frankly I don't show on the plan right now, but every door would have a light at the at the warehouse building. So there will be some lighting provided. >> My question, we're just not we're not looking to illuminate this whole site with a with a bunch of pole mounted lights. I don't >> My question really is you're having
vehicles travel throughout the property. I mean, I think the proper safety would be to have normal lighting that they can get around the property safely. Um, the second item I just have here in my notes
that the place of refuge is 2 ft from the side property. Um, yes, it is. I don't feel that that's appropriate to be so close to the neighboring properties.
They get in and back out. Uh we can we can move it, you know, we tried to put it uh as far from west common or keep it keep it out of view and there is that 8 foot high privacy fence next to it so they will not be
visible from the neighboring property. Uh, so we felt it was best to try to keep it as far away from West Commodore as possible to to hide it from from view. Um, the alternative of getting it further from the sideyard would push it closer to West Commodore, making it more
in public view. So that's why we we chose to to locate it where shown on the plan. Just um if you're concerned with lighting, perhaps some ballard lights, the low just to demarcate the area like
even solar or something so that they're not going to generate much light, but at least people can see where they're going if that's what the concern is. >> Not really my concern. It's my It should be your concern. >> I understand. Yeah. But we want we want you to vote yes. So, but we don't want to put light poles because we don't want
the neighbors. We don't want this to be a parking lot with lights all at different hours. That's the That's our goal. >> I'm sorry, M. Ralph, you're How did you describe those lights? >> Like ballard lights. They're just on poles. >> Well, I would say they're ballards or
low low lower height polemounted lights. Um, >> what about motion lights? We add add maybe you know three or four of them along the uh along the drive aisle >> and triggered by motion so that they would >> they could be on I mean they could be on
motion sensors. That's that that's true. >> Yeah, that's fair. >> So I understand the concept of the drive aisle, but what about at least parking spots? If someone comes in and it's dark like Mr. pointed out today's a great example by six o'clock it's dark. What happen? How are they navigating out of
there? That's what a motion light would be a good Yeah. >> Well, I thought that I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood. I thought that was just on the drive. I'm talking about specifically in that. >> But that'll put enough light where they could walk to the vehicle, turn it on, and then the light goes on. It's, you
know, it's not they're not doing mechanical work where they need to see much other than get to the door. >> And then, >> sorry, go ahead, Mr. Love. >> Oh, real quickly. Um, back to the uh impervious surface, Mr. Roar brought
that up as well. Um, and he suggested although he understands there's an additional cost obviously, but concrete. Um, I think you've heard the concerns um, as far as the gravel and I do understand even without people that the concern with things leaking and things
like that. your thoughts on I mean I know you don't want to pave but um thoughts on concrete >> yeah the board requires that the least parking area be concrete instead of gravel that we'll live with that
condition if that's what the board wants >> thank you uh quick question uh the storm water basin. I just spoke to Mark. He said it's uh proposing about 3 feet in depth. Do we have any barriers proposed for that? Uh because it's adjacent to
the drive aisle um near the lease parking areas that kind of ties in with the questions about lighting. I just feel maybe the board would um consider requiring some kind of either fencing or or landscaping or something um at a
three-foot depth because we normally do require fencing for anything any water and depth is 24 inches or greater by code. >> I would I would propose guide rail along the along the access drive. Um I I personally don't think that uh fencing
is required around this basin given its location on a commercial property, but it's whatever the board would like to see. >> Right. Yeah. Maybe not fencing. Just wanted to bring up that point that it's just >> wide. I'm sorry. Was that guide rail along the access >> guide along the access drive between the
access drive and water management basin? Yes. questions >> questions. You have anyone else you want to call? >> No, we brought um our traffic expert and architect only if you had questions of them. Again, we we didn't think it was necessary to present them, but again, if
you have questions, they're here to answer them. Otherwise, we're finished. >> Anyone feel the need to have any additional questions for the architect or traffic engineer? >> Go ahead and open this to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward to speak
about what you've heard testified to this evening, please do so at this time. >> Hello. No. >> Is this on? >> Yeah. Okay. Hi. >> Okay. Well, you guys >> I'm sorry, ma'am. I think you testified last time. You remain under oath, but if
you could put your name on the record again. >> Sure. My name is Patty Matlock. Okay. I am the neighbor to Enzo's and you almost had me until if you think that I'm going to be happy in any way paying $12,000 in
taxes and having you have 50 trucks or even any trucks like that parked next to my property. I'm telling you right now, I am not happy. And lots of reasons. First of all, the groundwater. I have well water. I don't use chemicals
in my home. I don't use chemicals in my yard. I certainly don't want you contaminating my groundwater. Um, so if you can figure that out, but even if you could figure that out, do you think it's fair that I live next to trucks coming in out of this property day, night,
weekends? I've been living with this for years. Okay. I mean this what's the hours of service? What there's trucks that leave at four o'clock in the morning. We hear dump dump truck things or whatever it is banging metal at all hours of the day and night. It's not
every single day. It's not, you know, every single night, whatever, but it happens a lot and it's very annoying. So, think about a tractor trailer, an 18-wheeler. Are you serious? Like parking behind the piece of holler next to my property. The noise, the
pollution. I I just don't even understand how that's even possible. So that part you almost had me. But when you said 50 trucks, I'm like I was ready to explode. So I'm totally against that. Okay. I don't want my water contaminated. And as
far as the septic, that's another thing. And I'm really pissed off that you're not addressing that because I've been smelling his septic for years. He's had nothing but problems with his septic, you know, and now you pissed me off. So now I'm going to tell him. A couple weeks ago, I pull up my
driveway and I said to my husband, "What is that smell?" He's like, "Oh, that's Enzo P septic." They've had septic people out there for years. My septic is in a big mouth. I've had my septic for 25, 30 years. They've never had one problem with it. Doesn't smell. The guy comes and pumps it out every couple
years and says it's perfect. He's clean. It's It's wonderful. His septic they've had problems with for years. There's no mound. Where's it leeching to? And I have to smell that. That's probably contaminating my water. Who knows? And now you want to park 50 trucks there,
too. I'm sorry. I mean, the rest of the stuff I was okay with. But now I'm pissed. And I don't think it's fair. I have lived there for 25 years. I've lived there before it was a pizza parlor. I lived there before it was any thing there but a house. Okay? So, I'm
not happy about it. So unless he addresses the septic and I don't want to all these trucks parked there, it's going to uh decrease the quality of my my life and what about my property value? I mean, I have over 10 plus acres. If somebody wants it as
commercial, maybe this would be great. But what if they want it as a house? It decre decreases my property value to live next to next to an industrial park, which is half a junkyard as it is. So what do I get out of this?
Okay, so that's where I'm coming from. So, um, like I said, I didn't want to be a jerk, but you know what? Now I'm pissed. Septic problems, trucks parked in and out all hours of the day and days of the week. Unacceptable. It's about all I can say. So, thank you
for coming forward. We appreciate that. >> Anyone else wishing to come forward at this time? Seeing no one else come forward. We're going to go ahead and close public session. Mr. Afiri, >> so we we need guidance from the board on three points. Um,
one is curbon sidewalk, whether we install or pay the fee. Second is whether we put concrete basing base at the lease parking area or not. And the third Mr. Peter's raised and then the neighbor raised too is whether we need to have board of health review the
septic. Um so we need guidance on those conditions. Otherwise we've we we could lay out either Mr. Cypriani or I could lay out all the conditions we've agreed to address as condition of approval. I've got a lot of them. >> And then I was getting there. And then
on the hours of operation, the statement, the statement of operations has specific hours that the applicant has to live by. And from the lease parking area, it's 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. period. So they can't the activity
can't go beyond those time frames that the applicant would have to live with. Yeah. So, so that and the hours of operation for the other uses are set forth. Some of them are of lower lesser time periods, but um or more, but the
trucks specifically 7 p.m. would be the last activity. >> And and listen, I'm sure you understand and I I get it. the plans being put in place. This is what's gonna have to be abide by. But in the neighbor's defense, you have to understand for what she's lived with all this time.
>> We definitely understand. >> Um, from my perspective as far as curb sidewalk, I don't believe there is any other curb sidewalk out there. To me, that's not a necessary requirement. um the board of health I would think given that although I understand that this is
a commercial area there are uh residents in that area I do think this application to the board of health for the sake of caution for everybody we don't want anybody's water contaminated his is his alone he's cooking for people every day
right and as far as the concrete for me that that would be a big item I definitely think there should be something we don't want water contamination you don't want anything leaking um septic, the concrete and the curb sidewalk.
>> Oh, I do think that the board should have to go before the board of health. I do think an application would have to be submitted. >> Actually, uh the board of health will not come out and inspect it. They'll have to have it inspected by a credible company.
and maybe have it company come out and have the neighbor involved to keep the peace, >> but they're the only ones that can really certify it. >> That's your option, ma'am.
>> I We can't hear you, ma'am. That's >> That's fine. Okay. Um, tractor trailers. Can we flip-flop the storage? So, I don't think there's any houses on the other side. Would that help?
>> And the cars are closer to her side of the fence. >> Well, go ahead, Graham. Show the show. >> One thing Sal and I were talking about was, you know, just limiting tractor trailers to uh lease parking area lease parking area number one. Um, you know,
parking area number two only leaving two for for passenger vehicle, smaller vehicles. >> The larger trucks would be closer to her property. >> Correct. They could be parked up here at least in area number one. Area number two would be limited to smaller vehicles. No tractor trailers, you know,
or or, you know, no diesel engines possibly. >> Just a thought. My other question would be for the engineer is would black top be acceptable instead of concrete because I know concrete's very expensive.
>> Yeah, it would still be impervious. So, yes, >> that'll give you some relief. It' be a lot cheaper, but this way you can pave it nicely and have it all pitched into a a drain with a little separator on it and you're good to go. Annie, would you like to
Yes. >> have that or would you like Mr. Alfury to >> I will Mr. Fury uh could certainly add anything that I don't have or object to anything I say that is not correct. Um there have been numerous conditions uh
discussed in the last hearing and this one they are um that there would be an 8-oot chain link fence with privacy slats protecting the neighbors property that is not only been in agreed condition but is on the revised plan. No gas fueling vehicles on site. No gas
tanks on site more than a standard landscaping gas can. No above ground storage containers containers. No vehicle repair on site. No tankers as stored vehicles. All lights to be repaired and an installation of ballard lights or low
height lights around the drive aisle. Um sidewalks. A payment in l would be acceptable. Uh with a landscaping business would not be a retail operation. Just storage. No stump grinding.
Um the current trailer uses an office will be removed. Restaurant operations and hours of operation generally is set forth in the statement of operations. No ma uh maintenance or repair work to be done on property. No hazardous
material. The um the shed behind the restaurant would be used for dry dry storage only. Sheds and prefabs staged and displayed in the sheds. Nothing built on site. No
shed building on site. The house will be an office for the shed company only. All vehicles in the site must be working registered vehicles. Maximum number of stored vehicles on site was given is 50. That was not agreed to by the board. I
just want to reiterate that. Manufactured treatment devices will be placed in the least parking areas that may or may not be needed. I leave that to the engineer. Um if there is a uh condition imposed that the lease parking
area be um made of impervious coverage. Um it was agreed that the storm water management would be required if it meets the criteria for major development. must submit for um approval the updated
plan from the fire official and get that uh and do anything necessary to get that approval. Um all encroachments to be removed in the wetlands and riparian area. Uh there has been an application of the
LOI. The LOI letter must be provided. The storage bins as shown on the plan would be three storage bins 12 by 18 with a maximum height of six six feet. Access sufficient for emergency vehicles
must be maintained. Sheds would all be in one area uh that was fenced in. guide rail installed along the access drive between the drive and the basin.
Iterated the hours of the lease parking area would be 7 to 7. Board of Health approval to be required septic system to be inspected and improved and tractor trailers limited to area one
was the last representation that was made. So those are the conditions of approval. Obviously they're uh numerous because there is a use variance application here. Both the positive and negative criteria need to be um stated
um in terms of site suitability and uh the lack of negative impact to uh neighbors and to the zoning scheme
advancing the purposes of the land use law. >> I I just had two things. One is um the variance for the additional sign panel would be required to the existing sign that already has a variance and then we would not need the
manufacturer treatment device if the board you did say that if the board requires the impervious coverage impervious area we'd go either way of course >> but it seems like the consensus is impervious otherwise you you hit anything >> I just
>> to the microphone please. >> I would like to um address that number 50 cars. Cars plus trucks. Um I think similar to you almost had me up
to that. 50 is a lot. So um do we have any say on how much we can limit it to? Yes. >> Is that something we can put in there? >> I mean, I don't know what the right number is, but >> because it and and that's something I
think it's evolved through this hearing um that you know, they it hadn't been spaced out. So that was a maximum that given on a fly we don't have the
um certainly >> number of spaces that would fit so >> right right yeah because I mean I'll give the >> authority to limit the number the maximum store >> view okay yeah because I'll give the applicant a lot of credit I mean you you
have a lot of stipulations in there that we used to have and they all agreed to it. Um, and as long as we can make sure that all those stipulations of, you know, will take place will be executed on, that's great. Um, that's the one
that 50 number is is the one thing that we haven't stipulated anything for. And honestly, I I I don't know what the right number is. You know, half of that is it I I struggle with that. But um >> we're not talking 50 trucks.
>> But I do think we need to address it because because if we say yes, then we're saying it's okay to have 50 >> and and if we're not comfortable with that, we should >> just something about it. >> So I think we we could say no more than 10 trucks, the rest would just be vehicles, not not trucks. This is not a
truck storage area primarily. >> If you're going to black top it or concrete it, you can create parking spaces there. So using IRS, I ris whatever those letters are
that we always talk about parking uh as far as width of parking spaces. That should determine your maximum number >> which might be more than the 50. That's why we agreed to limit. We could do the maximum number with conforming parking
not to exceed 50 if you want and not to exceed 10 tractor trailer trucks. the rest would be smaller vehicles if that's was the concern to pick a number. Uh I just to me without having plans and
again need to say the same thing I said earlier is it's all about applications come prepared. Um we're asking for a parking facility. We should have information regarding it.
>> The only just in response to that we're not the paving came up tonight. We were it was just gravel and it was just really an open area for vehicles. >> Understood. So you can you can still have an idea of the number of cars that would fit in that area even on gravel.
So I I just I just again you know >> and we gave you a number >> Fury. How big is that lot? >> The dimensions Graham would have to give you the dimensions. >> Sorry. >> Dimensions of the larger of the two. Well, you can give me both. Let's start
with the larger one. What's >> area? Area number one has an overall dimension of uh it's 200 feet wide and it's about 100 feet wide at at the midpoint. So 200 by 100 >> plus plus or minus. And area number two
is uh just about 100 by about 60 and you're going to have lanes around it so that cars can maneuver through. So you're not going to stack cars up right behind you. >> Yes. So that's going to limit the number of cars you can have in there.
>> Mr. Riri, I'm sorry. Were you saying that there'd be no more than 10 tractor trailer trucks and the remainder of vehicles would not exceed 40 for a not to exceed 50 overall? >> Correct. >> That the tractor trailers wouldn't be in
the one area. >> Correct. >> Yes. you general comments. >> Oh, excuse me. >> Yes. >> Hi, man. >> Okay. So, uh, my opinion, I'm I'm a
little bit, uh, not liking this because multiple reasons. First of all, the original, you know, resolution from 1988 states that this property was for to be used for a farm produce market. In 2002,
they came to the board asking for the pizza, which is fine. Again, this is in a limited commercial zone. As Mr. McFarland uh said, the uses that are permitted here, they are very limited. Um I think that there's a
reason that they're very limited in this area. What the applicant is asking for tonight, in my opinion, is way too much. My opinion, not particularly suitable to this property. the proximity to the
wetlands, the there's there's just so many issues that I see. First of all, I mean, there's about five principal uses, trucks neighboring to residential
properties, the storage of the vehicles, landscaping business. I mean, you know, if it was one business, I hear we're having multiple businesses in a limited commercial zone to me is just not appropriate for this site.
>> I wasn't sure if Mr. >> I know. Okay. Um, so the last meeting that you guys were here before this board, I was not a member. I sat through watching the meeting to make sure that I'm qualified to to vote,
although I don't have to tonight. Um, I listened to the concerns of the types of vehicles that were on the grounds and and all of that. So, when I went out there today and saw we're now five months
Five months later, there was there's been no attempt to rectify any of the concerns that were brought up back in August. Makes me go, how do we trust
going forward that the individual responsible will make sure this stays that way? We have to rely on a resident who who clearly has strong concerns. Um, and like Mr. Diamond said, I think
there's just too much in this spot. I would, when I went out there and I was by the R1 uh, buffer, I was amazed that there was stuff inside of it. And that was one of
the things that we talked about. You talked about at the first meeting and it was it was still out there. Those are things that when you're you come before a board, I think when you hear it, show the board you mean it. You mean
what you say and start the cleanup. Don't wait. There's I'm not saying you have to have everything out there, but some of it could have been done. I just to see the stuff that's out there was just mindboggling. And like I said, I agree with Mr. Diamond. There to me
there's too much on this. uh a parking area where we're not really given definitive how things are going to work. It just, you know, I'm not sure we've gotten everything that we need to to really
give positive responses and, you know, uh you know, kind of where I'm at. So, um, you know, some of my comments to heart and your decisions.
>> Let me just say say this. Um, so at the beginning of this, I think I was in the same spot as as um as uh >> yeah, the lady sitting over there. Um, and then after listening to everything
and some of the great points that everybody brought up and and and um it it it does seem like that more thought needs to be put into this and then your point to show that you mean it. >> Sorry, I can't hear you.
>> I said show that you mean it. Um, as far as cleaning up and all that stuff, you're absolutely right. There are some things you don't need to wait. You know, they should be cleaned up whether this gets passed or not. Um, so I I'm I'm taking what you said to
heart and and everybody else. I I mean, there's a lot of facts that were put into place that you guys um brought up that I didn't think of before um and I do think of now. Um I I do give a lot of credit though to to to to you know, everything that was brought up. you guys
tried to come up with a solution to make it okay and I think that's good obvious so I appreciate that that effort um okay those are my thoughts the applicant has owned this property
for for a number of years already and he has let it just sit there with all this the these vehicles used broken down There are boats, there are uh containers, there are uh school bus,
there's uh dumpsters. I mean, this has just been sitting there for year after year and there's been no attempt to clean it up. How how are we assured that that he will be able to keep track and be able to keep this place presentable?
Second, uh uh yes, I I think it is quite overused. And third, I I would think if he was going to cut something out, getting rid of those parking areas for vehicles would would be the first thing I would avoid because that's going to
cause him the most problems. He uh could control the rest. uh he said he was in the landscape business at one time, so he probably knows how he could put the brakes on the people who were running the landscape business. But uh
these parking areas, I think, are are not controllable. >> Seems like your Achilles heel is the cars. They've caused you a lot of damage at this point. Do they have to be there? >> Yeah, we were we were going when you
finished your comments, we already um realized that the parking of vehicles is a use that's not going to be something the board wants to see. So, we were going to eliminate that. Um, we just haven't figured out what we're going to do with that gap and maybe expand the
storage of the I don't know if you want us to come back with a revised plan to show you what we do with the area, but we understand that storage of vehicles is not going to happen. >> Yeah, that seems to be the big problem. And I think at this point tomorrow you might want to light a fire on the guy and get that crap out of there.
>> Yes, >> it seems to be a big hindrance to you. So, um, when we talk about positive and negative criteria, at the last hearing before Miss Matlock got up, I was like, you know, it's a lot. But
my concern was for her home, the environment, and all of that. But tonight when you said the 50 parking spots, I was like, that's that's just we've taken light commercial to way. we've we've fallen off the cliff
in my opinion and I agree. I think it's way too much. When you talk about negative criteria, there's way too much negative, especially with the parking included. Now, I I'll be honest, if you were to remove the parking, you still need to work out, you know, as far as making sure that there's no
leakage because we are still talking about there's a riparian buffer. Um, and I have to say I'm a little disappointed as well with this the state of disarray at the property. Like I'm a little taken back to be honest. We've had other situations where
they've come in, other applications where they've come in, we've expressed our concerns and they clean and even if it wasn't 100% they've done something. It sounds worse. Sounds worse. I did not get back out there this time, but I've driven by to
go other places and been like, "Wow, you know." Um, so >> so Mr. Aliier, it seems that in the totality of the circumstance, I it see that the the fact that there's a willingness to remove the parking component, I think is a positive. You've
also heard the other comments of the board. It seems like it obviously it's your choice, but it might behoove you to uh go back, revise the plan again, come back with the specifics rather than trying to do it on the fly. Agreed. And perhaps address some of the board's
other concerns. It'll give you that opportunity. >> Is the Is there room on the March 4th agenda? I know that's where we carried something else just to get it. >> Why not? Why not? Because the plan revisions, other than
the cleanup, which should happen, but the plan revisions aren't going to be much. >> What? Correct. >> I have a note from Don that says anything can be carried to the 18th or later. So March 4th s
>> So if we could have March 4th and if you announce that please so we don't have to renotice that'll be fine. We'll make a resubmission and the applicant's going to clean up the property. >> That would be very good. I assume Mr. Ali that you wave any stat. >> Yes, we wave any statuto requirements.
>> So March 4th, there will be no additional notice. We will be back here on March 4th. >> So I just want to make one more comment. Um again, my concern with the multiple um principal uses on the property is
still there. Um I appreciate the elimination of the trucks and the parking. The one positive that I saw prior at the prior meeting was the fact that they were going to re rebuild or re
um construct the framed garage. Um definitely part of that concern is again it's being given up to four tenants and the fact that it's even being rented out by itself is a concern for me. Again, you have the pizza store, you're going
to have a uh shed rental. That's already two principal uses on this property. Uh and then again, you're having the landscaping and then you want to have the warehouse rental. In my opinion, that's still too much for a limited commercial zone. Just keep that in mind.
Thank you. >> Motion. Hi. >> Hi. But that's what's going to happen.