going to be for the council. >> I'm assuming based on the number it's only going to be for the council. >> Oh, okay. Left you something to sign. >> No, I figured I'd share >> that came from Gina. Yes.
>> Whoa. New microphone. Give him a >> Anony's not quite sure what they're for. I couldn't even get it to turn on. So, I'm assuming we're not using them yet. But >> they're going to give us >> right here.
>> I can see it. Be so nice. >> Guys, we'll be >> pretty cool. >> We're going to be like up to date. >> You know those ones that are itty bitty that we have a hard time seeing? >> What's the question? Are you be able to zoom in on these?
>> I can't see it. It's so little. I can't see it. He's like, "That doesn't make any sense." I could look at it. He's like, "Who do you think can read that?" >> Well, you know, when I was younger, I love to write te >> like and people would always tell me
like old people to read what you wrote. >> I don't want to hear that though. I'm the same way. guys to write it int. >> It looks so neat. >> Exactly. >> It looks so neat and boring. >> Wow. This is This is
>> I'm glad you said that. >> That is so cool. What was >> William Street? >> Yeah. Good morning. >> We are like I never left. Oh, what is this?
>> Oh my goodness. >> Oh, that's probably >> that's probably the best. I was trying to get out of work. >> I was thinking of buying you um >> Oh, nice. >> said Mr. Bi would say no. Look at this.
I don't know what that >> Oh, I love that company. >> Oh, you got that? Yeah. >> I like that one. You take notes. >> That's so funny.
Oh my gosh. Oh, Lynn, that's really admirable. >> Really? >> That is perfect. >> Were you a little tired? Basically, >> that's all I >> appreciate you saying that. You've been around this stuff for a long time and
you know how it is. >> I can't see. >> Hello, low. >> We have functioning mics too. new microphones and we will they're ordering they ordered three more. We will have these so >> wait that that's just too fancy.
>> This is from Gina I'll be able to see and not be going like you guys looking at me. >> I think it was really from me. >> No, no, no. I thought maybe I don't know the township or something. >> I parked next to your $400,000 car again.
I wear contacts that put these magnifying things on >> and it's like I can start a fire with crazy. >> Oh, sure. Mine is about 10 to 15. >> Where can we find it?
>> Yeah, it's they're they're expensive. It's this Dan Law Company. >> I'll see. I definitely have one. I think22. >> That's great. >> I was I'm due for 2026 and then I'll pass this along to somebody. >> It's always
>> Yeah. No, they're great. And John Dill, who does it now, is like one of the smartest lawyers I know. I think it's G CG my phone every every ordinance. All right, I'm ready.
>> We're going to call this meeting to order. Please stand for the pledge of 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. >> Oh, this meeting complies with the open public meetings act. Notice of this meeting been published in the municipal bulletin board and in the applicable newspapers. >> Roll call, please. Kathleen. >> Mr. Heyman, >> here.
>> Mr. Martins, >> here. Miss Rosal >> here. >> Mr. Tremor >> here. >> Mr. Seleia >> here. >> Dr. Hoffstein >> here. >> Miss Bradley >> here. >> You have any resolutions this evening? >> We do not. >> Okay.
>> I do have meeting minutes from the 12325 meeting. I need a motion and a second, please. >> Motion a minute. Approve. >> Motion a second. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal,
>> yes. >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia, >> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, >> yes. >> Miss Bradley, >> yes. >> I also have vouchers for this evening's meeting for the recording secretary for Jackson Township in the amount of $175.
I need a motion, a second to approve payment of the voucher, please. >> Second. >> Have a motion to second. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman. >> Yes. Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia, >> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein,
>> yes. >> Miss Bradley, >> yes. >> We have any announcements this evening, Mr. Kenny? >> Yes, we do. Number four on the agenda. Zysr LLC
um is being adjourned to the February 4th meeting. No additional notice required. and swear in our professionals. >> You swear or affirm that the testimony you will give before 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 Roire, board engineer. >> Ashton Jones, board planner, filling in for Ernie Peters. Who are you? What's going on? >> Gina Tubalo, assistant zoning officer.
any matters for discussion this evening? >> Yes, I have have one item that I would like to discuss um or maybe just get help on. Um so I I get these emails um pushed to me which is great um because
when I go to our website, you know, I log in and you tell them who I am. Um but um the body of first of all the part that matters is stuck in the middle there in the body of
>> I'm sorry Mr. Which email are you referring to? >> Okay. So, so it's a email that I get from the n the the civic plus.com zone and it says zoning board civic plus.com. >> That means that he is signed up for the township email uh through the township
email system. They push out notifications of the different meetings, planning, town council, zoning, and all the different meetings. >> Okay. Sorry, I just wanted to myself. >> Okay. Yeah. And the reason I bring that up is because I I think push is great, right? so that the residents don't have to go look or be how do they get
notified that something has changed because this doesn't just tell me that there's a it always tells me there's a new one there was a change if Dawn changes it I I I find out about it and it's great right but um the key part is right in the middle
of a whole bunch of legal stuff um and it says please click on the link below there's no link below there's a link that follows okay fine but if if you follow it and you click on it, you get nowhere. You get an error. Um, so I
think similar to our agenda, how do I get this fixed? Because I think it's to me I think it's a big thing that we hear complaints every once in a while that hey, you guys do these things and you don't notify us and we don't know so the public is not here. Um, I just wanted to
bring that up. >> Yeah. I mean, my suggestion would be that you email your complaint to the mayor. >> The mayor. Okay. >> Yes. Because it would be something with it's either it or it's something in the
agreement with Civic Plus itself, >> right? >> So, I think that's probably a good place to start. >> Okay. Okay. >> And you >> Yeah. Yeah. Because it's one of those that say, "Don't reply to this one because nobody's >> Yeah. >> So, what do I do?" >> Uh, yeah. I would take it take anam one
that you get that has is an example of what you object to and forward it to the mayor and say you know this is my concern. Is there a way to change the structure or to highlight you know y just bolding it or something to make
sure that people are paying attention to the important >> yeah the bolding and the highlight that's all that's required and then the link has to work. Yeah. Okay. Um, yeah, that's all I had >> and no administrative approvals for this evening. So, we're going to move on to
applicant number one, Carlen and Dominic Lombardi, variance 3544, 368 Leville Road. Mr. Mrs. Lombardi, you can come forward to the microphone, please. Well, I'm going to swear you in because since you're representing yourselves,
you're going to be making your argument, but also essentially giving testimony. So, I'd ask that you raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you will give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> And if you could state your names for the record.
>> Carlen Lombardi. >> Dominic. >> One second. We should have told you, warned you, they're improving the acoustics in this room, but you're going to need to speak very straight into it. And if you have to yell, please do so. >> Carlen Lombardi. >> Dominic Lombardi.
>> Okay. Yes. And and again, as the chair said, I know it's awkward, but the more you could speak in the microphone and speak loudly, the better chance there is that we're not going to say, "I'm sorry. Could you repeat that?" >> Okay.
Okay. So then you just start to explain to the board what it is you're asking for. >> I do. Right. >> Mike. >> Yeah. >> When I'm looking to build a pole barn to store an antique truck. Uh the setbacks
we didn't meet because I'm a little shy of an acre. Uh, so I'm asking to move the building 22 feet from the side rather than 50. And we're going to move there's currently a I think it's a 10 by 12 shed
there. We want to move that to the opposite side. And that's going to be 15 feet off the opposite side. >> And why do you uh what do you use the shed for? It's going to be to store an antique truck.
>> No, that's No, the the whole barn will be to um we only have a onecar garage on our home. So, um with him having a vehicle, I have a vehicle and then we have the antique truck. Um we need a place to put the snowblower, the lawnmowers, and then this antique truck
um in that separate pole barn. Um, did you receive the reviews from the mun from the board's planner and engineer? >> Did I receive what I don't I'm not sure I understand. >> The the >> the initial um there were the reports from Morgan
Municipal which is the board engineers and Remington Vernick which is the board planner. >> Would that have come to my email because I don't recall seeing anything. Yes, that that would have >> and and that was sent when would that have been sent?
>> Um the dates are uh November uh really December 3rd, let's say for um Morgan Municipal and December 8th for Remington and Vernick. >> No. And what if I can ask you what does that mean? What did that say? Because I don't know what it is.
>> Okay. So, I'm not going to tell tell you what they say. Not because I'm trying to be tricky, but because they're here. Oh, sorry. >> And uh so they'll be able to and the reason I ask is they had asked some questions and had some concerns. So, >> okay.
>> I this is kind of the way it works usually. You say what you need to say, then the board has an opportunity to ask you questions. The professionals have an opportunity to ask questions. The public can ask questions if uh they want and and then uh the board will cons.
>> Okay. Understood. Omar. >> Good evening, Mr. Mrs. Lombardi. I'm the board engineer and I've reviewed all your application documents. I have a few questions that we could go through. >> So, uh, for the record, the subject
property is 368 Leville Road, block 10001, lot 14. It's located in the R3 residential zone, one unit for 3 acres. Uh the property is currently on 0.92 acres and developed with a single family
dwelling rear deck above ground pool deck and shed. There is no above ground pool that was taken down. >> Thank you. >> So I believe you uh accurately stated the variance relief that you're being sought and I'll leave that up to the
board planner to confirm. According to the state's online database, it appears there's wetlands on the rear of the property. When that situation occurs, we uh
require the wetlands to be verified to confirm whether the developments that you're proposing are appropriate so close to the wetlands. So that involves you essentially hiring a uh a scientist who would go out and flag
the wetlands and then that gets submitted to the state for confirmation. So my recommendation would be uh should the board approve your application tonight, my recommendation would be that uh you as the applicant would be
required to obtain that wetlands verification as a condition of approval and that can be done later. So are you agreeable to that? >> Understood. Would that have been um in the past when they got the permit for
the pool or they got the permit to put the shed in the back which is where we're building this pole barn. Would that have been done at that time the prior resident? >> It it's possible there could be some information on file. So you could always check with the town's records >> and start. It's a good place to start.
>> Sure. >> So that was the first concern. Um the survey is uh rather outdated. Can you confirm that everything shown on the survey with the exception of the pool is accurately shown on there on the survey
that you provided? >> Pretty much. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Have there been any any other improvements added that aren't shown on the plan? >> No, that's on there. >> That's what I'm saying. It's shown on there. It's okay. Yes, the the previous
um owners had an addition put on and that's shown on there. >> Thank you. >> We we just purchased this home in >> May. >> May. >> Okay. >> Do you have any issues with any storm water grade uh storm water runoff or flooding on the property?
>> No. >> Okay. Um, so you sketched on top of the survey where you're proposing the shed and the pole barn. Um, can you just confirm is that you guys who who did actually sketch on the survey?
>> Yes. >> Okay. Because that's what that's what we would follow moving forward. We just want to put that on the record. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Omire. >> Yes. Um, from the sketch and the survey,
are you able to tell the board how far from the lines, the property lines the proposed structures are? >> So, they provide a dimension from the property line. It's it's not drawn to scale, but I believe the board could
rely on the dimensions written on the on top of the survey. They're showing the shed 15 feet off the the left property line and 22 feet off the right property line for the pole barn or 50 feet is required for the pole barn if it's used
as a garage. Um, and can you just confirm the height of the proposed pole barn? I I believe you did submit drawings. >> Yes. >> Should be on the plan. >> I'll find it.
That's it right here. >> Yeah. >> It It appears it's indicated as 13 ft. Does that sound correct? >> Yes. Cuz it's a 9 ft wall. So I think with the with the truss it should be 13t high.
>> So that's a height of 13 feet for the pole bar. >> To total height from the floor to the peak. >> Okay. And then the appearance of the proposed poleb barn. Does it match in any type of way such as material or color or anything else to the rig to the house?
>> It matches. We have it matched to the house, the shed outside. So, it all it all looks the same. >> It's the house and the shed are two different colors, but it's the closest. >> Yeah, it's gray like the existing shed that's there.
Plus uh on the the wetland piece that the last 100 feet of the property is untouched. That's all natural. The fenced in yard is 250 ft from the road. So the back part we don't do anything with. >> So you'll notice on the on on what you
have the fence is not the property line in the back that extends way beyond that piece. >> Yeah. And regarding the wetlands topic, my recommendation would be if the board is comfortable approving it, then they should do so. And if by chance the D
does not allow it due to the closeness of the wetlands, that would just be the end of it. Uh, and lastly, can you just describe, you mentioned there's a truck um being proposed to be stored. Is it for residential use only? It's just for your hobby or it's not for
>> Yes, it's a hobby. >> Okay. What type of truck is it? It's a 51 Ford. >> Sounds good. That's all I have. Thank you. >> Any questions from the board? >> Have you >> Have you talked to the neighbors about it? No issues?
>> Yes. >> I've talked to a few of our neighbors that are next to us. Um because the building um would be set towards the back of the yard. It's not to the side of anyone's building that they could look out their side windows and see it. It's not obstructing anything from
there. It's to the back. I Our neighbor directly next to us looking at our house to the left is perfectly fine with that. Two houses down from us, we spoke with them. Actually, the house next to us and the house next to that, they're absolutely fine with it. >> I can confirm that uh notice was
properly given. >> Is there any type of fencing in the area, too? >> We have our yard is fenced in. The entire yard's fenced in. chain link. >> Chain link. >> Okay. No, but listen, I I build cars myself. I get it. I get what you're
doing. I just, you know, I I know the process. I just wanted to make sure. But, uh, Very good. Thank you. >> Any other questions, Mr. Heyman? Oh, yeah. Sorry. >> Um, is there going to be any plumbing or electric in this polebar?
>> No plumbing. Electric is going to be possibly way down the road. Right now it's just going to be solid storage. >> Okay. And the type of work that's being done on the vehicle. Um is that going to you know cause disturbance like noise to the neighbors? Um
>> it's really no work because the truck is completed. It's just a a home for the truck rather than be outside. Right. Right. Currently I'm renting a storage unit. I'd rather have it home. >> Absolutely. >> And the truck is really the truck is really for our enjoyment. We take it to
shows. It's something we do as a hobby. So, um, at this stage in our life, we don't build them. We don't we just maintain them. So, it's it's not anything that would be um noisy to the neighbors. >> Got it. And I think I saw in the planners report something about that
there wasn't any depiction of any kind of their pavement or gravel driveway. It's just going to be on the lawn. Actually, I'm going to just leave the grass. Leave grass in it because it's only going to come in and out periodically. It's not
going to be driven all the time back there. So, if it gets to where it creates mud or something, then maybe I'll have to approach that, but I don't see that happening. >> Got it. Thank you. Uh, for the engineer, is there any issue with um drainage the
size of this pullbar? Um it's it's a rather large lot. The applicant has provided testimony that there is currently no drainage issues on the lot. Um so I don't feel that any additional
uh measures would be necessary unless the board feels uh perhaps some type of like stormwater dry well could be required just to help improve storm water and make sure there's no impact to the neighbors. It would essentially be tying the roof gutters into a like a
French drain. Um something like that. >> No concern. Um not concerned. >> I don't have a concern. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Question. >> Questions or comments? >> Yeah, just two two quick ones. Um so for
the record, this is a show truck, right? Um, I was surprised because originally you called it the truck. Like, uh, oh, she doesn't want that thing in there. >> I do. I love that. >> Oh, you love the truck. Okay, that's good. That's good. >> Keeps him happy, then I'm happy. So, I love the truck.
>> I stay out of her hair. >> I agree with you. I'm married. I agree with you 100%. Um, >> but the my point about it, so you're not going to be changing oil, you know, stuff like that. No, I'm not. >> Which, you know, obviously drainage and all we'd be concerned about.
>> Most of it would be cleaning, >> right? I mean, you got to show it, right? >> Go to the show. >> It sounds like you enjoy it, too. So, that's good. That's good. Um, okay. The last thing on on the Pinelands uh the wetlands um um so I had some experience
with that that survey that special survey, right? It was bit expensive. It wasn't like a normal survey. Um, but I again I think you guys love the truck so much it's probably worth for you. But it it is something important to get. Uh, we
want to protect our wetlands and um, you know, keep Jackson the way we love Jackson. So um, I would encourage you to do that if you would. Um, okay, that's it. Thanks. >> Any additional questions or comments?
>> Oh, Gina, I'm sorry. >> Thank you. Uh just to put on the record for the board members uh this is technically because uh it is slightly under one acre total area. It does not fall under we have an exception in our
code uh regarding um and essentially if it was reszoned but at one time it was um an R1 zone then it could continue with the setbacks regulation regulated under the R1 zone setbacks. So unfortunately this is in that slightly gray area where it doesn't meet what
it's actually considered a lot of record. So um the what they're proposing what Mr. and Mrs. Lombardi are proposing are uh if I'm not mistaken uh they coincide with the R1 setbacks where they would be just because the the lot size
where they are just shy to meet that lot of record which has a few requirements that must be met to be considered and to have that exception applicable to their um to their application. So, I just wanted to put that on the record just so everyone's aware um that just because
they're 0.92 and not exactly one acre which is what prompted them to come to the board for approval. >> So, there are three variances that are required. One is the minimum lot area and then the two side setbacks. >> Correct.
>> Gina sorry just for the record >> I couldn't Mr. Martin started talking. >> Oh, sorry. Yeah. I I just wanted to ask our expert a question. >> Love that. >> Yeah. So let's make believe that um it it's an R1, right? When they would these
dimensions be compliant then it would there would be no variance as far as the the buffer. >> Before I misspe, let me just pull up our R1 regulations. Just give me one, but it's just Yeah, >> that's fine. 20 feet, right? >> Okay, it's not a big That's fine.
>> You probably looked it up already before. Okay, that's fine. So, uh, let's say that the lot in question of the Lombardis was exactly 1 acre, which if it met the the, uh, lot of record exception, the required setbacks for a
private detached garage, aka pullbar, which is what they're requesting, would be as an interior lot, a 50 foot rear yard setback, which they would be in compliance with, a 20ft sideyard setback, which they would be in compliance with, and a maximum height of 25 ft. Now, for the shed, in addition to
it is 15 feet, a 15 foot setback for the rear as well as 15 foot setback for the sideyard and a 15 foot maximum height. So, that's why I just wanted to put on the record that just because they're eight shy of an acre is what prompted them to come to the board.
>> Thank you. >> Any additional questions for Mark or the Okay. So everything Gina stated is correct and then I just want to reiterate because of that exception the requirements that
they have to follow is the R3. So and then I would state that I don't believe they need a variance for the size of the lot. It's a pre-existing non-conforming lot. That's just the trigger for why we're here. >> They it's the minimum lot area. Right. >> Right. But it's it's pre-existing. So
that's sort of like in my opinion I would say they don't need a variance for that. That's just the trigger that is sending them here. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing and then the variances they need are for the setbacks. But Jean of course you're the solicitor. So if you think >> not at all I was just referring to Mr.
Peter's report. I would be glad. >> Yeah. So I would say they just need the two that are in question and then there's the mechanism for why we're here. >> Um do you want me I don't since I'm sort of covering I don't know what's normal. Do you want me to sort of step them through C criteria or is that something
someone else does? >> Yeah. >> No, I don't really have any questions. I mean, I think they would be >> I would just state that the setback requirement is 50 feet. Their lot is 100 feet wide. So clear so clearly uh if you
had two 50- foot setbacks, you'd have a zero area to build. So I think that's your justification for the C variance. Um I would say it's a narrow lot. It's a C1 criteria >> and any questions and I can elaborate on
anything. >> Um, just to make sure we have a clear record, I just wanted to point out the applicant was kind enough to point out that they although they gave us a model of the poleborn, they clearly stated that although the model shows the door to the front, the door would
actually be on the side. So, I just wanted to make sure that everybody was aware of that and that we put that on the record. Um, also there was a previous a previous excuse me variance granted for this property for a detached garage. Again, as Ashton stated, um,
although it's under size, there was they would have no place to build based on the R3 criteria. >> And I would just say one last thing too, only because it's in our letter and it was brought up regarding uh, gravel or transportation between the garage. I
would say based on the testimony today, uh, I'm going to sort of consider that more of yes, it is a garage because it's a car, but more of just a storage facility. It's not going to be driving in and out. And so I think we could treat it like an oversized shed, right? So we could just say no no gravel's
needed. Obviously, if you if your testimony changes and in the future, then we might have to re reinvent that. But as as indicated, you're just going to be periodically taking it out. Believe me, as fussy as he is with the way that yard looks, if it's needed, it
will be there without anybody telling him it has to be there. So, >> and I'm I'm sure. But just to reiterate off off Ash's comment, if if in the future you decide to, that will require a zoning permit just so it's on the record and we're being transparent. >> Any additional questions for the
applicant or our professionals? Right. Being that there are no additional questions, I'm going to open it to the public at this time. Anyone wishing to come forward and ask questions regarding the testimony you've heard this evening, please do so. Seeing no one come forward, we're going to go ahead and close public session.
Board, it's up for us to discuss. Gan, do you want to summarize first? >> Um, yes. As uh was referenced uh by Mr. Jones. Obviously, uh these needs to meet the C1 uh criterion for um either uh
hardship based on the uh property and also that granting the variance um would not uh violate the purpose of the zoning code and comply with the municipal land use law. heard the testimony. Um, and
the conditions would be that it's a pole barn 22 feet from the right property line and the shed 15t from the left property line. Um, most importantly that there's a would be a condition they need to res get a LOI which is a wetlands
delineation from D. Um and the representation on the record was that there would be minor uh maintenance, primarily cleaning of the truck, but no uh construction or intense maintenance work would take place in the pole barn.
Um and that the door of the pole barn in fact would be on the side um rather than the back. So those are the only conditions. So the variance uh requirements for the setbacks have been met. Can I just I just want to
clarify one thing. When you're saying the door, it's the entry door, not the actual garage door. Thank you. Okay. >> Make a motion to approve the application as per comments from our attorney. >> I'll second that.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> I apologize. I can't hear this behind me. Um, so we have a motion in a second. Um, roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia, >> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, Miss Bradley,
>> yes. >> Has been granted. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. We appreciate it. >> We are going to move forward to applicant number two. Forgive me if I mispronounced the names. Meyer and Fida Stolman. Variance 3547
68 South Cooksbridge Road. You can come forward, please. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. Um, do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Please state your name for the
record. And you heard about our troubles with the microphone. >> Freda Stelman. >> Thank you. >> That good. >> And if you, Miss Stolman, if you would just tell us what you're looking to do with the property. >> We're looking in the backyard to um I guess it's a corner lot to um put in a
white privacy fence. >> How tall? >> It's six foot. Let's double check. >> I just want to get on the record. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Martin, for that. Uh >> six foot white vinyl. >> White vinyl. Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Fence. >> And like you said, you understand you're only here because you're on a corner lot. So you're considered having two front properties, >> right? >> We're not doing till the actual till you make the turn, >> right? >> Just that behind >> the house.
>> And the fence is Let me just make sure I remember correctly because I went by. The fence is going to be inside of the greenery that's already there. Correct. which >> there's some trees. >> Some trees. So, it's really to replace the chain link fence. >> I'm sorry.
>> There's a chain link fence currently. So, in the back. So, to replace it just for that like safety of my kids and privacy. I don't feel so comfortable leaving, you know, currently since it's a public. It's a busy street, Georgia. >> Right.
question. So, so you're putting the new fence in the footprint of the chain link fence that's there. >> Yeah. Either we'll take it down and put it right there or right there. Yeah. There might be some green in the way that we might need to take off.
>> I think the question is how far from the property line would the fence be? >> Did they mark it down? >> I had the fence. I'll I can chime in somewhat. At least as proposed, um there is an issue because as
proposed, the fence is in the right ofway. So the existing chain link fence is actually non-conforming and it's within the rightway. So definitely the proposal as it is, uh I would say we as this board don't have the jurisdiction to approve any fence in the rightway. So
it's going to have to change and be moved inward from the proposal as submitted. So, how far from the property line does it need to be? >> So, it it's about 7.8 from what I saw on the survey. And it's it's not exactly a straight line, but it's either 7.8 on
one side and 7.6 on the other from the current location to then be at the property line. Yeah. And then to um add to that, typically the board would would provide
a condition or requirement that fences are set back at least six feet off the property line to allow for um any type of utilities, shade tree utilities to go at some point um and stay far enough off
the roadway. And then when we're dealing with corner properties, we say we typically require to be at least 20 feet off the corner of the property at the intersecting streets. So yeah, I would agree. Currently the existing fence is
is not an appropriate location. So if I'm understanding correctly, it would have to be at least 7.8T from the property lines and 20 feet from the corner. section is that >> I think he said six feet from the property line which if we go on the
current chain link fence of course mental math is not my specialty but it would be 7.8 plus 6 would be the moving of the fence inward to the house to meet those criteria. So 138
at one point and then 13.4 at the other. It might as well be straight on the property line. So it' be that plus six per mark. >> I'm sorry. So, I just want to make sure that I'm clear and that the applicant is clear. So, you're saying it has to be
13.8 ft from the property line. >> 13.8 ft from its current location. >> Okay. Forget the current location. Talk to me about the property line. >> Six feet from the property. >> Okay. >> On Georgian Boulevard. >> Yes, Gina. Uh actually I just would like to ask Mark a question mark because this
is uh something a little bit different from what we see where the property line does not fall even close to uh the sidewalks which is what we typically see on on property lines and surveys. Do you feel that um in your opinion that that 6 foot additional buffer is necessary to
bring us to the 13 ft or do you feel that the 7.8 it's not to scale where I can see right now but the existing chain link is 7 7.8 So, I'm going to approximate about that the property line sits about 10 ft
inward of of the uh inwardmost point of the sidewalk. That's fair enough to say for conversation purposes. Do you feel that's enough of a buffer or would you um recommend that we do that additional six on top of 7 point? So, we're bring us to that 13.8. >> Yeah, it's a that's a good question. Um
the Georgian Boulevard right ofway is 75 ft wide and uh yeah it appears the the way the road is and where the concrete sidewalk is the sidewalk is approximately 10 ft to the property line.
Um so I don't have the original subdivision plan in front of me if there is any shade tree and utility easement. Um, I have not seen the board grant approval for fences to be directly on the property line in the front yard. So,
I would probably air on the side of caution and still recommend six feet off the property line unless the board feels comfortable pushing it closer. So, that would approximately be, correct me if I'm wrong, about 16 feet off the most inward point of the sidewalk. Of course, giving the board the option.
You can obviously um as as the applicant is proposing along the property line which is approximately 10 ft inward of the sidewalk or Mark's recommendation to do that extra sixoot um shade possible shade tree buffer bringing us um
what you say 13 138 >> 13.8 right >> plus that extra two two so say 15 feet off the most inward point of the sidewalk. So, but we'll let the board decide that. I just wanted to make sure that all options were on the record because this
is not typ I mean for me anyway, it's not typical that we see a property line so far in set off off the sidewalk or the rightway. This is >> I I just think that we need to have a clear standard that's for the board and the applicant to understand >> okay >> where the proposal is. So, the applicant
is asking for the the fence to be on that property line at approximately 10 feet inward of the sidewalk. >> Yeah, I guess the be the most better. Honestly, I was surprised when the survey came back. I was like surprised that the property >> it it's it's an exception to the it's not typical, but it's not unheard of. >> I was like, is it wrong? But they don't
do it wrong. So to clarify, the applicant is requesting it on the property line approximately 10. >> So she's requesting it on the property line and the property line is actually 10 ft >> approximately >> off of the sidewalk, >> right?
>> 7.8. So yeah, we're approximating. >> Okay. >> There's some grass in between the sidewalk and the chain. >> Few feet >> and some trees and some bushes. A few. >> Yeah. I just
question. So, where would the installer start his measurement from? >> That would be my approximation, Dr. Hoffstein, of um if we're going with what the applicant is requesting, which would be about 10 ft inset from the furthest point of the sidewalk. So, the
interior portion of the sidewalk where it abuts the applicant's property. about 10 feet inwards of that is what we're approximating because the current chain link fence sits and it is not a it's not installed straight but at the furthest mo most point it's sits at 7.8 8 ft over
the property line. So, we're Mark and I had approximated about 10 feet from the innermost point of the sidewalk. That is where the applicant is requesting. >> Just so the installer knows where to put the fence, >> right? It's it's a little bit different
from what we're used to seeing, which is why I just wanted to make sure I put that on the record. and and at least the survey does indicate that a monument was found, so they should be able to know where the property line is, the official property line. >> Can the applicant speak to any um fences
immediately next to or across the street to the best of your knowledge? Are there >> We can't accept photo I don't think photo uh paper photos. Yeah. >> No, no, I didn't. There. Okay. I sent there was one person that came back and said I should bring it. I sent in
registered mail to everyone. Two people called up Dawn from the township reached out. One actually sent the letter. They all both of them didn't have a problem once it was explained. They both didn't realize where it was. It wasn't clear where we were requesting to put it in.
One actually sent a letter. I don't know if you have it on file or not. Something >> I'm sorry. I didn't hear all of that. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I said um two people called up um Dawn from the township. >> Yes. >> Spoke to her and when she explained
where we wanted it, I think they didn't understand. They thought maybe we wanted to go all the way to the corner in the front. They didn't have a problem with it. Um one actually um sent a letter I think to the she addressed it to Dawn and she mailed it to me personally. Us
personally I don't know. >> Do you have a letter that you want to submit to the board? Is >> I guess I don't know. Yeah, >> board members, I do have a notation and it is very well sealed shut. A letter was mailed to Dawn in response. It says
confidential mailed um have to come to meeting to speak on behalf of the application. Jean, I'm going to defer to you if you would like. I so typically you can't uh the you can't have testimony through
letter because there's no opportunity to question the testimony but you have made the representation that that is the content of the letter and the board can take your testimony. >> Okay, whatever you say. I don't know what usually is. So you're saying I should I just wasn't sure if I should
bring it or not. >> Could you could you maybe just read the letter? So, I should read the whole thing or just summary. >> Is it long? >> Okay, we'll try. Part of his address is >> what it looks long.
>> Okay. Um, I'm in a receipt of a notice of hearing to property owners from Freda and Mayor Stelman of 68 South Cooks Bridge Road regarding a 6-in style fence that they wish to install on their property. And it is my understanding that the zoning officer has refused the request. The notice of hearing to property owners states that the fence is
to be installed in the front yard area where it's not permitted. I appreciate the email that you sent me showing the survey map of their property with the location of the desired fence designated and read so that I can have a better understanding of where it is that they wish the fence to be installed. Thank you for that email. As I stated to you
when we spoke on the phone, I'm considering installing a fence in my property in the near future. So says curious to the reason for denial. I will not be attending the hearing on December 17. However, if possibly, I respectfully request that you consider my thoughts on this issue as I've explained in this letter. If I understand correctly, the
township is determining determining that since the applicant's property borders on two streets, South K Bridge Road and Georgian Boulevard, this portion of the property is also considered to be a front yard and is therefore the reason why the request is being denied. As I see, however, this area that they're planning to install the fronts is not a
front yard, but it's their backyard. They shouldn't be penalized merely because the property is located in a corner lot. There are numerous homes in this neighborhood also located on corner lots that already have six-inch style of fences installed which are surrounding the backyard areas of the property similar to that shown in the applicant's
diagram. In fact, the home that's direct located directly across the street from the applicant's property whose address is 69 South Cooksbridge Road is exact same type of fencing installed that the applicants are requesting a 6-in style fence surrounding the backyard area extending out from the house towards the
side street and that fence is adjacent to the continuation of the same sidewalk that's located next to the applicant's property. The sidewalk running along Georgia. The address of other properties located in corner lots in this neighborhood with the same type of fencing. The backyard areas are listed below. There may be others as well.
These are samples found and there's I think 16 addresses. I'm not going to read them. I should read them. 8 9 10 11 12. There's 16 addresses. >> Okay. Don't read them. >> So the person the person that there's other Yeah.
Right. So basically just to summarize and make sure we're all on the same page. the person who wrote the letter stating that there's other homes in the development who have a six-foot fence, but they too, if they have a corner lot, would have had to come before because that's the issue. So, the reason the reason that becomes an issue is, and we
can go back to Mr. Roar in just a second, you have to worry about line of sight issues, school buses, safety issues, things like that. Um, but I just want to make sure I'm clear here, so bear with my questions. I had a little bit of a hard time to be honest with all of you with this survey. So I if I'm
reading this correctly, Mr. Roire, the chain link, thanks is over the property line. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> On I'm sorry. >> Right. Well, that Thank you. Okay. And then um I'm looking at this Roar and in
addition to the chain link fence on the Georgian side being over the property line, it's also over the property line here and so is the shed. >> Correct. >> Right. So while while um this I'm sorry.
While Mrs. Stommy is here, we need to address that as well. So, it's over the property line. So, to go back to what you were sharing with this, Gene, I need to make sure I understand. So, to the front to Georgian Boulevard, we're over the property line. >> Correct. >> Anthony, can we go to the second page,
please? >> I just want to get clarification and have everything on the record. Lynn, can >> you blow it up for me? >> Can you zoom in a little bit, please? So, the woodshed you're discussing is this right here. That's over the property line. That's what you're talking about. >> Down there,
>> which slightly overhangs. >> Okay. That's what I wanted to make sure which one we were discussing. >> All right. So, you see to the front towards Georgian Boulevard. The chain link fence is over the property line. >> Correct. That was what we were kind of going back and forth. I know it was a little confusing. >> We all understand. It is a little confusing, >> right? It is. And it's it's not typical
for us to see a property line so far in set. So now if we go to the property line. So the fence that's existing now is non-conforming as Ashton pointed out. >> Correct. >> So let's start at the property line. We need that fence is going to need to be
moved in. >> Yes. >> That's where Mark and I had had summized and approximated about 10 ft because the current fence sits 7.8 over the property line. So, we approximated 10 feet from the furthest inset of the sidewalk to
the property line to be approximately about 10 feet. Guesstimating as it's not to scale and we're we're working off off copies. And >> then on the exhibit on the screen, >> the side closest to the bottom of the screen, >> right?
>> If I'm reading this properly, the chain link fence there is also >> over the property line. >> It it over it it >> overhangs. >> Yes. on on multiple sides. Correct. >> And so does the woodshed, >> right? >> I mean, if this is the scale based on
what I'm seeing, this is over the property line. So rather than create, >> right, assume the accuracy of of the survey, that is an issue that the woodshed overhangs onto a different property and the um improper installation of the existing chain link fence
>> and the sheds up against the fence. >> Yes. So they probably it was improperly in if I'm going to assume the fence was installed incorrectly and the shed was just installed abudding the fence assuming that it was the property line >> as we sees quite so often.
>> Do we know if the proper permits were done for that shed? >> Not off the top of my head but we can definitely look into it. >> So we're going to need to move the fence in as you guys already discussed >> right >> on both sides because it's over the property line. So when that if if we
should approve the white fence, it's going to we have to move it in on both sides because it's over the property line. >> Correct. >> All right. And then we also need to address the wood shed. One, it's over the property line and two, it butts up. It butts up to the fence, which we do
not normally allow. >> Miss, do you have any information regarding that shed? Do you know how old it is? Did you you did you install it or any information regarding such? >> We just moved in August. Okay. I have no clue. All right. Fair enough. Um, I also would like to put on the record for the
board that Miss Stman, um, in the process of before we even triggered the need for a variance, it started with a regular fence permit. Um, so what a fence permit that was approved because it did not need a variance was uh, if you go to the first slide, Anthony, please, that's colorcoded. It's a little
bit easier to understand. In the yellow, she had requested a 4ft open style chain link fence, no slats, so it stays open, which conforms to our code as our code does permit fences to be installed upon property lines. So, I
did approve a zoning permit for the yellow um highlighted area for a 4ft open chain link fence. However, in this area at the intersection of South Cooks and Georgia, I did notate that it where it was requested is not on her property. So, we pushed it back to align with that
property line. So, is she So, the point of that being is that the fence she's requesting um if you so choose, it goes kind of goes back to what Mark and I were were debating about where he recommends that 6ft shade tree easement. However, it's
not typical that the property line is so far inset where she where the applicant is requesting the sixoot solid privacy fence would align with the fence permit that was issued by my office for the 4ft open fence. So, for the um part where there's a sidewalk, we're talking about 10 feet from the edge of the sidewalk
closest to the applicant's property. But for the back portion, there I assume is no sidewalk. >> There is not. But the survey notates that it is approximately 2.7 ft over the property line and and one area and also because
it's not straight. um 2.7 closest to the woodshed that overlaps the property line and 2.1 moving towards Georgian. >> And is the application for the 6oot fence to be in that area as well?
>> Uh so the application is for the entire red highlighted zone for the six foot beds, but what triggered the need for the variance is anything past this building line because that's two front yards. That's considered your front yard area. So, this is really what triggered the need for it. Um, normally it would
be in um in continuity of how my office reviewed the request for the chain link fence. It would be more so just us working back and forth like where you proposed it is not on your property. We're going to have to move it to be in line with the property lines. That is something like that. >> Right. So, so in this section in the
back where the shed is >> in this area, >> right? How would you describe where the fence and where the shed should be? >> It would have to follow the property line which Ash had pointed out that their markers were found. So, uh, the company that that um the applicant hired
would be able to um do a more accurate installation of a fence. Okay. So if the fence that was the place for the fence >> the wood shed however is we we do not traditionally on this
board allow it to butt up to the fence. >> Correct. There are setbacks that sheds do have to abide by in all zones. Um, also the fact that I don't know, Jean, please step in. Uh, if we have any jurisdiction to even grant a variance for an any part of that to be
overlapping onto a different property. I don't I'm not really familiar how to address that. >> The the board has no power to grant somebody the right to build something on somebody else's property. >> Right. >> Your instincts are correct there. >> So, the fence is going to have to be moved in. The shed is going to have to
be moved. So, if the board so chooses to um approve your application, Miss Stman, is are you prepared to move that shed inward because in order to keep that straight fence line that would directly intersect with that shed, you would have to shift that in. Um, and then that
gives you two options to ask the board for a variance for a setback regulation for that shed or you can put it in a conforming location. I know that's a lot and I apologize. >> Move the shed. There's no way I guess put on the side part of it. So you so typ typically there's setback regulations so we don't allow sheds to
go straight up to the property line >> which is there already right >> it's actually overlapping so it's on your neighbor's property >> my question is if you would speak to them is there any way like to leave that and put the fence >> let's say >> I defer to our legal >> we we can't your shed is not on your property
>> it's not there's nothing >> so we cannot grant you approval to leave it on somebody else's property there's nothing >> this board cannot give you permission to leave a shed on somebody else's property. >> Right?
>> If your neighbor does not object, that's your neighbor's right to object because it's their property, >> right? The board is going to condition it on removing the shed from that
location because they can't say, "Oh, it's okay. You can leave it on somebody else's property, >> right? For sure. Not the question is if I could speak to them. That's the question. There's anything. >> But then there's a second issue, which is that it's not just that you're the
shed is not on your property. That is an issue that theoretically you could ask for an adjournment and try and solve that problem by getting that permission, >> but it doesn't solve the problem that your shed is abudding your fence. So,
the board is going to say you can or if the board approves it, you'll be able to put the fence on the property line, but that's going to mean taking down the existing fence and putting of a fence on the actual property line. And then the
the zoning regulations do not allow for a fence to be uh I'm sorry, a shed to be right up next to a fence. But that is not a problem that can be solved by your neighbor's consent. >> Oh, >> Jean, I actually have a question for you.
>> Said you can get the approval from the neighbor. >> That's okay. But if the neighbor moves and a new neighbor moves in, that new neighbor has the right to, right? >> So, you don't want to be putting up a brand new fence and if they happen to move and the neighbor wants all of his
land, you don't want to have to take it down. So, think of that. Well, this can anyway because the setbacks >> she there would be if she leaves the fence, the fence, let's just say she was leaving that fence where it is, that shed is on the property line. We >> No, I I get that. But I'm even talking
the fence is on the other person's property. So, if a new neighbor comes in, they could force you to move the fence in. So, you want to think about that before you you kind of go down that path, unless you know your neighbor is going to stay there for a hundred years. Do you know actually the neighbor the
house has just sold so it's a new neighbor moving in know who it told me what it I'm saying I saw that person but it's a new neighbor that's moving in at springtime right now it's being leased back so in April I guess I don't know exact just my other comment so I drove
down Georgian Boulevard because I I was looking for houses that are similar to yours that are on other roads facing the other road with the sideyard on Georgian just to see what what was out there. Um on the
corner of Pine Hill and Georgian which is kind of directly across, you know, on an angle across from you, they do have a white six-foot fence on that sideyard. Um it looks like it's about 20 feet from
the roadway because there are no sidewalks on that side. So, I think when you're talking all the numbers you guys were throwing out, I think you probably could get and again, it's only my eyesight saying 20 feet. So, I think the numbers you're you're throwing out there
make sense to match the house that is very similar to what you're asking for. Uh, a lot of the other houses are chain link fences that are in that area. So it that that was the only one that I found
that directly was what you're asking for in that area. I did not go down all the other streets development. So >> Ashton, >> Miss Stolman, are I just want to make sure you understand. So right now the debate is that in the rear of your
property, you're going to put in a new fence on the property line and then your shed's going to have to be moved. the shed to be compliant will be 10 feet away from the property line. Are you willing to move that shed 10 feet from the property line to be compliant? If
the answer is no, then you need to come up with an answer on what your request for a variance is to have that shed be as close as possible that you want and then the board would make a decision. But regulations would say you're not asking right a you didn't know all of
this information but you came in not asking for a variance if they grant it today that shed will be 10 ft from the property. >> I'm trying to think what just be the simplest way to I mean it's easier just not to move the shed but I would have to
take it down either way even if I'm not removing that chain leak fence um that's on that side. >> Right. If you want a fence over there, the shed's either gonna have to be moved or taken down because your fence is going >> The question is if I decide I just want it on the street on Georgian side and
the street on I guess between me and the next neighbor and not me behind, right? That one right near the shed. I would still need to leave remove the shed. >> That's right. >> Just to play devil's advocate here. Uh technically where the shed is located, no variance is needed for a fence to be
installed. Six foot solid fence. The variance is only required uh pretty much in line with where I circled which is the corner of the building envelope forward. That is ultimately just to circle us back and and and be more direct and
focus. That is that is what the variance is being requested for. Technically, Miss Stolman, should she so choose, can come into the zoning office and request a sixoot solid fence and it will not be approved to go on her neighbor's property and circumvent the shed. But if
she wants to peacemail it and go to the shed to stay on that property line and then another section on the other side of the fence, I guess, but just to redirect us. Yeah, that that's part of where the variance is needed for the fence, >> right? I understand. But the shed is still not in compliance. Correct.
>> Correct. And that's >> So the shed one way or the other is going to have to move. >> That's what I'm asking. That's what I'm trying to figure out. >> I understand what you're saying. I understand. I I guess I wasn't clear when I explained it. Right. I get it that that's not where the fence needs a variance because of the location. >> Right.
>> Right. But my concern here is number one, the fence is over the property line. >> Right. >> Number two, technically the shed is over the property line and it butts up to the fence which is over the property line. Right. >> So one way or the other, >> we're basically telling the applicant that fence is I mean that shed is going to have to move.
>> Correct. So, it's either uh non-p permitted, no permit was was um applied for, or it could be installed outside of the scope of approval, which kind of circles back to what Ash said. That kind of gives us um leaves us, Miss Fulman, with to make a choice. Are are you
willing to move that shed moving forward >> with this application? Because if if you're not willing to move forward, then while you're at the board, let's ask for a variance request from the board to you're still going to have to shift it because there's nobody here has the has I basically I need to take it down either way.
>> I mean shift it back onto your property or you have to move it 10 feet in. 10 feet in you would not have to ask for permission from the board. If you would like to just slightly shift it that 1.2 feet over the property line is it I I'm saying I don't know these
stuff. Meaning it's cemented and it's done. you know, it's one of these, you know, with the cement that has, you know, even, you know, electricity in it, like just the light, you know, to do in with the outlet there. Like, what's the most um I guess practical way? Do I need to knock it down anyways and deal with a
whole new thing or is it like that's >> unfortunately I don't want anything I say to be misconstrued as legal advice, but that would be a choice that you would have to make and then we can we can go into more detail from there. But if you're not going to ask for a variance for it, then let's have the board focus mainly on what the applicant
came here for. And then maybe the zoning office can address the uh um non-conforming shed placement as maybe a zoning violation if she so chooses not to move forward with requesting a variance for that, which I don't think she's prepared to at this time. And I don't mean to misspeak, so please
absolutely correct me if I'm wrong. Um but otherwise, I believe that we're in front of this board for a sixoot solid fence variance. And then that's something I can discuss with Jeff Rapuro about maybe working with the applicant to gain compliance for that shed. >> You know, let me just ask you a few
questions. Make sure I understand. >> Um, I agree with you that I think it's unfair to ask the applicant right now about the shed, >> right? We're kind of blindsiding her. >> I I I wouldn't want to make a decision like that, you know? I don't know. So, I think it's unfair to ask her that
question right today. Um, so you just purchased a home, right? You just bought it six months ago or whatever, >> correct? >> Yeah, correct. H >> how how >> does this get through the the whole how does this get through the whole
closing process >> where where there's there's a shed on another person's property and they able to close? How how do you don't don't you have to look >> I don't mean to speak out of turn because it's not direct responsibility of the zoning office but from my general knowledge of of the processes and
procedures of how Jackson Township operates for a CFO for a sale of a property. Um especially recently in the last year the um the council has changed the ordinance requiring what inspections are to be done. Um, from my general
knowledge, we make sure that all permits are closed with the construction office and that the fire department goes through and does a walk through for essentially fire um, uh, I'm sorry, fire aspect, so your CO, your smoke detector, and your fire extinguisher.
>> But specifically, you said >> there are no requirements for you to submit an an upto-date survey for us to check that your entire lot is conforming. Zoning has, just for the record, my understanding zoning has nothing to do with when a new home is sold. >> Correct.
>> It's the only thing, my understanding, because we had this on a prior application. My understanding, and I'm no attorney, my understanding is that the zoning department has nothing to do with a new home uh purchase of a home sale. They don't do any inspections or anything. The only thing that's changed
is that they have to make sure permits are closed. So, it appears to me though, I believe the applicant said that you installed the shed. No. Oh, no. >> I did not. No. I have no clue. That's >> Oh, I see. >> It was there. >> I'm sorry. I thought you said that you uh it was installed in August that
>> No, no, no, no. I bought the We bought the home in August. It was there already. >> Okay. I just know it's a It was like, you know, my misunderstanding there. It was Can >> I just chime in? >> When you bought the home, I assume you probably have a mortgage and you have
title insurance. your title insurer in let this go by the neighbor who's buying the house now in back of you their title company may say we're not going to give title insurance unless the shed is moved it's going to be their call
>> they already closed >> I don't know how how you work that out >> so I I think that the the there may be good news regarding the fence that's up to the board but the bad news is that you are going to ultimately
have to move that shed. The question is whether for the board whether the board makes that uh condition because it's not part of the area for which you are seeking a variance from this board for the fence. But even if this board does not address the shed
issue, it is in violation and eventually zoning is going to come out. So just >> so I need >> prepare yourself to move that shed at some point. >> Having said that, it's that that it's up
to the board whether whether the board is going to consider that as part of the variance applications. It's not within the area for which the variance is being sought over you. I'm sorry Mark. >> Thank you. >> Just for the record, I haven't finished the Gina yet, but
>> go ahead. You finish. Carlos, you want to finish? >> Oh, okay. Yeah. So, so, so, so just back to that. So, now we're saying somehow you're going to be forced to move that checked. Who's going to enforce that? We're saying it's not us.
Is our zoning department? >> You problem number one, we keep forgetting the fence that she's talking about replacing is over the property line. If they go to move the fence to the property line, the shed is in the
way. So my point is the shed is going to have to move. But as Jean pointed out to me, it's when that fence company comes, there's a problem. So even if we go ahead and we say, "Listen, we understand your hardship. You're on a corner lot. You
have you're considered two front yards. We we understand. We're going to grant you a variance. We've done it plenty of times before. The problem in granting that variance, and I just want the record clear, is we have a conflict here. the fence that we don't have to
grant the variance for the piece is over the property line. She move that to make that into compliance because it will become a a zoning code enforcement issue. >> Agreed. >> So the problem is when the fence installer comes and says, "Hey, here's your property line. You're over the
property line. Now what?" >> Okay, the Okay, that's my question. Okay, so I guess let me put it this way. might be more. Forget that we're going to do a fence. The fact is you have a shed that's not on property that belongs to you, right? How who's in charge of
enforcing that? It wasn't during the close because you said, "Hey, the permits are closed. There's nothing. The title company's screwed up." So, who's in charge of forcing her? Forget the fence right now today. Right. If she does nothing with the fence, who's going to enforce the fact that she has to move
that shed? That's my question. So in my three years of tenure with Jackson Township, we come we have come across a lot of uh irregularities, abnormalities, you name it, we've at one point have come across it. So people like to use the term pre-existing non-conforming, but that's like not a thing. So we and I
have notated it personally. I've seen Mr. Propuro, our zoning officer, notate it. Um location of uh shed, whatever structure blah blah blah is non-conforming if ever to be replaced, must be moved to a conforming location. And that's what I had said before. So, you'll see it notated often. Um, either
this was never applied for, which would make it a a zoning um enforcement matter where we can issue a violation and and give an abatement date and try to work with the homeowner. Or it could be as simple as >> um um proposed improvements were not
done within the scope of approval, which meaning they got the shed permit, but nobody signed off on in that location. And that's where where Miss Bradley had asked if they if a permit was applied for. And um as much as I am trying desperately while this conversation is currently ongoing to log in, I'm not getting access uh to to verify if a
permit was was ever applied for for that specific shed >> because maybe it was and that just wasn't in a conforming location. And that would be >> um that would be the difference in verbiage on how a a zoning notice of violation would then be be sent to the home, right? Okay, >> I'm sure in a 100 square mile town,
there's many instances of this ongoing and it only gets brought to light when an application comes in or when an application comes to the board. >> Okay, >> so that would be a zoning enforcement issue. Yes. Not necessarily caught at the time that that the property transfers ownership. >> Got it. You answered my question >> because of zoning because the zoning
approval never expires. >> Okay. You you answered my question. So So if I'm the applicant, one of my options is I do nothing about the shed. I put the the the fence, right? Your suggestion, Gina, butting up against the shed. The shed
stays there. There's no nobody knows. Nobody's going to enforce it. I'm done. That's what I heard you guys tell us. >> Well, what I said, >> the only reason the shed came up is because you tried to put the fence in there. Otherwise, >> Well, just to clarify, um, so the only
reason the shed came up is because she gave us an a full survey of the property. What I tried to redirect and and focus the board more on is we are as as the board the variance being requested as Miss Fulman is is not
prepared to either request a variance for no setback of the shed. >> So really all I'm trying to do kindly of course with the most respect is to reorganize and redirect our attention to the circled area because that is the only thing that Miss Stolman is here that would require a variance for at
this time. >> Understood. And all I'm the only point I'm trying to bring out is that we keep saying she has to move the shed. The fact is there's nobody to enforce that. You're not going to do it. The only reason this came up is because of the the fence, right? So if we don't talk about the shed and unless the neighbor
complains >> essentially >> it stays where it is. I mean she went through a whole closed and that didn't come out, >> right? And nobody has complain. I mean >> that's my only point I'm trying >> I mean I know Miss Stman's only owned the property since Absolutely. You're totally absolutely correct. This woman's on the property since August, but to my
knowledge in my three years of tenure here, no complaints have been made regarding this exact matter. So, >> normally if Miss Fulman did not come to the board and provide the survey, my office would never have been any the wiser to that this situation is ongoing. >> Right. Because Right. Because we see that a lot.
>> I just was was kindly trying to redirect the board's attention to what specifically the the variance is being requested for so that we don't overstep our bounds. >> Understood that that No problem. >> We see it a lot, but let me be clear. Yes, >> we make them rectify. We address the situation. I can't remember the application, but Mr. Heyman aptly
pointed out something that everybody else missed and said, "We need to address this." It was Lattis. >> That's all I remember. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The guy with the >> There was others that Dr. Hosting. So, we addressed the situation and you have to remember we're now on record. >> Yeah. >> The survey is clear. It's over the
property line. >> Yeah. So when the when the fence company even though we don't have to grant a variance for that portion of the fence, we have to keep in mind there is going to be a fence company that comes out that Miss Stolman hires >> and what is he going to do?
>> He's going to butt up against the shed >> that's over the property line. >> No, when I say this is look at the excuse me, look at the survey. We've all agreed it's over the property line. >> You're missing the You're missing out. This is the This is the shed, right?
This is the shed. This is the property line, right? The property line's right here, right? >> According to the survey, >> no, the shed is on >> I think Mr. Morton is just alluding that you could peacemail it and just and leave the leave a gap in the fence where the shed >> but understandably, Miss Bradley,
>> which was your suggestion, >> Mr. Roar, how about we move on? Yeah, let's move on to >> uh the only other comment in these types of uh applications, we just bring up any structure like a play set or a shed would not be permitted between the
dwelling and the the roadway such as Georgian Boulevard. So, while you're here, we just ask if you have any intention on putting up a structure like that, now would be a good time to ask the board permission for that area cuz
and to not bring up the shed again, but I'm I'm just going to say a conforming location for the shed would be basically directly behind the house. They have a limited area. That's all I'll say. >> The gym
speaking right now >> through the chair. >> Yes, Mr. >> Okay, just to clarify, um, and I know we keep running around again and again in circles, the shed that you have existing, the only reason why we're looking at it now is because you gave us
a full survey like was mentioned being that it's not in conformance, right? So we the board generally gives you that opportunity to throw it into your application that if you want to ask the board for a variance to put it closer
than is normally allowed and as the planner said it would be generally 10 ft into your property. So if you can ask for that now instead of having to come back later. Now if you want to make it conforming you can make it conforming. you're saying is the zoning officer is
notified now that it's not conforming and technically tomorrow should give you a violation to get it conforming. Now whether they do or don't is not our business. I'm not telling them to. What I'm saying is it needs to be corrected. So you have one
of two options. is either you can leave it and ignore it and wait until you get violations and then either move it 10 ft in or you can ask the board tonight for a variance to put it closer to the property line than is normally allowed.
Now, in general, many properties in Jackson, and I can tell you my own personally, I bought it with two sheds closer to the property line that are allowed. And when I did apply for a permit for something I gave in my survey for my property, the zoning officer at
that time, maybe it was Dawn, um did circle and write down on my survey that if you ever need to replace it, then I would have to come in for a variance. So yes, this board very often um and the zoning office will allow something which
was a pre-existing nonconformity to stay that way, but here it's over the property lines. It's even worse. You have to get it onto your property at least. So, if you want to move it minimally, you can ask for that variance tonight. You know, explain to the board
why you would not want to move it 10 feet in to your property. You know, I understand that it's a small property and moving it 10 feet in can destroy your backyard. You wouldn't have too much space. you know, that's for you
to testify to, not for me to testify for you. Um, but it's just a suggestion for you to include that fed that the shed into your application if you want it closer than is normally permitted. >> So, I should You're saying recommend I
should ask that I could only get rid of part of sort of shrink the shed >> two feet, right? How big is it? the the the size of the shed is not the board's concern. >> No, to take it off. I I don't know these it would somehow make it like it's
smaller. Cut that part. It's not it's not the size. So, normally, let's see. >> No, this part that's by the property, >> right? But here's the thing. So, normally a shed, even if it was not over that property line, is not permitted to the property line. There are setbacks. >> So, it has to be the whole,
>> right? to be in conformance with the current zoning regulations, it needs to be 10 feet off that property line. So, I understand what you were trying to say. If we just kind of nyx that piece that's overhanging, >> you would have to move completely move your shed 10 ft off the property line. And since you're uh >> the whole shed is 10 ft,
>> right? Since you're 1.2 over, so you're going to have to move it 11.2 ft inwards of your property >> to be in conformance. >> So, either way, I'm going to have to remove the whole thing. It's not like I got cut it in half. Just to reiterate what Mr. said, "At this point, when normally when
people come to the board, >> we're trying to get your entire property in >> compiance the board for variance to say, I can't be 10 feet off. Could would you give me a variance to allow me to be five feet off or three feet off or two
feet off, whatever you wanted to in terms of what you do with the existing shed, whether there's some amount you could cut it off that would make sense, I can't I can't apply. >> You can't do that. That's not practical. >> All right. I I think I maybe have
hopefully a solution here. So, if we ignore the fence on the side of the yard and you don't ask for a fence, a the fence on the side of the yard is conforming, right? So, it's not an issue. So, you could just walk in at any day and get a fence on the side for six
feet >> on your property line. >> The one behind the house >> behind behind your house where the where the shed is. that that does not need a variance. It's allowed to be six feet allowed to be on the property line and it can't be on your neighbor's property. So point being is if we remove that as
even being shown you're not here to ask for anything related to that which you're not because doesn't need a variance. Then we go to the fence. So you're now only asking to put a six-foot solid fence on the front of your property and the chain link fence on the side of your property is going to step.
You can replace that chain link on the sign of your property at any time as long as it's six feet conforming and you will just go get a zoning permit and it'll be issued by the zoning officer. Then you then you have the debate of the shed. But the point is this buys you as
much time as you want or conversely as much time as the zoning office may or may not take action against you. You don't have to do anything. The conditions stay the exact same. We don't have to have a debate about it and we just approve or don't approve your request along the front.
>> So that's better. So I'm left >> then you you you stated it's on a foundation. There's electric, right? Like there's no way you could make these calculations right now on any request. So it just avoids you not even having to make that calculation because we're just going to move along and it will or will
not become an issue in the future. >> Okay? and you have time to solve it knowing that it may or may not at the time it becomes an issue you could say okay it's now an issue and I have to solve it until that time it can just do its thing >> okay
>> that kind of makes >> that makes a lot of sense to me you okay with that >> because >> I am but just >> in continuity with how I I'm familiar with how the board operates the only reason why we are overloading you with so much information is to avoid a an
unnecessary secondary trip to the board. If you know you want to keep that shed there, the board is basically saying, "Let's bring your whole property into compliance and and while we cannot approve and nobody can approve it to to be over your property line on someone else's property, while you're here, let's ask for the variance." If you
know, hey, I'm going to I I do want that shed there board, can I please have it at at on that fence uh on that property line abuing my fence? But if you're not if you're not familiar or prepared to answer those questions, you can always request an adjourn adjournment or uh as
as Ashton had just said to piggy back on him. Hey, uh I'm not really prepared to move forward with with the sixoot fence past that uh front yard area uh which abuts Georgian Boulevard. That can be addressed at a later time in the zoning office because that that will 100% be brought up on a zoning application.
Honestly, the that's the the Georgia is the one that's most concerning for me because that and the other side, those I feel like are public in the street, you know, >> one behind it. Just >> sure. But I mean, just keep in mind that you're going to run a new fence, right? >> You can't connect it to the existing chain link because it's over the
property line. So, I don't know how you're going to connect it to really close it off or if that's even going to be an issue for you. I know you had stated you had children. Um, but >> because if your chain link fence is 2.7 ft over and we are only approving you to put your six foot solid fence on the property line, you're going to have a
2.7 foot gap, >> which >> there's so there are a lot of variables here and I know it's very confusing. So, >> and I know I mean is this something that I don't mean to speak out of turn, sorry, Jean, but is this something that maybe we're just not you're not prepared to finish this today and we can request
an adjournment to maybe come into the office and we can go over a little bit more and you can meet with your family and make a decision an informed decision. So this is I'm just trying to figure out when the was practical the safety children you know sooner the better because it really
gets me nervous right when I we moved in I was like okay once I saw how you know public the streets you know those two side you know it's really this other side you actually see Laurel also feel like it's even you know more >> yeah if I so a couple things one we
can't hear a word you're saying >> oh I'm sorry two Um it may be at this point obviously it's up to you whether you want to ask for an adjournment. It may be useful for to to open it the public see if anyone else and then for the board to consider
whether they want to the um proceed on the portion of the variance that it's been asked for now just regarding the fence just having made a record about the shed issue. Um so then
the applicant would know whether there is you know an option or in determining whether or not to ask for an adjournment to address the sh question >> through the chair. >> Yes. If >> I could just clarify the reason why the
board is asking you if you want to include the shed now is because it costs money to come in front of this board. you know, there's many fees and it's not cheap to come in front of this board. So, what they're telling you is is if you want that shed closer than 10 feet
to the property line, it has to get moved at some point. Whether it's tomorrow and it's a year or two, whenever the zoning officer decides to tell you, hey, you know what, that's it. It's got to move and it's gonna have to move. You're gonna get violations for it. The reason why the board says bring
your board bring your property up to conformity is for your own benefit because you're here you already pay those fees. So it's for your own benefit to include shed unless you plan on moving it 10 ft away from the property line. So, it's
just the suggestion either you can like they're saying is you can, you know, adjourn it and come back and make your decision another time or include and just tell the board that yes, I would move it but close to the property line
um rather than over the property line. And once if I ask for that um variance to move it closer to the property line, it means I need to take remove that shed like tomorrow or I >> No, regardless you I need to move it, right? >> The question is when the zoning officer
is going to enforce it and tell you you got to move it. I don't know when they will. I mean, right now, Gina's sitting here and she's notified of it. So, I'm not telling you she's going to enforce it tomorrow, but she understands that there's something that needs to be fixed, >> right? But they usually give how long to
do it. like meaning what's usually this >> now now now your option is either move it 10 ft in >> right >> to comply >> or to ask for that variance and you don't want to have to come back here another time >> unless you adjourn it now you can just
put it all together later >> so if I adjourn it now then I'm not coming back here I'm just >> No you're going to come back another time for your offense you're not going to get approval or a denial for your offense now but you could figure out what you do want to come and ask for for with defense
>> with sorry with the shed. >> So adjourn it means I'm coming back again. It's just like we just didn't finish up. >> Correct. >> So it's like easier than opening a new case. >> Well, correct. You're not paying the fees again. We heard your testimony. You just need to give us a plan of action what you want to do with that shed.
Unless you want to ask for a variance tonight for that shed and then just move it. But >> once I request >> regardless, it needs it's going to need to be moved. just a matter of time. question is how if I request the variance tonight I I don't need to take care of it with I can wait till the
summer let's say right I'm not >> I see what she's asking >> so in other words if if we were to go ahead and move forward and vote and let's let's say we approved she asked for variance for a specific let's say she goes 10 feet makes fully conforming and the fence what she's asking is how
long would she have to move it it's not going to be tomorrow >> no um we generally generally we try to work with with the public to which we serve. Obviously, I think we're all in the same mentality, but uh for something as simple as a bulk uh variance, I'm not familiar with us really putting a
timeline on that. Um however, again, this is kind of a weird instance where it's now on somebody else's property. But yet again, that property owner has not complained. So, I have no problem working with the applicant to let's say if she if she recommends summer, >> right? So you could I say if let's and
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but let's say that the applicant asked for the shed to be she allowed to to move the shed three feet from the property line, then you can, you know, that's just the
condition. You can do that at whatever time in the future. The board could say within a period of time, but typically does not. It's just a condition that has to be met at some point. >> Oh, so that's what I wanted to make sure
because they're not prepared to deal with the shed, you know, now expects you to move the shedding. >> This is not a violation with an abatement date. That's that's set in stone. >> They want you to shovel the snow off the shed and that hard ground. >> But I think I think the one thing you
need to take into account is while we may while Gina and them may take their time and give you the opportunity when you it it also depends when you want your fence completed because it's going to have to be moved before your fence is completed. And I don't believe
you would want to do it in two installments. >> It's they're not cheap to install. So, uh I think you would want to get it all done at one time. So, I we've thrown a lot of stuff at you tonight >> and this this is the one thing that
concerns me when when an applicant is presenting. Be smart about what you do. We don't want you to make a mistake. It der makes sense. It's not an additional cost to come back, >> right? >> It's just you have the time now to go
home and >> figure out what it is you want to do. Meet with Gina. She's going to help you, guide you through the steps. That's your best alternative instead of trying to say, >> I want to do a variance, but you know, >> yeah, we don't want a decision to be made like on the fly.
>> But I'm not losing anything out. But that's what I want to make sure. >> If you request an adjournment, all we're going to do is say request adjournment, come back on this date, >> right? But if I apply for variance for the shed to be a little closer to the property line, I'm not losing anything out. >> That's what I'm asking. >> What do you mean losing out? I'm sorry. >> It's not making like the shed has to be
taken care of faster. It's not making anything No, there's no there's no time frame set. But what Mr. Seleia just stated was um if if that is granted or you want to however you want to request that variance for the shed is is he made it a point to put on the record that
keep that in mind when you do your fence because you're going to you do half your fence and then in the summertime then move the shed into the the remaining parts of the fence. that that was just the point he's trying to make and that he didn't want to rush you into any type of decision because you do have the option to request an adjourn.
>> You're saying if I do that if I request the variance, it's going to be on the record about that part, >> right? >> So, I might not want that. >> Right. And also, you have to have a game plan. Are you going to put it three feet in, five feet in? 10 is 10 is is conforming. So, anything less than 10 off the property line is what we you
would request. So, instead of just saying, "Yeah, I want a variance." Do you do you know where you want to put it? >> Right. The question is I'm just trying to think um either either so either I actually request adjournment or I or if I got approved for this am I gaining that I got to do the white safety one
before I take care of the shelf or before I take care of the shed or no you're pointing out there's going to be a gap, right? >> But when do you plan on putting the fence in? Let's ask that question. Let's see if we can help. It's a lot and it's a lot. We understand that. I think we all agree. We feel bad for you. But what
he what they're trying to get you to understand is is let's say you plan on doing the fence. I understand it's winter, but let's say you plan on doing the fence in two weeks. That's going to predicate how you decide to handle that shed because you're not going to be able to put the fence. >> Even I would want the one in Georgia is
going to make me feel more comfortable that side. >> Which brings me to my point. You cannot connect it to the existing chain link because that is not on your property. So, >> so you would have a 2.7 foot gap in between your existing chain link and where you're proposing to put your six foot solid vinyl fence. So, I know I
know you're you're interested and and you're and you're hoping to get that 6ft solid fence on the on on the front yard facing Georgia, but keep in mind you will have that 2.7 foot gap because you cannot connect it to an existing fence which is improperly installed in
somebody else's property. So, meaning I could get approved for it, but it's not really helping me >> pretty much. Yeah, because you can't put a six foot. >> They can approve it, but you really can't do it unless you want to leave. >> Not gaining, but but by getting it approved to put it because let's say, right, >> unless you move your fan unless you move
the shad. >> So, the only way I'm really gaining anything is by moving >> doing it all together. >> Doing it all together. I guess I'll request a German. That's >> But before we do this, >> does that make sense? >> Yeah. And you'll get to talk to maybe
the fence guy will do a bor shed person that'll you'll know the cost. >> It's not a legal opinion, but yeah, I think I think it'd be best to come and have further discussion with it, not in front of of the board on the record. >> Right. >> You know, you're more than welcome in our office anytime you've seen you. We've had conversations before >> and then we can deliberate all your
options here. >> You're saying I'm not okay. >> But it is it is up to you. I don't want to force into anything. But per Dawn, >> I'm clueless. We have availability on February 4th if the applicant chooses to adjourn. >> Yeah. So if you get if you do request an adjournment that adjournment would be
until February 4th. That would give you that time. I know that that's you know six weeks hence but you would be able to put together a more coherent plan of how you're going to move forward. >> Okay.
Okay. That cross German. Yeah. Till then. All right. I guess >> Jean, even though we're going to um even though I'm sorry. >> No, no, no. No additional notice. >> Even though Miss Stoolman has requested an adjournment, we're going to open it to the public just to see. I mean, I don't know that we're going to have
anybody. We're going to move ahead and open this to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward about the testimony they heard this evening regarding this application, please do so at this time. Step over to the side for me. You swear or affirm that the testimony you will give before this board will be
the truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> You say your name for the record. >> Deb Jones Jackson. I'm just a little concerned about and I know the shed was there. No one would
have known without it, but ethically you do know. You can't unsee it. So, it has to be fixed. And whether the neighbor now is okay with the shed being there, the next neighbor might not be. They
might not even know till at some point they want to do something. And then what? We set precedents because we allowed something. And I understand it's being adjourned, but I think there are
other options that I will speak to her about because not going to put on record, but there are ways to fix the problem to move the shed without it being a detriment. But I just moving forward if we can't ever
take the aspect of well, we didn't know, so we just won't do it. Well, as I said, I think that Ford has been clear that they the shed has addressed >> but I'm just saying as the public I
appreciate that because there's a lot of it obviously, but we can't just ignore what we say. So, thank you >> Debbie, if I may. I'm sorry. Um, so, so that is why we kind of brought it up or at least I brought it
up like how do we enforce these things um to make sure that the zoning board does cause um, not the zoning board, GINA for lack of a better name. Um, we get this enforced because like I mentioned, we see that a lot where we'll
pass resolutions and then they we say, "Okay, now now it's off out of our hands and we never really know that that that got done the right way." You're absolutely right. And then you can't see, right? And you can't hear. >> I mean, I grew up in the Jackson where things were done with a handshake, but
>> right, >> we don't live there anymore, >> right? >> So, >> ethically, I appreciate that you're >> acknowledging it and trying to do something about it. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else wishing to come forward at
this time? So the the applicant has made a request for an adjournment till February 4th. No additional notice would be required. Is that uh acceptable to the board? Miss Stolman, as Gina pointed out, you
can stop in and speak with her or call, make an appointment to meet with her at any time to adjust uh to address adjust to address um your application and what can be done and how to rectify the situation. >> And then you'll come back on February 4th. You don't have to give anyone notice. And maybe Miss Jones will be
able to tell you how to solve your problems. Yeah, just but just know it that is not a solution, right? >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Good luck. >> All right, we're going to move on to
applicant number three. I report in Allen Con minor subdivision 1431 West Veterans Highway. Mr. P. >> Oh, you can. I think I've talked enough for that. Madam chair, may we begin?
May we begin? >> Um, yes. Yes, Mr. uh P, you may begin. Uh the board was just expressing its hope that this would be a shorter application than your last one. >> That's hope that I'm certain you share.
>> Amen. >> Madame chair, members of the board, board professionals and public, good evening all. Kenneth Pap on behalf of Dr. Port and Dr. Con. This is a request for a minor subdivision lot line adjustment that is similar if not close
to identical to subdivision relief that this board granted to Dr. Port and Dr. Con in 20121 when we were before you with a combination of relief that involves site plan subdivision and variance relief. Before I begin the substantive presentation, I would just
ask if you could confirm receipt of our notices so the board has jurisdiction to for us to proceed this evening. Yes, that's confirmed. >> Thank you. This is a request for do a lot line adjustment between lots six and seven. Your applicant is doctor's port
and cone. They're cooperating nextdoor neighbors are the Rickos, the people who own the mug restaurant. The you may recall that the application that we brought before the board in 2020 and 21 was to develop the port and cone
properties with apartments and a retail center. And there was a commitment that was made that our clients have acted upon to bring sanitary sewer service to this entire section of the township. In order to bring the sanitary sewer service, they needed to acquire a
portion of the Ricko's property. And that was the reason for the lot line adjustment subdivision that this board granted at the time of the site plan. Unfortunately for us, the issues that had to be resolved with the county took longer than we hoped. They're all
resolved. The county approval is now in place, but it took longer than we hoped. And the approval, the minor subdivision approval has a very short life and it expired. So, we are here this evening asking for the minor subdivision relief. The lot line is not exactly the same.
The reason it's not exactly the same is that Mr. Insili is has built in a cushion for having enough room to move the sanitary sewer line across the back of the Rickos property. So, with that as the background, I'd ask if Mr. Intelli
could be sworn, we'll place his credentials on the record, and we'll hopefully make an efficient presentation of the lot line adjustment minor subdivision. >> Yeah. >> You swear or affirm that the testimony you will give before this board will be
the truth or nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And would you please state your name and credentials for the record? Michael Bian Tilly, professional engineer, professional planner, New Jersey, uh, since 1990. I'm a principal with Crestston Engineering Associates in Tom's River and Milstone, been preparing
site plans and subdivisions for about 25 years and have presented at this board probably in the last year and many boards in surrounding that. >> Mr. Intelli, this board accepts your credentials. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Intelli. I'm going to ask you a series of questions. Our client's
property is located in a zone where the minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet and the two lots that we're talking about after the lot line subdivision would be 1.74 and 28.8 acres respectively. Could you confirm that no
boat variance really is would be triggered by that subdivision? >> That is correct. Areas are correct. There's no as a result of the subdivision with the exception of with some existing nonconformities and a couple variances
for lot 6.01 01 which is the newly created lot and that's a result of essentially um two of the the variances as a result of the county uh which we have approval from April from the county ocean county um requiring a dedication
of an additional 21 ft from 33 feet uh half rightway width to 54 feet uh thus requiring the variance for the front setback the variance uh the existing condition I should say for the West uh offset for the house at 17.2 feet noted
in your engineers and planners letter is an existing nonconformity >> and the the Rickos delivered the sub the Rickos delivered the deed to the county for that additional right of way that the county had requested. I'm going to
ask if you could on the plan that is before the board and this is this is not a new exhibit. This is the subdivision plan that was presented to the board as part of the application. If you could identify the subdivision line that cuts lot cuts the Ricko prop there. So the
line that's being pointed out to the board is the new subdivision line that would cut the Ricko property into two parcels. One for their existing restaurant that they'll retain and one for the back portion that would be conveyed to Port and Cone and next to their properties for the purposes that
I've just described. No, the and you pointed out there is some limited bulk variance relief associated with the ex location of the restaurant not exacerbated by the application. Correct. >> Correct. The the only uh variance that
is is uh required for the house was as I mentioned the uh 53 feet setback which required 60 and was 76.2. Again, it was a result of the county requiring a dedication >> and we're not seeking any approvals for
development of or construction. This is limited to a minor subdivision lot line adjustment. Reason I break make that point is your professionals identify potentially other approvals and permits that are required. The other approvals and permits would be associated with the
site plan application. The only additional approval that is required for this subdivision is the county planning board which resolution is in hand and which and the conditions for which have been satisfied. I have nothing further for the
presentation unless there are specific questions. This is it is simply two property owners cooperating adjusting their lot line not creating any new variance relief in your professionals. They inquire as to the installation of
sidewalk or or seeking relief. We're not seeking relief. We're u as we had indicated when the board considered the site plan, full site plan, improvements, road improvements across the property would be part of the site plan. The site plan that was approved by this board
will be modified and will be back in front of you sometime in the next year. And that's because the D flood hazard regulations have changed since the original approval. And that's going to require some modifications of the plan for your consideration. But the commitment to install sidewalks remains
and would be at at the time of site plan. And that madam chair is your applicant's direct presentation. >> Questions, comments for the applicant. >> Omar, >> yes. Uh I just want to point out the the
applicant um has a LOI that is expiring in January 2026. So it's still technically valid which marks the uh the wetlands. Uh can the applicants engineer just confirm that is the case? >> Yes, that is correct. For lot six, the LOI that we currently have will expire
in January. Um the LOI for lot 7 is currently pending. We had an original LOI back in 16 for lot 7 and we applied for a new one. >> And regarding the subdivision plat, uh my office reviewed it and found it to be in accordance with the map filing law
and um can the applicant just confirm all appropriate monuments will be installed as required? >> Yes, the the map filing law will be adhered to. All monuments will be installed. >> That's all I have at this time.
>> Ashton, you have anything for us? Yeah, unfortunately I'm thinking this through, but uh so question. The mug is not going to be coming in for any future site plan. Correct. >> I'm sorry, we can't hear you. >> Sorry. The the mug is not come the mug
rack is not coming in for any future site plan. It's the property adjacent where the construction would happen. >> I none I do not know that. I I suspect that they're not the their cooperation was to grant the to participate in the
subdivision and to make the dedication across the front of the property to accommodate the improvements that the county requested, but I I don't expect that they're coming in for any relief. >> So, our letter calls out two variances. Um, one for the house and then one for a
front parking setback. But the issue that I'm thinking through right now is that front parking setback is actually now going to be in the rightway and we don't have the jurisdiction to give a variance in the rightway. >> We're not asking for variance relief for
the for that front property. That rightway dedication was a request of the county the time and the county was aware that there was a portion of the Mugwrax parking lot that encroached into the right of way and they did not raise it as an issue. If they do raise it as an
issue now or anytime in the future, the Mug Rack will have to remove that portion of their parking lot that's in their rightway. The county did not raise it as an issue. >> So, okay, I'm a little confused. So, you're not seek So, you don't believe you need variances for the building or
the parking lot? >> The building does. I I believe it does. the parking lot. If you feel that it requires variance relief because there's an encroachment, then the answer is yes. I don't believe that it does. I believe
that the um the parking lot's location is it was set. It hasn't changed. And the only reason that this that it's in in the rightway is because the county recently asked for that right away to be dedicated to them. But I'll defer to your your decision and if the decision
is variance relief is to be granted then that's the relief is necessary then that's the relief we request. If I might just add there are two variances that are within the professionals letters uh board professionals letters. One I mentioned was the front setback as a result of the
dedication >> and the second variance not existing non-conforming but an actual variance is uh with regard to the parking lot to uh right ofway 20t at uh a minus one as a result again of the county requirement
dedication. So we we may need those two variances, but they're a result of the county requiring identification, >> right? I guess I don't think we can give a negative one variance. So we could give a zero variance and then you could go fix the condition
and I'm sort of looking at gene, but yeah, I mean, >> yeah. No. So if I >> and yes, our letter does say >> if I'm saying correctly, the issue is as >> strangely we just discussed. Yeah. Um the board cannot grant a variance and
grant approval for anything in the right of way. Correct. >> That remains the same thing. It's essentially the same issue we just had before. We cannot grant approval for things to be on other people's property, including the county right of way. However, if the county
has given uh essentially approval for existing conditions within their right of way because it's been approved by the county planning board, then I think that answers that issue for this board's purposes. >> Right. I guess wouldn't I I guess sort
of back to that. I think we would be granting a variance for a zero foot setback for the parking area at a zero foot setback where X was required. >> That's correct. >> And then the county would again sort of back to that enforcement issue, the
county would say get out of our rightway or don't get out of our rightway. >> Precisely. >> Yeah. >> Perhaps the so the variances that are are mentioned in the letter as Mr. Tilly just said um and that I think the board
is considering are the um front setback and the setback from the rightway. >> Right. So it's 60 foot setback variance for 53 and then the correction I would make is 20 ft from the rightway variance
zero as opposed to negative one. And what I'll do if if the board so grants that relief, we'll be we will ask the county to confirm that it was not inadvertent that they fully understood that there was a one- foot encroachment into their right away from the parking
lot and we'll bring that to their attention >> and I and >> and abide by their ultimate direction. >> I think that's fair and and other than that it is uh C variance being dictated by this dedication. So,
I don't think there's any detriment to planning, uh, detriment to zoning, detriment to public good. In fact, I'd say a dedication of right away is probably a positive to public good. >> Questions or comments for the applicant. We're going to go ahead and open this to
the public. Anyone wishing to come forward and have questions or comments regarding the testimony you've just heard. Seeing no one come forward, we're going to go ahead and close public session. Mr. P, would you like to make a closing statement? >> Only to point out that this minor subdivision results in dedication to the
county and an opportunity to bring sanitary sewer service to the entire region in which it is situated. And we'd ask that the board consider the relief favorably. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay board it's up for us to board it's up to us for discussion
questions Mrs. um so we heard it's a request for minor subdivision you heard the proofs that were put on the record including Mr. pap representation of the benefits um from the county, the dedication to the county and the expansion of sewer service area.
Um these are also just minor uh the variances um that were put on the record were for the minimum front yard setback 53 feet instead of where 60 feet is required and the right of way less than one foot or a
zero foot setback where 20 foot is required and that was questioned as you heard because of the county's uh extension of the right of way and the only condition that has been discussed Aside from the representation made that
the map filing law would be adhered to is that the county be uh notified of encroachments into the rightway to confirm. I I just trying to understand what is there anything else that this request um
affects meaning I understand the benefit of bringing the the sewer service to an area that's always a benefit. Um is there anything else that changes because of these variances for the setbacks?
>> No, I mean the approvals are uh remain in place. they were previously granted by the board um in uh 2019 and 2021. The approvals remain in place. Any conditions of those approvals remain in place. The only difference would be um
the variances and the change in the subdivision lines and as stated uh by Mr. Pap the expectation is that in the future an amended site plan will be solved. And the purpose of that is
>> the amendous I plan regarding I assume I can't speak for the applicant um regarding the locations >> the state of New Jersey modified the flood hazard regulations and that the flood hazard line on our property has
shifted. So, we will be accommodating the new flood hazard line and coming back before the board showing a very similar product, very similar project of apartments and retail, but it'll be respecting the new flood hazard line.
>> Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it. >> Martins, >> I just thought of one. It's minor. Um the the LOI you said expires in January, right? H um when did you get it? like how long the
>> LOIs are good for five years and as long as you file prior to them, you get a five-year extension. >> This young man next to me is in charge of filing the extension before it expires. That's his job. >> Yeah. >> So, so if I was that So, how old is the one that you have that
>> 20 19 2021 question? They're five years. It expires in 26. So, okay. It's not 20 years old or something. Okay. Thank you. Will this project tie into all the other projects too that are going on in that
general area like the sewers and sewer line is an extension what's it thousands of feet and then it comes up to the intersection comes across all of these properties and we were required or we made the commitment that we would make certain that it
provided capacity for the the whole region in which it's passing. We have some of those approvals from the Jackson Township Municipal Utility Authority. The routing has been worked out with them. So, I think the answer is yes. It
>> Good answer. >> That's that was what moved the board when we were here the first time. >> Yeah. Because you have a couple major projects right there >> that that was a very key item that they were talking about. So I just want it clear that I mean I realize what's going
on but in the grand scheme of things it's it is the right place to do it. >> Thank you. >> We were required uh as a footnote to under engineers report to add uh contributing areas to our pump station design. So yes >> I'm sure.
>> Thank you. >> Questions or comments? I think given the um brief testimony from this evening, we know that the variances and everything were previously granted. They're here basically because it's expiring. Um and it's a minor
change that we're seeing and we understand that the right of ways because of the county because they're going to bring sanitary sewage to the area. Um, I see no reason to not put forth a mo a motion to approve. Um, given the testimony we've heard this evening and everything laid out by Miss
Cyprien, >> that was a motion. >> Kathleen, we have a motion and a second. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia, >> yes. >> Dr. Hoffstein, >> yes.
>> Miss Bradley, >> yes. paid all in one night in less than an hour. >> Less than half an hour. Okay, we are going to take a five minute break before we begin the Well, let's make that 10 minutes before we uh do the next
application. Since that was obviously longer than 10 minutes, um we're going to call this meeting back to order. The floor is yours. Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the board, Salvatore Alfuri of Clearary
Gobi, Alfian Jacobs. On behalf of the applicant, we're here tonight seeking variance relief for a property um that was actually before this board previously and did receive D1 uh use variance. Um I have uh with me tonight I have Ian Bordon who's going to be
providing some professional uh planning testimony in support of this application. And um if the board does require we we also have our traffic expert here as well. Um, so I think uh if it pleases the board, I'm gonna pass it off to Ian who's going to provide some background on site and uh the
justifications for the relief we're seeking tonight. >> You swear or affirm that the testimony you give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And could you state your name and very briefly put your credentials on the record? >> Thank Thank you. Uh Ian Bordon,
president, professional design services, Lakewood, New Jersey, professional planner in the state of New Jersey. Uh been in the business for 40 years, graduate of Ruckers, have testified in front of this board and many others throughout the state. >> Mr. Board and this uh board accept your credentials. Thank you.
>> Appreciate that. >> So this project is a uh a project that the board has seen before, although the current members probably have not. Although Miss Bradley, I believe you you probably have and maybe Dr. Hoffstein. Anyway, uh first the site I've marked pre-marked three exhibits. The beach
board member has 11 by7 obviously it's on the screen. We'll start with A1 which is an aerial exhibit which shows the site marked in yellow. Uh the site contains 4.9 acres. It's obviously lot 8 block 2401 and it's located on Progress
Place. So to orient you on the map, north is to the top. Across the left or right on the bottom is Route 195. On the right, north and south is uh Route 527 uh Cedar Swamp Road. And then Progress
Place intersects with uh Cedar Swamp Road and is a private industrial roadway. So th this property is in what's known as the Progress uh industrial park and um it's in the LM zone.
uh light manufacturing. The site u had received a uh D1 variance and a site major site plan approval by res in 2022 by resolution 2022-41 and it was approved the applicant at the
time was ANA truck parts. I'm sure you recall uh the company. We've been in front of the board for a few different sites with them. And this site, like other sites, was approved as a contractor storage facility permitting the parking and storage of trucks, construction equipment, and construction
materials and supplies. The site, as you can see, the site, as I said, contains 4.9 acres. my it's a little hard to see my uh but the the portion of the site adjacent to Progress Place is the developed portion of the
site. The development has been completed per the 2022 approval. Uh basically development is very simple. It's it's a gravel yard. Um Oh, that's awesome. Thank you, Anthony. That's That's
I got to up my game apparently. Um the rear of the site that you can see is remaining forested in the exhibit is a wetlands and wetland buffers. There is actually a small bit of uplands closer to 195, but we didn't choose to develop that. Uh as part of the site plan
approval, we had obtained an LOI in 2023 as well as a transition area waiver averaging plan also in 2023. Uh both of those remain in effect. Both of those expire in 2028. Again, five-year approval period for both of
those uh the certification and the and the permit. But the uh site plan was developed considered of that. Uh the the we're what we're for here for tonight. We're not proposing any any additional development. We're proposing to just
simply occupy uh to add a use to the project. Uh and the use that we're proposing to add is a uh placing a mobile concrete batch plant on the property. Um
if we can go to the next exhibit, please Anthony. Here we have uh sidebyside views. On the left is the approved site plan uh which shows the parking for trucks and the storage for equipment supplies and
rolloff containers etc. And then on the right of the site remains the same as I said and here we just simply put put on here what I'm pointing to uh is the mobile batch plant the the areas where soil
>> ask you a question I I know that other words what makes it a mobile batch plant >> the because it's it's it's on tire it has tires it is a mobile plant it is delivered by truck uh there's Actually,
my exhibit A3 is a picture of it. >> It's not anchored to a foundation. Basically, >> there's no foundation. One could say I anticipated the question. Um, but it's there's no You can see on the bottom left the the plant being
delivered in that sample picture. Uh, yeah, there's no foundation. It's a self-supporting structure on tires and you just uh it's parked on the site and it's intended to do uh uh the the
purpose of them is to uh uh dispense concrete uh closer to the source. In other words, uh closer to where the concrete is being uh being used. So the uh the the the um mobile concrete plant
is comprised of a silo you see in the in A3. That's the vertical uh silo that's that's stood up after it's delivered. That has a height of 35 ft. And then you see there's a uh two or three hoppers they call it where the sand and stone
are mixed in and then there's a conveyor belt that brings them into the silo and then they're dispensed into trucks. And the this this plant is designed for uh what they call transit uh cement or
concrete. In other words, we all have seen the concrete trucks with the rotating cylinders. Uh some concrete plants like larger ones like Clayton are what they call central plants where they actually mix the concrete in the plant. So what comes out
is finished concrete. In this case, this silo dispenses a mixture of the sand and cement and water and uh stone into the truck and then it's mixed by the truck as it drives to the project site. That's why they call it transit
concrete. >> So they don't add water to the truck does. >> I'm sorry. >> So they don't add water at the plant, just materials. >> Uh there's water routed at the plant. There is water added at the plant. Um so that's what that's what the the
use is. Uh it's a a plant that processes these raw materials into uh into concrete. Uh and for that reason uh and we have applied for a a D a D1 variance but I think it's or or a Dvarian I
should say but it's important uh to understand exactly what variance we're obviously we're looking for. In my opinion, the use itself, the mobile concrete batch plant is a permitted use in the LM zone under light manufacturing. And I'm going to read a
sentence from the ordinance if I may. And that is the uh under section 8 of the ordinance. It's a 244-62 light manufacturing uh permitted use 8 permits the fabrication, assembly or processing of
goods or materials or the storage of good bulk goods and materials where such activities and materials create no hazard from fire nor explosion nor produce no toxic or corrosive fumes, gas, smoke, dust, vapor, noise,
vibration, glare, flashes or objectional effluent. uh we don't use any of the chemicals or the plant doesn't create any of those uh per doesn't adversely affect any of those performance standards such as uh
noise or smoke or vibration or glare. Um, so, so in my opinion, >> in your picture from the model 27 batch plant down in the bottom left, >> yes. >> What is coming out of that truck?
>> Uh, that's the truck being loaded by the plant. So, that's the cement truck I was talking about. So, that truck is receiving the cement mixture from the plant. >> But it just it looks like there's dust. No, the the bottom left. >> Oh, no. That's being delivered.
>> That's that's the truck that's >> Oh, that's just the truck being delivering it to a site >> and then it would be set up from there and then lifted and raised. >> I mean, that truck is that's being delivered on a forest road in the middle of >> that's not this truck is not something would be on this >> that that truck is just delivering the
plant and then then it then it's gone. >> Yeah, the the picture directly to the right of that is an example of the truck being loaded. >> Right. That's what I thought you meant. I'm sorry. But the plant the pictures on the right are the plant in operation. I'm sorry to throw up, but you're talking about the picture now on the right. Right.
>> On the right side. Yeah. You see the cement trucks on the top and the bottom picture? >> Yeah. So, so in the picture on the right, the bottom right. So, it um the transit truck is that the transit transit truck you're talking about? So, it's going to mix it
>> or keep mixing it as it'll keep rotating and mixing as it drives to the site. >> Okay. And then so that all structure. That's the mobile. >> That's the silo. >> That's the silo which is mobile. You said >> the whole thing is mobile.
>> The whole thing is >> if you And that's a good picture because if you look to the left of that picture, you see the square hopper bins, >> right? Okay. >> And then you see the conveyor belt that goes upward in an angle. >> Right. So that convey so what there's a uh there's material stored on the site
you know piles of sand and and stone uh consistent with our current approval. We're permitted to do that under the current approval. Uh but those materials are placed into the hoppers by a loader and then and then that conveyor carries them up into the silo where
they're stored and then when the truck comes they're delivered to the truck. >> Okay. And and and before the truck they're not really mixed, right? But I guess it's just >> they're not really mixed. No, >> not really mixed. They just don't on top there. And um so you said it's mobile. So so so why have something like that
mobile? You said because you want to get you wanted to get closer to this to what? >> Closer to the source being the concrete, >> right? Sorry. Go ahead. >> Closer to where you're delivering the concrete. >> But the truck is the one that's delivering the concrete. >> Yes.
>> And for >> So why does that Okay. So for the board's benefit, the the the term mobile, it really draws to the fact that it's not actually there's no foundation keeping this this silo in place. So it's something that presumably can be taken
on and off the site or moved to, you know, shifted something like that. So that's why it's considered mobile. It's not actually mailed down into. >> Gotcha. And this is I guess more for usage. But so on a normal course of business, are you going to be moving this thing around? >> No. The intention is to place it here
and leave it here for as long as it operates. >> As long as it operates, right? >> Well, it's a tenant like any other tenant that would operate it. >> Right. Right. >> So, as long as he is a tenant, he can operate his plant here. >> Right. Right. Because my concern is, as you said, there's wetlands here, right? Yes.
>> And so, you know, you can move this thing around and at some point, what if you get too close to those wetlands? No, >> I understand. >> We don't want you to get close. Well, we >> and uh >> that's a that's a great question, but we prepared this exhibit, exhibit A2 to show the location, and that's the
location we're seeking approval for. >> Understood. I was just that's why I was asking about the fact that it was mobile. uh yeah mobile >> because what's critical about that >> is that you can move it at any time and >> right to respond to questions from your board professionals the reason we did
that in large part is if you go back to A2 please Anthony is we showed the truck turning movement to deliver the materials so they can safely traverse around this >> yeah yeah okay thank you >> so so in my opinion the uh the mobile or
the concrete batch plant I think I put too much emphasis on mobile It's just the name of it. I keep just uh but the batch plant is in my opinion a permitted use. However, the site did receive a D1 variance because the other uh sto uh
bulk uh parking uses the contractor storage and parking uses required a D1 variance. So, by placing this plant on the site in our opinion serves as an intensification of those existing approved uses. It diminishes them in
scale because obviously with this plan here there cannot be the intensity of those uses but in my opinion under the land use law regardless of that fact they are they are there the area in which they're being performed in is being reduced and thereby is an intensification. So, what we're seeking
is a D uh is a uh >> a D2 variance, I'm sorry. >> Uh for the intensification of the previously approved D1 uses. Uh I would like to briefly go over the uh the uh statement of operations on on
on the uh uh details of the the operation of the of the plant. Uh the plant would employ uh between 10 and 12 employees. Uh and those employees consist of two different types of employees. One are
truck drivers and the other are actual employees that would work at the plant. So uh it approximately half of those employees would be truck drivers. >> Sure. Can I just clarify your statement of operation sends there's zero employees?
>> Oh, the one I submitted. >> Okay. >> You mean there's two of them? >> No, no, no, there's not two of them. That I I apologize that under the ANA uh bulk storage, there were no employees at the site. U I I should have changed that
sentence in the statement and I apologize for that. Um so for the for the existing uses that have the D1 variance there's no employees. This proposed use does have 10 to 12 employees. Uh half of them would be driving trucks. So they come in
their personal cars. The trucks will be parked on the site. They would bring their personal cars, park it, jump in the truck and then drive. And they would not be present on the site all day long. They would be just going from the site to job sites delivering concrete. Um and
the the other half five to seven employees would actually work on the site operating the plant performing clerical duties uh maintenance of the plant um scheduling and coordinating the deliveries of the trucks. So uh and then
the estimated truck traffic every day is one or two tractor trailers would deliver raw materials every day. That would be the sand and the stone for example. Uh and then uh additionally there will be up to six dump trucks every day delivering raw
materials and then up to 15 outgoing uh concrete trucks every day. So Scott can give traffic testimony but the number of trips uh traffic for this use is is small.
The hours of operation would remain the same as we have current approval. uh all of the other conditions of the other approval would remain in effect. And that is is that we did provide with the fire uh commissioners. Uh this it's a little hard to see. It's just different
hatch, but this is a fire lane in the front of the site. We've maintained that same fire lane. Um, in addition to this, the the the site is fenced and gated and the gate has a knockbox so that the
emergency services have 247 access that remains consistent with our 2022 approval. >> Mr. board given the description of the operations that you just gave it is uh
remains your position that you don't need a D1 just a D2 that this is simply an intensification of the uh >> it's my >> the unmanned yard >> because the uh because the batch plan
itself is a permitted use in my opinion. >> Okay. If the batch plants was not a permitted use, obviously it would be a D. It would be two D1s. But in my opinion, the batch plan is permitted, thereby it's a D2 or >> I I understand your position.
>> Thank you, >> Ian. And can you confirm as well that uh you had mentioned earlier that these trucks would be coming onto the site? Uh is it accurate that these would be scheduled pickup staggered uh so that it's not you know for the board's
benefit you're not going to have a line of trucks out there waiting to get on the site. These things are all prescheduled and staggered. >> That that's correct. That's that that is correct. >> And there's uh there we're we're expecting a maximum if this were to be permitted uh anywhere between you know a
maximum of five to seven trucks or >> Yes. >> on the site at a given time in terms of loading. That's correct. And those trucks will be parked on the site in the overnight hours. The the approved site plan does have parking areas along progress uh place um
on both sides of the access drive uh that that remain untouched by the proposal for the batch plant and those that's where the trucks will be. >> So rather than hanging trucks, they would be concrete trucks. Trucks none nonetheless.
You don't anticipate trucks being backed up. That would interfere with the park and ride. >> No. >> And and for the board's benefit, um it's our understanding that it takes about five minutes to load a truck at one of these uh these batch plants. So, they
come in, it takes on on the higher end about five minutes for it to load up. And then once they're loaded up, they're on to their their job site as far as correct goes. >> Anticipating uh 15 of those a day. outgoing. Uh >> uh that's correct. Yes. And that's over
the course of a 10 to 10 hour workday. >> Who are these trucks for the concrete? Who are they doing the concrete for? >> Uh it would be the the trucks would be the uh the tenants trucks u his own trucks and they would deliver
to whatever project site. >> So it's a subcontractor. It would No, it would be Well, it would be the tenant of the site. >> So, it's like a a sub or a contractor, >> right? The the owner of the batch plant would own the trucks. >> No, what I'm saying is like we have
Clayton's on the other side of town. Yes. They do concrete. >> So, do we have a a specific company that they're just trying to get closer to? >> Yes. Yes. >> That's why they want this planted just to to make it easier. It's actually a
company from Staten Island that would like to open up this plant at this location. >> Do we know who they are? >> I know the guy's name is Joe. >> According to the traffic um I'm sorry. >> According to the traffic studs,
Richmond ready mix from Staten Island. >> Thank you, Miss Bradley. >> Probably Vanro Vigor >> Vigorilla or Diamond. >> Yes. Richmond ready mix on the traffic study >> and the Richmond part would really accord with Staten Island.
>> Yep. >> Was part of the Van Bro Vigorola brothers probably. >> I'm sorry. >> Probably affiliated with Van Bro and Vigoro and all those from Staten Island. >> Okay. Yeah, >> I'm from Staten Island so I know that. >> Yeah, I I don't know Staten Island.
Yeah, >> I'm an Ocean County guy. Okay, >> very good. Thank you. There is bulk storage just to conclude my uh testimony. Uh there is bulk storage standards in the ordinance uh
that were part of the approval for the uh current site and those would remain uh in effect. We we do comply and I'll briefly read those and these are unchanged from the uh from the 2022
approval. Uh they're of conditions for bulk storage. A bulk storage is permitted in the LM zone subject to these conditions. Uh a is that no bulk storage is permitted within a front yard or within 100 ft of any public street. Uh there is storage
proposed within that distance to Progress Place. Progress Place is a private roadway. It's not a public roadway. Um no bulk storage is permitted between any side or rear lot line. We are proposing uh storage within the uh side setback
lines. Uh the bulk storage must be screened from public view uh where adjacent to a residential zone. We are not there is no residential zone near this property. As you could see from A1, there's there's
there's not even a in that whole view of the aerial. We're smack in the middle of the LM zone backed up to 195. Um, but uh the site is surrounded by 8ft fencing that was approved in the 2022 approval that does screen the site from public
view. Um, no fence uh used under D. No fence used to screen shall be placed closer to any property line than the required setbacks. We did obtain a variance for the 2022 approval to place the fence on
the property line and it's been constructed in accordance with that approval. All service road shall be paved with puminous concrete. Uh the driveway to progress place is paved. Uh in no instance uh shall the on-site
the height of the on-site material be greater than 10 ft. We had agreed and do continue to agree that the height will remain at 10 feet. We do not there's no variance granted for that. And then uh lastly under G uh no heavy equipment shall be operated closer than
the front setback plus 50 ft given our environmental constraints that are quite obvious. Uh we had received a uh variance to operate the equipment uh at a closer setback within the boundaries of the development that's been
completed. Uh quickly some planning testimony. Uh as I said the the property is in the LM lead industrial zone which is described for the development under the master plan as a development of light industrial and uh
development uh along the route 195 corridor. The objective is to encourage the development of industrial warehouse and office developments. Um as I stated the the processing of this material was permitted under
section item eight of the ordinance. So I think we do certainly comply with the zoning zone plan and and master plan. I believe we meet the purposes of zoning. Again, we are an extension expansion of a non-conforming use since we're expanding the intensity of the
previous D1 uh variance. And I believe we uh meet the purposes of zoning under A uh and G uh to provide sufficient space and appropriate location for a variety of of uses. Certainly, this use is appropriate for the site given it's
in the LM zone already developed for industrial use and it's just simply another tenant for this uh same property. In my opinion, it can be uh the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and the uh
without substantially impairing the zone plan and master plan u uh simply because the use we are proposing is permitted in the LM zone and the u intensification although requiring a D2 variance u will not require does not create an
intensification of actual use in the manner of truck traffic for example because any area occupied by the plant is simply land that's not available for the other uses already approved. So in my opinion the u the plan is
particularly well suited to this site meets the uh the criteria for the D2 under the uh positive and negative criteria and can be granted as such. Gordon, you talked about raw materials earlier. I know you mentioned sand. What else will be stored?
>> It's sand and stone and cement powder >> and water. >> Sorry. And water as well. >> The water will be from a well on the site. There is no public water sewer here. That's partly why this use is suitable. Uh that was one of my arguments in the 2022 variance. Uh
that's why the storage use was particularly well suited here because Progress Place does not have any water and sewer. And uh but the use the amount of water used by a plant of this magnitude is is very small. Um
even at maximum capacity, it will be less than 3,000 gallons per day. >> Gordon, should the board determine that a D1 is required rather than a D2, is there any additional testimony that you would want to provide?
>> Uh I think it would be the same testimony. Uh Mr. Brownie, I think that uh we would still meet the positive and negative criteria if a D1 was deemed to be required by the by the board. Um >> I don't know if you're going to say more. So, back to the cement powder.
Obviously, you don't want that getting wet. How is that being stored? >> I'm sorry. >> Cement powder that's going to be stored in bins. How is that being because you wouldn't want that being getting wet ahead of time? I believe it's in it's in a a bin a sealed bin.
>> I'm sorry. Can you point Will will it be where where on there is that bin going to be? >> I I see where you're >> this this orientation is the silo was the top here and these are the hoppers. It'll be down by the hoppers.
>> Okay. Where it says hopper. Okay. So, this is where that powder is going to be. >> Yes. Is it going to be a bin or a drop tanker that it comes out of? >> I believe it's a drop tank and then it would enter it would go up that conveyor with the sand in the >> tankers that kind of be on the bottom
with the pipes. That's a drop tanker. It'll come out of the back of that. >> Okay. I I'll let Miss Bradley finish. >> Oh, you're good. Okay. Um, so what I struggle, I don't have a lot of experience with cement, but I mixed
some to do little stuff around that. So the problem with the powder is it gets into the air and it it obviously from there with wetlands around and everything like that, how you making sure that when it comes down and goes
through the conveyor belt, it's not flying all around, especially how it's windy over there. I know you weren't paying attention. I get you reading on you. >> I'm actually >> don't don't text and testify at the same
time. It's like don't text and drive. >> Um yeah. So So my real concern >> I understand, >> right? Wet land and cement to me just two don't mix. Um, >> I can only tell you I can tell you and hopefully you'll answer me and I'll give
you more of a firm answer, but I can tell you that I've done concrete plants for Clayton for example. >> Yeah. >> Much larger ones in Manahawkan >> U for example, which is right next to wetlands and and they coexist and they've coexisted for 30 years
>> nicely. >> Yes. >> No, there's never been any. No, I've also done one for Stavola up in Tinton Falls and um they like to, you know, Stavola is a pavement company, but now and again they like to ruffle
the feathers of their competitors by doing what their competitors do and did >> but uh but that plant has operated for also 30 years and it's in a residential neighborhood. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> They're very impactfree.
I I guess you would say only if potentially there's some kind of accident or something and the powder spills goes down into the wetlands. That's the only possibility, right? It would have to be some kind of disaster or something.
>> I do think that that is accurate. And can you confirm that in your opinion that that would be the case? That the the concern of the concrete or rather the uh the concrete dust making its way into the wetlands would would typically only be from a a catastrophic failure of
>> I agree. I I give that a zero probability percent probability that occur. Yeah, we get hurricanes sometimes around here. >> Um I guess bottom line is the um Did you say you got you got a a letter from the wetlands?
>> Oh, we have an LI and a transitionary waiver form approval 23. >> It's been approved. >> Yes. >> From 2023. >> That's prior to this mobile concret for this project. >> That was that was to develop the site. Those were outside agency approvals to to actually develop the site
>> for this use though. for this use cement. >> Those those permits are not tied to a use. They're tied to the land. >> Those those approvals those approvals create the boundary of where we're allowed to develop to. >> Right. It doesn't cuz just back to my
thing. You got cement there. It's powder. It gets windy. Things break. And the wetlands are right there. I mean, with all due respect, you say zero. I don't think you could say zero.
>> Yeah. What uh the operator tells me that these cement is stored in the silo. I was It's stored actually in the silo. >> It has to get to the silo somehow though. >> Yeah, exactly. >> It's delivered It's delivered by process something.
>> It's delivered by one of these incoming trucks into into the silo. >> Okay. It's not stored on the site like the sand and the stone outside. >> Okay. Well, that's good. >> Thank you.
>> Ashton, you have anything for us? >> Uh, Mr. Bordon, can you confirm the site previously received site plan approval and has been fully constructed in accordance with that approved site plan? >> That is correct. >> And when when was the construction
completed? >> Earlier this year. >> Um, and are there any significant improvements proposed? >> No. Uh, is it your opinion that a a formal
site plan? Is it your opinion that a formal site plan would be necessary? >> In my opinion, no, because we're simply placing the mobile plant uh on the site. There's no there's no other site
development proposed. Just just placing the the mobile plant. >> So, as part of the previous site plan approval, you've covered all the site plan concerns like circulation and drainage and wetlands. All that was
already previously covered. >> And you've demonstrated that circulation is acceptable with your truck turning movements shown on the proposed layout. >> That's my opinion. Yes. >> You testified there's fencing around the
entire usable area of the property. >> That's correct. >> What type of fencing? It's an 8ft chain link with uh with barb wire on top with slats. >> Okay. And uh in your opinion, would that prevent the operation from creeping into
any sensitive areas? >> Oh yes. >> Uh you already commented on the chapter 244 152 the bulk storage. So I'm not going to go on that talk about that again. Um and just in general, can you
just describe any noise, dust, or public safety impacts? I know you touched on some. >> Yes. Yeah. Uh the plant does not generate noise, does not generate dust. Uh we do have the the crushed gravel surface on the entire uh site. So there
will be no dust created by the movement of trucks. Uh there is no glare. there is no hazardous materials uh stored on the site or utilized in the production of concrete. So um I know those are all listed in the
performance standards of the ordinance. get this section here under uh 244 160 and we would comply with all of those >> and and from an engineering standpoint generally the site will function uh or operate the same in your opinion?
>> We're not proposing any changes to the site. The site again has a gravel surface with with the drainage as approved by the board. None of that would change. None of that would be affected by the uh the installation of the uh plant. But yes, I agree. >> Okay. Thanks. That's all I have at this
time. >> Mr. Rier, are you going to be presenting engineering testimony >> uh tonight? No, we're we're we're here just presenting uh planning testimony. We do have uh we do have our traffic expert as well uh should the board require testimony. Um we we did submit
that report and so to the extent you have questions or you do require that testimony, we'll be happy to provide it. But as far as >> But you're not planning on providing engineering testimony. just just uh for purpose tonight, just the planning testimony >> because we're not we're not changing the site. The site's already been approved and developed and we're not changing the
site at all. >> Batch plant is owned by the tenant that's going to be using it. It's not >> property is owned by if I correct me if I'm wrong, the property is owned by let's say you. I am going to be
operating the concrete batch plan. >> That's correct. It is a tenant going to own and operate the plant. >> Yeah. So that's So yeah, the tenant is the owner of this badge plan. >> So the tenant Yes. Correct. Um how long does So is is it like a lease where you
know like when you're renting how how long does he have that as a tenant or how long is he there as a tenant? Like >> that's that's to be negotiated with the property owner. Hopefully forever. But that's >> I think the question is does do you have a lease in place with the proposed senate already?
>> So uh just from a practical standpoint uh obviously until the board uh or if the board gives their approval then our client would move forward with entering into a formal lease agreement but at this point without the the approvals um you know we didn't want to put the cart
in front of the horse. >> Yeah, I want to go back to a couple things. >> Could I go ahead? Uh, according to the deed, the owner is now 51 Progress Place LLC. >> That's correct. >> They are the applicant for
>> That's correct. >> I just want to go back to a couple of things. You said that it doesn't make any noise. >> That seems a little >> Well, just the noise is the the noise is the conveyor in the trucks.
>> Maybe the the noise is not an industrial noise. is not like an impact noise or a machinery noise. It's or >> I guess you could say the machinery. It is the conveyor belts and the trucks. >> So in the context of of light manufacturing zone, it would be
considered dimminimous in your opinion. >> Yes. Well, the light manufacturing standard is that it would produce no uh hazard from fire explosion, no toxic corrosive fumes, gas, smoke, obnoxious
dust or vapor, offensive noise or vibration, right? >> Glare, flashes, or objectional effluent. >> I understand. It's not going to produce no >> Well, no, that's that's an accurate point. My the in my opinion the the
measure of offensive noises does it comply with the noise ordinance and it certainly would comply with the noise ordinance. >> Going to piggy back because that no to me seems like you're zero again. There's going to be zero nothing. You said no
glare is going to be generated. There's going to be glare generated. You might not maybe it doesn't impact anybody because you got nobody around you, but how how do you not generate noise? >> I don't I don't know. I don't believe the glare is is is generated.
>> I mean, you have a you have a a drab gray colored plant. >> Um I I don't see where glare is. >> The trucks at night >> Well, our hours of operation don't extend past 6 p.m. So, >> what are the hours of operation? 6 a.m.
to 6. >> I wanted to go back to the statement of operation if you don't mind. >> Um, Mr. Heyman brought up a great point. So, >> I was on this original application. It looks like you took the It looks like this was theirs. You just changed the date and change the name of the owner.
It says the hours of operation are from 6:00 to 6, but it doesn't this it talks a little bit about what was, right? So, I just want to make sure we're all on the same page of what is. So, the hours of operation are from 6 am to 6 pm. >> Correct. >> There will be employees on site.
>> Yes. >> Um, you're saying a truck or trailer may be moved, however, during any time. >> Yes. That was a particular sentence for ANA because sometimes they would get calls to bring in a truck and you know, it's rare, but sometimes they get a call
to bring it in. >> That's still going to take place. >> Yes. >> Um, if I may. Right. >> Yeah. Just to go back to Mr. Martin's point about the light and your state of the operation is are that the hours of operation are 6 to 6.
>> I'm pretty sure it was dark at 6 o'clock tonight. >> I understand it's dark for 1 hour. Yes. >> No longer. We're back to the statement of operations. Um this was a long discussion on the original application. The front gate will be accessible only
by employees and authorized leases via key card or password. A knockbox will be provided at the gate to ensure the fire companies will have full access to the site during all times. That will remain in place. God forbid there's an emergency. >> Yes. >> So now that there's going to be people on site
uh to um work the plant, so to speak, um we're still talking 6 to 6 Monday to Saturday. Um but the and the gate is still going to only be accessible by those employees and authorized lees. So, how is somebody going to be able to move a truck or a
trailer or come in after hours without >> an employee would have the pass uh code to access the gate? >> Yeah. So, the the the trucks that would be utilizing this particular uh batch plant are going to be owned and operated
by the operator of this uh facility. Um so, the trucks coming in, the trucks that that are delivering as well. Um, and so when these when these individual and these are all going to be scheduled and staggered out. So you're not again, so it's not going to be just trucks showing up because uh, you know, they
got off the job early. This is you're going to come in at this time in this time window to come in and get loaded up to go out to the next job. And then ultimately at the end of the day, these these same trucks that went in to get filled out and taking concrete out to their uh, their various job sites are
then going to come back and park their cars and then they'll do it all over again in the morning. Mr. Obviously, this is a determination for the board to make, but as you're describing this, I'm finding increasing difficulty from a legal standpoint in
and conceptualizing this merely as an intensification of the existing use. This does appear to me to be a separate use that would require a D1. So I just want to be clear, you know, I think I've indicated that through my questions, but
as you're describing it, I become more convinced from the the legal standard that it is not simply an intensification of the existing D1, but is its own D1, which you may well meet that standard, but I I do want to be clear. Obviously,
the board will have to make that determination, but this seems given that you you you're now adding a number of employees, you're adding, you know, regularly scheduled traffic, um you're adding a large piece of equipment, um
which, you know, does create, I think, some noise, some vibration, whether it's, you know, some glare perhaps, it does appear to me to meet the standard for a D1 or to require that you meet the standard for a D1. one rather than a D2
and I want to be clear so that there's not a need to add additional >> understood and those comments are wellreceived and and I will say that we did note that in the uh in the report from the planner that uh potentially we should be prepared to address both the
D1 and the two D2 variances. Um as and Ian can speak further on that, but uh I I think as he articulated before um you know the B many of the reasons why the D2 uh way we believe we should be afforded the D2 relief it then also
supports the D1 relief were also >> and I just I didn't want to get caught in just keeping thinking you know this seems like a new thing because the question really is whether it is a a a use that the board considers
uh to meet. >> I understand it, >> Ashton. >> Yeah, I I just want to say I agree. Um Jean, I I actually don't even see what the intensification is. Um I mean, definitely there's more uses on the
site, but you're not expanding an existing use. Am I right? Yeah, but it's an intensication by reduction of the area of the same use. >> Right. Right. But the new you are proposing a new use. >> We're proposing a new use. >> For lack of a better word, your prior
approval was a contractor yard. >> Yes. >> And now it's a contractor. >> Clearly a new use being >> and a cement plan. So to me it's in D1 as well because you went from multiple uses which is permitted as a contractor yard because you're allowed
combined uses from above the line in the LM and now you're adding a new one. >> So that's one. Secondly, the exhibit A2 that you provided today shows a proposed plan which I could be wrong. I have never seen, did not review, did not
anything. So, your previously submitted plan, I guess from the testimony provided today, indicates to me that that was your old approval, which I understood. >> Yes. >> I had questions about where this batch plant is going to go. Um, if it's temporary, permanent. Obviously, you've
answered that today. I guess I struggle with how you don't think you need to amend your site plan to permit this use when I'm just looking at your previous approval and it says proposed gravel parking area and now your new proposal says sand and stone stockpile area and
then I see permitted an area available for permitted trucks and equipment and now I see that same area is sand and stone supply. Uh >> where where are all those trucks going? And I understand there's going to be some reduction, but you have a how many
employees exist now and now you're adding more. And I guess based on the statement of operations, maybe there were no employees prior and the statement of operations is wrong now and there now
are employees. So there's a lot of like conflicting information that no one on this board has reviewed until today. We can't even draft accurate review letters if we don't know where the plant's going. And how >> the exhibit the the A2 that's on the
plan was submitted 10 days ago. So to say that you have not seen it, I I I submitted. >> I have not seen it. So >> the normal plan is not here tonight. So >> okay, >> uh the the approved plan, these notes here denote storage of materials in
these areas. So, the fact that we're saying this storage here is not inconsistent with the approval. >> Um, >> as I my response is to Mr. Roireer, the only thing we're doing different on this site in my opinion is we're simply placing the mobile plan.
I'll leave it to the board to determine. Uh, we be always guided by your decision. In my opinion, that does not rise to the requirement to to do a complete major site plan to simply place one um mobile plant without any other change to the site. There's not a single
grade being changed, not a single piece of drainage fence, not a single change to anything else. >> Let me just interrupt for a second, Ashton, if you don't mind. Mr. Bordon, I had a couple of questions just along the same line. So, let's look at >> to the left of the original. It said
there were 14 truckcap parking spaces. It's not indicated on this plan. Are those still going to be parking place? >> They remain parking spaces. >> Yes. >> Okay. Only because it's not indicated. So I wasn't sure either. Sure that >> I just didn't copy all this verbiage
over trying to kept this clean. >> But that all these notations remain the same. I just didn't put them here because it would clutter up the plan a lot. I mean I mean in my >> that truck parking remains the same in both locations. The entrance remains the
same. The gate, the fence, the gravel, the drainage, nothing changes on any of it. >> I mean, while I would maybe extend a statement of the changes are
presumably relatively minor. Traditionally, you would have a site plan that would be signed off on and you would do compliance review and there would be a plan set that then is the construction documents that go out to be built. And
when this batch plant is now on site and I look at your old site plan, it's not going to be the same. >> It is the same. All I'm doing is putting the batch plant on the site. >> Mr. I I I I hear you saying that and >> again, I'll be guided by the board. If you want to come back with a site plan,
I'll come back with a plan. >> Yeah, I'm just saying but you you're saying that it's the same, but it's it's what's written here isn't the same. Like in the area that's identified in the existing plan as area available for permitted trucks and equipment, that's
labeled in the new plan as sand and stone stockpiles. And then in the area available for permitted trucks and equipment, that is where you have the batch plant. And then the area that's listed on the old plan is proposed
gravel parking area is listed here as where the hopper bins are. It looks like there's the circulation road or path and then sand and and stone stock piles. So they don't they don't
seem like they're the same. And just for the for the just to bring in some I I think a slightly different uh viewpoint of this is that these areas that you've just identified as far as the uh from the prior approval as being the area permitted for trucks equipment
the the idea here is is that those same areas harping on the equipment portion of it will be storing the materials that would be used to create the concrete ultimately. Right. So our our opinion and Ian's testimony is is that that is if not the exact not the exact same but
substantially similar to what was already approved in allowing the storage of equipment there. In this instance, they would be we're be we're asking for the essentially we're going to be storing our same materials there. And then as far as the uh the portion in the front of the site where it's identified
as 14 truck cabs, parking spaces, that would be the area that the concrete trucks would be parked. Um, and and as I mentioned earlier, we do have our traffic engineer who might be able to shed some additional light on the circulation and and just the idea of how these trucks are going to be coming in
on onto the site. And then uh to to your point uh Miss Cypriyani is as far as the the actual mobile uh batch plan that's that's also placed in the same area that we have the prior approval allows for the storage of equipment which this in
this instance that is the equipment that is the what's going to be utilized on site. So that's why our position is that it is substantially similar if not exactly the same in the sense that it's allowing equipment not necessarily the same equipment but it is permitted equipment and it's along the same lines
of this construction uh storage and and yard that was previously uh authorized by this board. >> I I I understand your perspective on that. >> As as Mr. Bor Bordon indicated we we are at the uh the pleasure of the board and if the board does see fit to require
these instance then we would be happy to come back and and comply with that. >> I have a question. >> Yes, Mr. Chair. >> So now you have two separate sand and gravel piles, two separate areas. We draw a nice picture here and you're saying it's not going to make a lot of
noise. How many front end loaders? >> One. One. >> One. How big is that? uh >> 40 ton >> I'm sorry >> one of the big 40 ton front end loaders. >> I'm not familiar with the size of the front end loaders but it wouldn't be large one. >> Okay. So you're going to be taking a
front end loader which is noisy and you're going to be taking sand and stone and daring to steel hoppers. >> Yes. >> So there will be dust, there will be noise. Well, >> you have a heavy piece of equipment that's going to be running around that you don't have on your picture here and you're >> you're trying to present a picture of
something that's a little bit bigger than what you're presenting. And that's what the board's having a problem. >> I understand. I'm I'm I'm I'm painting the picture that it's not any substantially different to what's already approved. We're already approved to store and move equipment on the site.
We're already approved to have loader on the site and all the other pieces of equipment and move them around and park them. And this site was approved as a contractor yard. >> You're saying trucks and equipment. You're putting a plant, not a truck, not a piece. >> I understand. >> It's a plant. So, it's a
>> and >> I understand this is your job playing on words, but it's kind of >> Mr. Tremor, to your point about the uh the dust, I will point u the board uh for their benefit to the operational statement. Um so this this uh equipment,
the batch plant, it has this built-in wham pulse projector that is designed to uh ensure that no dust escapes while this is in operation. So that the this and I think that goes >> could you say again what what it is that
you have? It's a it's a it's a builtin wham wam pulsejet dust collector and a complete filtr filtration system which is designed uh presumably so that no dust escapes during this operation while
it's ongoing and it's loading these trucks and getting onto the truck. >> That's dust control as it's going down a conveyor. >> Correct. >> As you're loading the conveyor, you cannot control that. >> Right. But the >> But that's the point. >> I understood. I I I understand. But there are there are mechanisms in place
that when this system is operated, it's it's going to keep the dust. >> I'm not saying, yeah, you're not going to see a cloud 20 ft in the air, but it does make dust. No getting around that. The where the sand and stone piles are, we putting any retention to keep any
runoff from that because you're right on the border of wetlands. All the runoff is directed internally to the site to an existing drainage system and that would remain the same, >> right? But you have a sand pile, you got a torrential rain, the sand could run off into that area. So are they going to
burm it in any way or put the concrete? >> Well, it's already graded that way that the site as designed approved and constructed drains towards progress place. >> What kind of pitches on that? >> Like 1%. Tell me I was on a torrential rainstorm
with a big sand pile. It's starting to move. >> No, it's I think >> might be something to consider. >> Okay. >> Another question regarding the parking. Um there was originally uh nobody on site for the entire
hours. Um there were six spaces, six person parking spaces. So if somebody was coming in to get their truck, they would park their car and they would go out. Well, now we're going to have more employees. Where will they be parking? >> They'll they'll be parking in those six
places. >> But you said there's 10 to 12 employees, >> but the the truck driving employees would park their personal vehicle where the truck is parked. In other words, they swap the truck for the car. It would be in the same space. So if a truck they they arrive at 6
o'clock in the morning, there's a truck there. They pull their car up, they pull the truck out, they put the car where the truck was. >> Other thing on the original um approval, uh it was for a portaott porta potty with a concrete pad and that was if I
remember correctly, that was acceptable then because we're not going to be employees on site for the full 12 hours of operation six days a week. We are now going to have um 10 to 12 employees. That has to change. Correct.
>> Uh well, there's only five on the site at the maximum. Uh I mean again, we'll be gathered by the board. U I think the the existing facilities as approved are are adequate for that. But
>> is there currently portaotty on site now? >> I believe it was part of the approval, wasn't it? No, no, no. It was part of the approval, but you said that you guys said that the property had been developed. So, I'm just asking >> why it's probably not there. I don't The answer is I'm I'm not sure of that, but there's no tenant currently, so there's
no reason to have it there currently. It's the site is completed but unoccupied. >> So, you're saying that if the portaotti isn't there now, it will be. You think that a single portaotti is sufficient? >> Yes.
How high will the piles of sand and concrete be? >> I'm sorry. >> Height of the sand? Uh, >> not not more than 10 ft. The bulk the bulk storage standards do not allow a height more than 10. So, we would not propose more than 10. >> Mark and Ashton. Oh, I'm sorry, Jim.
>> I just have one question. >> You speak Mark and Ashton, I have a question. Um, maybe this is my lack of knowledge about a mobile concrete plant, but it's going to be approximately 35 feet high. That fits within our ordinances that's compliant.
That 35 ft if considered a principal building would be would comply. If considered an accessory building, it would not comply. >> Thank you. >> So, I guess I would just follow up back to these various uses. And so, I just want to make sure. So, we had a
contractor's yard with multiple contractors who had key access only currently or as proposed. I know it's unoccupied. >> And then in this new situation, the concrete operator is okay with all of those contractors still coming and doing
their thing and then also operating their plant. >> Yes. >> But it's not these this these are employees of the the operator. So there's not going to be So is this going to be a This is sort of back to my
clarity. Is this now the only use? >> Yeah, this would be the only use. We're We're not >> So we So we went from a contractor yard to a cement facility. >> Well, so I think that the distinction is and then Ian, you can jump in, but the
distinction is is that a cement operation, which is what's being proposed here. Yeah. is in effect the same as a contractor yard, but for the addition of this uh this mobile cement
uh I keep forgetting the word. We said it a h 100 times, but the uh the mobile cement mixer. >> Well, I can I can just say >> an empty lot is the same as a residential property because only because it has a house on it. >> I'm sorry.
>> Never mind. Well, I would just say per per our own code, like contractor yard is a thing and light manufacturing is a thing and they're distinct separate things as two separate uses. Understood. And and >> and again, it's not like I just want to
be clear for the record. It's you know, Jean said like she thinks it's a D1. I do too. I think it's like it's not a point of do you meet the criteria. It's just a point of saying what we're doing and making that as clear as possible. We're we're not eliminating the contractor storage use on the property.
That would remain with the concrete plant. >> Sounds like it's a concrete plant with storage, >> but but the storage will be will be in addition to the concrete plan. In other words, >> right? >> Yeah. It's accessory to the concrete plant. >> That that will be accurate. Yes. >> Yeah. Exactly.
>> It's not its own thing. >> Right. Currently currently the principal use is contractor storage. And that's a good way to put it. Under this proposal, the principal use would be the concrete plant with contractor storage being an accessory use. >> They will be the only tenant on the
site. >> They be the only tenant. >> There could be other tenants. The idea behind a contractor storage is that is that if I have a landscape business and I want to park my truck there, I need a place to park my truck because I can't park it on my property for zoning reasons, my house. I can rent one space
here to park my truck in. >> So, it's not a concrete. >> No, it's not. We were led to believe this was the only use of the site. >> Why? Why? Why? Why are you saying that? I mean, that that's that's kind of ridiculous. You just said that. >> Well, I don't think it's I I don't >> We just We just clarified this and you
understood it and now you're >> No, no, no. >> You then said they could rent it out. >> You just changed the You changed the for lack of a better word, the argument. You stated that the principal use is not concrete storage, but you said you had the ability to then rent out. That's
nowhere in here. That was nothing that we were presented. You were saying that before it was going to be a contractor's warehouse. It's now going to be a a light manufacturing. In your opinion, it's a light manufacturing, a mobile concrete batch plant. There's a difference between a being a mobile
concrete batch plant and a mobile concrete batch plant that can rent out spaces. And we just asked you how I just asked you specifically, where were people going to park? If we're going to be renting out spaces, where are they going? So, that's my first question. So just just as a point of clarity, I I
understand what the board's saying. I think what the distinction that I that I tried to articulate, which obviously I did not, is that we're not seeking to abandon the prior use that was approved by this board for purposes of tonight. We're seeking relief to allow this
particular operation to occur on site. Now, this is a lease, right? So we so ultimately a tenant's going to be coming in and operating this facility if approved. But at the end of that lease, if they can't find another con uh concrete operator to come in, the owner
of the site wants the ability and the flexibility to then go back to the contractor use that was approved uh by this board. So essentially what it is is we're here tonight for this use. We're not here to say we want to have this concrete use and then have other
individuals coming in and renting space. We want to operate the construct this this concrete facility for lack of a better term on the site while still maintaining our prior approval. We don't want to abandon the prior approval which is allows this contractor yard. So I can
represent to the board that the purpose of this is is to allow this particular operation on the site. And then ultimately again because it is a lease and you never know with a particular operator if they go belly up or something like that that my client wants the flexibility to say okay well if I
can't operate the this this particular concrete operation I can then go back to my prior approval which allows a contractor storage yard. >> Thank you. But are you saying that that as long as the concrete plant is there, there will be no other tenants?
>> Yeah. So the the Exactly. This is meant for this particular tenant. That's why we're here for the relief for this particular tenant to operate the site. The idea is we we're not and I I understand what the board's concerned now. I was a little confused that word, but I do get that is we're not looking to say we want to have concrete in this
area and then use the north portion of the property to store a different contractor's landscaping equipment and then in the south portion bring in another contractor to store you know uh whatever obviously you're cart blanch of what it is. So I I do understand the concerns. I apologize for the confusion
there on that. I do not aband any other approval but as long as the concrete operation is uh being undertaken it will be the only use >> right that and it obviously the storage of the equipment and things would be associated with this concrete operation.
>> Thanks for that clarity. Yes, thank you >> just to follow up uh from what Miss Bradley said and Mr. tremor. Um, I do have concerns with the fact that you have 10 to 12 employees and you're only providing six parking spots. Although you did mention that, you know, they'll
be pulling in and out their trucks. I don't think that is a safe way to operate. Um, that's for the parking purposes. Um, as far as the there's no public water and sewer there. So, you mentioned earlier that you would use
approximately 3,000 gallons of water from a well. we have any kind of um indication that this will is able to provide that long term and wouldn't affect the
surrounding areas, any other properties and that it would be a long-term proposition that it would be able to provide. >> Yes, that 3,000 gallons a day is just equivalent to a residential well. >> Okay. And your your testimony is that it wouldn't affect surrounding properties.
And I would like to adjust the parking as well because we talked about the six, but there's actually 20 spaces here. So, we're actually not even using all the parking. There's 14 spaces here for trucks and there's six spaces here for cars. So, we we have 20 spaces and we
don't need more than 12. >> So, how many trucks do you have operating? >> That would be approximately five stored on the site. Yeah, you have how many trucks total? >> Five.
>> Right. So, five five would be parked on the site. So, when the employees come in though, five of the employees that come into the site are getting into those five concrete trucks that would be on the site and then they take that off. So, >> that's correct. And the other trucks we I discussed, the dump trucks and the the
tractor trailers are from subcontractors. They don't stay at the site. They they come from other sites, come and go. They don't they're not parked here. They're not stored here. >> Fury, I'm a little confused. Earlier, Mr. Bordon said there would be one to two tractor trailers delivering raw
materials. We talked about what type of materials. Said there would be six incoming dump trucks also delivering raw materials. >> Then he said there'd be 15 outgoing uh trucks, concrete. So you said five,
>> but but I said there was five truck drivers. So those are five trucks going back and in and out three times a day. >> So these trucks would be on the site, they come in, they fill up, they go out, drop it off at the site, then they're going to come back, refill it. >> I understand what you're saying now, but that's not how it was explained. That's
why I'm asking the question. >> And and the the tractor trailer and dump trucks I described, those are subcontractors delivering those products. Those trucks do not stay here. They come drop off their materials and go home. >> Okay. Um
Yes. >> So, parking, we have more than enough parking for for the cars in the >> Okay, that's fine. Um, as far as the change of the gravel parking lot that you have now, um, and you're planning on storing the sand, stone, and stockpiles.
U, I'm concerned with that. the close proximity to the wetlands, um the fact that it's gravel, um the runoff, how do how do you mitigate those issues,
changing it from proposed gravel parking area to storing these kind of >> well, first what you're storing are are raw materials, earth materials, sand and stone. So uh uh and and in these types
of plants, they're stored on frankly sand surfaces all the time. If you, for example, go to Earl asphalt in South Hope Chapel Road, that's one of our clients, they store piles of stone on dirt right next to wetlands. So, uh it's
it's not a concern. Uh in a it's it's inert natural material. Um >> right. But but but there's a concern for runoff if you're going to have the sand running into the wetlands >> and that and that concern is in my
opinion obiated because the the current grading of the site pitches the site towards progress. There's a storm water basin in the front right here. So all the runoff from here goes towards the road. None of the runoff from the site
goes towards the wetlands. And that's the way the site is in the current condition as approved by the board. >> And uh I'm concerned as well with the um the fact that there's no septic or sewer of some some kind for say if you had
>> I mean that's a valid concern. Uh if if you felt that uh concern uh we could put in a septic system >> and then you would need some kind of a structure,
>> just a just a bathroom. >> There's there's no intention to have any sort of administrative or office setting on this site. This is the the individuals, the employees that would be on site are there to help assist when these trucks come up for the loading
just to make sure that everybody the trucks in the right spot and then when they come and that way when the materials get into the truck that that's that's their function. It's not meant to, you know, have an office setting or anything like that. >> Right. But you're having approximately five employees there throughout the day, right?
That would be a potential. >> I would assume also the maximum the uh construction the I'm sorry the truck drivers themselves are dealing with construction types and don't have you know facilities on those sides generally other than a port. Um they're probably
going to want to use it when they get back. So I just think that it would be appropriate to have some kind of a normal facility that would provide for the employees. I mean, we could we could provide that if you if that's a desire. >> Go one step further on that. You're
talking five trucks. You have a front end loader. You have other people there. You could have 10 people there. >> Well, the front loader is one of the five that's on the site. >> Okay. But you could also have accident there. Guy gets concrete on him
in his eyes. What are you going to do? So >> going what he was saying, >> might want to put a septic, get a trailer there that has a shower, locker room, >> and some water capabilities because you are staffing it with people. You can
sugarcoat it all you want. You could have five to 10 people there at any given time. >> That's fine. >> And I would just add from a basic standpoint, where are these five or people going to be, you know, staying during the day? Are they always
working with the trucks? If they're not there, if the trucks are all out at one time, you have five guys. Where are they? They're gonna >> Five is the maximum. >> Okay. Whatever number they're going to hang out in their cars, >> I understand. Oh, no. They're working. They're working.
>> One is operating the loader, one is maintaining the plant, one is uh scheduling the uh the trucks. >> What are they going to do for lunch? >> It will I mean, nobody works. I'm sorry. I I just I want to I kind of want to go
back to the parking for a second. The the space that you have for the 14 for the trucks that you know need it. How deep are those parking spots? >> I'm going to I don't have a scalable map, but I'm going to say they're uh
30 ft almost 30t deep. How and how big are the trucks that you're going to be parking there? >> Well, I don't know. I Do you know how long a cement truck is there? >> Yeah. Our guess is 30 to 32 feet for a cement truck.
>> So, if they're bigger than the depth, they're going to be sticking out into the lane that you have travel. >> Well, except that you have the overhang of the No, I I disagree. You have the overhang of the front. If they park in the the part of that length is in front of or behind the front.
>> Where's the fence? >> I'm sorry. >> Where's the fence? >> I'm sorry. The fence is up along the road. >> This again, this is our stormwater area. So that's just open this area. So with the overhang of the truck, it it fits
within that parking space. >> Take a step back. So, you're saying you will you're willing to put in the septic system and a trailer that has facilities for the workers? >> Yes. >> And uh is there a possibility you may
need an office in the trailer? There must be some kind of foreman who is there to >> If I'm doing the trailer, I do an office trailer. So, it has the office with the restroom. Uh it's also my understanding um that the the owner of this property also owns
a the building next door at 55 Progress and uh if it would please the board, we'd be willing to commit as a condition of approval that any employees on this property would be permitted to use the facilities at 55 Progress uh without any impediment.
You >> go back to A1, please, Anthony. I'll take care. >> Anthony, are you sure that one person? for the board's reference. That's this building right here.
>> That looks like a far distance away for an employee to have to go uh use the facilities. >> Well, that was we're just trying to be helpful. >> That was an addition to the trailer. >> We agreed to do the trailer with the restroom and the >> Right. Right. Which is fine. We're not taking that away. We're just simply
trying to >> provide levels of >> Thank you for clarifying. >> We're not trying to take something away. >> I I just want to add one clarifying thing to the record. I did confirm Ernie did get the draft. I did not.
>> No problem. No. >> Just wanted to be clear. >> May I ask him >> on his vacation? Sorry. I just I believe the test that that uh
Mr. Jones had it said that 355 feet high is permissible for a permanent building. >> But this is not a permanent building or it is a permanent building. >> No, I think the question was if it's a principal >> principal use. >> Okay. >> It's a principal use. The maximum height
is 50 ft. Um, I know you still have your traffic engineer. We usually take testimony till 10:30. Um, I'm going to leave it up to the board. How do you want to proceed? We still have the public. We still have the traffic engineer thoughts.
We don't we don't have to have the traffic. >> So you don't want to hear my thoughts, but what are my >> what are our options again? >> So we're already past the time we normally take testimony. We still have the public, we still have their traffic
engineer and then any additional discussion where it's at 10:42. And Madam Chair, just I was just gonna say for purposes of the traffic engineer, um, you know, we we're happy to rely on that report. Um, you know, we he he could come up and provide
testimony to the extent the board uh believes they they would like to hear it and answer any questions. Um, but that we we'll defer to the board as to how they want to proceed on that. >> So, just to be clear, my options are, okay, it's past 10:30, we're done, or we
listen to the whole thing. Is are those my two options? I'm still confused on what my two options are. >> Our two options are we could set a date for them to come back after we take public anyone from the public. >> Okay. >> Um >> because we that we have to do, right?
Take from the public. >> Have to take the public. Correct. >> Fair. Okay. >> So, um that's one. >> We can open it to the public and then adjourn the meeting and give them a date to come back. >> Okay. or if it please word which again it's 10
well we're almost 10:45 we can um let them finish their testimony if there was any questions the engineer the planner had regarding or our zoning officer had regarding the traffic report um and then any discussion or
deliberation from us in addition to also hearing the public >> okay do we need a motion to pick one of those >> no I'm Option number one, we just to the public, you know, I mean, option number one because >> I think this thing
>> you need to do a little more work on this. >> Yeah, I think this >> No, no, that's why I opened it to everyone and didn't make a blanket thing. That's why I'm opening it to you. It's again, it's already 10:45. I understand completely, but we serve the public, but we all do work. Um, so, um,
Gina, if you can start to look for a potential date for them to return, February 4th. Um, Miss Valeri Fury, our zoning officer says the next available date would be February 4th. I just wanted to say about February 4th,
we already have three applications on. So, I don't know if uh the board would be immunable to a fifth uh another application depending how long >> we may project it to be. >> Gordon, tonight >> I can't hear you. >> We were fourth tonight. So, we're fourth
on February. That sounds >> Well, you only got Trust me, that cancellation is why we postponement, I should say. So, we were all thankful that yes, we got >> fine. Whichever whichever the board prefers. and the applicant is the master of their
application. So if they don't want to provide any operational or engineering testimony, that's up to >> So I we're we're hearing the board's comments here. Um I think it would be
best that uh if we do come back on the 4th uh we would be able to you know provide some further clarification on the operations uh we'll get you some additional information and try to clean this up a little bit for you so the picture's a little bit more clear from from our present presentation standpoint
uh for the board's benefit. Um so we we have no problem that >> Mr. offer. It's a um an unusual operation. So, I think you could see the board struggling. >> Understood. Understood. >> So, given that information, we're going to look at February 4th. Is that
agreeable to you or do you want to move to the 18th >> because Miss Mo just told us that obviously there's already other applications. So, it's up to you. So is but I guess I I I would say if the 18th if there's if we would be the
my understanding is I'm I'm being told we would like to be on the fourth as early as possible. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> And Mr. Alfier you wave the uh statutory time periods. >> Yes, of course. Thank you. >> And there's no additional notice for the uh >> Thank you. So we are going to open it to
the public before we close for this evening. So if there's any from anyone from the public wishing to come forward, please do so at this time. >> Oh, I swear to tell the whole truth. >> You remain you remain under oath with your >> Okay. I'm just I was wondering if you
can clarify. I was trying to follow all the the amounts of the trucks, the parking spots. I kind of, if I'm understanding, you're saying there's only going to be five or six trucks there, parked there,
>> correct? >> But I guess I'm a little confused because on your map, you show a lot more than five or six spots. >> Yes. >> So, I don't know if those other spots aren't being used for something. I don't understand why the truck drivers
have to pull their truck out, pull their car in at the end of the day, pull their car back out, put their truck back in. >> Good point. The reason there's more space is because this site was approved for a different use and had more parking. So, um, but you're you are correct.
Given that we have the extra spaces, they don't need to move their truck to park their car. They could just park next to the truck and drive the truck. But that was the same thing when you were giving the testimony, right? That
it was only being used for one thing at a time. >> So that you understand. I'm a little confused as to why it wouldn't have been presented as >> there. There was confusion over whether we're maintaining the the storage use as we're doing the concrete. We're not
we're not doing that. We're just maintaining that approval in case the tenant for the concrete plant, you know, leaves at some point in the future. But the uses will not operate at the site at the same time. >> And to your to your point, I think your question, what you're tr what you're
getting at is is there's there's a certain number of parking spots on there. There's certain number of employees. You're saying based on the fact that there's only five potentially five trucks that are going to be there overnight that these individuals are coming in where there should be sufficient parking based on what's being
shown on that plan. The the reason why there could have to do what Mr. Bordon had testified where the truck may have to come out is that there could be up to that number of employees in the day. So we're saying that there could be up to 15 employees, meaning that the guys coming on the site to the truck and then
the up to the five employees that may be on site staying there. So it's just to provide that flexibility. So there in in some instances you may not you they could park there and there would be no issues and then other days when there might be an additional employee there. So instead of seven employees that day,
there's eight, right? So five guys come in and get in the truck. So essentially what we're saying is is that the site does have adequate parking for what we're proposing. Whether it be has as Ian testified, which is, you know, some of these guys may come in, get in, move
the truck, pull their car into their spot, or alternatively, they may not need to do that that day. They can utilize the spaces over there. But ultimately the parking that is here, our testimony is that it's sufficient for the number of employees that are going to be on site and and or taking the trucks off of site to deliver the
concrete to a different area. >> Okay. Then to that note, because when you were talking about the bathroom and, you know, putting the trailer and everything, there was only going to be five employees. Now it might be seven or eight. Well, no, no, it's it's up to
five employees that will be on the site in terms of assisting, you know, uh these the actual mechanism of putting these materials into the trucks and getting them out. >> Okay. No, I mean I understand that, but
five employees there, five trucks there is still 10, but five people aren't going to be there all day. their cars are going to be there, but if there's 14 spots and 10 people
that it just seems like there's a little bit of allowance for it to be more than what it's there. So, I'm just saying as a resident, if I drive down the road, I don't want to see one-stop trucks, you know, parked.
So, I'm just curious as, you know, I don't think if you have that many spots, people shouldn't have to be pulling their truck out to pull their car in. So, that's why I wanted clarification on it. >> And I believe I thought I had they won't be doing that. They'll be able to
There's room enough for them to park without having to move the truck to >> Okay. Thank you for clarifying that, >> M. M. Jones. I I asked that question to Mr. Bordon. >> I'm sorry. I wasn't sure who was talking to that. >> Yeah, no problem. I asked that earlier to Mr. board in and he explained that they have the six on the top and then
another 14 on the bottom together that's 20 spots. So it would not be necessary to pull them in and out. >> Okay. I just >> I was trying to follow the math but it was a little >> I had the same question. >> I felt a little like I was watching pong. So just checking.
>> We we'll provide a plan to the board that illustrates these things before the next term. We'll show you the office trailer, the septic, and the actual truck parking and the car parking so that there's no questions. >> Hello. Good evening. I have to swear me,
Elen. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Wake up. Um, do you uh swear or affirm that the testimony you will give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> And could you say Eric
>> Jones, Tyson Road, Jackson? Um just um one question maybe three questions. Um who owns this road? This progress who owns Progress Place. >> It's it's uh it's an association of all the property owners along >> So the town doesn't own that road.
>> Town does not own it. >> Okay. Um what are the weights of these trucks fully loaded? >> I do not know. >> We took approaching 80,000 lbs perhaps. I do not know >> because coming out of there and then 80,000 pounds going left onto Cedar
Swamp is going to be disaster. The amount of people that come down, you can't see the curve above on that picture, but people come around the bend there and then people come off the on-ramp. They should only be able to go right because I figure the intent of this
place is probably the the access to 195. Am I correct? Is that why they picked this site perhaps? >> I don't know. >> Yeah. I mean, as we as I sit here right now, I mean, it certainly would make sense that 195 would be
>> lower that picture down a little bit. There's a there's a curve there and it's it's people come whistling around there. You know, it's >> Mr. Al Fury, are you going to be providing traffic testimony and traffic engineer at the next >> Yes, we will be >> session. So, >> and I als I also the other thing is I
also notice on some Google Earth maps and stuff, it seems that I don't know how crowded this um parking ride gets, but I do notice in a lot of the the um aerial photos and stuff that I don't know why people are parked along that road.
Um are we going to be looking for a no parking on this side? because you're narrowing the road with cars already parked there and it doesn't seem to me like you can pass safely with a truck and a car when somebody's parked. >> That's
>> We don't propose any on street parking on progress, please. >> Oh, not you on street parking. I'm saying overflow from the parking ride seems they park on that street. >> I don't believe it's from them. My experience with the parking ride is that it's mostly empty.
>> I don't know. I look at the Google Earth and there's people parked on that road. I don't know where they're parked. >> I think that >> that's pre-co. >> Oh, there. >> Okay. >> All right. That's it. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> I'm just making sure he's done. >> All right. Sorry, I know everyone wants to go to sleep, but I just have a question with the trucks that are going to be parked there. >> Are they going to have maintenance done there?
>> So, there's no working on the trucks there. >> No repairs, no maintenance. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We'll see you back on February 4th. Thank you. Have a wonderful holiday. Happy New Year. Public session is now closed and motion
to adjourn. Mo >> second. >> Happy holidays everybody. Happy new year. Thank you.