We're going to call this meeting to order. I apologize for the delay. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. This meeting complies with the provisions of the open public meetings act notice of this meeting been published on the municipal bulletin board and the applicable newspapers. Thank you, Miss Cypriani. Before we get started, I'd just like to give a warm
welcome to our two new members, Mr. Raymond Tremor, Miss Leia Kuzano. Welcome to the board. Thank you for volunteering. We appreciate it. Uh, roll call, please. Kathleen, Mr. Heyman, here. Mr. Martins, here. Miss Rosal, here. Mr. Tremor, here.
Miss Kusano here. Dr. Hoffstein here. Miss Bradley here. Okay. Uh, Miss Cyprian, we have a resolutions for this evening. Yes. This is resolution 202521A. Um the board members who were here at
the last meeting may recall that we have done a resolution for uh Swanborn. This is an amended resolution though that had been provided to the applicant previously. Um we did not receive their I did not receive their comments until
after the resolution had been adopted. And thank you very much board member Heyman. And um so but I feel that those comments were uh valid. So that's why there is an amended resolution before
you that is a resolution of the township the Jackson Township zoning board of adjustment granting amended preliminary and final major subdivision with conditional use variance relief pursuant to NJSA 4055D-70
subd sub3. Motion to approve. Second roll call, please. I'm sorry. Resolution. Um, the new members are not Mr. Heyman, yes.
Mr. Martins, yes. Miss Rosal, yes. Dr. Hoffstein, yes. Miss Bradley, yes. Do you remember? I'm wondering. Well, I put a check mark on it, but we'll do it anyway. Okay. I have minutes. Um, that's your only
resolution for this evening? Yes. All right. I have minutes for the 417 of 2024 meeting. Eligible to vote are Mr. Heyman, Dr. Hoffstein, and myself. I need a motion and a second, please. Motion to approve. Second.
Roll call, please. Mr. Heyman. Yes. Dr. Hoffstein. Yes. Miss Bradley. Yes. All right. I have several vouchers, so bear with me. I have a voucher for the zoning board clerk for minutes from the
41724 meeting which we just approved. I have So that would be Dr. Hoffstein, Mr. Heyman, and myself. I need a motion and a second, please. Motion to approve. Second. Roll call, please. Dr. Hoffstein. Yes. Mr. Heyman, yes. Miss Bradley,
yes. And then I have um minutes from the August 6th, 2025 meeting and then the recording secretary uh invoice for this evening uh 9325. So I need a motion and a second to play both of those as well.
Motion to approve. Second. Roll call, please. Dr. Hoffstein, yes. Mr. Heyman, yes. Miss Bradley, yes. Oh, and you can include I'm sorry, Mr. Martins can vote on that one as well and crisel.
Mr. Martins, yes. Mr. Rosal, yes. All right. Do we have any announcements for this evening, Miss Cyprieni? Um, yes. Number three on the agenda, applicant Douglas Phillips. Um, that has
been moved to the September 17th meeting. No additional notice is required. Okay. And we need to swear in our professionals. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will provide or swear or affirm that the testimony you will provide to this board
will be the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. Please state your name and position for the record. Mark Romire, board engineer. Ernie Peters, board planner. Gina Tumalo, assistant zoning officer. Steve Mer, board traffic engineer. Thank you.
Uh any matters for discussion this evening or administrative approvals? I don't believe so. Correct. Correct. All right. So, we are going to move right on to applicant number one. And I'm going to apologize if I mess up your name, sir. Yahosua and Yehudas Levven, variance 3539.
You can come forward to the microphone, sir. Miss Cyprien is going to Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, could you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth?
I I do. Okay. Uh, Mr. Leven, why don't you tell us what you're trying to do? Okay. We're looking to build a 18 by 24 foot var uh foot deck. Um, this deck will have minimal impact on neighbors. It will not block sunlight, views, or
privacy. It's also consistent with the neighborhood character as many nearby homes have similar decks. This deck adds safety and functionality by providing steers that can serve as an emergency exit exit and enhances the reasonable use of my property. Finally, due to the lot's layout, meeting the full 35 ft
setback would make it practically impossible to add a usable deck, which creates a hardship. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your approval of this variance. Okay. Um, can you tell us a little bit about the deck? I know you said 18 by 24. what type of material?
Um, I don't remember the any other questions for Mr. Leven. Mr. Roier. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to clarify, we're 35 ft is required from the rear yard property line. Can you please confirm
you are seeking a setback of 18 25 ft. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. And the applicant did provide a architectural schematic that shows the dimensions
with the stairs and I believe everything else was covered there. Behind your property is some wooded area. Is that correct? There's there's some it's it's it's coming from the second floor. So it it's a walkout basement. So there's like cement over there and then this would be
on on the coming from the second floor on the back. It's really the first floor in the front. Okay. And it you would in your opinion it won't negatively affect the neighbors in the area, right? Correct. Okay. That's all I have. Mr. Peters,
uh Madam Chair, a couple things. The um the survey document that shows the sketch um that was described um references a subdivision, the Hampshire Hills. Um
board should take note that 35 foot rear yard setbacks consistent throughout the project. Um and so this is not a unique situation. Everyone in Hampshire Hills has a 35 foot setback. I also note that on and I
apologize I don't we didn't mark these but there's a grading plan from 2006 that was provided that appears to show an easement for a storm manhole in the rear of the property and I think the board should
take note that the easement doesn't belong to the applicant or to the board and I would hazard a guess that it belongs to the township if it's a storm sewer manhole. If it's a sanitary sewer manhole, it may belong to the MUI. And that should the
board choose to approve the application, a condition should be that they need to go get approval from whoever owns the easement because we can't say to someone who owns an easement, we're going to let someone put footings, foundations, um, and a deck over your property,
especially if the property is encumbered by this and has been encumbered by this since the creation of the lot. Okay, thank you, Mr. Leven. Um, I'm sorry. On that note, there's a lot of writing on the survey, so forgive my question. Um, can you Mr.
Peters kind of brought up what I wanted to ask about how far from the back property line is the manhole easement and how far will that how close will that be to the bottom of the stairs? Okay. So, yes, I wanted to clarify there. I don't know exactly but it it
would be it would be pretty much uh towards by the end of the deck that that that um that that manhole would be around where where the where the line would be where that by the end of the deck that's where the manhole would be. But just to clarify this would be this
is a a second story deck. So the manhole is is being 15 feet under. If if it's under that line it's right around there. I don't know exactly but if it's under it it's not it's not being there two feet on top of it. being 10 ft on top of it. I'm sorry. Let me re ask my question. How far from the stairs from the bottom
of the stairs? Because that's where the distance to the rear yard property line is. How far from the stairs is the manhole? I don't know. It's It's around there. So, I don't I don't know. I I don't know. I I can't I can't guess. Mr. Peters, you were going to say
something else. I apologize. I'm certainly not going to guess. The responsibility of providing answers is the applicants, not ours. Um, again, my concern simply is is the manhole, regardless of whether it interferes with the landing for the deck, the manhole is
surrounded by an easement which appears to be 20 ft in width. So, from this your submitted grading plan shows the house around 37 1/2 ft from the rear property
line. there's a 20 foot easement. That would mean the easement 17 and 12 foot from the house. So if he's within 20 feet of the rear property line, he's going to be in someone else's easement. He just needs to get their approval because the post that holds the deck up
is going to be in their easement. Whether or not the stairs get in the way, I mean that quite frankly that's with all due respect their responsibility. If the board doesn't have enough information, if you want to see additional information, you need to tell the applicant that. I just wanted to
make it clear that the board has no authority to grant approval in a in a drainage easement. We don't know who it belongs to and certainly it's not our responsibility to reconcile the ement. It will be a condition of the
approval of board grants. Have you been in touch with the Jackson Township MUA? because that's where on the survey that's indicated whose it is. Have you been in touch with I have not. It's my first time realizing this this problem. Any other additional questions, Mr.
Lean? Go ahead, Dr. Hing. Uh the staircase, the way it runs, it it appears it appears that that it runs right in front of those sliders. Uh, is it that close to it where nobody could lean the
house through the sliders at the bottom? The stairs would be would be on the further like towards more in the back, not not on the house side. It would be on it would be further away from from the from the house so somebody could get out that door in
the back. Yeah. Okay. Another question. If if the This is to Ernie. If the staircase was turned where that little platform is to face into the backyard, would would that
erase some of the problem with the sewer easement? So instead of a straight coming down straight, it end there's a little platform and then if you turn the stairs to go directly into the back backyard, it would be possible to make the deck
smaller to avoid being in the easement. But regarding the stair layout, I think the current layout is least intrusive in the easement. Mr. Martin, Mr. Heyman, so again, there's a lot of writing on the survey. Um, I wasn't quite sure of
the distance. For me, I'm a little uncomfortable approving it, as Mr. Peters pointed out, not knowing if there's approval from them because we can't grant you approval to build on their easement. Even if we were to approve it, we can't grant you approval to build on their easement. So, my
recommendation, and I'm open to Mr. Peters or Mr. Roire or anyone else's suggestions, my recommendation would be to speak with the Jackson MUA first and then to come back. Would you agree Miss Cypriani or do you have some other suggestion for me? Yeah, there are two ways to proceed. So,
one would be to uh during this matter until a later date during which time you could approach the Jackson MUA. It may not be that there is an intrusion or that there is a an access issue. Um but that's something that you would need to
have them determine and they would do so. If you give him the these documents, then they can take a look at the easement um and make that determination, then you could come back and then give us something in writing um from the MUA saying that it would not impair the
easement um or that they would be able to access it. Alternately, if the desire of the board is to do so, um then they could grant you the relief, but that relief, as Mr. Peters had said earlier would be conditioned on getting the
approval from the MUA. Um so then as a as a um requirement for resolution compliance before you could get a building permit, you would have to then show that uh approval by the MUA. And if they said no, you would have to
come back here with a different application. I would much prefer the second way if if possible. Just to clarify, I believe what M. Sriani is saying is that if you get an if the if the board would vote in
affirmative and you get an approval, it's contingent on the MUA. If the MUA says no, then your case is closed. You would have to submit a new application with a new deck size. If you go the first way means you just we put it up
for a different date then you could go to the MUA see what they say and then possibly if they grant you that relief that's great and if they don't then you would revise your plan and come back here and it wouldn't be a new application.
So I don't know what the fees and the charges are involved with the I I still prefer the second way. So then that's really um up to the board. I don't know if the board members or professionals any questions. I don't know if you want to open it up to the public.
Any other comments? Any other questions from the board before I open it to the public? All right. Uh Mr. Leven, just hold on one moment. I'm going to open this to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward making comments or questions about this application? Seeing no one come forward, I'm going to
go ahead and close public session. Okay. So then the question for the board whether you want to grant the variance with the condition that was described uh regarding the um so options obviously are to deny or to approve if you approve
certainly uh Mr. Peters has suggested and we've all seen on the plans that there is an easement which appears to be held by the Jackson Township MUA. So it would be conditioned on um getting consent to the location approved from
the Jackson MUA. Um what you have to consider is whether the benefits of granting this application uh sorry granting this variance outweigh any detriment um to the zoning scheme which
obviously does have a 35- ft setback. But that is of course the purpose of applying for a variance. And if you determine that the variance would not result in substantial detriment to the public good, that of course requires the condition for the easement.
So I don't know. Do we have another choice as to carry it? Yeah. I can I vote for that? I mean, instead of yes or no, can I say look, I just don't have enough information here. I really want more around exactly what
the deck is. um you know the material all that kind of stuff and and something from NUA. So yeah, I'm not saying yes or no. I'm just saying I don't have enough information. I'd rather just Okay. So th those are a couple of of different questions regarding the
materials. Um I do believe and uh that the uh application itself did uh describe the materials. Um, but if there's specific information that you want, you can certainly have a motion to
request that that motion that that information be provided. Obviously, the applicant has a choice of whether or not to provide that information. Um, but yes, you could say specifically, but you need to say what that
information is that you uh would want if there's going to be such a motion. So, I've I've been to the property. Um I looked at the yard. He has a pool there with a fence. The topography is like
that. Um this is truly the only place I believe that he could build a deck in the area. Um behind the home is a forested area. Uh, I don't think this is going to be any detriment to any of the
neighbors whatsoever from that from the back of the house to the side. I believe he's still meeting those setbacks. Um, and I don't have any issue with the actual application other than the concern with the um, easements from the MUA. So if
there were to get approval, um I would be happy to make a motion to approve it contingent on the MUA approval. Would you be happy to make such a motion or are you making one? If if if Okay. So So I I I was
leaving it open for discussion. I was leaving it open for the discussion, but I would be Yes. So I will make a motion to approve contingent on MUA approval. Mr. Martins, I just want to clarify the reason I Even though it's in the application, Miss Criani is right. It is there. Yes,
Mr. Levens did provide that. Nor when I got on the board, they said we should always have the applicant state what the materials are. That's why I asked the question all the time. Just to clarify that. Okay. I also went to the property, Mr. I agree with you. My concern was that easement. So when Ernie brought it up, I'm like, "Okay, so it's not just me. It's all them."
I given the topography and I mean there were plenty of other homes in the development had a second story deck. whether it was the 35 or not. Obviously, I didn't have a tape measure. So, I don't have a problem with the application. My concern was just the easement. So, if you've indeed made a motion, I would second it and I have no
problem approving it contingent on the approval from the MUA. I believe Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Tremor. That's okay. Can I ask Mr. Peters a question? Absolutely. Mr. Peters, you said that no property on Hampshire Hills has
gone into that 35 foot setback for the 35 foot setback. Nobody else has gone past that in Hampshire Hills. No, I I didn't testify to the conditions out at Hampshire Hills. What I can tell you is that Hampshire Hills, the entire
project is in the same zone. Everyone's got the same setback. So, it's not a hardship because somehow he ended up with a 35. Everyone's got a 35 foot rear yard set back in Hampshire Hills. So, I wanted to make sure when the board weighs the testimony, but you understand
that 35 feet is a standard throughout the community. So, it's not as though he's an outlier and he can just speak to that. It's it's a smaller property. A bigger property wouldn't would make it much easier to to fulfill that requirement since it's a small property. It's not possible without without the variance.
Right. So, the question is whether there's a hardship variance. there's nothing unusual aside from the the size issue um that would have that's kind of what I was curious about is this the first of its kind or is this common there like I said I did there were plenty of
other homes that had a second story deck whether they were 30 to the 35 ft I can't tell you but his backyard there is a pool um it is topography so there is a bit of a hardship there but it's not the the 35t setback is across the neighborhood as
well Mr. the same. Okay, very good. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Well, I think we have a motion uh and a second, so roll call, please. Mr. Heyman, yes.
Mr. Martins, yes. Miss Rosal, yes. Mr. Tremor, yes. Miss Kusano, yes. Dr. Hoffstein, yes. Miss Bradley, yes. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Excuse
me. If I may just make a general comment, not about any case. Um, so I I do appreciate the um I'll be happy to make a motion to allow us because once you make a motion, then you second it. It's like we go into roll call. So I
appreciate, you know, giving us that so we have time to talk and go through and deliberate. My my intention was certainly not and never would be to prevent the board from discussing the matter fully. I was simply trying to understand whether a motion had actually been made or if it
was correct. So, correct. So, I was just leaving it open, right? I was making a comment saying that I would just leave it open. I didn't want to cut anybody off from making their comments and I appreciate that. I I I appreciate the attempt and uh
we'll be uh less uh quick to to speak. Okay. Okay. We're going to move on to applicant number two, Mr. Abraham Cohen, 16 Scarboro Drive.
You can come to the microphone, please. Um, will you uh swear or affirm that the testimony you will give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? I affirm. Thank you, Adam. Just uh if you could say your name and address for the record.
Abraham Cohen, 16 Scarboro Drive. And you can hear already from being in here for the first one. It's kind of hard to hear, so please feel free to yell. It's fine. If Why don't you tell us what you're trying to do, sir? Okay. So, we're trying to build a move out our fence. Um
speak a little louder. Sorry. Trying to move out our fence um further out. We live on a corner lot. So basically my whole entire um backyard is kind of a sideyard when you're on a corner lot. So we want to move out move
out the um move the fence out further. Yeah. So we want to move it out to the side and um to the back. Towards the front actually towards the front of the house and towards the side. That's one thing. Another thing is I think they said I need a a variance. So
I have to mention about the um the play area that we're get want to get the swing set as well. Initially it was in there for um on the side towards the street but since I want to just put it on the um towards the
back of the house so it won't be in the front. Won't be in this the front. Okay. So initially it was towards the front but you want to put that the playyard to the back now. Correct. Is the fence already up? Is that the There's There's a fence there. We want to extend it.
Okay. You're moving the fence. Push it back out. Yeah. Two on two sides. And you're going to keep the same type of fence. Six foot solid white. Yes. Yes. Crystal. Oh, no. Because it says the applicant is seeking a height. So, it's not the height, it's the
distance. So, well, because he's a corner lot, right? He's got quote unquote two front yards, right? There's an existing fence here. Yeah. Off the back and here. He wants to blow it out this way and blow it forward as well. Okay. Right. So, it's gonna I don't know if you had a chance to see it, but there's
a large tree. He's wants to move it on the outside of that. Right. And right now, if I'm correct, it's off it's coming off the back of the house. He wants to move it to the front of the house and come this way. Okay. I I said that correctly. Okay. I'm sorry.
So, I don't think he wants to move to the front of the house. I think he's going to move it up a little more forward. The front edge of the house, correct? Towards towards the front. So, meaning right now it's attached to the to the to the back of the house. I did go down to the property to look at
it. Um, you do have utilities about in the middle of your house. There's a window there with, you know, you have the electric meter there and things like that. So, if you were to go all the way to the front of the house, then that would be an issue with the
utilities um having access getting in and getting out. Having a door from the That's the issue. I'm just trying to understand from the diagram that I think that I saw on the here, I thought it was to about the middle of the house. I Oh, I didn't I
didn't realize that it was that dotted line all the way to the front of the house. Yeah, just a lot of different minds on there. So, yeah, I was say it was a little confusing for me. I got it. I get it. Um, Mr. Omar, comments.
Yes, if we could just clarify a couple things, please. The uh the swing set. Can you clarify where are you looking to place that? Towards the the back of my property, the side of the pool in relation to the swimming pool. Would it be near right on the right side
looking So, anywhere between the house and the street is considered front yard area, right? And I I believe you would most likely need to be in that area and still require variance relief for the
playground just to be safe. That would be my recommendation. Mhm. Um, so I would we could talk about that uh with the board further, but at least we have an idea of where you're trying to put the playground along the back property line closer to the pool, but um
still within the front yard area, we'll assume, right? Because you have front yard. Well, because I think what Mr. Roar is trying to say is because you have your corner lot, your side is what we would call a front yard as well. Correct. On Hastings. Yes. Correct.
Even though you don't want Even though you don't want to put it as far up front to the front of your house as you did, it's still considered the front yard. Yeah, that's part of the issue. I need a variance because it's a corner lot, right? Okay. And then for the fence itself,
where how far off your property line are you looking to place the fence along Hastings Court? So, the property line is typically just inside the sidewalk. So, typically we require six feet off of that. Yeah. So that Yeah, that's I was told that. Yeah. Because of the rightway
for um I think And then along Scar Bro, you're proposing to be in line with the front of your house, correct? Correct. Okay. And that's a 6ft solid fence. Correct. The same one that exists currently. Okay. Um it appears that the proposed
location would not be located within the sight triangle area of the corner. So there's no issue with that. And that's all I have at this time. Mr. Peters, um, the applicant has agreed that the proposed six foot high fence would be no
closer than six feet to the Hastings Court right of way. That's good information to have in our resolution so the zoning officer and the construction official understand it. Um, we should probably pick a number from the fence to the swing set because in
theory the swing set is in violation of the front yard setback because it's between Hastings Court and the building. So even though when you look at it it's the side of his house from a land use perspective. Hastings is a front yard.
Anything between the house and Hastings is a front yard. So, if you want to pick another number, I assume you want to keep the swing set four feet from the fence. Kids don't go flying into the fence. Trying to figure out how far between the fence
and the swing set. What would what would they make a what would be a difference if the swing set is within the fence? What's the difference how far the swing set is from the fence? Too close to the fence for safety reasons. Also being able to mow and the nature of swings for you to
I think I think we have to pretty much use the whole I don't know the exact right so we're approximating the swing area 182 is what was given the information. Was it supposed to be this way, but now changing it?
We need to make a record here. I'm sorry. That's okay. No, I don't know if I Please, please say what you were to say. Just on the record. Just wanted to grab the mic. Um, so what we were trying to say, as Mr. Peter said, if you could please give an approximate location of where
you wanted the swing set to go so that the record could reflect that it's going to be x amount of feet from Hastings Court. uh x amount if you however just it's a little bit more specific for when it goes through um zoning approval for the zoning followup. Okay. So I'm just saying initially the
way I I put it on on on the paper that was submitted was the length the length would be on Hastings. So in that scenario I could give you more of like it would be more room to work with because the swing set would probably be in the middle and then it would probably be a good I don't know 5
10 feet from the swing set until the the fence. But now since the f since the swing set is going I would like to put it the other way the the the length on the length towards the back of my house. So I'm pretty much want to use up I don't know exactly to every inch but I
want to pretty much go until the fence. I don't have the exact measurement to know that's fine. I I think that you've just discussed the orientation. And so it's going to be oriented so the length of the swing set will be on the Hastings side. And I think you just testified
that you were imagining it I think you said 5 to 10 feet from the fence initially. Now it's going to be closer like probably within a foot or two of the of the of the fence swing because it won't it won't be the the full width. It would just be the edge of
it the edge of the of the of the fence like the post the beam. So head Hastings is here right? This is Hastings. This scar bro you're saying you want it to be this direction you want it perpendicular to Hastings and you wanted a how far off what Mr. Peters is trying to ascertain is how far off of
Hastings off that side of the fence would you want to place this swing set it's pretty much going to be off off off the fence like a foot or two but if it's a swing set you're going to need some clearance that's why Mr. Peter's suggested a couple feet off the
fence. Madam chair, to the extent that the the board simply makes a record so the zoning officer can check it so he doesn't have to do this a second time because the zoning officer doesn't understand what the board approved. You can put the swing set wherever he wants.
I don't think we're going to explain to him the need to have some space if the swing portion of the swing set is near the fence. if he wants to have it up against the fence, as long as it's in the resolution so the zoning officer can approve it, I don't know that it matters to the board
because it's a variance. We would normally put some sort of dimension so it can be checked and verified. So if the answer it's going to be six foot off the rightway line, which would mean it's up against the fence, that's okay, too.
I don't think we're understanding I don't think the applicant's understanding what we're asking him for. Right. Would I understand Mr. Peters and and I just want to make sure that I am because of of that issue understanding the orientation because you Mr. Levin
you're saying that you're going to Mr. Cohen I'm sorry that you're going to switch it so it would now be that the structure will be on the Hastings side and it will be perpendicular. Is that what you just testified to? Like the way my pool I don't know if anyone can look at mouse but the way my
pool is now. So let's it's like goes on a line. So there's the pool. So next to the like alongside the pool is going to be the swing set like towards the right of the pool straight in the long line. Does anyone have a pointer? Mission, can maybe we use some kind of
verbiage stating that um if approved by the board that the swing set will be located no closer than 10 ft to Hastings Court. Something along those lines. Is that acceptable? Should the board so choose to approve? Could I show on the like could I go there? Cuz if the fence is going to be six,
that's leaving 4 ft for clear or it doesn't even have to be 10. Just something along those Initially. It was going to be this way. The length this way. Now I want to flip it to this way. Right. So you want it along that back fence. Correct. Okay. So we're aending again. I'm sorry. Show us again. Mr.
Initially it was going to be on this way. Right. This now I want to make it this way. You don't have a plan of what he's proposing. Got it. No. Correct. So that's going to be changed and now that's not going to interfere with the pool equipment that's notated on the plan. That was ready to be my comment.
It's I I I specifically saw it that it doesn't interfere with the pool equipment. Meaning the swing set that I'm getting that I want to get is going to con conform. It's going to be after after the pool equipment. Madam Chair. Yes, Mr. There's a dimension on the survey 48
feet from the property line to the filter heater which is shown on the survey and if his if his swing set is 32 feet wide, he could fit that between the filter heater and the fence being 6t off the property line. I would recommend the board just uh specify the playground
equipment be at least 6 feet off Hastings Court and that would leave them plenty of room or you could go further six, seven, eight feet off Hastings Court. Did I just say it's I think it's already off six feet because that's the rightway, right? Same size for that.
The fence would be 6 ft off the property line and then you would still have 41 ft between that fence and the heater. And if your playground's 32 feet wide, you would be able to offset your playground at least a few feet off the
fence. Does that make sense? Yes. Okay. Okay. Saying it's going to be with within the fence, which the fence is has this the six foot um right away. So, we're not building up until
I did have another question. looking at your house. So, I'm sitting on Scarbor Scarbor looking at your house. There is a uh shed to the left of the house. Is that permitted? Was the variance granted for that? Because I saw information regarding the pool, but I didn't see anything regarding the shed.
I have no idea. I just I just purchased the house. I have no idea. I just purchased the house. I have no I don't know anything about the shed. Okay. So, you didn't put the shed on? No. Okay. I mean only obviously I went to look at the property and I'm looking at it going that's in the front yard in front of the
fence and very close to the house. Right. So So do we want that to be a condition of approval? I mean just to make sure either make sure that it's permitted this year just to make sure it's taken. Right. That's well that's something Well, we just don't have a plan for that. Usually that's what we do. Um
Right. But that's something I also don't have access to see if that's was even permitted to begin with. Any other questions for Mr. Cohen? Yeah. Uh, actually just for our I just want to put on the record for our um
experts. So you guys are comfortable that you understand what the proposal is, right? And and with enough time, you're comfortable that any unintended consequences that you've contemplated and you're okay with with this.
Correct. Mr. Mortens. Um, that's was the suggestion that I made earlier that we may not, if the board so chooses, um, we don't need an exact location for x amount of feet for the playground equipment. Uh, kind of the same verbiage that we would use with the fence, no closer than six feet. If that's what the
board's comfortable with for if they choose to approve the fence, then that should be sufficient and for a zoning approval um, for our resolution followup. Um, but with that shed, I don't know how we want to address that, right? Okay. Since I if you want to add that, Lynn, we would just need I we
would just need some more details for it. Well, in the past, we've always included if there was something else discovered on the property, we just make sure that that's addressed. Sure. Of course, compliance. So, I would just make sure that it's permitted. It was I mean, I would have to think there had to be a variance based on loc. It's in front of the fence.
It seems like it would be require. Yeah. Right. It's in front of the fence. And I just don't want to speak on something I'm not super sure that I didn't do any research on. No problem. But if we wanted to add it, I mean, do you know the dimensions of it or anything? I don't know. I'm sorry. To his advantage to
right add it to the approval, right? It's better to get it taken care of now and have it added to the, you know, make sure we add it to the resolution to the approval. Would you agree? Do you know how approximately how big the shed is? 10 ft 12 feet by
I'm not sure, but it doesn't look too big to me. But that's all relative. Approximately what's eight feet? I I really Okay. And about And about how high I I did not see the Jed. It's to the So, if you're looking at the house of Scarboro, opposite of this the
Hastings, it's I mean, literally almost up against the house. I'm going to guess 8 by10, but I'm not good with stuff like that, so you probably don't want to take I'm not the engineer. How's that? It would make sense that that's what it is. But I I really don't know. It's not It's not a It's not a tremendously huge one, but it would make sense that that's
what it is. No, I I didn't drive down Scar. I I I went on Hastings because that's where the front lot is. So I I didn't notice that part. Um I'm assuming that it's not higher than about 10 ft either.
No, it's lower than 10 feet. That's for sure. I don't think it's 10 feet. So it it seems to be a very standard typical shed. I just want to make sure it's included. It's a rubber made. It's a rubber made plastic shed. It's probably like six feet. Wouldn't it be better before you write
the resolution to have him just measure it out and call the zoning office and Right. Could Could we do that for like resolution compliance? Right. Yes. As part of resolution compliance. All right. Any other questions?
Mr. Sorry, Mr. No, go ahead. I was just going to ask if they had any additional comments before I went to the public. So, if you have comments for me, please. All right. Mr. Cohen, hold on one moment for you. I'm going to open this to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward at this time with questions or comments about this application?
Seeing no one come forward, I'm going to go ahead and close public session. Miss Sabri. Hey. So, the uh conditions that were discussed if someone were to make a motion for approval is that the uh would be allowing
um because it's a corner lot and both frontages are considered front lots that there would be a variance allowing a 6 foot high solid white fence. It would be extended from the front corner of the house and be situated at least six feet
from the Hastings rightway. Also, they would be conditioned that the swing set could be no closer than six feet from the Hastings right away and that the shed located in the front yard from Scarboro would be permitted. It should
be no higher than 10 feet tall and the feet tall and the dimensions will be provided as part of resolution comply compliance by the applicant. Just can I just ask one thing or the the
six the six feet you mean is from is from the fence from the right away? So from the sidewalk? Yes. Again, I know it was I sorry I don't the verbage. Yeah. Okay.
Okay. Thank you. From the from the property line. Yeah. Any comments, questions? I'll just say that I didn't notice when I went there. On the other corner of
Hastings, the neighbor next to this has a uh looks like a black iron fence that does go up to the front of the house as well. Um and it also goes closer to the property line. That's all.
Yeah, we modeled it off that was there our next door neighbor there also. They went up to six feet up. I think they they came for a variance here as well first. Questions, comments? I um like I said, I went to the property. I have no problem with um extending the fence to the front of the
house. Um extending the fence out, but no closer than six feet to the property line. Um also address the issue of the deck no higher than 10 ft. to make sure it was permitted and a variance granted. Um, and that the swing set has to be
within the fence, no closer than six feet from H. Correct. And when you said deck, did you mean the shed? Shed. Yeah. Wrong application. Um, so I would make a motion with those conditions as better spelled out by Miss
Criani. Um, I would make a motion to approve the application. So I would second it. Um but I believe that you're stipulating to putting in the uh the shed with Oh yeah shed, right? So that they would need to provide the dimensions.
Correct. Yes. With for resolution compliance. Correct. I would second that. All right. Mr. Martin, do you have anything? No. No. Okay. I'm ready to vote. All right. Roll call, please. Mr. Heyman, yes.
Mr. Martins, yes. Miss Rosal, yes. Mr. Tremor, yes. Miss Kusano, yes. Dr. Hoffstein, yes. Miss Bradley, yes. There you have it. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Anybody want to go to All right, Mr. Alfury, we're going to start at 8 o'clock. You can give us a threem minute break because we know this is going to be a little longer. Okay. All right. You know,
the adventure crossing phase one component of the project. uh we were here in July and for phases three and four and then we started the discussion on phase one and we were having a legal argument over the density issue and how it would be
calculated for this phase of the project. um at that meeting because there were new members and now there's more new members and because of the complexity and the length of time that this application has been before the board on many many iterations we had agreed to bring our planner back and
then just work through the whole history so the board understands fully how we've gotten to today's uh position um because there are so many moving parts a moving part intervened between last meeting and tonight and that is
that the Hilton hotel wants to be in the ground by the spring and there's a bunch of corporate approvals that need to be obtained and they can't start that process until we have a local approval. So, we had asked the board to consider that we go out of
turn and just bifurcate the Hilton Hotel portion of this project. Um, we've already received approval for the hotel, but we're seeking to relocate it onto Route 53 537 frontage. Um, so it's a relatively simple change, much simpler than the density issue and everything
else that we're going to go through ultimately. So our first request is to ask the board if we could bifurcate that, present our testimony. Um, Mr. Bordon did submit a written explanation um, requesting this. And we did receive
a CME report reviewing this specific component of the application. And I believe Mr. Peters um did not issue a new report because he felt his earlier reports covered this component as well. Um so that's our first request is if we can do that Hilton Hotel first.
So and and I'm sorry, one other thing. We also agreed at the last meeting to renotice. We renoticed to ask for the density variance so that if the board ruled that we needed the density variance, we didn't have to lose time. We also added a notice section for the
bifurcation of the application so you could hear the Hilton separately if you decide to do that. So um Mr. Alfier I just think uh it's important for the board to understand um bifurcation is something that uh comes before the board
fairly regularly. um off that's in the context of a request for a use variance um and that that would be heard and then the site plan portion. So this is a little bit different. Um the standard for bifurcation is whether it's prudent
and promotes uh sort of quasi judicial that's that's you guys uh economy and efficiency and also you get to consider whether the um the requested bifurcation can be considered or the issues too
intertwined with the remainder of the property. Um, so Mr. Alier, I just want to make sure that the board understands. So when you're asking for consideration of the hotel, are you anticipating that there would be
a separate resolution? Because you spoke of Hilton wanting to proceed. Um, how would that relate to the site plan issues as a whole? It would simply be isolated to that section of the project for that building only and it would not
impact the balance of the application or the prior approvals other than as amended by the and would you be providing testimony um clarifying what the uh scope of the property to be considered is. Correct. Yes. Right.
Yes. We have a plan to show that exact location. This is this is this still the same lot that we're talking about. Yes, the property is still on the same lot. Yes, it's still the we're not going to we have debates over tracks and parcels
based upon density. But yes, the same phase one project and um when Mr. Bordon comes up, he'll show you exactly where it is. It's simply we're moving and redesigning the hotel from the interior of the lot to the Route 537 frontage.
So, so the So, who owns owns the lot? The applicant. The applicant being you, not the hotel. Correct. The applicant being the property owner. The And the hotel is leasing the land from the applicant. I believe they're leasing it. I'm not
positive. Yeah, they're Yes. They're they're going to just operate the hotel. Yes. So they're the owners of the property is going to remain and the owner will be taken care of as part of the hotel. Yeah. And there'll be cross access parking easements etc. So the site will
still function as a whole but this component at least could be developed independent of the other issues that we're going to face. So the question on the the initial uh request for bifurcation before we get into uh any specifics regarding the hotel is whether
the board feels that it can be uh bifurcated in a way where the hotel application can be considered without uh being so intertwined uh with the other aspects because Mr. Riri's has put in the record that the hotel itself has
been approved, but this is a relocation of uh the hotel and I'm sure that he would provide more on that and whether it would be um economical and efficient to consider the hotel
uh section um or application separately from the residential in order. Honestly, it sounds like the testimony or the representation, not the testimony to expedite the ability to
construct the hotel if the board approves that application. So right now the only question before the board is on bifurcation um and whether the board is willing to consider just the hotel
relocation site plan um section separately. Um just just one question. Yeah on the bifurcation. So let's say worst case scenario the rest of the phases, the the residential
section, worst case scenario, you don't get approved for that. The hotel will go up anyway. Yes. In fact, that's why we're doing this first or requesting it be done first because they want to get in the ground by the spring. And the hotel was always like the center of this project
because of Great Adventure and everything else. And the families that come to the fields and play the sports in the back, they need a hotel. and we finally have Hilton lined up where they're ready to go. But there is corporate paperwork that has to get done before they issue the final license to the developer. Sure. And
but yes, that's being developed independent of the independent and and and Hilton would still want to be there whether you had residential or not, whether you all the other stuff was done or not, they'd still want that. That's correct. Okay. Thank you.
So once the hotel is approved to be constructed, then can be constructed even if the rest of the application happen is denied. Correct. That would be the purpose of the bip. Yes. You don't
Mr. Peters, did you want to say something? Just an analogy for the board. Um, this project has a general development plan and Mr. Alfieri explained to you what they're trying to accomplish. So, I'm not testifying for the applicant. I I
happen to know the history of this project as the as one of the board's professionals for both the planning and zoning board. So all of the applications for this project I've had some responsibility for in terms of the review. General development plan said we're going to put this in section A and
this in section B and this in section C. At some point in time when someone builds a project this big, not all of those tenants are lined up. So, if they had six pad sites, they didn't have six 7-Elevens or Chick-fil-As or Starbucks
lined up. There's an old phrase in in land development. It's what the market will bear. At some point in time, if someone wants to build something, they'll go to the owner of the property and say, "Hey, we'd like to build the hotel there now." But you know what? Any chance you can move it from here to
there? It's not uncommon in projects of this size to see this. And the only analogy I can give you, and some of you may not respectfully be old enough to remember, is the Free Raceway Mall. So when you're driving south on the Freel Raceway Mall
and you go in the entrance where there used to be a Toys R Us on the left, that whole right hand side over there is still vacant. There's supposed to be a hotel there from an approval in 1989. So how many years later? And they still haven't built the hotel at the Freehold
Raceway Mall because the market wouldn't bear it. No one came and said, "Let's go build a hotel over there." So, in this particular instance, a user for the site, whether it was recreational user, an office user, a retail user, um in this case, a hotel or
a warehouse, the hotel came in and said, "We'd like to use it, but your approved plan has it on the opposite side of that second traffic light off of 537, and I they want to put it in a different location." Absolutely not unheard of. I think
Jean's going to done a real good job of making sure that the board's covered. We're going to hear if the board act agrees to bifurcate it. We're going to hear I believe it's phase 1D. The hotel only, which means you're not
obligated. Anything you do tonight does not obligate you to sections C, E, and F, which we still have some things to discuss or debate or decide. So, the application simply is
the plans at one point had a hotel someplace else. the application that's before you always revised the plans to have the hotel up on 537 and now they're simply asking to deal with just the hotel portion of the application which is in the same spot it was when they
made the application in December of last year. So from our perspective, we take no exception to the request for bifurcation. But again, to the extent you want to feel comfortable or need some more guarantees about what what could happen, what could not happen, and
you want to make sure you have those protections, by all means, feel free to ask Gene or myself or Mr. Alfie. And Mr. Alfier, I just wanted to uh confirm what Mr. Peter just said is that this is looking for the bifurcation only
of phase D being the hotel of um phase one. I'm sorry. Yes. 1 D because and I'm just you had sent me an email originally that also talked about phases um right C and F
but they're not they're not ready to be considered separately. So, we're focused only on the hotel and I wasn't sure of the lettering. It's D. We Ian confirmed. Yeah. And just because I had the email and so that if there were to be a motion by the board, it would be allowing biocation of the um venture crossing
phase one um so as to allow consideration of phase D alone. Correct. Okay. Two things. I was remiss. I did not put on the record that Mr. refused to this application. So he's already gone this evening. Um the other
thing is thank you Mr. Peters, thank you Mriyani. Um to help make it clear, I know we have a lot of new people and a good portion of the board is new and this has been going on a long time. So just to be clear, we're only hearing about the bifurcation for the hotel
alone, right? But we will be clear on what's in each next step and this is only that we're not approving or discussing anything else. That's correct. We'd like to assuming we finish this, we'd like to move into the next phase, but we'll see how long this takes. and
and my understanding my understanding is that if they allow the bifurcation as part of the presentation on the phase D that Mr. Alfuri had indicated that
there was going to be some history of the uh project provided for the benefit of the new board members. So there there two levels of the history. One would be when Mr. Bordon comes up if you allow the bifurcation. He'll just show you where it was originally approved the hotel and give
you an overall view of how phase one is currently approved. And then if we get past that and we start the density argument, there's a more elaborate history of the whole zoning history. But um hopefully we're all awake when we get to that one.
So from my perspective after listening to everyone involved, we start off Mr. Peters and Mr. I don't have a problem. I just want to be sure that everyone here is clear that we're only discussing the bifurcation regarding the hotel. We're not approving anything else. As we
all well, some of us know this has been very extensive. Um, so I just want to be clear that we all understand we're just discussing the hotel. They'll give us more details about where it was or anything, but I don't have an issue with bifurcation. My question to you is do we have to make a motion for that? Yes. Okay.
Um, I would make a motion then um I'm sorry if no one Any questions or comments? I would just make comments. Yes. Um my understanding is that it's up to the liberty of the board to make that decision to bifurcate it. While I understand that it would my opinion
hearing from the professionals it would make sense. Um, I would respectfully request from the applicant that they be mindful of our consideration and when it's the other way around. When we have a question about another part of the application, say, "No, no, not that.
We're just looking at this right now and you can't look at that. We're we're doing what you want um because at the graciousness of this board um to bifrocate it, we're not required to. So,
if we could just have that reciprocation that, you know, just because you're not required to testify to something which is related, but it's a different part of the phase, I would appreciate it. That's all. I It's hard for me to say yes or no because that that that was a statement. It was I heard you.
Thank you. I I just want to ask, do do we need to open it up to the public? Oh, do we need to open it up to the public or on the motion to bifrocate? No. Okay. No.
So, if no one has anything else to say, I would second the motion. Well, the motion was that I we were in agreement to bifurcate the application and discuss the hotel phase only phase one. Yes.
All right. And for that we have a motion second roll call, please. Mr. Heyman, yes. Mr. Martins, yes. Miss Rosal, yes. Mr. Tremor, yes. Miss Kusana, yes. Dr. Hoffstein, yes. Miss Bradley, yes.
Thank you. So, we're going to now call Mr. Bordon up. Um, and Mr. Bordon, we're going to need to have you sworn in and qualified. 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 please state your name and credentials for the record? Yes. Good. Good evening. Ian Bordon, uh, president of professional design services, Lakewood, New Jersey, a
professional plan licensing in the state, New Jersey. uh with PDS for 30 years and been doing this for 40 years. Thank you. So, Mr. Bordon, you've heard the
discussion we had with the board and and we do have an exhibit up on the screen. Yes. That um I'd like you to identify so we can um orient the board as to what this is the prior approved plan. That's correct. We have we have two
exhibits for for this proposal and thank you to the board for allowing this. U the basically it's very simple. What we have on the screen now is what is uh the approved uh site plan for phase D. And I'll explain some background here. What
we're looking at is is phase D. This is sheet five of 52 of the original uh or the currently approved uh phase one plan. It was approved by this board in 2021. And what you see here is phase two. You
have Mammoth Road along the top and you have the the ramp to uh 195 east that runs along the eastern part of the property. North is to the top right to place you on the site. On the left here, this is the traffic light with
Pine Drive. Um, so the opposite side of this drive is what we call phase A, which is fully constructed with the 7-Eleven, the Taco Bell, the Popeye's, and the Starbucks, etc. So that's phase A. That's an island created by the jug
handle that runs behind. Uh, behind that to the bottom left off the screen, you have the aird dome. Uh, that's considered phase C. I I skipped over phase B. Phase B was is the athletic fields in the back. So phase uh A
pads B fields and C the air dome are all constructed. What you have on the bottom and phase D is this island here. There's the uh continuation of the jug handle drive which is this road here which on the bottom running left to right which
provides access to phase two which is the warehouses off to the right here. That's also constructed. And Mr. Bordon, can we just identify what this exhibit is and so we can mark it? Yeah, if it's marked on this exhibit is approved phase D. It's sheet five of 52
of the uh 2021 approved site plans. You actually see in the top right corner the little inset of the map. Uh I know it's small, but you have phase A here, phase B in the back, the big square is the air aird dome and phase C. And here we're
talking about phase D. So phase D is formed by Mammoth Road to the top or northwest. To the east or northeast is is the end of the property at the rightway with 195. The Pine Drive extension to the uh south
and then to the or to the west and then to the south is in access road. So, we're dealing with this island of of property. And what we have on the approved PLA approved plan is the property is or phase D is currently uh approved for two fast food pad buildings
and a restaurant, a two-story restaurant with office above it. Located directly across the access drive, not shown on this map. I didn't I wanted to include the approved plan as the exhibit because we're doing apples and apples of what's approved today
versus what we're seeking to get approved tonight on our amended phase D. But the Hilton Hotel on on the U current approval for phase one is located right on the bottom here. So if you look at the inset map in the top right, it's
it's just below phase D. It's this the this these cut off driveways here are actually for the hotel. So as Mr. Alfieri correctly uh described Hilton is finally we've been talking to Hilton since we started this job and I
started this job in 200 16. Um, we've been talking to Hilton and they've been um, in my world, I'm not sure it's right and illegal, but under contract, but they've not constructed with the high interest rates and and business
environment, but now they're ready to go. But they have asked for us to place the hotel in the island that is phase D, so it's closer to Mammoth Road. And that that brings us to the proposal what we're seeking which is if you don't mind Anthony the next sheet
I guess for purposes of this bipated application this would be A1 and A2 what does A2 depict? A2 is the is the proposed uh site plan that we had submitted to the board 10 days ago. Uh it's it's consistent. This
it's basically the same proposal. The the application we made for the overall amended approval in November of 2024 included the same uh it's the same plan. Again, we're just bifurcating out this uh this this single phase for purpose of
this bifurcated or this hearing. So here we have again the same orientation. You have Pine Drive on the left and the access drive on the bottom. And you can envision that we've removed the the three pad buildings and replaced it with the with the hotel. The hotel is
approved at 134 rooms with a 9 9,900 ft um banquet facility as well as a 2400 2500 foot um a bar and restaurant inside the hotel.
The uh in addition to to shifting the hotel, the Hilton has asked us to uh increase the rooms from 134 to 180 and eliminate the banquet. I think that's
done in consideration of the market which is families uh using the sports fields especially. I keep hearing from from my client uh and frankly others that when they have tournaments and whatnot at the fields that people are filling up the hotels in Freehold and I
as a Jackson resident love them to fill a hotel in Jackson. Just a quick question. So they're want they're going to remove the 9,000 foot bank with increase number of rooms. What about the restaurant? The restaurant stays. I'm sorry. I I don't think I said that. Thank you for
that. I apologize. I'm sorry. I I didn't understand the the restaurants are being eliminated. Three build the restaurant stays. The restaurant stays. The banquet the 9,000 foot banquet facility is being So the restaurant is part of the hotel. It's inside the hotel.
It's one of those hotels with a restaurant inside. It's just inside the footprint. How many rooms? I just missed it. I'm sorry. 180. 180. So the access there's no separate
driveway on Route 537. Correct. Correct. So the access again the access and parking remains all the same. Uh there is no access to Mammoth Road nor of course the highway ramp and nor to Pine Drive. The only access is to the access drive to the uh to the bottom.
And that's how the other hotel was going to access just on the opposite side. Correct. It was going to access the same driveways. We're just flipping them over and placing the hotel closer to uh Mammoth Road. Um the there were there were there was a CME report that was issued last week and
there were a bunch of suggestions about striping and directional signage etc. You have no issue with complying with all of those or working with the professionals to address those comments. Correct? Not not at all. We fully agree to work with him. We agree with all the comments and we accept those. I'd like to go back
over a couple of the site plan details just so the record is clear and uh we we do require a a D6 height variance uh for this hotel. So I want to make sure we uh we discuss that. Uh but just to stay on the on the uh site plan for a moment. Uh
the project requires but for the rooms and the bar requires 205 parking spaces. I'm sorry. Could you say that again? M I I could just couldn't hear. of the hotel the hotel and the restaurant require 205 parking spaces we are providing 286
physical spaces so we have more than ample parking we are required to have 5% of the total parking EV ready which is 14 so uh that mean and we get a 2 to1 credit for those EV ready spaces so we have a total parking credit for for
phase D of 300 spaces from a site plan component this the as you see in exhibit A1 or the approved plan that it's already approved the the outside curb line remains the same. So the intensity of development does not
increase. There is no increase in impervious coverage as part of this uh uh proposed modification. As a result there is no required modification to the on-site storm water management system. The site has a master
quote unquote storm water management system with four storm water basins in the side and back of the project. They remain unchanged because we're not increasing uh any impervious uh cover or disturbance. So the I'm sorry you said the storm water uh system remains unchanged. Yes, the
management the management system. There will be inlets constructed to tie in to the existing drainage system, but the management system containing these four storm water basins are are not uh impacted and they're already constructed. All of those are constructed.
You also mentioned the height, but that was the previous request. Correct. Correct. And that the height remains unchanged is the same variance. We're getting there. uh D variance D6 varants uh because under the uh uh under the
HCMU zone hotels are conditional uses u so there are conditional use requirements that I want to briefly go over just so the record is clear we have minimum yard and area requirements these are found in 244572C
which is part of the highway commercial zone Mr. Gordon, I can't understand anything you're saying. Am I not talking? Am I holding the microphone wrong? Yes. Okay. You can tell I've never been a rock singer.
Sorry, I'm used to being too loud. So, let me let me go back over that. So, the hotels are conditional uses in the HC zone, which is the underlying zone uh for this project. Uh it's the HCMU highway commercial mixed use which
permits all uses in the highway commercial. So under 24457.2 the hotel is a conditional use with a couple of conditions. Uh there's basically two A and B. A is minimum yard and area requirements. The minimum lot
area shall be two acres. U and we obviously exceed two we exceed two acres. The minimum lot width is 200 feet. We exceed that frontage is 200 feet and the depth is 200 feet. So we exceed 200 feet
in lot width, frontage and depth. Uh the maximum building coverage is the same as permitted for the particular zone. We do not exceed the building coverage for the project in the uh in the highway commercial and the highway commercial mixeduse zone and the front, rear and
sideyard setbacks. Uh actually I I think uh this is where I uh we're going to talk about the variance. The required minimum front yard setbacks will be the same as required in the case of the and we meet the uh the side setbacks
u and the front setback is 60 ft. The building is set 133 feet back from Mammoth Road. The front the minimum front setback is 60 feet. However, in this zone, you're permitted to in then the maximum building height is 35 ft. However, you're allowed to exceed the
building height of 35 ft for 10 uh for every 10 ft of enhanced setback, you're allowed to add 1 ft of extra building height. So, for example, uh as I said, the minimum front setback is 60 ft. If I place a building at 70
ft, I'm allowed to be 36 feet. 80 feet, 37, 90, 38 and and so on max to a maximum height in this HCMU zone of 90 feet. Uh in our case however though with that
front setback of 133 ft. Um we're we're not permitted our our proposed building height is 56 ft. That's what the approved it's a fivetory. I should have left that out. the the building the hotel was approved and proposed as five stories. So that's
a building height of 56 feet measured to the flat roof as the ordinance requires. So in order to have a 56 ft high building under that zone criteria, it has to be placed 210 ft from the road and we're proposed at 133. So as a
result uh we have um a building D6 height variance a D6 height requirement or height variance. The per the permitted height at the location that we're proposing at 133 ft
is 42 feet. So our our variance the delta in our variance is 56 feet where 42 feet is is permitted. Now, that 56 is the same height as the approved hotel, but it's closer to the road. Now, that is absolutely correct.
I'm sorry, I said D6. I meant D3. Right. U D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D conditional use variance for the uh because it's conditional use. So, it's conditional use variance. Um uh in order to address the uh the height
criteria, the uh it's necessary to have plenty testimony that the uh height uh restriction does not offend any purposes of the height restriction. it would nonetheless be under under case law would nonetheless be consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood. Um in my opinion the positive criteria is met because the enhanced setback of the structures u is consistent in the zone. We have the we have the air dome that's located directly caddy corner across the pine
drive extension which is a which has a total height to the top of the dome of 90 ft. Um so uh my opinion u we don't u we qualify for that variance and there
is one other site plan related uh variance issue and that is we have a there is a required front parking setback along Mammoth Road of 20 ft and this is consistent with the plans again as previously approved. We did not change this, but at the very front
corner by Pine Drive, we have eight parking spaces because the road is at an angle to the property. You can see how the parking is square to the hotel but angles to the front line of Mammoth Road. So at the front left corner or the
south western corner, we have a setback proposed at that point of 13 ft where 20 ft is required. uh that so we are asking for a C2 front setback parking variance for eight parking spaces.
The maximum deviation is 13 ft and over the course of those eight spaces it tapers to the conforming uh 20 ft. uh my opinion again the C2 of course is the benefits versus detriment variance uh C variance and uh my opinion the the
variation uh that we're asking for for this minor deviation will will not impair the intended purpose of the master plan nor create a substantial detriment to a public good is there any landscaping or what's between those spaces and the road
yeah yes we have we have landscaping uh we don't have the exhibit for that but as for all parking we have uh evergreen hedge. We always plant along the edge of the of any parking lot to screen the headlights from the road. Uh so those uh
there is landscaping between in that that uh setback between the parking and the road. Anything else? I don't believe there is anything else. No. No curve or sidewalk on that side. Correct.
So you're going to have the hedge. Yes. So the parking space hedge sidewalks here. There's no sidewall along Mammoth Road. That waiver was granted with the original approvals. All the pedestrian access being this is a large project with internal circulation.
All of the pedestrian access is circulated internally between this site, the fast foods and the 7-Eleven across the street, the air dome, the fields. Obviously, the intent is the hotels would be for primary use of the hotels would be for the families utilizing the
fields in the back. So, there's a that was actually one of the comments from the uh traffic review was to he noticed a few spots where we could improve that pedestrian connectivity. We we've worked hard on that over the years of this project and we continue we
appreciate the comments and continue to try to improve that. Anything else, Mr. Gordon? Uh, no. Mr. Peters, you have anything for us? Yes.
We have a report dated February 27th of this year. Um, and while it references all four phases of the project, I think there needs to be testimony um regarding compliance with it. And I think there are some items in there that
need to be discussed at some length with the board. There are conditional use standards that are referenced that require for the purposes of making a record either testimony or consent. There are technical comments with regards to
um drainage, landscaping. Um I have a report and Mr. Bordon and I have done this dance more than once. If if we ask for testimony, I expect it at the meeting, not at resolution compliance.
So if if we say that we provide a landscape, let's talk about the landscaping because we have a comment says the landscaping looks a little thin. So let's talk about you as part of resolution compliance, we'll work with Hilton, we'll do something with regards to the landscaping. Otherwise, tell us
that there's a tree every 50 feet on the site and that's it. But I need to be able when we're done with this project in order to accomplish resolution compliance have a guide of what has been agreed to. And so generally I like to use our report. If
there's a Mr. Alfieri suggests a different method through the resolution that's okay too, but I we really didn't talk much about the report as it relates to the application this evening for phase 1D the hotel only.
Mr. Alfiri, Mr. Bordon. Yes. Well, to start, we certainly agree to comply with any of the technical comments in the review of March that apply to 1D. Uh we certainly make that part of the record. We have no objection with any of the uh the comments. I believe I was it was one
of the requests was to describe the landscaping in in more detail and we do propose street trees along I don't I didn't bring an exhibit. the plan. There was a landscape plan submitted as part of the set to the board which is sheet 8 or 14 and we propose uh street trees at
a 50-ft spacing along Mammoth Road, Pine Drive extension and all along the internal access as well as scattered throughout the site. We have the he the u the shrub hedge that I had mentioned along the parking facing Mammoth Road,
Pine Drive extension as well as the rear access drive and uh island parking as well with the street trees and uh or shade trees I should say and shrub species. U it's since we're we're looking at the
report. Um so any landscape specific comments relating to 1D you would agree to address as a condition of approval? Yes. Um how about this the lighting that's located within the parking lot? Yes, the lighting will comply and will comply with the uh with the ordinance.
Again, the lighting is already approved. We're not seeking to change it, but uh it certainly will comply with the ordinance and any technical comments offered in the March review. And what about refu and recycling? How are they handled? We have refues at the rear of the hotel.
You see there's a service drive off the rear access drive. So, it's actually at the rear of the hotel facing away from Mammoth Road, not visible from Mammoth Road or Pine Drive. and we would uh landscape screen that as well in accordance with the ordinance.
Um and there was also a comment in both reports about loading zone and how loading it would take place and where. Yes, currently we do not provide a loading zone but we have ample space behind the hotel to widen the curb and provide a loading do zone behind the uh
behind the hotel. Excuse me. Are you you planning any signage on the hotel? Signage? Yes, we we have uh there is no specific we are uh proposing the currently the
approval has three ground signs along uh Bamoth Road. the the the master approval for the project has one ground sign for each pad in the front as well as you have that large animated sign that's located on the opposite side of Pine
Drive along Mammoth Road. So the the large U animated sign would be the primary sign for this pad as well as any others. Uh so there is no separate freestanding sign for this this building, but there is a ground sign out front that that's already approved. What
about on the hotel itself? Uh, the hotel itself will of course have signage on the hotel. That signage would have to comply with the facade signage requirements in the ordinance. I'm sorry. Do we have any uh fire department
approval on this? Any Honestly, we had submit we I I believe we we do we we had submitted the November submitt to district 2. He did did issue a review uh a conditional approval and we would follow that. It's also one of the
comments in the CME review. He uh wanted us to to uh fine-tune our firetruck access around the building. So, that's one of the items that we agreed to as well with addressing his review. We don't have a copy of that.
Yes, I do. It's It's a letter dated December 16th, 2024 from Scott Rous. And uh if you don't mind, and this this is for this location,
right? So Ian, just to be clear that even though we're discussing this tonight and we made this request to bifrocate, this plan was submitted as part of the most recent application. Is that correct? So that's why this report's from December and not today. Yeah. And this report is for the entire
phase one. So it's not and certainly as uh certainly we would submit this separately and get a separate approval from the Bureau of Fire Prevention. So it's not specific just to this building though. No, it's you still have to you still have to do
that. We will do that. Yes. Because I mean it's I don't see fire department connection. I don't see hydrants or anything like that. Well that you'll see a comment on the second but uh but that that we have a utility plan in the set. Uh again this
is only the site plan exhibit. The building itself, you said, is 56 ft to the roof? To the flat roof. The flat roof. How high of a power pit you're going to put on it? I I don't recall. I assume four or five feet, but I I don't recall. Obviously,
the parapits are to hide the mechanical. So, minimum with the top of the parapit 60 ft. I would say that's fair. Yes. And where's your E? Where are you proposing the EV parking? I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. Where do you propose what? The EV.
Thank you. It's one of my pets. We We proposed it in two locations. Actually, it's right here. Here uh against Pine Drive and here at the rear along the rear axis. That'd be good. Yeah.
Yeah. Not away from the building, but it gives easy access for a fire truck to get to it, too, because it's a nightmare. Yes. Very good. Yeah. They're on the main circulation. Uh the circular drive around the building. All right. So, you're just waiting on um
Mr. Rous to get back to you on this specific building for his recommendations, correct? But and you will follow whatever he says, of course. Yeah, because this is mostly that phase. Yes. You see, he mentions the air dome. Yeah. Well, it's more he's he's more
focused on the dome and general stuff. So, yes, but as long as you agree, we absolutely. Okay. Thank you, M. Peters, did we did you have something else we needed to cover on your report? That record's clear enough for a
resolution. So, I appreciate the additional testimony. If there are other comments or questions as it relates to their drainage or traffic, if there going to be other witnesses, we can speak to those as well. But I I think they've generalized their consent to the comments that
relate to phase 1B only the hotel in our February 27, 2025 report. Thank you. Thank you. And we do have Mr. Ray here. If the board needed to hear traffic testimony, um I think even in the uh CME traffic review, they indicate that the
generation and distribution can be handled as part of the bigger project because the hotel was already contemplated. But if you want to hear traffic testimony, he's here and ready to go. Mr. Martins, oh just just one quick question. um the
additional rooms instead of the conference room that was proposed. Will that have any kind of impact on the traffic? We'll have to have Mr. Ray come up and answer that. I can tell you it significantly reduce
the amount of parking we require, right? Because there's no parties and weddings or anything anymore in the bank, right? It's just, but he he'll respond to the traffic. So, I was actually going to ask the same thing. Um, how exactly was that going to affect the scope of the project? Not
specifically for traffic, but as a general um for this building. You obviously there's going to be a different type of usage for the a larger section of the building if you're eliminating that banquet hall. Um, as far as the restaurant goes, is that a
restaurant open to the public or is it primarily for the residents that are going to be staying there? It's open to the public. Okay. So, that I guess would have to be taken into consideration as well. You know, bring in more traffic. Obviously, if the was for the
right the restaurant's already approved in the current is already included in the current approved hotel. And uh when we calculate the parking we we calculate the parking for the restaurant as a separate use from the hotel.
So so the parking calculation assumes that nobody in the hotel is uh or nobody in the restaurant I'm sorry is is a staying at the hotel. It double counts it if you will or at least is conservative. So the the main change would be from the
banquet hall to the additional rooms. Correct. How would that affect the scope of the project? I mean, I guess it would, you know, affect the uh water and sewer usage as well. So, they probably should Well, that's that would be Jackson MUA approval.
Correct. I'm saying that would they should be notified as well. Oh, yes. Oh, they're an outside agency approval required. Correct. And we also have to although we've received Mammoth County Planning Board approval, we have to get an amended approval for this component because it's obviously different than what they originally, right? Again,
they've all approved the hotel, but not in this location and not with that slight modification. And I say Mammoth County Planning Board because they have jurisdiction over the road, but both counties review the plan, both Mammoth and Ocean. Now, just one more thing to clarify. Dr.
Hoffstein asked before about signage on the building. Um, you said you'll comply. What does that mean? What are you I just want to know for the record, what are you putting onto this building? Well, we don't have a final answer on that because we have to get the approval to
get them to sign the contract to tell us what they're going to put on the building. But what I've represented is that the signage will comply with the ordinance. The ordinance uh limits the area of a of a facade sign compared to the overall size of the building. So,
uh, we we'll comply with that and and if it does happen to exceed that, which I don't anticipate, that would require a separate variance application just for a facade signage, but we don't have that. We don't have that variance for the current approval. We didn't ask for it. We don't believe we need it and I don't believe we need it
here. Okay. So, my question really is also you have a the main thing is the hotel. Is there is it going to be considered multiple occupants uh tenants if you want it? Um, and therefore you'll be allowed to have multiple signs on the
building or is it going to be one sign? One sign. It's one It's one sign. Okay. So, the restaurants now having an additional side sign outside. I mean, I I would say it's a separate sign, but I guess it's possible. I've
seen hotels where they'll say Hilton Hotel and then, you know, Ian's Bar in small lettering underneath of it. You know, that's what they're going with. Well, that's what I'd like to do. I think I'd rather do that than what I'm doing today. But I was just just asking for, you know,
for zoning purposes for later compliance. All right. Uh that that just brings something. So currently you don't have any requirements or mandates from Hilton as far as the signage, right? No, we definitely want this size blah blah
blah. We want to be able to advertise. Nothing like that. No mandates from them. I have to deliver this approval to them so they can then get into those details with me. Okay. All right. Thanks. Yeah. I'm just sorry. I'm just in order
to prepare. I'm kind of going through um what the variance requests were my head and I know that you had provided some testimony, but I I'm not I want to make sure I got all of it. So obviously there's the height uh variance where
you're going to provide 133 instead of 210 right feet um up front setback yes and then the parking space setback of the eight spaces the closest point was what 13 13 ft where 20 ft is required
and then it tailor to meet I'm sorry can you say that again 13t is the closest point but then it tailor so that by the eighth space. It's at the 20 ft for the balance of the parkings. Okay. Yeah. I'm sorry. I wasn't sure if
you were saying. So, those are uh the only two variances, correct? Could you just justify um Sorry, here. Could you just justify the that variance that last one for the eight feet for those eight spots?
Meaning, if you're overparked, why do you want that variance? That's a good question. Uh we are over parked, but uh we just wanted to complete the row of parking. You know, the front row of parking is parallel
with the front line of the building. Um we just wanted to complete that row. Could I eliminate eight parking spaces? I could. I'm not asking one way. I'm just trying to If you want to justify it, go ahead. That's all. No, just trying to maintain conformity of the front parking. You know, it's how
it's conformed to the building. It's square. uh we have our basically from looking at the uh exhibit A2 from the point that my marker is on from this point to the right all these spaces are conforming and we're just speaking about
these eight right here and and the answer is could they be eliminated to eliminate that variance? Yes. Um Mr. Peters, do you have any input on that specific those eight parking spots? Would you think they would be recommended to
rather put landscaping there? I I never have any issue with people providing too many parking spaces even when it requires variance. Thank you. The the alternative is worse. If they need it, people park where they shouldn't. So to the extent if if the
board if board members have driven out of the site, it's really it's a two-lane exit. and the existing road that's out there now. If you think that 20 feet in in that location and
understand that the road isn't in the right of way. So 20t in from the right of way, whether they're 20 or 13 feet doesn't have anything to do with the sight distance in that area as you're trying to merge onto 537 east. So from a safety perspective, I take no exception.
If for some reason um the board had an inkling about landscaping and understand this isn't a residential use. We were trying to screen it from someone. This is a business use. We want to see it. Um I can't take any exception to the request for the reduction in the setback
because I don't think it has a tangible effect on the site safety. So again, so if the applicant wants to see that that's you know a justification, no problem. I was just asking for it. I mean, I very much understand your um
Well, Mr. Borton was responsible for the justification. Correct. I I You're giving it to him. So, I don't take any exception to his testimony as it related to the the request for relief. I think that having extra parking spaces on something that we don't see every day
is always a good idea less we listen at the end of the day we thought we had enough parking spaces down at the um at the ball fields and then different types of uses different um scheduling and all of a sudden there was there was almost a
problem with parking in that location. It's good if something's used enough that the parking lot is full. It's better if we stick a few extra parking spaces in it just in case it's successful. So, if you're asking me from a professional engineering or planning
perspective, I take no exception to the request for the relief from 20 to 13 ft so we can get eight more parking spaces. Thank you. Any other questions? We're gonna bring Mr. Ray up, too. I'm sorry.
We're going to bring Mr. Ray up for traffic to respond to the one question and the traffic report as well. We'll wait until after Mr. Ray goes then. All right. Is that okay, John? Well, should open up to see anybody has
any questions for Mr. He's he'll be here. So, you want to do them all at once, we can. Questions? It's up to you. I would say ask if there are any questions of Mr. Gordon's testimony that he gave right now. Let's hear them. Okay. Um I'm going to open this Mr. Ray.
We're going to open it to the public first if anybody wishes to come forward and comment on the testimony for Mr. Bordon. Seeing no one come forward, I'm going to go ahead and close that. Mr. Ray, Mr. Yes. Do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you'll give before this board will be the truth to nothing but the truth? I do. And uh could you state your name and credentials for the record? Uh John Ray Rea, a professional engineer with Mcdana and Ray Associates, traffic engineers.
Mr. Ray's qualifications have been accepted previously. Madam Chair, I assume it's okay. His qualifications. Yes. Yeah. He's been before this board. I think that's fine. We And Mr. Ray, you prepared a traffic report, multiple traffic reports, but
specifically a traffic report for this latest version of phase one of the project, which includes the hotel and many other uses. Correct. Um, so why don't you just generally describe how the traffic flows and then how site circulation would work. Well, just dealing with what's in front
of the board this evening for the Hilton Hotel. Uh the number of rooms uh Hilton has asked for an increase in the number of rooms from uh what was originally approved 134 to 180. So it's a 46 room
increase in the number of rooms that they want. However, that will be offset by the elimination of the banquet facility and I think that was the question. The banquet facility is going to be was going to be 9,000 square feet. And I'm not an architect and I thought
we had our architect here, but I know a 9,000 square foot banquet facility could hold several hundred seats. So, I think uh the the increase in the number of rooms will be more than offset traffic-wise by the elimination of a
banquet uh room that would hold several hundred people. So, I think overall it would be a positive with respect to traffic and the parking requirement goes down as a result of this change. And the parking requirement goes down. Yes. And then as far as site circulation, can you just briefly describe?
Well, we have full circulation around the building. Uh the parking, I believe, is well distributed on all four sides of the building. And just to uh reiterate what Mr. Peters said with respect to the eight parking spaces that need a setback
variance. I would also render an opinion that we'd rather have those parking spaces. They're up toward the front of the building. They're prime parking spaces. They will be used by patrons and they will have no impact on safety. They're outside the sight triangle. I don't think anybody would really know
that they're 13 or 20 ft from the rightway line. We'd rather have the parking spaces. They're prime parking spaces and they basically complete that front row of parking up along Manmouth Road. Um and then in terms of the professional reports, I know you've
reviewed both the CME report dated August 26 and then Mr. Peter's report from from I believe February. Um are there any traffic related or site circulation issues that you feel we can address to satisfy their comments?
No, as Mr. Bordon indicated, we can comply with Mr. Mer's report with respect to uh basically it comes down to pedestrian connectivity and making sure that there are safe well um documented or you know well signed well
crosswalks all of the sidewalks things of that nature we will walk work with Mr. Maser to make sure that we take care of the uh safe pedestrian connectivity. I I think that's really all we have of Mr. Ray unless the board members or professionals have questions.
Mr. Maser, I had uh no questions for Mr. Ray. I take no exception to the testimony he gave you this evening. Um if you'd like, I can run through uh my report if unless the board has questions for Mr. Ray.
Mr. Aury, Mr. Ray said you take no exception to Mr. Major's report. Do you agree to everything? Yes, we do. Yes. Okay. Just there's one one point I just wanted to clarify on. Um, one of the uh comments uh that I had was related to um
the phasing and the pedestrian connection with the hotel being up here now in um phase 1D. Uh the the con the pedestrian connection to the existing athletic fields and fa previously built for phase two I feel is pretty
important. Um so even though it would be a temporary of nature until some type of development does end up occurring on phase 1E um at a later date u that just to have him confirm that the intention would be that we can have a a solid pedestrian
connection off of what would be the Pine Avenue extension um especially considering the potential for truck traffic when the warehouses are occupied as well. Yeah and that's fine. I believe that there's side the connections already there but yes we will definitely work with your professionals um independent
of how it's developed in between here and the fields there'll be connectivity immediately I have no other comments thank you any questions or comments traffic
no that was good Mr. Uh just the markings for loading uh zones, are they going to be marked fire lanes? Yes, we're going to mark we're going to comply with the fire official with fire lanes. And then Mr. Bordon did indicate that we're going to add a loading zone
on the Route 537. So is that being marked loading zone? No parking. Yes, it'll be striped for loading. Is there no parking signs in general throughout? Um I'm not sure. No parking signs like in the aisles, the drive aisles. We could we can stripe the
aisles for fire zones. Just put put the letters on the aisles so that nobody parks in the aisles. We have plenty of parking. There's no need for people to park in the aisles. We can do that. It's more convenient to park it on. We'll stripe the aisles for fire zones. Thank you.
Any other questions or comments? Okay, I'm going to go ahead and open it to the public. Any questions regarding the traffic testimony you just heard from Mr. Wright? Seeing no one come forward, I'm going to go ahead and close public session. Mr. Alfuri, that concludes our presentation, Madam
Chair. So, we request that you open it up to the public for comment. Um, I think the whole public is ours, but just in case. There's one. There's always one. There's always one. Um Um, you heard Mr.
Alfiri say they have finished their testimony. I'm going to go ahead and open it to the public. Anybody wishing to come forward comments, questions, issues, please feel free to do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward, I'm going to go ahead and close public session. Uh, Mr. Joffrey, would you like to make a closing statement?
Yes, just very briefly again, thank you very much for the accommodation for the bifurcation. And I think that the goal for this project from day one was to get a hotel in this area. And um this if approval of this would get us much closer so that by next year there'll be
a hotel construction begun. And um we therefore request that the board grant the approvals as requested with all the conditions that we've stipulated board. It's up for us for it is up to us for discussion and a potential motion.
questions, comments, issues. Like to make a few comments. First, all the questions we had about landscaping, lighting, parking, waste removal, etc. were all answered satisfactorily. The uh
applicant agreed to Mr. report that everything uh including the circulation, pedestrian safety, truck deliveries, buying vehicle service, uh we'll have a dining area and
all those questions were answered. I'm sorry, could you speak directly to the high should I repeat everything? Okay. So, so basically all our questions were answered. When it comes to the uh
two variances, the uh extra parking spots as Mr. Peter called out is is always a premium and it's only for eight spots and it's certainly not going to interfere with running the place or traffic on site. Uh the uh height varian
should be granted. There's a structure that's 90 feet high right behind it. So, this is certainly within the realm of things that should be there. So basically all the negative
criteria that we've heard has been mitigated and there's no substantial detriment to the public good. And uh since 2016 or 17 we've been hearing about a hotel at this spot we've been
hearing about hotels in Jackson seems forever. Uh it's great that this uh could finally be happening uh to the town. So, I would uh think we should approve it, but let everybody else speak
before we make a motion. Mr. I think Dr. H covered it. I said there's really not much else to say. And just to to Very well said. Clarify what the conditions were. Um
there would be the height variance for 133 feet instead of 200 where 210 would be required. Well, just to that's the distance but the height is really 42 feet would be provide allowed and we're at 56 just so
thank you thank you I so so yes I apologize I think it's important to note that the that the relief is D6 height variance relief and there's subsequent C variance relief
correct and the site plan approval right well then the other question is is it D3 because It's a conditional use and we have that. Yes. As it relates to the hotel, it's the same thing. It's the same thing, right? Yes. It's it's from a conditional use.
Um and then also um the uh C variance for the uh parking space 13 at one place where 20 is required. Um the statements were made that uh there signage will
comply with the ordinance and that there was also agreement with the technical uh comments in the experts the board's experts reports. Um and uh we're that the uh aisles will be
striped as fire uh lanes and that uh there will be work for a pedestrian connection to the remainder of the site as appropriate. And landscaping would also be provided
as uh shown on the application and in compliance with working with the professionals and a loading zone. We're going to provide loading zone. We're going to add a loading zone. Yes. And add a loading zone. So be you would be striping for fire lanes,
marking loading zones. Um And there was also specifically the representation that the aisles, the drive aisles would be striped for a fire. And not to interrupt you, but also the points that Mr. Trimmer brought up about the fire report. Yes. You would meet all
the requirements that they stipulated. Yes. Any any and all recommendations of the fire official. Right. We'll get an updated report and comply with all of his comments. what I said before and what just stated, I would make a motion to approve.
I would second all of us. Um, all that being said, Kathleen, roll call, please. Yes. Mr. Martins, yes. Mr. Mr. Rosal. Yes. M Mr. Tremor.
Yes. Miss Kusano. Yes. Dr. Hoffstein. Yes. Miss Bradley. Yes. Thank you. Thank you again for the courtesy of allowing us to go first and forward. Now what? All right. Well,
so of course you have the remainder of your application on uh the other phases. Um I will say that as um you know you can provide additional testimony if you want as a courtesy of
the new board members Miss has not had the opportunity to view the uh videos of the prior uh hearings on those other aspects of the application yet having been recently appointed. Um so I don't know that we
could come to a vote correct on anything tonight. So, if you want to put forward any testimony on these other matters or if you want to uh will we be considering all of them simultaneously, the the remaining
Well, I think um if if you allow us, we could have Mr. Bordon at least just give you the history of the zoning of the site and then we could stop. Since you can't vote, um, we're going to need you to rule on density at some point and you can't even rule on it until the members are qualified to I think that that the history of site
which would have been done before would probably be useful uh for the board members and all the more useful if uh Mr. Bordon will speak into the microphone. Yeah. So, so we'll do the history and then we'll stop and then we'll deal with the de density at whenever the next
meeting is. We could act on that. Thank you. Is that okay? We're in agreement on that procedure. Ian, I don't know if you need to res. It's still part of the application proper, but what however you want to handle swearing in and qualifying.
Just for the record, also for the new board members. So, as we talked about heading into the bifurcation, there's an application on this overall phase one. Um, so the bifurcation allowed for the consideration of the phase D of phase
one, which seems like there be should be a better way to describe it, but that's how it's described on the hotel, which was what just the vote was on. So, there's still pending an application on the other proposed uses in phase one. um one of which is residential and as
you've heard alluded to um there is a um ongoing discussion um and perhaps different positions regarding the density calculation for the residential but that phase one also includes um
other uh sites as well. I was believe it was medical offices originally and the air drrome. Um so I think and Mr. Alfier will correct me if I'm wrong that what the intention now is for Mr. Bordon to
provide some background on the overall development of the site. Um and by the site it would probably be the additional phases as well. So it's not just phase one, there's was phase two, there's phase three and four, and then probably
hone in on phase one to some degree. So that the idea is that when we actually get to discussing the density and um residential and other uses for phase one besides the hotel that you'll have some background that will hopefully
uh make it easier to consider the matter fairly and in context. Thank you. So Ian, um do you need an exhibit to start this? Yeah, Anthony. Uh, not the one label architecture. It should be u
I think it might say site plan, but you could pull that up. The first one I believe is there we go. That's it. So, let's just identify each one as we go. Sure. Okay. So, history of the project.
This is exhibit U A3. This was originally introduced back in May or whenever we first met on this. Uh, actually the date's up there. March. March five.
Oh, sorry. I never have that problem. I I think it's for 38 years of my wife saying, "Why do you why do you talk so loud?" Honestly, I think your board members know I'm deaf in one ear. So, a lot of times I'm being loud. I don't know I'm being loud. So, I try to throttle
myself. But this is one of the very very few times in my life where I've been told to annunciate more. So, uh I don't have an internal sound filter. U so we have uh exhibit A3-1 which is an aerial of the property before any construction
occurred and it shows all the various parcels that were part of the uh uh project u ultimately. And what I'm going to do is talk you through sequentially. You'll see overlaid on this aerial the same aerial. You'll see different maps,
black and white maps that are going to build the story on how this project has has come to be. But before I start with that, I'd like to explain briefly that this this property had a very particular
place in the 2009 master plan because the 2009 master plan, the prime primary objective was to increase commercial opportunities and and and and job opportunities in Jackson Township. Jackson Township
uh geographically does not enjoy state highways like Howell does on Route 9 or Tom's River on Route 37 or Manchester on Route 37 and 70. So, um Jackson Township historically has been struggling to develop commercial uses
and and desirable uses on their county road system that they have. Obviously, most of the county roads are are rural. you do have county line road and and and commodore to some respect and and veterans to some respect, but the the master plan uh particularly uh called
out this this area between here you have Mammoth Road to the to the north. Again, north is is to the top right is the last exhibit. You have Mammoth Road, same orientation, Mammoth Road along the top 195 to the right to the left here. What
you what I'm pointing at is the parking area of Hurricane Harbor. So we have Six Flags is our neighbor to the to the south and um obviously along Mammoth Road you have some commercial development in Milstone with the Waw Wa and McDonald's and Burger King etc. But
the master plan that long ago recognized the unique location of this property, but this whole property and this is before my client or there was any development application pending on this project, but they recognize the unique location of this project as between Six Flags and 195. So this this was the
crown jewel as if you were in my opinion of the potential com mixeduse or commercial development in uh in Jackson. So, so where this thing where this adventure crossing project started is is the next exhibit Anthony A32.
Uh in understanding that these properties were owned by different people, uh I think it is relevant to discuss that the properties that I'm pointing to to the right, what you're seeing here is the original phase one and that is what's called lot two. Uh
the these lots to the right which are lots three, four, five, six, 19 and 20 were owned by Six Flags and lot one to the uh south was owned lot one was owned by the Vincea family. So, my client uh
the Cardelli and Jackson Crossing Associates purchased lot two, which is owned by uh a family family trust out of North Jersey. And uh we we came to the uh zoning board for an
approval in 2017 and 2018 and and that approval included the aird dome, which I'm pointing to, the athletic fields. So those were the foundations of this project was the air recreational opportunities aird dome and u um athletic fields and
the hotel. The hotel that we just discussed a moment ago was originally approved in 2017 in this location. We had two hotels here at that time. Um but recognized that the opportunities to
do this in in a economically feasible fashion, marketing etc was obviously limited by the limited frontage on Mammoth Road. This part of the property that's all white is is freshwater to wetlands. That's why you have the development constrained to this narrow throat. So the frontage uh was very
narrow. uh you were hidden uh the the old jug handle at Pine Drive which is here and and was hidden by these trees that that remained on the Six Flags property. So my client recognized the need to try to expand this to encompass all these additional properties to make
this the true commercial destination and mixeduse destination envisioned by the master plan. So as a result he he did that and then we go to exhibit A3-3. So now once under contract with both the Vinsara family and the uh and the Six
Flags folks, we developed a master plan for development of the property. At the time the property and it remains in the highway commercial zone and the highway commercial zone uh basically limits uses to retail, commercial, office,
restaurant. Um so uh the idea behind the general development plan if the board members are not familiar with that that's a a regional planning document normally done at the planning board level uh uh to introduce u various uses
that may or may not be permitted by the ordinance basically to write a master plan ourselves for the property of what we think would be good ideas. So, so here you have uh lot two you recall is in the center. So that remained as it was approved already with the aird dome
and the fields hotels and large commercial and then we added some apartments. We had we added this is where the mixeduse concept uh began. Um and uh we have apartments over uh
closer to Primeville Road which is off to the right here on on the Six Flags property as well as on the Vinsara property adjacent to Six Flags. We have some recreational. We actually had a cricket field here in the back of the Vinsera uh property and some other u
commercial uses as well as you see the pad building starting to form along Mammoth Road. Sorry, did you say cricket? Cricket. Okay. There's a huge demand uh for cricket. Still is huge demand.
Commercializing these things is off is very difficult though. But um one one thing my client is not lacking is ideas and I appreciate that. I think everybody should. Um so this uh uh this general development
plan was approved by the uh uh by the zoning board in 2019. And the reason it was it was uh approved by the zoning board and not the planning board was because we had I I kind of skipped over we had received the D6 height variance for the aird dome. So that that that
that that began the uh what what we now have as the jurisdiction of this project with the zoning board. So uh because of that they retain jurisdiction because this was already approved in phase one and lot two. So we had the GDP approved by the zoning board in 2019.
uh and uh included with this were 500 apartments between the two sides that I mentioned as well as uh many uh uh commercial uses and recreational uh subsequent to that uh the few land
owners on Anderson Road appealed that approval. They were not happy with some of this development being located close to uh Anderson Road. uh particularly this partic this site right here was a Top Golf. Uh so that was particularly
offensive to them. They felt it was too close and with the with the high fencing and and whatnot, they felt it was uh so they they appealed that and then uh there were settlement uh discussions held with their attorney.
Uh and as a result of that settlement uh discussion we were required to remove these properties lots 56 19 and 20 uh from the GDP. So that then leads us to uh exhibit A3-4
Anthony. And you'll see here these are lots 56 19 and 20. You'll see that there's no development proposed here because of that settlement agreement. So we we condensed the GDP onto lots 2, three, four. We we kept the two Six Flags
properties in the front as well as lot one. The Cricut disappeared replaced by the apartments from uh from the Six Flags property. So the residential yield stayed the same but uh and that was approved by the board. And just to be
clear, when we agreed to remove that um eastern or northern section from the GDP, we didn't agree that we would never Sorry, we doing the history now or are we going back into the density issue? No, no, no. It has nothing to do with density. I just want to just make it clear that we did not agree not to
develop the property. We just pulled it out of the GDP and we said if we ever develop it, we'd have to come back for site plan and or variance approval. I just didn't want it to be implied that we wouldn't touch the property. And that's a good point and that is absolutely correct. We did not, you know, it was just a temporary pause on
this until we got a new GDP approved and figured out what to do with the rest of the property. So, this this GDP that was this GDP on a exhibit A3-4 was approved in 2020. Uh but at that point in time and the pause that I mentioned about trying to
figure out how best to include lots 5, six, 19 and 20 uh that's where the discussion of a overlay lenure zone uh came into be. So as a result of that
in February 2020 the township committee adopted ordinance uh 20 244-57.2 two, which is the highway commercial mixuse zone. Um, the highway commercial mixuse zone did not
did not uh is not labeled for specific lots and blocks, but there were and and I just want to touch on this, but you'll hear more about this when we get into the the planning and testimony in the next meeting. But it's important to understand that the highway commercial
mixu zone the concept was that they didn't want the zone to be applicable to any single lot. The idea was again to go back to this 2009 master plan of creating a commercial mixeduse destination was they
wanted it to be planned regionally and not on a spot lot by spot lot and how so so for that reason the ordinance included tracked area requirements that that uh encompass area width and depth
that in order to qualify to be considered a HCMU overlay project conforming HCMU overlay project, you had to comply with those tracked requirements. And now, that's all I'll say on that, but we'll we'll we'll revisit that at the next hearing.
Um, and then we moved into uh the next A3-5. Uh, because now that the HCMU zone is is is was in effect, one of the permitted uses in the HCMU zone were warehouses. So we
obtained a a u site plan approval in 20 I believe it was for two warehouse buildings and those are constructed today. Uh those warehouses do not require any variances. Um
so then we the next stop we made was uh exhibit A3-6. Anthony, can I ask you just um if you may just to stop on the warehouses for a little bit? I I just want some clarification. So, the warehouses are already built. My
understanding is you've sold the warehouses are sold. Yes, they're owned by a different party now. They were sold and and so the land was sold and developed by some to whoever bought it. That's where I was going. So, the whole land building, the whole thing. Yes. No longer yours. Okay. Thank you.
So, so after the warehouses were were approved in what we called phase two, we went back and and revisited phase one, which now includes lots three and four with those pad buildings up front. Um, and we we modified this this approval,
this phase one approval, and there can say that again for me, please. we we we amended phase one then and I'm I'm doing this chronologically so so the so in uh there is some overlaps but in 2019 and 2021 we amended
phase one and what you see here is the uh I believe the 2021 uh approval which again you see the fundamental
uh basic underpinnings of the project remaining. You have the athletic fields in the back. You have the aird dome here. You have the uh u the commercial pads in the front which are now constructed. Of course, the 7-Eleven, Popeye's, Taco Bell, and the mixeduse
building with Taco Bell and and others. Um Starbucks can't be Starbucks. as well as the medical that we uh we had one of the uses that was very desirable of the site was a medical research. So that that's the medical research in here
between the aird dome and the uh and the aird dome and then this this these this amended approval also introduced something that we retained in the project today which is a parking structure. This is a parking garage
here. Uh so that uh actually is here as well. Uh the research was in front of the garage, but uh we have a parking garage um that and that required a separate D1 variance because a parking garage was not listed as a permitted use
in the HCMU zone. It's not listed in any zone in Jackson. It's also important to recognize I think I have this in my notes and it is important to recognize that this project has done a lot of substantial public benefits because we have uh recall in
that earlier aerial you had a small eyebrow of a jug handle with Pine Drive and uh that became a very much of a difficult issue to deal with as Mr. Already mentioned earlier in the meeting, we have a very unique situation
here with the county line being Mammoth Road. Uh obviously we're in Ocean County, but but under an agreement with Ocean County. Mammoth County uh manages the road. They do the engineering. They do the maintenance. So that's why the comment was made that any
approval we get in the venture crossing, we have to go to Mammoth County as well. And to further complicate things, the jug handle was controlled by the state, the NJ dot. So we had to go through an elaborate process to vacate that little jug handle and build this new jug handle
that Ian will point out in a moment. Correct. You see the remnants of the old jug handle here with this dark line. But we we developed the design to reroute the jug handle so that it could serve the benefit of accessing these commercial pads creating those raidables for the town as well as providing an
extended throat and better access to the intersection. We also did substantial amount of work here at what we call the reversing jug handle. Uh before the project started, uh Route 537 was widened and divided. So that that took
away what used to be left turns for example into the Vinsera property and created these jug handles. Um so uh that that was uh very and all those improvements have been constructed. uh all the the jug handle, the traffic signals, the mama throat
improvements, the reversing jug handle improvements, and traffic signal improvements have all been constructed. So that is exhibit A3-6. Now we move to exhibit A3-7, which is where we start to now expand our site
planning to lot one. Uh, and here we have what we called phase three, which is the southern part of of lot one, which was a mixeduse commercial and residential um project with 4 481 apartments and
commercial buildings in a mixeduse uh design. And then we we continue on and that was in 2021. And then we continue with the nest exhibit A3-8. um which is uh uh phase four which is
the back of the Vincerara farm uh which was approved by the zoning board in 2022 for commercial uses containing a water park hotel and an indoor water park. This this rear part of phase 4 has
always been had always been a challenge because obviously it's it's not visible from the highway. That's a lot of the environmental constraints have what driven a lot of the difficulties in the project and the complexity of development land uses because of the lack of access or or visibility more
importantly from from Mammoth Road um and and from 195. So that that's where the appro and that was approved in 2022. Uh I don't have an exhibit because I prepared these exhibits back in March, but uh subsequently in I guess it was
just a month or two ago. Uh and I'll update this for the next hearing. We now have we've now vacated the phase three and four approvals and the board knows at least the members who were here that we have obtained approval for the uh town houses in phase three and four. 510
town houses in phase three and four. And that's the unedited edited no non-editorial presentation of the zoning history without debating density or numbers or anything else. And if you don't mind, Anthony, we'll just finish up with A4 because this is
simply an aerial. This is March, but it's substantially the same. This is an of what the site looks like uh today. Is there next one anything? Should be So here here you have uh what's what's existing. You have the phase one, the
aird dome, the athletic fields, those pads up in the front uh parking at the aird dome across the street. Uh that's actually that's some of the pedestrian interconnectivity that's already been constructed between these front pads and the uh athletic fields. the warehouses
in phase two and just just see phase three. Fa construction had started on phase three and four uh before we came back to the board to amend the approval for townous and the hotel you approved is where phase one words are today. That's that's earlier. It was approved right
here and now it's been approved for here. I'm going to take advantage that you talked about the hotel. I forgot to ask the lease. Uh how long is it for? How many years? I have no idea. hasn't been signed. I'm not We don't touch those. So,
I don't I don't get involved in that. Okay. I do engineering. My client does business. I'm sure it's I'm sure it's a long time. You could imagine that. Yeah. For that kind of investment should be a long time. And a lot, as you could
see, a lot of college tuitions were paid as a result of all these plan changes that were made over the years. Count me in. And so that's it. I I don't know if you want to stop there and leave questions for later. When we do come back,
whenever we do, we'll show you what was approved in phases three and four, so you have the final piece of the zoning puzzle. Um, but otherwise, I think that gives you the history of how we got to today. Yeah, thank you. I I I uh think that
that was probably helpful. I don't know if there are uh any questions regarding the history. We we I will ask questions at the next hearing to see if everybody was paying attention. We'll have a we'll have a test possibly. Mr. Bordon, you seem to uh misunderstand
the way the questions flow. Misunderstand the roles. I was actually going to ask you to repeat the whole thing, but I don't want to get killed. I was going to ask you will you provide updated slides with the that have been
yes given since yeah because we had prepared this this testimony was given in March. So the members who were here in March had the pleasure of hearing it for the second time. But thank you for your patience. Madam Chair, just so the board members know, the the report that we issued
February 27, 2025, from the bottom of page two to the top of page five is our written history, which coincides with the testimony that Mr. Bordon gave this evening. So, while it's not as
descriptive because there's not maps attached, what we tried to do was also in um in dated order, explain to the board where they were with which project because there were points in time where
they were here for use variance applications. Then after the zone change, there were planning board applications. So, sometimes board members say, "Well, I don't think the board ever saw this." Well, it may have been a conforming use went to the planning board. So, we have a little sort of one paragraph per approval of
the project um up until this year actually within the report. It ain't great reading, but uh Mr. Bordon and I spent some time making sure the information was accurate before it was issued. Yeah, that that's a very nice summary of
the history of the project. I Yeah, just Any other questions or anything? I know it was a lot to take in any other questions. Any other comments? So, do we need to find a date for them
to return again? I think Mr. likes it. possibly October 29th otherwise um really November 19th October 29th not poss possibly October um 29th we
currently have three applications on I wouldn't recommend the 29th honestly they kind of look kind of looks a little busy I I don't yeah say October November 19th is the lead still I just I don't know if I'm the only one who that's a concern.
I'm sorry, Jean. It's the League of Municipalities. Yeah. All right. So, the problem with October, let's go back. Okay. October 29th, the issue is right now currently we have seven members. I don't know where we'll be in seven weeks.
But we know for sure that Dr. will be here on October 29th. So, we may want to keep that in mind. That's first, but November 19th is also the the League of Municipalities. And October
October 29th, there's already three applications on. Correct. Correct. And they do kind of seem a little bit in depth. They're not easy bulks. So our choice is to take that date and see what happens or what's the and then
the the 19th of November the league is on so we can't do that. So what else is there? I did skip November 5th. Sorry it's not in order. Uh we have two applications on for the 5th. Miss Bradley,
I'm sorry. They are okay. I just want to make sure it wasn't me. Sorry. One meeting in November. I You read my mind. So, November 5th, we have two preliminary and final site plan and then
a use variance. If you want to put it on for number three. And and and honestly, I mean, there are many many times where it could be somebody else, but I feel like next time for this. I I should be here and I'm sorry I I can't do it that night. You can't make the fifth, Gene? No, no,
no, no. I can make the fifth. Oh, so can could we take November 5th and hopefully we'll get reached. Um things drop off and things happen, if you don't mind. Low expectations s November 5th. Just don't put a fourth thing on between
now and then, please. Yeah, they'll be after you. I'll be all right. Who cares? put any as many as you want. So, we'll move this to November. So, yeah. So, we'd request and will Dr. Hawkstein be here? November 5th. He's still going to be on the boardth.
Oh, okay. Fine. While we're here, let me ask anybody else. Thank you. So, we'd request that the announcement be made so we don't have to read, please. Yes. and I request that you uh extension granted. Thank you.
And therefore, no further notice required for November 5th. Thank you so much. We'll see you in November. Motion to motion. All right. All in favor?