to order. Please stand for the pledge of >> allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. This meeting complies with the open public meetings act. Notice of this meeting has been posted on municipal board newspapers. >> Good evening everyone. Before we have
roll call, we just like to welcome our um newest alternate, Mr. Jim Selectia. Thank you for joining us. Welcome aboard. And Kathleen, roll call, please. >> Mr. Mr. Hyman >> here. >> Mr. Martins >> here. >> Miss Rosal >> here. >> Mr. Tremor >> here.
>> Miss Cusano >> here. >> Mr. Seleia >> here. >> Miss Bradley >> here. Okay. I know we have resolutions this evening. Miss Cyprieni. >> Yes, we have four resolutions this evening. The first is resolution
2025-23. This is for um property located at uh County Line Road. This was the uh Megan's off associate Oh, sorry, did it the wrong way. Megan's associates office
where this was a while back. It was a change to the landscaping plan for the members of the board that were here at that time. A plan had been approved that allowed them put to put landscaping on someone else's property. Um, and that
had to be amended so that the uh, landscaping plan was all implemented on their own property. >> Okay. I need a motion and a second, please, to approve the resolution. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman,
>> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor, >> Miss Kusana, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia, >> yes. Miss Bradley. >> Yes.
>> Okay. The next resolution is 2025-24. This was granting variance a variance for installation of a 5-ft solid gate fence in the front yard of property located at 353 Cedar Swamp Road. Um uh this is a was a corner lot and the
resolution includes the conditions placed by the board on the record. Okay, we need a motion and a second, please. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal,
>> yes. >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Miss Kusana, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia, >> I'm going to abstain. >> Miss Bradley? >> Yes. >> Okay. Then there's resolution 2025-25. This is a resolution granting a time
extension for preliminary finer final major subdivision approval for Elaine Mcrist. Um I had a conflict on this matter. So Mr. Sheay represented it, but the time extension was granted by the board uh with conditions that I believe
are in the resolution. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Mr. Mr. Rosal, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Miss Cusano, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia, >> abstain.
>> Miss Bradley, >> yes. >> And then there's uh resolution 25 2025-26 with granting final subdivision approval with variances on property located at 225 Brewers Bridge Road. This was heard
at our last meeting um and was uh there were a number of conditions. This was the one with the um uh the road that was to be created as part of another approval. Um and is it Holden? Holden
Court. Um and the board had placed a number of conditions that would not allow they grant this approval contingent on Olden Court being completed and being accepted by the township and those conditions are in the resolution.
>> Make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Miss Cusano, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia, >> abstain. Miss Bradley. >> Yes.
>> And those are all the resolutions. >> All right. We're going to move we're going to move on to the approval of minutes. I have um three sets of minutes. Uh one is for 97
of September 17th of this year. Um and so I need a motion and a second please. Everybody but Mr. Seleia is and Miss Rosal are eligible to vote. >> Make a motion to approve.
>> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. Yes. >> Mr. Turmer, >> yes. >> Miss Cusano, >> yes. >> Miss Bradley, >> yes. >> All right.
So, the next set of minutes goes back to 2024 from the September 4th meeting. Uh, the only people eligible to vote tonight are myself and Miss Rosal. So, we need a motion and a second to approve. >> Motion. >> Second. Roll call, please.
>> Miss Rosal. >> Yes. Miss Bradley. >> Yes. All right. The third and final set of minutes is also from 2024, July 17th. Eligible to vote. Dr. Hoffstein is not here. So it would be myself, Mr. Heyman,
and Miss Rosal. So I need a motion and a second, please. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes. Miss Bradley, >> yes.
>> I also have three vouchers in front of me. The first one is for our recording secretary for this evening in the amount of $175. I also have u minutes from the July 17th of 2024 meeting, a voucher for that in
the amount of $100, and a third one for the minutes from the September 4th of 2024 meeting also in the amount of $100. So I need a motion and a second to uh pay the vouchers, please. >> Motion to approve all three. >> Second. Roll call, please.
>> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes. >> Miss Cusano, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia, >> yes. >> Miss Bradley, >> yes. >> Miss Cyprieni, do we have any announcements for this evening? >> We do not.
>> All right. >> Occasion. >> All right. We need to swear on our professionals. Do you swear that the test swear or affirm that the testimony you give before the board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> I do. >> Please state your name and position for the record.
>> Mark Romire, board engineer. >> Ernie Peters, board planner. >> Gina Tumalo, assistant zoning officer. >> There's no executive session this evening. Any matters for discussion? >> I'd like to sorry I'd like to bring up one thing. Um,
and it's more I think for the residents who are present. So on the agenda, we updated the agenda. At the very end, there's a link and the purpose of that link was to be so that you are able to access access all the information that we have, right,
that the applicant has submitted um for for the application. So maps, things like that, that's been updated. It wasn't working before. It now is. So if you follow that link or you click on that link at the very end of the application, you'll get to see all the
information that we have here available to us so that then you can ask your questions. All right. Um so I just wanted to uh and thank Dawn for updating this because that hasn't worked in a long time. >> Um but I hope I think that will help a lot of um our residents. Thanks.
>> Thank you. Uh we have no administrative approvals this evening. So we are going to move on to applicant number one and I apologize if I butcher the name Ersce Noe Guaa Villa Lobos use variance 3519
747 Toms River Road Good evening, Madame Chair, members of the board. Dante Alfuri on behalf of the applicant. Hold on one sec. Kathleen, can you hear? >> You hear me? >> It's just low. >> It is low. >> Anthony, can you hear?
Enjoy. You hear me now? >> Yes. >> There we go. Perfect. Thank you. Uh, good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. Dante Alfury on behalf of the applicant. Um, this property is 747 Toms River Road. If the board remembers, we were here back in, I believe, March of
2025. Uh, there were comments by the board and some of the, uh, residents in the neighborhood. So, uh, we went back, we made some modifications to the board or to the the application itself. Um, being that it's been a while since we've been before the board. Uh, we're going
to go over the site itself and then we'll touch on the changes and then we'll address the comments in your professional reports. So, without further ado, I'll have Mr. Murphy come up and be sworn in. He was previously sworn in, but I think we should have him sworn in again.
>> Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give this board The tweet said nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> And if you could say your name and uh >> your credentials had already been accepted. >> Brian Murphy Murphy, licensed professional engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey. I've been before
this board, your planning board, and roughly hundred other boards throughout the state. >> Thank you. Uh exhibit uh that's up on the board is a Google Earth aerial shot of the property. Property is indicated in red. As you can see, it's it's pretty much entirely
cleared. It's 2.4 acres in the EV zone. Uh to the north are single family homes. Uh those lots actually extend back to uh Route 571 or old or Tom's River Road. Um but they all basically front and access
out to Lake Hurst Road. Uh where this lot obviously does not. Uh it doesn't doesn't have any frontage out to Lake Hurst Road. It only fronts out the Tom's River Road. Uh beyond on the other side of Tom's River Road is vacant property. I don't see uh really that area ever
getting built. Uh and we have a wetland corridor uh which is the the wooded area to the east of the property and runs down off the site. Uh and that being in the PV, we're going to be dealing with the Pineelands once we if we ever get
the site plan. Um but we have a 24 250 foot buffer uh on the property uh which consumes a large portion of the property. Uh so we have roughly an acre left of property to uh uh to deal with for any kind of development on the
property and it also restricts where we can come into the property uh simply because the buffer kind of extends across most of the frontage of the property. Could you bring up the site plan please? Just going to repeat some of the testimony that we had last time uh just
because it's been a while. Uh previously it's a 7 740 foot office that that we're looking to construct with a garage. Uh it's it's for basically a parting company. Um and the yard will also also
be used for the parting company uh for storage of the containers. Uh right now basically there's one uh delivery truck and one one dump truck. Um even if we double in size, we're looking at two trucks. Uh so it's it's not a heavy
traffic type of use. Uh obviously we want the carts out in the out at the locations, not here. Uh that means they're rented. uh we don't really want them on site. Uh but obviously at times they will return to the site and they would be back in that yard that's in the north portion of the property which is
the lighter gray area shown. Um we have that basically encircled with a solid fence. Uh we're providing landscaping evergreens around that as well. Uh the board was concerned last time we had stone at that location. Um so we can we're making that concrete so
we don't have the stone issue any longer. Um, also, uh, on the south side, since everything drains that way, uh, we'll have an oil water separator. So, basically everything everything that runs off of that will be caught and brought into the oil water separator um,
before it goes and, uh, gets discharged. Uh, >> I'm sorry, Mr. Murphy. I'm just having a little trouble hearing you. What did you say of the concrete pad where you were going to accommodate the runoff? I think >> so. So the runoff will come off come off the concrete pad that before the concern
was it would a run through the stone anything that ran off. So that making that concrete takes care of that. Uh the other issue is you know having it just run off and go into the wetland area or into the buffer area at least. And
basically, we're going to be able to direct all the storm water that's on that concrete pad by curbing it and edging that and direct it directly to an oil water separator. So any kind of uh fluids uh basically that that would be soluble would sit in that oil water
separator >> if you don't mind. And about there were a number of stipulations that were put on the record when this was here before. >> I thought it might be useful to go through those and then if there's any alteration. Sure, you could let us know. I don't want to interrupt the flow, but
I just figured since it's been a while since you were here. >> Sure. >> So, the conditions that were discussed and were uh stipulated to the last time there would be no maintenance of the trucks on site, no washing of containers on site, no welding on site. The
containers [clears throat] were not to be stacked. Uh uh doubled that up. Um it would be a maximum number of I believe it was 25 dumpsters on site. Um and the buffer the wetlands buffer was or the pylons buffer was to be delineated by a
fence. >> Yes. >> And then the last one I had was the impervious surface with the basin that you just discussed. >> That's correct. >> And those conditions are all stipulated. >> It would all still stand today. Yes. >> Thank you. And so so basically having the oil water
order separate oil water separator I think that kind of handles a lot of the issue uh that we're looking at um with the the pad area. Um again it's pretty minimal use that we're talking about. There's very little traffic associated with it other than when a truck comes
out of on delivery or back in. And again the idea is to have these out in the field uh not not sitting here at the location. Um but obviously that will occur at times uh under the so that the the hours of operation were 7 to 4.
Again it's basically one employee uh no no uh clients come here. Everything is either over over the phone or by internet. Um again we're looking at one rolloff truck, one dump truck and we we still we have 18 container containers
now. We said we would stipulate up to 25. And obviously, you know, even if we double the trucks, we're looking at four total. Um, sewer water will be septic and well, storm water will comply. Again, this is a bifurcated application.
It's just a use variance. If we are approved, we do have to come back to you with a full site plan. and that you know with lighting, landscaping and everything else that goes along with a typical site plan in storm water. Um signage will comply, parking complies,
uh lighting, trash uh will comply as indicated. We're provided in solid fence uh around the enclosure area and landscaping around that as well to try to buffer the neighbors. Um access is through that southwest corner of the property. uh we're tied to that location
simply because that's the only location that allows us out to access out to the highway um because of the buffer uh that encompasses the better part of the property. Uh storage again it's just going to be the containers owned by the
by the applicant. No other storage on on site. Uh we have a couple waiverss uh outside agencies obviously that wouldn't be appropriate at this time because it's only use variance. uh traffic report. Uh we provide that a site plan. Again, it's a very minor uh traffic uh associated
with this application. Uh current survey uh again the survey is from 2021. So it's it's not really very old and obviously not a whole lot has been going on site. Uh the access drive, uh it's one foot off the side property line where 10 feets required. Again, that's
because of that buffer. That's the only area that we have to get into the site and gain access into the site. Uh the variance is to allow a contractor office and outdoor storage area in the PV zone where it's not permitted. Uh the
permitted uses in the zone are are for a farm, a single family home, schools and churches. Uh obviously with the amount of property that's left over developable area, it's not really conducive for a school or church or really a farm. Uh
again, with regard to a single family house, unlike some single family house that do front out onto uh Tom's River Road, none of the ones in this area do. They all front out to Lakehurst. Um and then they have a substantial buffer to Tom's River Road, which obviously is the
much busier road. This lot does doesn't have those buffers at all uh because it's basically completely cleared. Uh it's been cleared for decades and obviously historically has been used for various commercial uses. Uh contractor's
yard I've seen over years. I've seen certainly food trucks out here over the the decades um and various other storage uses um out on the site for for a number of years. So I think a commercial use here obviously has has been used
commercially for a very long time. So it's it's suitable for this use. Um looking at the uh special reasons uh we're looking at partially under the hardship uh condition um but also under the particularly suited uh condition as
well. Uh under the hardship obviously as I indicated the uh space that's left doesn't really leave leave a lot of room for most of the permitted uses. Uh single family home though it could be constructed here. It's really not appropriate location as there's no buffer at all out to the roadway. Uh and
and obviously you'd be discharging out onto that busier road where everything else goes out the lake Chris Road. Um under the particularly suited criteria. Uh the site is Long County Road U which has other commercial businesses and has easy access throughout the community uh
which is more conducive for commercial use. Uh the site is a sufficient size to accommodate the use. uh we're complying with the buffers and setbacks uh of the zone and uh there are commercial businesses along this corridor and we feel that this business will fit with
that commercial use especially since it's historically been used uh commercially. Um this would not be spot zoning uh as there are no other properties uh in the area with the similar impacts of wetlands of the buffers and historically cleared and
utilized [music] as it has been uh over the past decades. Under the positive criteria we look at the purposes of the MLU well providing adequate light air and open space. Uh the site is 79% open space. Uh building coverage is at 0.6%
6% and the uh impervious coverage would be under 20% total. Uh so obviously very very uh little use of the site. Uh provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for commercial and industrial uses. Provide a desire desirable visual
environment. Obviously the site would be cleaned up. Uh anything that debris that's out there now would be cleaned up. Uh there is an access road that goes around the site uh along the wetland buffer and closer to the wetlands that would all be abandoned and uh no longer
utilized. So again, I think it provides a better visual environment for the area and it's an efficient use of the land. Uh under the negative criteria, we're looking at two prongs. Uh whether the variance can be granted as substantial detriment to the public good. Uh
obviously the detriment to the public uh would be noise uh traffic uh associated with with the use. Um the permitted uses certainly could provide more traffic and noise than than what we're proposing. Uh basically we're
looking at two trucks, very limited use, reg relatively quiet uh application here. Uh again that the idea is to have the dumpsters not on site out at work sites. Uh so we're we're very uh infrequently are going to have trucks
heavy volume of trucks moving in and out of here. Uh since there's only really one employee right now with a truck. Um and obviously there's going to be no clients coming here. So again, it's only the the traffic that would be generated by our own uh client here. Um the site
is particularly designed to be efficient and function with the particular attention to the neighborhood uh by providing the use as far as away from the residents as possible um and providing the buffering that I previously mentioned and the access obviously is away from all the
residential uses and out to uh Tom's River Road. Uh it's my professional opinion that the benefits of this project will outweigh any detriment. Uh under the second prime we're looking at variance will not substantially impair the intent purpose of the zone plan or master plan. Um again, it's a 2.4 acre
site where one acre is proposed. Houses all around us uh all go out to Lake Hurst Road and have substantial buffers out towards Tom's River Road where this site does not. Uh it's historically been used for commercial uses. Um, we think it's appropriate use uh that we're
proposing and the permitted uses really aren't very functional on the uh the property given the uh impacts of the wetland buffers on the property. Uh the project is consistent with the purposes of the zone plan and master plan under the executive summary of 2009 3.0 goals
and objectives. The master plan contains the goals and objective statement. The key goal is to work towards a balanced community while the housing stock is now more imbalanced uh in meeting needs. Commercial and industrial development needs to be expanded to meet local
demands which this does. Um under the goals and objectives, it also meets the community vision uh by quote uh a community with industrial and commercial development are suited for diversity of economic and employment opportunities
also to basically bring more uh improve the the ratable tax base for the township to help offset some of the uh residential impacts uh of the township. Um it's my professional opinion that the project will not substantially impair
the goals and objectives of the zone plan or master plan as I indicated uh but will in fact support these goals and objectives and uh I reviewed the Remington Bernick's letter and I have no issues with any of the comments in the letter. So just want to reiterate to everyone
this application is solely for the use variance at this point should the board approve the use and the applicant will come back to uh formalize a site plan so we could go over more site plan details at a later time. At this point, the site
plan that's provided on the variance map appears to be a a realistic plan to accommodate what they're what operation they're talking about. There's only a few vehicles, so they're only providing a few spaces and they and since they've appeared last before the board, they've
added a few features taking the board's comments into consideration, such as runoff um from the dumpster area. And so from an engineering standpoint, I would I would see no issue It's more of a planning matter.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I want to reiterate what Mr. Roer said. This is a use variance application only. So, they're not asking for variances for locations of things. They're not asking for design waiverss from things. Um, if something doesn't fit, they're not
asking that this use variance allow it to fit. Um unfortunately sometimes when we get done with a use variance we come back for site plan and say well those things were sort of subsumed in the use variance. In this case it's very clear they're not requesting any relief. They're simply asking for the use
variance. Um they've indicated or provided around the proposed improvements of board on board fence with some landscaping. I believe they've addressed a number of the comments that were raised by the board members.
where they have a required perimeter buffer, especially along the rear. Whether the board wants to talk about it more now or site plan, we should make sure that buffer is solid. It requires us to go out and have trees located between the existing site and the
existing single family uses to the guess it's north of the property towards Lake Hurst Road. I don't know if we heard any testimony with regards to noise as it relates to the use of getting these um containers
in and out of the site on and off transporting vehicles. But again, I think they've hit all the high points as it relates to the requirements for the use varants so far.
Thank you, >> Mr. >> Thank you. So, I just want to know if you can elaborate a little bit more on this oil separator. Um, yes, we had concerns about the infiltration of different, you know, fuels and different things that may leak out of the trucks
and from the containers. So, you're proposing a concrete pad. Um, could you just elaborate what this oil separator is and how it works? I don't think >> members of the board are necessarily familiar with it. >> So, basically the it's used a lot on gas stations and those kind of uses. Uh, so
it's it's not uncommon to use them. Um, basically as the storm water runs off, it would go into an oil water separator. It allows the water to continue on, but the other materials that are lighter or heavier get stuck in the oil water separator and then they're sucked out
and cleaned out occasionally. >> Yeah. So, it's just like, you know, if you pour oil and water, they would separate. It's not like it's >> actually, you know, decontaminating, you know, the >> water treatment. It's just for the oils. Correct. It's not treatment. >> Got it. Um then you know uh the planner
just mentioned as far as the noise. So I think prior it was a gravel would be minimal or no noise. How do we mitigate that issue with uh every time there's going to be a dumpster going down it'll give a nice bang? >> Sure. So there will be uh for sure. Um
and I I think that the the fence the solid fence around there will help that and the buffering that we're proposing as well. And also our hours are from 7 to 4 uh during the week. So we're not looking at weekends. Um
so it's it's really just 7 to 4 which really within normal working hours. >> Thank you. And then one other thing uh last time we mentioned there was a lot of trash by that buffer. Was that taken care of? Like was >> I believe some of it at least was cleaned up. There may be some additional
debris but obviously that would be condition of any improvement. >> Thank you. On that topic of the noise, I believe last meeting we discussed the possibility of rubber matting to maybe uh lessen some of the noise impact, but we could talk about that later during
site plan. >> Yeah. So, I'm going to stick to the use variance as as it was uh explained to me. So you mentioned historically this site or this area was used for commercial use. Yes, I think and you
also said there's other usage other commercial usage already here, right? Do you have examples of some of those? Like I'm looking I'm just looking at the zoom and I'm trying to where there are other commercial uses here. >> Yeah. Up and down the corridor there this corridor in this in the PV zone
there's other commercial uses. >> Yeah. Um, I guess really what could mean is would be what's the closest one to you guys? Could you say I mean this is along you're talking about um you know route 571. Is that the corridor you mean
that there's other commercial? It's not the entire corridor that that I'm referring to obviously, but but along this corridor that you're looking at there there's uh the minim man further up uh there's uh the >> like let me help the closest one I see
is something step on me carpet and flooring or something. >> Mr. Martins, could you put on the record what you're looking at if it's different than the exhibits? >> It's the Google if you go back to to the first one you showed which was the zoo. Um >> Okay. Google. >> Yeah. There. Yeah. Right. Right. So, if
you if you go down there, I think it doesn't say it, but at the far right, I think that's the carpet and floor. >> Exactly. That that would definitely be the nearest one uh to us. >> Right. So, looking at this, that's the only one I see >> on the on this picture. Yes. Yes.
>> But there are other there are other commercial uses. >> So, within the area. Yes. So, so that's why I was just questioning. I understand that along 571 which is huge that could be other commercial uses >> but within this area I don't you know >> and if obviously you're familiar with
with we're all familiar with 571. >> Yeah. >> You know there there's no major commercial use uses along 571. It's it's not that type of zone. >> Uh but there are smaller commercial uses. You know you have the carpet store. You you have uh a mechanic shop.
You have you know smaller commercial uses like that. there's a metal uh manufacturing shop, right? You know, smaller uses which is similar to this, which is a small use. It's not something that brings in a lot of traffic, a lot a lot of visitors um coming in, a lot of
customers, uh which I feel that this kind of fits in with those type of uses where, you know, if I was proposing a shopping center here, there's no other shopping centers in the area. You know, it doesn't fit. uh you know with small kind of privately owned uses like this I
don't think are out of character for >> right right see because that's a catch 22 right so the way I think about it is um one of the reasons to say approve this commercial use is because you have other commercial uses
>> well so two wrongs don't make a right and if the zoning is to not have commercial uses we now we make so many exceptions to that that it becomes, you know, because you have so many commercial uses on it now. >> Well, that >> right. So, it's like a catch 22. One of
the reasons you want it is because you already have it somewhere else, but we don't want too many because it's not zoned for that. >> Sure. >> And that's what I'm struggling with in my mind for approving this. >> Well, there's a couple items. One, one is the site's completely cleared.
>> Two, the bulk of the site for the permitted uses is not really suitable. And if we look at the uses that have historically been on this site, you've had contractor storage. You've had contractor uh material storage out here over the decades. Certainly, you know,
we all know that there's been uh food trucks out here for at least decades. Uh when I even when I was a kid, they were out here. Um so you've always had commercial uses on this site. So it's not uncommon for this site to be utilized for commercial use. I can't say
that for, you know, it's not like I can go and pick out another site somewhere and say, "Hey, this is just like this." There's no other site like this, quite honestly, along this. >> Sure. Thank you. >> Certainly. >> Not that I know of.
Yes. >> No. >> Correct. >> Question about gravel. concrete and all that kind of stuff. Are they being cleaned off site? Are they clean? I know that's a big discussion. >> Yeah. I mean, basically that the the way
that it works is that they're not they're not cleaned in the in the way that you might think where you take a power washer out and scrub these. That doesn't happen. Basically what happens is they get dumped in at at the yard at the at the uh recycling center or or or
at the dump and everything slides out and it either goes directly out to another site or it comes back here. >> Fire away. >> Neither am I. Sure. >> Well, nothing's coming back here full.
Everything's being dumped at at the at the tra or recycling plant. >> So So that's where we got from having stone out here to go in the concrete and then having the oil water separator. So basically those insolubles would go into
the water water oil. I can't speak to that. The oil water separator. And again that's not a treatment device. It's a holding place. So that had requires regular maintenance. You go out come out, they have a pump truck that sucks out the uh the water the uh the oils out
of it and off it goes. Are you going to be? >> Yes. >> Yes, we are seven to four. question. >> No, we're talking about just, you know, again, we'd only be allowed, you're not,
you have to stay under 10 feet anyway. Uh, but we're basically looking to stay be able to drop them and pick them up. And again, we're maxed out at 25. I know you cleaned up >> some. I don't know if it's all been cleaned up. I'd have to obviously that
would be part of the uh the site plan approval. >> That would have to be done. >> How often will they clean up or empty that filtering system? So what's going to have to be done is part part of if we
get to site plan is there'll be filed with the application will be a operation and maintenance manual for the stormwater system and that will spell out all the all all the requirements for maintenance of that system and it would be sized for the area that's draining to
it and everything else. It's not sized yet. So obviously we're not at that point. Um I can better answer that at that point if we get there. Sure. >> Sure. >> He He's very anxious, so we'd be back in
as soon soon as human possible. Thanks. Um, I want to kind of go back to the dumpsters being on site and with the wetlands there. A lot of the dumpsters are used for construction. >> So, obviously there's a lot of dust
particles that end up in them and when they come back to the site when they get dumped, obviously those dust particles are going to be into the air. Uh, and if it's a windy day, we have stuff particles going potentially into these wetlands. How do
we >> I I don't see uh dust particles really making it to the site. Uh, two reasons. One, they're they're dumped off site. They're not dumped here. So, they don't come back full. >> But those but those don't come back
clean. And then when they're driving back, I don't see dust being able to quite honestly drive drive survive a drive back um to the site. >> Okay. Second second thing, um you talked
about a residential home not being a a good alternative there. Um and one of your rationale reasons was the driveway would be a frontage onto 571. >> That that's one of the reasons. The other reason is all the other ones front
on Lake Hurst Road, they have a substantial buffer to Tom River Road, but this would have no buffer today. >> I understand, but >> you're still going to have a truck carrying a dumpster on its back coming out of that road onto 571.
>> Correct. So to me, a motor vehicle is a lot less impactful going onto that road than a truck carrying a a container onto it. So I'm not sure I agree that a residential home is not a better alternative for the
site with that rationale. >> Yeah, I was going more towards the desiraability of that resident of someone moving to that house. you having access out on the 571 really isn't optimal. Um, and also obviously having
no buffer at all to 571 isn't really optimal for a single family home as well. >> Okay. >> Uh, just to uh add to some of the board's concerns with the cleaning. Um, do you anticipate the dumpsters ever needing to be cleaned and where would
that occur? >> Uh, they're they're really not clean. They're they're they're they're basically dumped at the at the recycling uh facility or at the uh at the the town dump um or county dump and then either brought to a new site or brought back
here. But but should a should dumpsters need cleaning in a situation, is there an off-site facility that you could take them to for proper cleaning? >> I'll find that answer out >> because we'd like the dumpsters to
arrive cleaned to this particular location. I guess to to follow up on that thought, there was affirmative testimony they were going to be clean when they got here. So, I assume that would make it an affirmative resolution that could be
enforced if necessary. The board wants the more specifics about that or more detail whether now or when we get to site plan. That's fair game. because the end what we don't want them doing is cleaning
dumpsters on this site. So sometimes it's not saying what you're going to do, saying what you're not going to do. You're not going to clean dumpsters on this site. That's a really easy easily enforced condition.
I'm sure. That's not >> Yeah, I would say if there's a condition like the dumpsters must arrive clean and they're subject to inspection by the township and that way the burden is on the the
owner to make sure that they're clean. >> I think the burden should be on the owner and your applicant right now to tell us how that works because we have no idea what was in the dumpster when it went to the dump, but it's coming here to get moved back.
This is like a transfer station. So, Lord knows what was in there when it went to the dump. But if it's not clean and it comes back here and someone makes a mistake and cleans it, who knows what was in it? So, I think it's up to the applicant to explain to us how these are going to get
here clean and whether it's the processes or the checks and balances to make sure that that occurs. So, I talked to the owner. Uh, basically what happens is when they go to the dump and and and
get rid of a load, if there's anything in there, basically dirt's thrown into it and it's swept. They don't power wash or anything like that. It's basically swept back out again. Uh at the dump. Yeah. Not here.
So that that all occurs at the dump. Gilbert Harris, 782 Lakers Avenue, Jackson, New Jersey. My wife and I have been on that property for 25 years. They used to park trucks on that property which I complained about. They got them off and it's not decades after decades
as the gentleman said. They had that was from the previous owner before they sold it. Now the food trucks that are talking about they let them park there. The previous owner did too. >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah. I'm sorry. Just because what
you're saying is not just a question. It's a nature of testimony. I'm going to ask you to raise your right hand. >> Sorry. And do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give before this board will be the truth and nothing of the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt.
>> It wasn't commercial trucks. It was just little stands that the owner evidently made money off of renting it to them to be there. And it wasn't decades. It was only a few years to start off with. As
for the drainage too, talking about the wetlands, you cannot tell. We have a pond back there. That's wet land. The runoff from those things, those trailers, if it rains, there's no way in
the world that they're going to get all the mess from a construction site out of those trailers. If it rains, it's going to go into the ground, pollute the pond back there and wet land.
And the time that he's talking about of operation is like I'll say 5:45 in the morning, not 7. You know, it's too much controversy
behind this whole plan that I presented. The noise is there. The hazard is there. I have my neighbors getting ready to have another baby. That's why they're not here. And I I can't take the chance with my
grandchildren around there with something that's been hazardous. You know, it's it's ridiculous. I I you know, I don't understand why this hearing is even going on. You know, it's it's
You tell me. >> They have a right to make an application. That's why the hearing is going on. >> Anybody can make an application. >> But be truthful with the application. >> That's all. >> All right, guys. I'm Adam Heidi. uh lived in town my whole life. Just have a
lot of questions about this particular uh variance. >> Sorry. So, so I don't have to interrupt you. Could I just Yes. First that um do you swear or affirm that you will the testimony you'll give before this board will be the truth. Nothing but the truth.
>> Yes. >> And I'm sorry. Could you say your last name again? >> Uh Heidi. H A I D I Heidi. Heidi Ho. Heidi. >> Thank you. inter tonight. I'm having a hard time here. >> You want me to grip this? Awesome. Um,
so yeah, I have a lot of questions for the board and for the applicant, uh, the developer. Um, so I did some preliminary research myself on this site plan. Um, not only is it near the wetland, it's directly on the wetland. Even worse,
it's encroaching the 300 foot wetland buffer that's mandated by the state of New Jersey. Mind you, we're all aware here that state law supersedes municipal ordinances. Correct, Mr. Attorney? Are
you aware of that? You're aware that environmental law from the department. >> Mr. Height, you ask questions of the witness. I mean, you can ask questions, but but the witness Just to address that directly, uh any application with this site will have to be before we have to
go before Pinelands because of the location of the site. So it would be subject to state review. >> Absolutely. And you would have to make sure that the plan fits within the CMP. Correct. >> The CMP, >> it's going to comply with whatever regulations the state requires.
>> Okay. So you haven't submitted uh a letter of intent, correct? Have you guys obtained an LOI? >> No. So, we're here first for the use variance. If the board grants the application tonight, we will proceed with site plan and then any other outside agency approvals which would
also include the state portion. >> Okay. And is it ethically is it ethical to acquire a use variance when your application is uh contingent
upon outside agency's approval? It's not nothing to do with ethics. This is uh normal. >> Is it legal? >> This is normal procedure with with an application that there are outside agency approvals. Um there is a starting point for every application. This happens to be the starting point for
this application. >> Okay. So I'm going to site uh NJSA 40 semicolon 55D-10.3. This is MLUL. Uh you've recently spoke about it. Uh so an application for
development shall be complete for purposes of commencing the applicable time period. In essence, an application shall not be deemed complete until all required submissions have been made relative to NJSA 40-
55D-10.3. So if you need >> Mr. Mr. I'm sorry. >> What what I'm saying is if he needs a letter of intent, >> his application's not complete. >> This application, how can we even hear it? >> I know that you may disagree with this procedure, but the bifurcation of an
application into a use variance application to be followed by a site plan application is permitted by the law. >> No, it's not. >> And I just gave you the statute. >> Yes, I'm familiar with the statute. It
is my legal opinion that it is bifurcation is permitted under the law for a use variance application to be followed with the site plan application >> and the exception would be within >> the pinelands and it would be under property that's owned by the department
of environmental protection >> that's the law >> Mr. Right. If you that that is that is not my legal opinion. That is not my advice to the board. I think that the procedure is appropriate. >> I feel like >> determination for the board should be
made on the use variance application. >> Having said that, >> I feel like this is beyond the board's authority. Respectfully, how how can the board grant a use variance when the state hasn't delineated where we can and can't build? >> Because the state law permits the
bifurcation of application where there's a use variance application. It allows a use variance application to be made without the site plan. The uh environmental considerations and the approvals by Pineland's D, those are all
part of the site plan application. Just just to clarify, you can disagree, but just so you understand with regards to the use variance, if the use variance is granted tonight, >> we have to come back for site plan approval and we also have to get those outside agency approvals. If we do not secure those outside agency approvals,
the use variance is moot. >> So it would >> ineffective. >> So that that's the purpose of it is to obtain this portion first and then proceed with all of those other applications as necessary. I feel we're undermining the integrity of environmental law by even hearing uh
whether we should approve or deny use variance. Um I'll cite Peg Leb Web LLC versus the Pinelands Commission in 2017. A judge sided with the Pinelands Commission when the company tried to sue
essentially municipal boards went and granted a bunch of approvals. When it finally reached the Pineel's Commission, they said, "You guys are crazy." And even though they tried to sue them in court, the judge sided with the pilots commission. So I want to remind the board that environmental law trumps our
municipal ordinances. Okay. Have you guys conducted any soil tests? >> No. >> Okay. You spoke a lot about the oil separator. Have you submitted any data on how uh that works? Any uh like efficiencies?
Are we just supposed to believe word of mouth? >> No, we have a detail of of a typical water oil safe and as I indicated if we get the point of site plan and I would have to give all the data on that and the sizing of that and have make sure it's sized properly
>> and you is septic on site are you proposing? >> Yes. >> That's crazy. So, another law, another law says a use variance relying on septic cannot lawfully be approved
unless compliance with NJAC 7 semicolon 9A. Based on the geographic location, you guys have a lot of environmental surveys to submit before our board can hear.
That's not the case. I think both legal counsels >> Pizzo Manton Group vers Randolph 1994. A board may not hear an incomplete application. Missing environmental reports render the filing legally
deficient under 10.3. There's numerous case law that states we shouldn't even be hearing this. I'm just going to say this once and and then continue on for for whatever time the board elects to give you. But the
concept legally with the bifurcated application and why it is permitted is that if you don't get the use variant then there's no reason to go into the site plan issues.
>> I hear that logic. I I I hear I disagree with I I hear what I hear what you're saying. I do hear what you're saying. >> Can I just chime in maybe? >> Mr. These
I just want to keep these specific for him right now. >> It has to be specific to the application, right? >> Not just him. I'm sorry. >> I'm not trying to be rude. I swear. >> I know. I know. It sounds like I'm not. I just
>> So, I can't break this I can't break this down to specifically what >> we have to come back up as well. I just want to make sure that everybody has any questions that >> No. Um, >> I I feel like I got a lot of my concerns
out. Um, you know, when the land was cleared, the 2.4 acres. >> No. >> Okay. So, you wouldn't know if there was a valid tree permit or anything? >> No. >> Okay. And then you uh mentioned other
commercial properties along 547 or 527 uh almost to support your your case. Could you could you tell me whether or not the other properties face the same geographical uh limitations? >> No.
>> You couldn't. Okay. Do you feel that this property is too constrained for what uh the applicant might be needing? >> No. As I indicated, I think it's perfectly suitable for >> As I indicated, I believe it's it's suitable for what we're proposing. >> Okay. And then just to go back to the
oil separator, could you tell me how that works again? Sure. So there's obviously water has a has a different buoyancy and other materials. So it's used a lot on gas stations and places where you typically have things other
than water mixing with water. Um and basically it separates that from the water. Uh so the water is continues to flow through and it's not a treatment device. It holds it. So it it does require maintenance where you have to
come out and pump it out. >> Okay. And then do you have any data to prove its efficiency? Have you supplied our engineers? >> No, we're not at that point. As I indicated, it'll be sized properly and as required and all that data will be
provided if we get the site plan at the end. >> Okay. Do you know if any other uh commercial properties uh along the road utilize septic on site?
>> I think most of this area is septic. >> Okay. Do you uh have any design plans for uh the water runoff? >> No, that would be come as I plan. Any soil logs, percolation tests, per permeability tests?
>> No, you asked if I had soil boring. No. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Height, just on the bifurcation because I I know that you like to look at the law. I recommend that you look at NJSA 40 colon
55D-76B subsection B. >> 76 what? >> Subsection B. And what is what does that uh what does that elaborate on >> a bifurcation on on the issue that we
were discussing before before >> 4055D-76 subsection B. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you for your time. >> Have to excuse me. I have a couple more things to ask the gentleman. >> I'm Mr. Harris.
>> Mr. Harris, you remain sworn. >> Okay. Uh, one question. Why would you need an oil oil separator if there containers are going to be empty? >> Why would you need it? >> Are you are you going to repair vehicles
yet, too? >> No. as we indicated stipulated as one of the requirements is there are no vehicle repair. Uh if you remember the originally we didn't have an oil water separator. The board had a concern uh of runoff and that's why we added the the oil water separator.
>> So you really don't know anything about that whether how many times it's going to be empty or do they have to call when it's filled? >> It's going to be emptied every time. How many times do they have to call to get it empty?
>> Did you you didn't you didn't check into that. Just tell me you didn't check into >> every time it leaves a site when they pick it up. >> It gets >> You're not answering my question. You're dancing around. >> I I indicated we're going to have to
size it. It's not sized yet. And have a full maintenance plan that gets filed by deed on the property on how to maintain that. No, it's not sides yet. >> That's why I asked. >> Sure. >> You're separating the water from the
oil. Okay. Now, if you're not going to repair vehicles and the tangles are coming back empty, why would you need it? >> There. The board had comments at the last meeting and as in in an effort to to um
>> address those concerns, >> we decided that this would be a good step. And it is a it's a stop gap. It's it's a per the purpose of it is to catch oils that may come out of uh these empty containers in the event they are for whatever reason within there's some oil
on the container itself but um as we've indicated as Mr. Murphy's indicated several times these dumpsters are going to be dumped at whatever venue they go to. They may end up at a different site and not at this site but when they come to this site they will not have any
materials within them. This is partic this is just precautionary and it was a purpose of it is to address the concerns raised by the board which is there are legitimate concerns and that's why we've included it on the plan. >> It's really my my concern. Now as I say
they can get filled. That's wetlands back there. Like they said it's 300 feet buff foot bumper bump buffer. Okay. I've been to wetlands on count on my property and I know how what they said and what they did to me.
Now I'm hoping they do the same thing to you. And another thing, he's fully operational back there. He was dumping soil on that property, not garbage from any other people dumping it there. And he ran it over with a truck. Nobody took any per test or anything or soil test
back there when he was doing that. And I mentioned it the last time. >> I didn't indicate that we've done any test. >> You didn't indicate that they did any soil test, too. As I said, >> I have not. >> He was he dumped loads of soil back
there and he was running it down with his truck, his vehicle. Nobody went back there to test that. I'm worried about that. >> Listen, I seen it with my own eyes. I'm
not here lying. I'm just saying I'm not aware of that. I can tell you I've done >> Yeah, I understand. >> I told >> I I said to the board the last time I was
>> No, I'm sorry. I didn't that was part of my question. >> Yes, you did. >> No. Regarding your concerns, how do you make sure that that's that whatever was done
is safe for >> we we can take a sample if it if that is the fact and we >> the left the barn >> we can take a sample and sit if there's an issue obviously that has to be
cleaned up. If it's just dirt then I think it'll be left left alone again. There's that there's that road that goes around the site and out to the right side that goes through the buffer currently. Um, obviously that's going to be all abandoned as part of this because we're going to fence the buffer line so
that we'll be able to be utilized. >> Water finds its way to get around everything. Like I said, we have a pond back there and water from those containers if it rains with not going to be clean. It's not only going to be oil in there. this constru construction
material whether it's a soluble me any anything that's hazardous if rain hits those trailers it will run out the trailers because they're not solidly sealed and it can go into the wetlands and my
pond back there. >> So that that was the concern of the board also. That's why we had stone initially but we have concrete now. >> Stone is not going to kick against that. >> That's why we got rid of stone. So now we have concrete. It's going to go to that. It's going to be directed to the oil water separator. So at least there's
some treatment on that end before any water gets out. And then you still have the wetland buffer, which is the purpose of the buffer. That buffer also treats before it gets wet. >> I don't think you want to swear to that. >> That's the purpose of a of a wetland buffer.
>> I don't think you want to swear to that >> because water finds its way around everything. >> I I swear that is the purpose of buffer. have a chance to come back up again. Okay, you have a closing statement. >> Um, so I'm sorry. Forgive me. Just have
a question. I apologize. >> No problem. Thank you. I just want to say if there was illegal dumping there, you're welcome to report it to the DP and let them investigate it. Um, you know, obviously it's not up to the board, but if you saw illegal activity, you know,
DP is a good uh place to report it. Uh, another thing is I did read up something about this 300 foot um not allowed to build anything within buffer from the water. How does that pertain to this application?
>> Well, I was going to ask that to Mark and Ernie. So, thank you Mark and Ernie. Mr. Murphy indicate Thank you, Mr. Herman. Mr. Murphy indicated 250, but I too saw something about 300 ft. So, thank you for the reminder. >> Correct. So this >> this property, you know, from what I'm
reading is basically 357 feet uh frontage. So it doesn't leave much space for anything. >> There are different buffer requirements based off the type of wetlands and uh ultimately that's going to be confirmed
by the D in the next step. So, at this point, they're showing they're showing a potential layout um based off the information that they have. And if it if it does change, then uh that'll be reflected in a revised site plan.
>> Okay. Thank you. And then another thing was uh if we're so concerned about the dumpsters uh having leakage and fluids coming out of that possibly infiltrating the wetlands, would it be a better idea to move the
actual building closer and move the containers further away from the wetlands? You know, again, we're going to get more into that issue of making a structure closer to the wetlands, but it would probably be beneficial for the wetlands to move
those further away. >> We can certainly look at that. >> Can I I would like if we're done, I'd like to ask a question and really it's it's a legal >> question for you. Yes. This whole idea of bifurcation, right? So the question
we have today that we're going to respond on is are they allowed to have a commercial use on this property? >> No. >> Right. No. >> The question you are being asked to decide is whether they can have the
proposed commercial use on this property. It is not a commercial use. It is this commercial use. >> Okay. That's where I was going. So it has so so it is very appropriate to talk about you know leakage and everything we talked about the actual usage because
it's not for just commercial usage in general it's for this specific commercial use >> correct >> okay thank you >> I just want to speak with you >> sorry >> can Oh, okay. Just give me a few minutes. >> Yeah. No, you'll be able to come back. Mr. Right. This procedure.
>> I'm sorry, Mr. Qu. I missed it about relocating. Oh, okay. Did I not hear? >> Oh, no, no, no. We didn't miss it. It didn't happen.
>> I'm glad you guys are safe because you didn't see anything. But I >> just >> I'm sorry Alfie. We're >> Go ahead. We were discussing mostly the noise level and and our difficulties in
hearing. So to that if you can speak directly into the microphone and that goes to everyone we would really appreciate it. The sound quality is never good in this room and there's some sort of additional blowing feature this evening.
So, um, our our closing remarks are essentially that this site itself, uh, 747 Toms River Road, um, our client is proposing a dumpster rental and junkyard removal site. Uh, Mr. Murphy provided
significant testimony as to how the site's going to operate itself. Um, and we believe that the board could act favorably tonight based upon the fact that we do have to come back before the board for site plan approval and we have to get Pinelands and other outside agency approvals.
>> Thank you, Mr. >> And I I do want to point out that the site itself, the way it's sitting now, I mean, this is a great way to clean up the site. And we do want my client does want to make sure that the site does clean itself up and does operate well. >> We're gonna go ahead and open it up to
the public questions or comments like this. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Oh, >> forgive me, J. Go ahead. >> Not a problem, Miss Bradley. Uh just a question that I would like to be put on the record. Uh if the board chooses to
not grant this use variance tonight, what is the plans for the site which is actively being used for this use? If I'm not mistaken, do we have a game plan on how we're going to >> the board would not have such a plan? >> Right. I was more for the the applicant.
I just I'm unable to see. I I don't have an answer to that question at this time. >> I guess I have to follow up this one thing. Um if they get uh rejected, would they have to stop cement on what they're doing right now?
>> If they did not get the variance, then they if they were conducting an activity that is not permitted in zone, that would be an unpermitted activity. >> Right. Okay. and and and so what would be the procedure to get him to stop?
>> Okay, that would be outside the province of this board. >> Okay, that would be like code enforcement or something. >> That would be a lot like code enforcement, Mr. Martins. I would be happy to have a conversation with you in the zoning office regarding our >> I'm sure you would >> regarding our processes for that. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I missed it. So I just have a a direct >> I'm just gonna say Mr. >> Mr. No, Mr. Heidi, you remain. >> So I I took a quick glance at that subsection you wanted me to read, but I
don't think it trumps NJSA 13 semicolon 18A or 13 semicolon 9B. One second. These are just pretty much
the the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Acts and the Pineelands Protection Act. This board's power doesn't supersede what's in what is there. >> 100% agreed. >> I I I can't I can't believe that. I feel
like we're putting our town at jeopardy. >> I'm sorry. I feel like we're putting our town at jeopardy when we do things like this. >> No, no, no. Mr. Heidi, I I I'm not trying to be facitious. I agree with you that the state laws supersede the board.
I think where we disagree, you and I, is whether those laws that you're citing come into effect on this or have prohibit the application for a use variance before this board separate from
a site plan. How can the board grant a use variance on property that's not theirs? It's not their It's not your jurisdiction. >> This isn't the board's jurisdiction. >> You are It is my legal opinion that you were mistaken about that. >> It is the Pineland's jurisdiction. The
site is within the Pinelands. Anything they want to do needs to go to the Pinelands. >> It's within the wetlands. Anything they need to do, they want to do, they have to go to the D. >> Agreed. >> There's no reason. Maybe maybe there is
an ordinance that needs to be rewritten, but >> these are these are really procedural matters. The D and the Pineland. >> It's case law. >> Thank you. Again, I I respect very much
your industry. I disagree with your legal conclusions regarding the authority of the board on a use variance application. >> I appreciate your time. Thank you. >> Actually, can I
>> just kind of >> Sorry, >> you can come forward. Go ahead, Mr. >> Just just kind of talk to um in my packet since I am new here. So, I don't know if I got additional stuff, but there was a letter uh issued by the
Pineelands Commission, and I'll read it to you. It said, "Should the municipal hearing be exclusively for the purposes of seeking a variance and if subsequent site plan approval is required, the board may act on the variance prior to the applicant
receiving a certificate of filing from the Pinelands Commission." That's right on a letter from the Pinelands. [laughter] >> Thank you. Uh, >> thank you Harris. >> Affirm that the testimony you will give
before this board is the truth and nothing but the truth. >> It's the truth and nothing but the truth. >> I'm sorry. >> The truth and nothing but the truth. >> Okay. Thank you. And I'm sorry, Mrs. Harris. >> Harris. Um, I just want to follow up on
something that the gentleman just said that uh putting up a commercial uh business on that piece of property, it's going to um clean the property up. I
don't understand when it's all mostly trees around the uh property and there is bushes or what is there to clean? Is it something that we don't know? Is it environmental. What is there to clean? Another thing my husband stated that
there is pond back there. There are so many wild animals. Our property is right alongside this property that's being asked to uh reszone to a commercial area. There's deer, there is foxes, any
kind of animals you can think of lives back of our property. I'm a gardener. I wish I could invite the board to come look at my garden. I do organic gardener because I don't want any kind of
pesticide or anything to interfere with the the animals. Now we want now we want to put a commercial, you know, uh operation next to our property or next to wet on top of
wetlands. And yes, he said he's going to have the containers clean off site and brought back to this property. Do we really really believe that? I mean, who in their right mind
will think that, you know, he will clean those containers. Oh, and bring it back because it's wet lands. That's not going to happen. And that's my concern. And another thing, the noise. I get up at six o'clock to go to work
almost every other morning. Bang bang, it's container dropping on the ground or he's picking up the container. He's fully operated, fully in business. So that is the truth. And we live right
next door. We were right there. And that's what we're witnessing. >> Thank you for the chair. >> Yes. Just to address that last point, um if they are operating earlier than their statement of operations, then if they do
get an approval, then they're required to keep to those times. So, it would make it better for you because they would have to they wouldn't be allowed to operate prior to 7 o'clock. They would be able to enforce it. That would mean that I have to run
out of bed and maybe take a video or do something, you know. >> I got you. But the point is from a legal standpoint, it would there would be basis to stop it. >> I was going to say something, but I think >> I just want to piggy back off what Mr.
Heman had stated that their statement of operations would then be enforceable. Uh just for the record, our current uh town code offers uh hours of noise for construction to be 7 am to 8:00 pm Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. on the weekends and federally recognized holidays. So any complaints outside of those dates and times can be reported to either code enforcement and or Jackson Township Police Department. >> So Mrs. Harris, what she's saying, let's just say for example, tomorrow morning
if you're out there, you have the right Even though there's no there's nothing in writing here, you have the right to report something like that. Anyone else come forward, please?
>> I knew I had seen you. I'm like, wait, where did you go? >> I figured I'd sit. >> I'm sorry. Um, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give before this board will be the truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> And could you give your name, please? >> Deb Jones.
Um, I just have a couple questions, concerns. I know during I don't remember which gentleman was speaking, but they said something about there's no homes that are exiting out onto Tom's River Road.
If I look at the map, it looks like every house exits out there. So, I wasn't really sure. I missed the point of why that mattered if the home like if people exited onto the road, but I was wondering if you could just give me a little
>> I was talking about the houses that are adjacent to us. All of them go out the lake road. >> Adjacent to the property? >> Yes. >> Okay. Because on the map, it looks like they're all going on the Tom's River Road. No, >> it it maps up. You can see all the houses that are adjacent to us all go
out the Lakers Road. Okay. Uh, I'll go look at the other map again. I just wanted clarification on that. >> Sure. >> And my other thing is >> I understand people need to make a living, want a business. I get all that.
I don't have anything against that. But I also think we can take as many precautions as we want. Accidents happen all the time. Most people who have lived in Jackson their whole life, we all know about Saigi. And yes, that was intentional and
dumped, but it got into our water, our land. It affected many people. We have other areas in this town where you're not on wetlands. I just don't even understand why this has to
even be a question. If there's water there, maybe it's time to go to somewhere else. And I understand that's not always the easy answer because they might have the property, but when the propertyy's purchased, you know, there's water
there. You know, these are going to be problems. So, yeah, we do come for a variance, but variances are just that. As the people who are governing our town on this, we have the right to say no to the variance. And sometimes we have to. It's not comfortable. It's not nice. You
don't want to see someone go out of business. But in the end, we have to look forward to look ahead to things that accidentally happen and stuff happens all the time. We had a tornado come through Jackson. We could have that again and those dumpsters could be
ripped apart. Then what? We can't say, "Oh, we put all this in place because we didn't know that was going to happen, but it happens." So, I just would like you guys to think about everything like doesn't matter how much you line up, things happen and it's our water, it's
our ponds, it's the things that have been in this town forever and for the people who have lived in this town forever. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Just just one thing if I could just to follow up. Um I I think this is specific
for Adam. I think you missed the the beginning here on the new agenda, there's a link at the very end and it works. You Okay, so what what was just quoted here um you should have access to all of that, right? Um so you don't have
to do an Opra request or anything like that. It's all available on that website. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that was >> excession for discussion >> if I may just >> Yeah. So just there are two things I
want to go through. um one I want to take uh through the conditions that have been discussed one more time and then also um just the standards for this use variance. So the conditions um were again no no maintenance of trucks on site, no washing or cleaning of
dumpsters or containers on site. Dump Whoops, sorry. Clearly don't know how to operate my own computer. Um uh dumpster to be clean when arrive on site subject to inspection. No welding on site. Containers may not be stacked.
Maximum of 25 containers. Buffer to be fully fenced uh with a solid fence and landscaping. Containers be on concrete pad with the runoff to go to a detention basin with an oil separator. Clean up. Uh the buffer is required to
be cleaned. Um there was a discussion that still might be debris and uh there hours to 7 a.m. to 4 a.m. 4 pm only no dumping on property and there was a representation that soil samples would
be taken as board uh knows for uh use variance and uh Mr. Murphy to discuss these standards in his testimony. Um the applicant has the burden of demonstrating the positive and negative
criterion. Um and also special reasons. Um, they have to demonstrate that the proposed use carries out the purposes of zoning as listed in the MLUL or they also have to uh show that the
refusal to allow the project would impose an undue hardship on the applicant. Mr. Murphy made reference to both of those standards. The applicant must also demonstrate that the requested relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good
and that the proposed use will not have a negative impact impact on the adjacent properties will not cause such damage to the character of the neighborhood is to constitute a substantial detriment to the public good. The applicant must also demonstrate the requested relief will not impair the intent and purpose of the
zone plan and zoning ordinance. Mr. Murphy made reference to the master plan. Um, and they also need to show Oh, I think that those that's it.
So, I just want to remind the board of those standards. Is there a wetlands encroachment? >> Okay. So, we do not know the encroachment now. We would not know if there's an encroachment until the site plan application. >> Correct. This is the use variance only.
whether or not this use with these conditions could be permitted. Assuming that there were as an acceptable site plan and that that site plan also received the outside agency approvals that have been discussed.
So, um, I guess this is more of an an explanation of what my vote is going to be. Um, off the bat, the idea of putting a commercial use in this area, um, I'm a little against that, but it it
it does depend on what you're trying to put there, right? I agree with you there. there's at least one commercial use that I can see. But looking at this type of commercial use, I don't see any construction sites, you know, construction companies, uh big truck
things um in that area. Um, in addition, we've heard from from the residents, so I'm not sure you can prove that this will have no impact to or beneficial to
the residents there. Um, so for those reasons and some others, when time comes, uh, I think my votes going to be no. Thank you. Um I would tend to agree with
Mr. Martins um for a number of reasons, not particularly for the commercial use necessarily. Um for the reasons the applicant stated, there could be a positive reason to put a commercial use there. Um this specific
type of use I do not believe meets the positive and negative criteria. Um I think it the proximity to the wetlands in the pinelands is not particularly suitable for such a
operation and it may affect the neighbors around it. Um I don't believe that it would be specifically fit the character of the neighborhood. I'm also concerned with the fact that
Tom's River Road is a uh quicker paced road and you're going to be having large trucks which take a little bit more time to accelerate and de accelerate to get in and out of the site. So I don't I don't believe it's particularly
suitable. >> Mr. Um, and for that reason, I'll make a motion to deny the variance. And I was again piggy back off of what both gentlemen said, again, not necessarily any commercial, but this specific
commercial. When we talk about positive and negative, I think this is for me anyway is a clear example where I don't see a positive to the residents in this area. Again, I don't think it's suitable to that neighborhood. about negatives. I have a major concern about the cleaning.
I understand that they're dumped at the county dump and they'll throw dirt in. It might concern the the water. We have well we're talking about an area that has wells. Um I wouldn't want that to be my neighbor. Um there's just too many
different things. You're talking about um different forms of wildlife. You're talking about water. Um so for me I don't see where the criteria has been met. Um so that make a motion to deny the application. Before we move forward, are there anyone
else who would like to make a comment? >> So, we have a motion and a second to deny. So, if you vote yes, we are denying the application, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal, >> yes. >> Mr. Tremor, >> yes.
>> Miss Cusanna, >> yes. >> Mr. Selectia. >> I'm just going to make my comment now before I I vote. Um I agree with everyone on this board. I I also look at this is with it being in the Pineland
Village, our town was very explicit as to what goes into that area. Um and this use just I can't get to it. Um so my vote is yes. >> Miss Bradley.
>> Yes. The application is denied. >> [laughter] >> We're going to move on to number two occ. >> I just want to say thank [laughter] you very much. Thank you. Thank you very
much. We're going to call the meeting back to order. This is applicant number two, Frederick Weingart III, home occupation variance 3503. >> Do me a favor, please talk cuz last
noise behind us. Gina, can you try the other one of the other microphones, please? >> Oh, okay. >> Now, that sounds better, right? >> Oh, yeah. >> Seven years of college and I >> finally figured it out. Um, good
evening, Madam Chair. My name is Michael Paxton. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Frederick Weart. Uh, we're here for um his credential use application. I have with me tonight Walter Hopkin, our engineer, Fred Weart
also will testify on his um regarding his application, and John uh Tea, our professional planner. Uh first, I'd like to present Mr. Hopkin. >> Do you 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 I'm sorry. Could you state your name and uh your credentials for the record, please? >> Sure. Walter Hopkin, H O P K I N. I'm a a licensed professional engineer in states of New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland. I have a bachelor of science from Trexa
University. I have had the pleasure of testifying before both this board and uh your planning board previously and been accepted as an expert. >> Thank you. I'm sorry. >> Sorry. Sorry, Mr. Hop. Can this board accept your credentials? >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> And I'm sorry, Mr. Just before you go, there's just something I wanted to place
on the record. Um I believe Mr. Mr. Ward is a member of the township's planning board. Is that correct? Um and uh our uh planner, Mr. Peters, also serves as the engineer for I'm sorry, as the planner uh for the
planning board. Um I had reviewed it. There is no conflict with Mr. Matter. Mr. Weard had not uh voted on Mr. Peter's uh appointment, but I did want to place that on the record. >> Thank you. >> [snorts] >> So I'm going to orient the board to the
to the to the site. Uh indicate what's proposed. Uh this is also a bifurcated application. So as far as engineering and site improvements, you'll see that there's really not much to speak about, but um I'll take you through it. So the site is a 1.92 acre site. It's on the
east side of Cassville Road just north of the that intersection of Freehole Prianville Thompson Bridge uh intersection. It's also known as 183 Cville Road, block 11403, lot 39 located in your R1 zone. The
surrounding uses are all single family residential. Uh and the zoning around there is also R1. Again, this is a bifurcated application. We're here tonight before you just for the use. Uh but I'll describe to you um the uh what's proposed. There's an existing
approximately 800 square foot one-story single family home. Uh the uh what's on the u projection is a color rendered version of the site plan prepared by our office dated 10225.
So the home is is the is the building in the back, the largest building in the back. Um, there are two garages that you'll see also in in like a light brown or orange. Those are both detached um and separate from the home. There's a
concrete pad around the one garage which is located in the central portion of the site. These are all existing uh structures that have been there uh for a long time. I believe the applicant will testify that they've owned the home for approximately eight years, the property
for approximately eight years, and all of these structures were on the property when he when he purchased it. There is a a milling and um and gravel driveway that leads up to the site, opens up to a parking area where the trailers will be
stored, then continues back to the home and the detached garage towards the rear. The house is served by a well and a septic system. There are no proposed improvements before you this evening. The lines that
you see uh looking like parking lines are really just to demonstrate the ability for uh trailers and Mr. Weart will explain a little bit more about the the trailers that are being requested to be allowed to be u to uh parked there um
for future sale. Uh so there's no no improvements. The applicant parks um his personal vehicles in the back. You'll see there's three uh parking spaces that are shown there to show compliance with the residential site improvement standards. Well exceeds the requirements
for the home. There are 21 trailer spaces located in the central portion of the of the site with two reserved for uh customers. Again, Mr. Mr. Weart will get into the the operations and and the infrequency of customers uh actually
occurring at the site. Refuse is handled by a private hauler. There's a small fouryard um dumpster that is situated on the concrete pad in front of the garage in the central part of the site. There's no signage existing or proposed. There's
no lighting existing or proposed uh with this app with this operation. Um you'll hear later that simply the hours of operation will be restricted. Uh and quite frankly he won't this is by appointment only. He won't take people to see the trailers if it's if it's dark
out. Um this is part of his requirements and also just the surrounding uses are residential and it just wouldn't be appropriate to light the site. There's a a minor there are minor um bits of relief that are required from your ordinance variances and and waiverss. We
do have a professional planner that will go into a little bit more detail, but just to kind of frame it out for the board and professionals. The uh the lot width uh is 150 ft is required by your ordinance. 149.69 exists. So that's a a
small dimminimous exception from from your ordinance. Uh it exists and cannot be remedied. uh your both of your professionals uh questioned the uh height of whether we comply. I can um testify before you this evening that the
the home and both the garages comply with the respective ordinances. U the the principal structure the home has a maximum height of 35 ft uh and two or two and a half stories. It's only a one story and approximately 20 ft high. And
the garages, your ordinance permits, uh 25 feet in height, and both of those are below 20 feet. Your ordinance requires either 18 or 24 feet uh for a driveway width uh for for a parking lot. Uh the 11 ft the 11 it's
approximately 11 ft. Maybe it narrows down a bit below that uh exists. It it functions today. Uh so we would request relief from that. adding to it would just add to impervious in my opinion unnecessarily.
The ordinance also requires uh curbing for parking areas. Again, this is really a use that we're trying to fit uh with the surrounding um other uses and just feel that curbing would would kind of channel the the storm water and and make it uh inappropriate for this type of
use. There's you'll hear a little bit more about buffering. the um the trailer storage is at least 150 feet from the road. You can see the substantial amount of of um trees that are between the the
parking and the road. There is a a neighbor actually that we we spoke to. I don't know if you saw us before. He sits to the south, which would be to the the bottom portion of the site. Um he requested that a privacy fence be
installed along the property line and the applicant has agreed to to meet with him decide where exactly that would go but that's something that we would add to the plans. In fact that would be the only improvement that would be shown on the plans uh and we would agree to
comply with that lighting. your ordinance requires that uh parking lots be be lit, but again, we're requesting relief from that due to the proposed use and the surrounding uses. Uh and also and I think finally,
your ordinance requires parking and sidewalk, excuse me, curbing and sidewalk along all roads. Again, we would just request that that be um either waved or that the um the contribution be contemplated for that because there's no curb or sidewalk
along Castville Road in this location. I tried to extract the the key points from your professionals letters, but I'm sure there there might be a few that they might want me to uh extrapolate upon. I'd be happy to do that or take any questions from the board.
>> Mr. Roar. >> Yes, thank you. Um, can you just please confirm uh the proposed trailers? What do they what are the dimensions? What do they look like? What are they used for? I >> I'd prefer to leave that to to miss to
the applicant. Um, I've seen them. I know what they are, but it it's his business and and I'd rather him answer that if you don't mind. >> Okay. And um, in your opinion, can this site uh properly accommodate the proposed use as shown on the plan? I
believe so. From an engineering standpoint, you're going to also hear a planner's opinion. And having been in the in the uh audience during the the previous application, I did neglect to uh indicate that there are no wetlands or water courses on or near the property.
>> And just want to reiterate, this applicant is seeking use variance approval only at this time. And should the application be approved for use, they will be back for a formal site plan. >> We of course would agree with that,
>> Mr. Peters. >> I have nothing for Mr. Hopkins. Thank you. >> Any questions? Mr. Hopkins next. >> Thank you. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Are there I apologize. I'm gonna open it to the public if
there's any uh questions or comments regarding what Mr. can just share. >> How you folks doing? I'm Anthony Nappy. I own 177 Cavville Freel Road. Uh Cville Road and uh I know you were here before. Could you
raise your hand, please? >> Do you swear that or affirm that the testimony you'll give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Thank you. >> Um like you said, I spoke to him earlier. My only concern was a possibility of a privacy fence just [music] so you know any customers that do come. He's got a little thing going
there now. It's never been a problem. He's always been a great neighbor. We have no issues with you guys proceeding or approving this room except for the fence. That's that's all I have. >> Thank you so much for coming forward. We appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else wish to come forward at this
time? Seeing no one else coming forward, we're going to go ahead and close public session. Your um next uh witness, please. Next. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh my next uh witness would be uh the applicant himself, Frederick Weingard.
>> Do you swear affirm the testimony before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. And I'm sorry, I could you say your name, please? >> Yeah, Frederick Weart. >> Uh Mr. Weart, um how long have you owned this particular property? >> Uh eight years.
>> And um who do you reside with there? >> Uh it's just me. >> Okay. Uh no one else on the property? >> No. >> Um and um can you tell me what was the condition of the property when you bought it? >> Um so the house had burnt down. It was
sitting um vacant for about 10 years. Um lots of overgrowth. Uh some of the trees were damaged during the fire. >> I'm sorry, Mr. We were having trouble hearing you. I If you could >> uh lots of overgrowth um damaged trees from the fire.
Um and the house had been sitting there burnt down for 10 years. It was just vacant. >> And um can you tell us what improvements you've made to the property since you bought it? Yeah, we um got rid of the old burnt down house, rebuilt a brand
new one. Um painted, shingled, and sided the existing garages. Um planted about 100 evergreen trees along the perimeter. >> Okay. And uh currently um uh can you describe the the business you're
operating there? >> Uh yeah, it's a trailer sales business like buy and resell. And um as you heard there was a question before. Can you describe these trailers? What what do you mean by that? >> Yeah, enclosed trailers and dump
trailers. Um anywhere from as small as 8 feet up into 24 feet long. >> And what would be the height of these trailers? >> U maximum height is probably 9 feet from the ground. >> And can you describe for the board what you actually do with these trailers? Um
how do you uh when you get them in, what do you do with them? Right. Um, so as far as uh minor on-site repairs would be like removing vinyl decals, um, sheet metal patchwork, interior plywood work, um, electrical, rewiring, lights,
changing light bulbs. >> Do you do anything like oil changes or painting of the vehicles of these? >> Do you operate any um, heavy machinery with regard to the work you do on these? Uh there is a skid steer on site um to
move the trailers around. >> And uh does that create any um any noise when you move these around with that um machine? >> Uh when starts up, you can hear the engine start up. But
>> okay, >> can you hear? >> No, it's very hard to hear. I'm sorry. Yell if you have. >> It's okay. >> It keeps falling down. >> It won't stay off. >> Okay. So, you don't do any major repairs? >> No. No. No welding, no painting, nothing like that.
>> No. Um, >> okay. And and remember, voice up. Yeah. >> Um, do you have any employees? >> No. Um, do you plan on having any employees? >> No. >> Um, what are the hours of operation that
you that you work on the site? >> Uh, that I work on the site just daylight hours. >> N is it 9 to5? >> Uh, I forget what would be input in the U. >> Well, you provided a uh supplemental statement of operations to the board.
You indicated uh 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, seven days a week. >> Yes. Um, and is this site open to the public? >> No, appointment only. >> Yeah. Well, how do you market these um these trailers?
>> It's all online marketing. >> Okay. And um if someone was interested in buying one, what would they need to do? >> They'd have to schedule an appointment. They can't just show up. >> And on average, how many people do you
have come to the site per week? Uh, one to two on average. >> Okay. How many of these trailers on average do you have on the site at any one time? >> Uh, usually between 10 and 20.
>> And how often do they how long do they stay on site? Typically >> until they sell. It's all It's all different times. >> Okay. Um now do you have any um type of waiting room or anything like that to
accommodate uh the people who are coming to uh buy these trailers? >> No. >> Um do you um and and there are some questions that I'm going to ask you uh regarding the ordinance. Do you use
firearms in any way in the course of this business? >> Um is this the only business that you conduct on the property? Yes. >> Um, do you have any plans on constructing any other BU buildings on the property? >> No.
>> Have you um made any alterations to the dwelling to the house that you live in to accommodate this property? >> No. >> And um have you gotten any complaints from any of your neighbors during the eight years that you've uh lived there
regarding your business? >> No. And again, the um the work that's done on these trailers are minor cosmetic repair as >> um regarding your lighting um as Mr. Hopkin indicated, presently you don't
have any. Correct. >> Correct. >> And do you plan on any installing any lighting? >> No. >> Um what happens when, as this weekend, we turn the clocks back. Um, when it gets dark out uh earlier, does that
influence your hours of operation? >> Um, appointment only when it's light out. I mean, they have to be able to see the trailers to buy them. So, >> and how about the work you do on them? >> Just during daylight hours. >> Okay.
>> Um, do you have currently any signage on the property? >> No. >> Are you proposing to have any signage installed? >> No. And um you heard Mr. Hopkin discuss the fact that you were able to speak with
your neighbor. Um are you amendable to um within the confines of the ordinance install a privacy fence as he requested? >> Yes. >> And you'll work with him on that? >> Yes. >> I have no further questions at this time.
Can you just tell us what the trailers are used for? >> Um, >> is it like a landscaping trailer that >> uh Some of them are landscaping trailers, some of them are dump trailers. >> Yeah, >> Mr. Martins. >> Yep. Um, Mr. P, those were great
questions. >> Thank you. >> That covered a lot of stuff that I had questions. That was great. Um, so these are empty. >> Yes. >> Right. Because you you're looking to sell you you you buy them. >> Yes. >> Right. If they're used, do you have any new ones on there or they're all just
used? You fix them up and stuff? >> I have one on there that's maybe a year old, six months old, something like that. >> Okay. But Right. Okay. But they're not like really old where they're all rusty, beat up and stuff. Who you going to sell that to? Right. >> Presentable. Yeah. >> Yeah. Presentable. Okay. And again,
they're empty. >> Yes. They might have had construction stuff in there before. Who knows what they had in there before? It doesn't matter. You've cleaned them. They're empty. There's nothing runoffs and things like that. We don't need to worry about any of that. >> Um Okay. Thank you. >> Um
>> from a a security perspective. >> So, I guess a trailer is a hard thing to steal. Um would you ever consider a gate in the front so that people can't just There there is a gate that was there when I moved in at the entrance. It's about
maybe 30 yards down the driveway. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Um and then another just question. >> So today that that roadway I'll call it to the to the 571 is not there, right?
Or is it something smaller? >> Like I when I look at it, I can't I can't How do you get out? >> How do you get to 571 today? Is there a little, you know, dirt road or something? I'm I'm confused. >> A long drive. So from your from the
house, the residential home right to 571. >> Excuse me. Maybe I can shed some light. That that's already existing. That's not a proposed roadway. It's approximately 11 ft if I'm correct. Okay. >> From Mr. Hopkins testimony,
approximately 11 ft wide. And that is the ingress and egress uh to the property. >> And it's a Okay, got it. That's not new. Okay, that was my confusion. Um, okay. That's all I Thank you, >> Mr. Tremor.
So even whatever time I went there >> either way Not this [laughter] >> test. T test. Would would you like to use this
microphone? >> Just for the record, I quarterly harass Anthony with my computer. Um, like I said, I I've been there a bunch of times. Man's working. It's not a mess. It was a mess in the past.
Um, I mean, many years ago, not many, seven, eight years ago, if I was on any boards, I actually went there and almost bought a trailer off the man and it took several tries to get him there because I'm just saying it's not a high traffic.
You can't see it from the street. And uh to me it's not a problem, you know, just is what it is. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Sleia. >> Okay, I'm going to have a an interesting
question. All right. Um since it's a home occupation and Jackson Township was just reassessed, was there any changes to your property tax as a result of this home occupation? Yeah. And that's generally not
>> that's the benefit to me. That's a benefit. >> But it's it's a home occupation. >> Yeah. >> It's not a question of whether it be homeation. It's just a question of asking for
Any other questions? Mr. Ward, Mr. Peters. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Weard, thank you for your testimony. Um, I'm just going to ask you a few questions so we can get some some guidelines on the record. Mr. Paxton, please let me know
if these are things that we can um [clears throat] agree to or put as a condition in any affirmative resolution. Um, is there currently any access out the back to Crescent? >> No. >> Are you proposing any? >> I don't think it's possible.
>> Who knows who owns the property back there? If you might own it one day, just for the purposes of this application, you're not proposing any access? >> No. >> To the non-county road? >> No. >> Thank you. um trying to find a a phrase or a term
with regards to the usability of the trailers. Would we call them roadw worthy? Would we call them registered or licensed? What would what would in your mind or Mr. Paxton from from legal
representation perspective how would you call him not junk? something that says he's going to bring in something that is going to go out and go back on the road. >> Well, I I think the nature of the
I want to call it an item uh itself. They're not motorized. Correct. Um they're um bought as he testified in fairly good shape for the main purpose of selling them. They're not it's not a
junkyard. It's not a situation where things are being compiled and he's selling them for scrap. Um they're there to be turned around as quickly as possible and get offsite. Um so these in effect are pieces of equipment he's
getting in if you want to call them equipment or vehicle. I don't like to call them a vehicle only because they're not motorized. Um, but in no way I would I categorize these as junk because they are viable things that he can he can
sell. I want to make sure there's some sort of threshold about what comes in and what goes out. Um um I would think and I'm sorry I didn't mean to cut you off. Um you don't buy any of these trailers just to use them for parts. Correct. >> No.
>> And and it's not your intention to ever do that. Correct. >> No. It's your intention that they would be, as you talked about, have minor cosmetic repair um the the repairs you indicated and then turn around and sell them. >> Correct. >> So, you wouldn't be storing any just to
uh cannibalize it for other ones? >> No. >> Thank you for your assistance with that. Um well, I know we don't know what how long a vehicle can stay on the site because it may need a part or something like that. What would be the upset limit? What
would what would in your mind constitute long-term storage? In other words, someone decides, well, I I I I'm working on a project and it's not going to work over the winter, so I'm going to take half a dozen trailers and store them at your site for the winter. What What would constitute
what do you think the longest a piece of equipment would be on the site? Other words, if if you're saying you're not using this to store other people's trailers for extended periods of time, what would be a a reasonable time that vehicles would be on site for repairs?
If >> if I could just qualify that though, um are you planning on using any of the site or have you used any of the site to allow other people to store their trailers uh for any length of time? >> I'm sorry.
>> No. >> So, >> perfect. Thank you. That's all I have. Remember, sometimes to my board members, it's not what you do, it's what you're not going to do. Sometimes you just want to know what they're not going to do. They're not
going to let people come in and put half a dozen trailers there for six months. So, I apologize if I sounds like I'm sandbagging Mr. Weart. I'm not. I'm just trying to make sure there's a record of he's saying what he's going to do, but let's just also make sure we're not going to get there. Thank you for your
time. Any additional questions or comments, Mr. Weart? >> I just Yeah, I have one that that uh you just reminded me of. So these So if I go to to buy one of these trailers, are you guaranteeing that they will be road
worry me a road, you know, I can put them on the road. I can get them registered. >> Yeah. I mean, anybody could register anything with a title. So, >> right. Because a trailer you have to register just like a motor vehicle even though it doesn't have you have to register it but it has to be in decent condition obviously right
>> pick them up and drive them back to the property so they've been on the road >> right you even get a little license plate specifically for that trailer and you're guaranteeing that that trailer will if I buy it I'll be able to register it no problems right okay
>> that helps me with the idea of it's not a piece of junk >> right because I wouldn't be able to register a piece of junk >> so Okay. Thank you. Yeah. >> Good chair. >> Yes, Mr. Hyman. >> So, just to clarify, I just want to make sure that it was a stipulation that
there will be no uh exterior or not exterior but outside rental space on the property. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. And then just to classify this, um, I just want to make sure that this is not considered a
dealership, that it's that you don't have a car dealers's license requirement and that it's not going to become >> vehicles that are going to be modified and >> no. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah.
>> Any additional questions or comments? >> Oh, Mr. >> I'm sorry. And that it may have been Mr. part of Mr. Hopkins testimony and I missed it. Um, what is the maximum number of trailers? >> Uh, we're proposing 21. >> Any other questions or comments, Mr.
Weard? Okay, I'm going to go ahead and open it to the public if anyone else wishes if anyone, excuse me, wishes to come forward and question him at this time. Seeing no one come forward, I'm going to go ahead and close public session. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll call my uh
final uh witness, uh John Tea. >> Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And could you state your name again and your credentials? >> John Tyena. T is in Thomas. A I K is in Kelly. I N is in Nicholas A. I'm a
licensed planner in the state of New Jersey. have been since I completed my studies at Ruckers University in 1992. Spent the last 33 years doing this, testifying before planning and zoning boards across the state and around the country on behalf of applicants uh just like this. Uh I was last here I believe
in June. Uh it's nice to be back >> and this board accept your credentials. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> U Mr. Tiken I um we've gotten a report from Remington and Vernick Engineers. Um can you um address some of the concerns
raised and also discuss the um the um reasons that this uh application uh can be granted within the confines of the ordinance and the municipal land use law. >> Certainly I think if I just go with my
affirmative I'll get there and if I don't Mr. Peters will tell me what I missed. Um so we are here for uh a a D3 uh conditional use uh variance along with some uh site plan waiverss. Um a D3
variance is a little it's still a D. Um so we do need five out of seven votes, but it is a little less stringent in terms of the criteria uh than you're used to with your typical use variance for something that is not permitted in the district. Uh so as a home occupation
um this uh is a permitted use as long as we comply with all the conditions. Um unfortunately uh we only comply uh with 11 of the 12. Um so we we we don't have any employees that aren't residents. Um
we uh we don't have any external signage that's beyond the limits. We don't have any signage at all. We won't have any audible noise. Uh we're not going to adversely impact adjacent property owners and you heard from our adjacent uh property owner that they haven't had any issues in in the long time. Uh we
won't require any alterations. We won't involve construction features that would change the fire rating of the structure. Uh we're not going to exceed the maximum number of occupants. Our resident employee parking is not going to interfere with any on street parking. um we won't have any firearms and there
will not be any more than one uh home occupation uh permitted on the property. The one that we don't comply with is that the home occupation be conducted entirely within the dwelling or an accessory building. And again, the unique nature of this very uh niche um
really boutique sales operation for uh small uh trailers. um is one that uh doesn't isn't me lent to be um conducted indoors. So uh that's why we we can't comply. Um but we have to show the
standard is um can we show that despite the failure to meet this condition um do we still believe that the property remains appropriate? So um and then we'll obviously of course with all your relief as you know we then need to show we advance the purposes of zoning and
that we satisfy the negative criteria. So, uh, in terms of the site remaining appropriate, the site is, uh, it's a new R1 district with the one acre required. We're almost twice that. Um, the business operates out of an accessory structure that has existed on the property for some time, uh, with a
millings uh, parking lot that surrounds it. It is substantially back from the uh from the street, over 150 ft. Um, so again, it's it's pretty well buffered that way. Uh the applicant has agreed to provide an additional privacy fence um
to make sure that we are in harmony with our neighbor. Um we uh don't believe we need any signage. Again, it's a very niche uh business here. Um that is by appointment only. So uh again, it's it's appointments. You give the address, they put it in their uh GPS and get there the
same way that that we all got there. We went and looked and we looked at the property. So it's a very low impact use. Um so again we think that it remains appropriate um to have uh have the property of this nature. In terms of the um the waiverss that we seek um the
standard for the board is really three-prongong. One is that um that it's within the board's purview uh in your site plan approval. So, the waiverss that we seek for not having curbs in sidewalks, for not having curbs in the parking lot, for um for not having
lighting, um they're all things that are appropriate to be considered by the board as part of your site plan approval. Um and the requests are reasonable within the context of this existing use uh in the R1 zone that again have a lower impact uh type of uh
type of construction, lower impact type of improvements. Um so, we believe they are very appropriate and reasonable. And then finally that strict compliance would be a bit of a hardship on the applicant. Uh really would result in unnecessary expense and improvement that that would you know potentially you know
be more disruptive uh than leaving the existing improvements in place. So we believe that the board uh can make the appropriate findings for the waiverss as well. In terms of our um so again we believe that we remain appropriate because it's centered in the middle of the property. Um we have again we have
good buffers around us. Uh we're going to provide an additional fence. We have the residence in the far back of the property and we think that everything remains uh as is uh for this very low impact use and it would be appropriate in terms of the purposes of the land use law. I'd submit to you um that there are
two uh to provide for sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses both public and private in accordance with their respective environmental requirements. and M to consider the various procedures affecting land development with the view towards lessening the cost of that development and to the more efficient
use of the land. So we believe by providing uh this use on this existing uh site continuing to use it in this manner is a more efficient use of the land. We think there is sufficient space for it on this uh double-sized R1 lot if you will uh and that it it can be done
without a any detriment to the uh to the surroundings uh in the area. In terms of our negative criteria, again, two twofold. We're not going to have any substantial detriment to public good. We don't believe we're going to impact our neighbors in any way. Um the most important things uh when you're impact
talking about your neighbors are light and noise. And uh that's one of the reasons we don't want any lights. Uh Mr. Weard has been very happy to say, I'm going to operate during daylight hours. When daylight hours get shorter, I'm going to operate shorter. um that that's entirely appropriate and I think that's
uh being uh very mindful of of his neighbors to be there. Has a small skid steer on the property to be able to move the move the trailers around a little bit. Again, very low impact. Uh nothing they needs to be overdone. Uh so again, that we keep those neighbor neighborhood impacts uh to a minimum. Uh the
applicant of course with all your approvals is willing to uh abide by any reasonable conditions the board may impose and it's approp and that's one of the things that you can find is that it's appropriate to grant an approval to to provide for those reasonable conditions and as we said one of them
would be a provision of a fence uh in working with our neighbor. Uh in term finally in terms of the uh zone plan and the master plan um township just recently adopted a new master plan in 2025 and uh some of the goals that we believe we're advancing uh are to
achieve a pattern mix of land uses that provides for v various planning objectives including quality residential neighborhoods economic development in the community and the creation of a livable desirable community. um to provide for limited appropriate non-residential development including
but not limited to neighborhood business professional office and uses in residential zones to protect the existing character of those neighborhoods and to encourage appropriate uh light uh light industrial and commercial uses. Again, I don't think we go that far. Uh I think this is
a very low impact uh niche almost boutique uh home home occupation uh that would be appropriate on the site. Um there's no purpose and intent to your R1 zone. Again, the uses that are permitted there are uh single family homes,
community residences, and of course uh uh rel religious institutions in accordance with your religious uh institution ordinance that was recently adopted. Um this is all again a little more impact than a pure single family
home, but certainly less impactful than other things permitted in the district. And uh we believe that even though we don't meet that one condition of providing for an internal uh home occupation that the site remains appropriate. So for those reasons I believe the board has the ability to grant the approval and I'm available for
your questions. What did I miss? >> Mr. Roire. >> Yes. I just want to clarify. Can the board solely vote on the use variance and not vote on the design waiverss at this time and handle those later during
site plan? >> Yes. >> And is that what the application is? I just want to clarify. Uh because there was some testimony on whether there was are you seeking design waiverss at this time or you you're intending to. >> No, I I would say that would be appropriate for the site plan
application. >> Okay. Thank you. Mr. Peters, >> well, that was the toughest one. I was awake when Mr. Tyena started and he said site plan waiver and I'll go through all my notes. So, thank you for clarifying that, Mr. Paxton. As it
relates [clears throat] to the the proofs that Mr. Tyena put on the record, we take no exception to that as it relates to the request for a D3 conditional use variance. Um, the applicant,
I'm sorry, the applicant, Mr. Tyena, went through the through testimony the 12 standards for a home occupation. Um, so I don't think anything was missed there.
Our report and Mr. Roers report do discuss because waiverss were requested some of the issues that can be brought up at site plan but since we're only doing the use variance um I'll stop at the point where I say that I don't take
any exception to the planners testimony that was given this evening. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Tina? >> Mr. Just want to clarify uh due to the home occupation, how are we looking at this?
The fact that it's being based out of the secondary structure. It being based out of the secondary structure is actually specifically permitted by our home occupation ordinance. What is not permitted is for
the use to be outside of the structure. And so as a trailer sales, unless we're going to build a pole barn and park the trailers inside the inside the pole barn, we wouldn't be able to comply with this this nich this niche use. Um so
that's the relief that we're seeking. We're saying the site remains appropriate even though the trailers are going to be parked outside, not in a building. >> Thank you for the clar, >> Mr. For the record. Home occupation in subsection 244121.
Item number three says the occupation shall be conducted entirely within the dwelling or within an accessory building or buildings. So he's not building a garage to back them into. He's working on them out out of doors. >> Got it. Thank you.
>> Any other questions or comments? >> Questions? >> Sure. So if let's say years from now so is this spec if we grant this variance is it specific for the property? So if let's say someone
else he sells it and then they use it for something like selling trailers in like another way like I don't know >> it's it's interesting because we didn't have a C variant so I didn't get to do
my whole this particular property shtick but um any variance would go to this specific property no others carries no precedence to any other property everybody has to make their own proof >> sold the property to someone else that >> that use this specific use,
>> right, >> could continue and be sold, but it is restricted to trailer sales only between 8 and 24 feet long, no higher than 9 ft tall. >> So again, this is the definition of a
niche sales item. He's selling one thing, >> trailers that are, you know, no bigger than bread. You remember my comments about you tell us what you're doing, you also tell us what you're not doing. >> So, we sort of put a a fence in. We pen it, put a pen around it. So, the zoning
officer in the future when he sells it to someone generationally comes in and says, "Well, I'm going to fix motorbikes." Zoning officer says, "No, no, no, no, no. You got it for this. Come back and talk to us about motorbikes." So that's the the good homework that this board
does and leaving a good record for the zoning office for future applications. >> And also it remains a home occupation. So the home would have to remain occupied by the uh person who was operating the business. >> A and if I could that would also apply
to my client himself. If he wanted to expand what he wants to do, he'd have to come back before this board. He's confined by what this board would approve. Any other questions or comments from Mr. Tina?
I'm going to go ahead and open it to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward and uh discuss any of the issues that Mr. Tina just discussed. >> I think >> Joe, you were uh >> I got it to work. >> You were sworn previously. they were
>> I'm still Deb Jones. >> Um I just have a question and not so much for this particular person, but for what it opens up around the property. He said he's not a dealer.
He's selling trailers. It's a niche business. What does it fall under? Because unless you're only selling one trailer or two trailers a year, don't you need a dealer license?
Again, it's specific outside. >> I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning when they get sold because if you're selling like if I'm just going to sell my car, I'm not a
dealer. If I'm going to sell a few cars in a year's time, I'm pretty sure I have to get a dealer license. So, that's where I'm just a little confused because it's either a business or it's not. And it might not be a problem right now for
this particular property, this particular business. But other people coming in, we're setting a precedence and we have to be able to say, "No, this is the clearcut and he only sells X amount a year, so he
doesn't need a dealer license." Like, there has to be something, wouldn't there? >> I'm aware. >> I'm talking about precedent around other people coming into the town to open businesses. I know
resolution. This is one step in the process and the other step as well that are not necessarily this person I'm not arguing that >> licensing That's a different
>> I understand that. But I'm saying that we're going to approve a land use. We have to approve it knowing everything. We can't just be like, "Oh, okay. We'll deal with that later." Like we I feel like in Jackson, we've really come to a
point where sometimes we ask for forgiveness instead of permission. And we need to dot our eyes and cross our tees before we get to that because that's where it becomes a problem. Like I get it. You want to sell trailers,
have at it, but let's make sure everything lines up so that we're not backpedaling later. That it was just my question because one, you're calling it a business. He's not really calling it a business. He's not a dealer. He's so I'm
not really sure where everything just hangs there. Like okay, what is it? It's a home business, but then what do you need to keep that home business going? >> Does anyone understand my question?
>> I I do actually. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure I'm asking it. >> You're asking it the right way. My business permit. that >> okay I'm just a question because like I
think if I'm going to open I'm going to be a babysitter >> and I'm going to have a few kids and then >> so that's a good example >> I'm going to switch it to a daycare >> so if you came if you came before us and you wanted to use your home for a home daycare >> we would be approving the land use part
of that >> like we're looking at this the difference is exactly what Mr. pointed out, you would then have to go before the state and make sure that you have if you have over x amount, I don't remember the law, but it's over x amount of children, you have to have a daycare license, you'd have to have all these different things, exits, entrance, all
that. You back to what he said, you'd have to comply to all those things. So, the same thing will apply here. We would be approving, will we allow that where he is is not zoned. It's not permitted in the zone. So, the question is, will we as a board allow that? What comes
next is he's gonna have to comply with all the other standards, right? >> Like I said, if you open a daycare, do you have all the exits? Do you have the necessary licenses? >> The patient, [laughter] >> he would be in the same situation. [clears throat] He will have to comply with all the additional rules and
regulations set forth by the state. >> Okay. I'm just trying to get a clear >> answer for, >> you know, just for my own knowledge of how it's going to happen. So, I appreciate it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else in the public wishing to come
forward? Seeing no one else come forward, we're going to go ahead and close public session. I think you said that was your last witness. Would you like to make a closing statement or anything? Um just briefly that um I think uh in
light of the testimony of my client and um our um professionals um this is a use that he's very sensitive to the uh intensity of the use and making sure that it does not become an intense use.
Certainly it's where he lives. Um so certainly he wants to keep the site in as good a shape as it is today and it is in very good shape. Um, so, um, I'd ask that the board also take that into consideration. >> Okay. So, now I'm going to go ahead and
open it to the public. Anyone wishes to come forward and make any general comments or questions, please do so at this time. >> Seeing no one come forward, I'm going to go ahead and close public session. Did you want to >> Yeah. So, the uh, representations and stipulations that were made that would
be uh, conditions and please, Mr. Paxton, correct me if I say anything [music] that uh is incorrect. Um that there would be no motorized vehicles for sale. There no long-term storage, no storage of other people's trailers.
Applicable state licenses would be obtained. Customers by appointment only. Private privacy fence to be added along the property line in compliance with uh township ordinances. Uh only minor cosmetic maintenance on site. No
employees. Hours of operation 9 to five sick days a week. Light permitting. Not open to the public appointment only. One to two. Uh that was it. Maximum of
21 trailers and uh no signage though that would also obviously the signage issue goes to site plan. Um and uh Mr. Tina had gone over the uh standard for uh D3 variance which is also in Mr.
Peter's report that's a basically conditional use in this case. Um the home occupation standards there were 12 standards in the ordinance. One the not having the home home business being
conducted outside is not met here. Mr. Dina had done given testimony on that regard. Um the uh as the applicant has to demonstrate the requested relief can be granted without detriment to the public good will not impair the intended
purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance that was discussed and uh the special reasons that it carries out the purposes of zoning as listed in the land use law. Um or refusal to allow the project would
impose an undue hardship on the applicant. In this case, the inability to meet the 12th criterion for a home office. That's it. >> So, board, it's up to us for discussion,
questions, comments. Mr. Hyman, >> I think it's a good application. Uh, I think it fits within the intent of the master plan met the positive negative criteria. Um, and I believe that the waiver is appropriate.
Any other questions, comments? >> No, I I agree with everything um [clears throat] Mr. Hyman said. Just one thing to clarify. I I know you said it kind of went through it fast. They he is limited to 21, >> correct? >> Trail, >> correct?
>> So, the the and I think you address you're kind of reading my mind today. Uh you addressed it in your last comment, the concern of over development, right? So, if business grows, he's making millions of dollars and he wants to put 40 of them in there. No, correct. >> You have to come back and I just want to
put that on the record. Um otherwise, yeah, >> seeing no one else is going to speak up. Um I agree. I also think it's a great application. I'm going to commend you to you and your neighbor, uh Mr. Nappy. I think it's great that you had a discussion. You've been here. You've
seen that, you know, your input does matter. So, I think it's great that you were able to work it out with the fence and everything. Um excuse [clears throat] me. I too think it's a great application. I think it is suitable. We talked on the last application about businesses in a certain area. I think this is a perfect
example where a commercial business is suitable for that area. It's not seen from the road. It's not impeding your neighbors. It's not creating a high traffic or anything like that. So, I do think this is an area which is suitable. So, for that purpose, I would make a motion that we approve the application. >> I'll second that.
>> Second. >> Okay. >> All right. We have >> together with all the stipulations Yes, with all the stipulations as stated by Miss Cyprien. Thank you. >> So, we have a motion in a second. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Heyman, >> yes. >> Mr. Martins, >> yes. >> Miss Rosal,
>> yes. >> Mr. Turmer, >> yes. >> Miss Kusano, >> yes. >> Mr. Seleia, >> yes. >> Miss Bradley, >> yes. >> Thank you very much. Have a good night. >> You too.
>> Thank you. Okay, we're going to move forward to applicant number three, Concourse Holdings LLC, amended site plan 771-5. >> This is a perfect example. So, they have
gotten right now they want to they have to come back to give an amendment. So let's just say five years from now his business has grown and he wants to come back. Yeah, I that's what I had asked for the first one. I didn't ask on this one. Um
but to come in >> yeah make a We're going to have to do it by That's why first one Gina,
you got it. over a year ago. >> Good evening, Steven Leone of the firm of Carluch. >> Yeah, you're gonna have to yell for us because we can't This is so loud we can't hear you. You're just have to yell as much as possible. >> Got it. Is that better? >> Much better. [clears throat]
Good evening. Stephen Leone of the firm Carluchio Leon Diamond Doyle Gutman and Prom New Jersey. Um I know we probably will not complete
tonight but we'll try and get as much in as the board will allow. Um, the professionals have pretty well summarized the history of this application, but for purposes tonight,
I'll just highlight a couple of the facts. This is an application that got approved back in 2017 by resolution 20117-18 which was amended
couple months later uh by uh uh resolution number 20118A. Um the approval was for a 67,000 488 square foot office building and to
be built in two phases. um and also um connected with a uh sew connection to municipal sewer and municipal water. And
um that approval was extended several times for good reasons. And the last uh extension was given in uh 2023,
a one-year extension that expired in January of 2024. Um prior to that um
ex uh ex um expiration, the client, the applicant posted bonds uh posted um um resolution compliance and started
construction by by permission by presenting or posting a stabilization bond should should in fact the approval not be followed through with.
So I I respectfully submit that we're here tonight with respect to a existing approval seeking to amend that approval not for the use variance that was
granted only for the configuration of the structure. the same number of square feet are proposed for the uh amended structure. Instead of being a twostory building, it's proposed to be a
three-story building. So, if I may, I have three witnesses that will present, not all of them tonight, but we'd like to start with the applicant and owner. >> So, just to do a little housekeeping, we
normally take testimony until 10:30. I'm not sure if anybody's here in the public to speak on this application, but at 10:30 we would stop um testimony and then we would hear from the public. >> So that's fine. I just want to clarify something. Maybe I just want to make
sure I'm understanding. So the original application was extended extended, but that extension expired in January of 2024. So you're looking to amend the original approval? Yes, >> that's expired.
>> No, it it's it's been vested because we started construction prior to the expiration of the last uh approval extension. I might add also and council I hope will
agree with me the a use variance does not expire. A site plan variance may expire, but if there are no changes to the zone, no changes to the site plan to speak of
um or the use rather, that doesn't expire. So, we're here on a approved continuing applica uh approval that we're seeking to amend.
>> So, just you know we have a lot of new people and even I'm not quite sure. So could you explain this for us? Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yes. So um under the municipal land use law approvals do not expire but it is
permitted for a municipality to have an ordinance that provides for the expiration of uh approvals approvals. Jackson does have such an ordinance. Um, and it does also provide for extensions.
This applicant took advantage of all of those um uh extensions that were available. Um, but the end of those extensions were in January of 2024. However, the applicant is making uh two
representations. One is that they had begun construction to the extent that would um vest the approval. So if they have an approval and they've begun construction then the approval can vest in which case the
underlying approval is still there and that would be on the approval of the site plan everything um in place with that. The other representation is that a use variance part. So back in 2017 this was a use variance and a site plan
approval that the use variance uh does not go away. What you get with the expiration, even if that were to come into play, is that it protects the applicant from changes in the zone. I think in this particular zone, those
changes do not uh come into play. >> Is that fair, Mr. Leo? >> We agree. >> Can I just ask one thing on that? So, so the the argument is that it's vested to the construction start, >> correct?
>> Is that per law ordinance that's valid. >> That would be for the existing site plan. Yes, >> the vesting goes for the existing site plan though, which is what they are here seeking an amendment of. >> The really critical issue, if I may put
it that way, is whether the use variance um expired and that did not. I mean the other the part about the site plan and that argument on whether it was fully vested will really will come into play if the board were to deny this
application and the applicant were to try and go forward with the existing application with the existing approval. >> Right. [clears throat] So, if we may, I'll call my first witness, but three witnesses I'm going to call during the application, but not
necessarily tonight. First is the owner, uh, Mike Mikl, um, Michael. Okay. Good evening. You'll be sworn in. >> Yes. Do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you will give before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do affirm. >> I cannot hear a word you're saying. >> I do affirm. How's that? >> Thank you. >> Yeah. I'm sorry. >> You might come to regret that. >> Could you please state your name again
for the record? >> Mal Akamada. >> Mquille. What is your position with the applicant? >> I am the managing member of uh Concourse LLC. >> Okay. Have you reviewed the amended site
plan application? >> I have. >> You familiar with the site as well? >> I am. >> Um when was the site acquired? >> In 2021. >> After after the initial approvals. >> Correct.
>> All right. Are [clears throat] are you um prepared to go forward with the approved project if this project is denied? If this amended application is denied? >> Yes.
>> Okay. [clears throat] Have you gotten approval from the Jackson MUA? >> Yes, we have. >> And that is to connect to the sewer system and the water system. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Have you gotten other all other approvals? >> Yes. >> Including the county approvals? >> Yes. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Leone. I'm I'm having trouble hearing you and I think I may speak for the board.
>> Okay. Just call call me out. >> Uh my question was, have you gotten county approval? >> Oh, thank you. >> Yes, we have. And if you posted the necessary performance bonds,
um site uh safety bonds, we'll get into the fact that you've gotten a waiver under the present approval for sidewalks and curbs. And have you posted a necessary
contribution for those? The contributions I would have to go back and check. This was two years ago, but all the bonds have been posted. Anything required was posted and as best I understand we're shovel ready. >> I'll help you, Michael. I have a copy of the check for the >> Okay.
Okay. Have you started construction by clearing? >> Correct. >> And you posted a bond for that should there be any failure to follow through with the >> the restoration bond is proposed. >> Yeah. Sorry, I'm sorry. Was that testimony was
that the site clearing sorry is that what >> I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry. The that last part of testimony was that you'd start a construction by >> clearing the land and trees.
Grading land and trees. Yeah. Okay. Now give a give the board an ex an a answer or explanation as to why you're back here seeking to amend the plan.
>> So in a nutshell this application like I uh previously responded to Mr. Leone was per this property was purchased with the existing approvals. uh the original owner who had obtained those approvals
had his vision was that it would be built out with a far larger footprint and as a two-phased project. He didn't think that the economics were quite there yet to be able to uh lease up a building of this size, 67,000 odd square
feet of class A office. um you didn't think he can put that all out on market at once and have it be absorbed by the market. So he wanted to build this uh in two phases. However, now that we believe that the economics are here and there is
sufficient demand for 67,000 and it could be uh leased up in a uh relatively u efficient time manner. We would like to build this at as a singlephase project thereby
where we would be minimizing the the footprint changing it from a more sprawling twotory maintaining the same exact square footage but creating a three-story structure which would just be a far more efficient build.
So the engineer and the architect will [clears throat] testify to more detail but in your view have you reduced the footprint of the building and increase the open space? >> Indeed we have. >> And have you provided a more
architecturally innovative design? >> I would like to think so. And in terms of the amended structure, is it the same square footage only in three stories rather than two? >> Correct.
>> Gentlemen, at the risk of being super annoying, could I ask you both to speak up, please? >> Okay. My last question was, is [clears throat] the structure the same square footage, 67,488 square feet that was on on a two-story
building in a bigger footprint? Is that the same amount of square footage in the amended structure? >> It is. >> Okay. Does that also allow you to have more parking on the site and therefore
you don't need a variance for parking? >> Correct. It also allows us to uh install the 12 EV chargers that we're proposing. >> Okay. Electric vehicle chargers. >> Yeah.
>> What is the estimated cost of the whole development? would depend slightly upon interest rates which thank God as of this morning are again falling but we estimate it to be right around $19 million.
>> Okay. And has to your knowledge has anything changed on the adjacent property to you on either the east side or west side or in the rear or is the is the area the same as when the original
approval was obtained? It it has stayed the same. >> Could you uh confirm that there will be no medical use of any of the uh office space? That's correct. >> I can. >> You understand that if there were
medical use, you might need more parking. >> Correct. >> And you'd have to come back to this board. >> Yes. >> Okay. And you confirm that construction started on or about January 23rd?
>> January 2023. >> I'm sorry, January 15th, 20, 2023. >> Slightly before that. It was uh the first few days of January. >> All right. One of the um reviews by the engineer or the planner asked if you
would consider solar panels on on the roof. >> Yeah, we certainly would consider it. We really need to see um how the solar would essentially go on the roof. So, we'd have to see how the HVAC would lay out and then see what kind of a yield we'd be able to get.
>> Okay. And [clears throat] have you at this time in this application decided on any signs on the building or any project signs? And if you do, will you comply with the ordinance and come back here
for site plan approval? >> We haven't gotten to that point, but we we will certainly comply with any of the the relevant ordinances. >> Right. Okay. So, um, I have no further questions of this witness.
>> Any questions for this witness? >> Yeah. >> Martin. >> Yep. Um, I was trying to follow the change, right? So, you said that the original owner had two phases, right? >> Correct. >> And basically your change is I want to
do it all at once because I think the market can support it. Those two phases, right? Were they both approved? You had approval for those? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. And the footprint of the two phases versus the one is the same. I think that's what you
>> No. >> No. Go ahead. >> Go ahead. No. No. It's all yours. >> The footprint of the amended plan is smaller than the original footprint. The engineer when we have him testify, we'll
go into that in detail. >> Yeah. Okay. Right. So the footprint itself it's smaller but it's higher. >> You're just going up >> instead of going sideways. >> Okay. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Um All right. That that that's clear. Um Okay. That that's all I had. I
wanted to understand those phases. Thank you. >> I have some questions. [clears throat] >> I see the letter from the uh fire official is May 29th. Did he review the three-story building or the two-story
building? >> We have reviews by the planner and the engineer of this application. The prior structure was a review. >> So, he didn't review the this structure. >> Yeah. Yes,
>> he did. >> He let him speak for himself, but we have review letters. >> No, there was the fire official. >> Fire official. >> The fire official. Oh, I'm sorry. The fire official. >> The fire official is May 29th. Did he see these new plans?
>> I believe so. The engineer can confirm that. >> All right. Um, how tall is the building? It's 50 feet tall and with some columns that are another five feet that
we seek a C variance for. It's not it's below 10% higher than the existing building, but they're nonoccupied. They're just decorative uh features. So, >> the building is 50 feet.
>> So, you're probably looking for a waiver for the height. It's a variance. >> Um, >> how much should you reduce the footprint by? >> About 15,000 square feet. But I let the
engineer go into that. >> I I understand that. >> I don't want to play engineer. >> So, it didn't change the number of occupants. >> No, same square footage. >> Okay. >> Only one story higher. [clears throat] So it doesn't affect parking or
impervious or anything. >> It does not increase the parking. Before there was a variance for parking that's being eliminated. >> Okay, that's a good thing. Um, all right, that's it for now. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Any additional questions for this witness? >> I'm going to go ahead and open it to the public. anyone wish to come forward and ask questions. Seeing no one come forward, we're going to go ahead and close public session.
Mr. Thank you. Sorry. >> You can call your next witness. >> Madam Chairman, I'd like to take out of out of sequence the architect because of her late hour and travel and frankly
she's uh expecting a child. >> [clears throat] >> Good. >> Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you'll get before this board will be the truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I affirm. >> And could you give your name and credentials for the record? >> Yeah. Hi, my name is Rachel Pashkus. I'm
a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey and I've testified before this board probably around two years ago. I >> I know you were present before and I think you know what I'm going to ask. Could you please speak as loudly as possible? >> Sure.
>> Thank you. >> This board accepts your credentials. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> Um are you familiar with the application? >> Yes. Have you visited the site and you're familiar with the site?
>> I don't believe I've actually visited the actual site, but I've driven on that road. >> Okay. Have you seen the site plan and reviewed the site plan? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, um,
please describe the structure that you've designed for this site that we're seeking approval for. >> Sure. So, we were approached by the applicant to design or redesign the
approved um structure. As you heard, it used to be a twostory building for two phases and we redesigned it to be a single structure, three stories, maintaining the same square footage.
Um, several benefits are increased open space, increased parking, uh, more efficient build, and, uh, better timeline in construction. The
way that we maintain the square footage is by going up another story. Um building height is proposed with the roof at 45 ft. Um I do believe um there had been a submission showing
uh architectural feature um going higher than that. Um, it is going to be amended to be down to about I would say do we have it over here? Yeah, that's going to be amended to be
about 55 ft. It's just a parapit what we call like a architectural feature above the roof. Um, building exterior as you see is going to be mainly glass. um a pretty open a
pretty open look and then some architectural colored paneling on the exterior. >> Can can you go through the floor plans and can you have >> Yes. >> Tim, are you operating that? >> No. Okay.
>> Why don't you go through the the foot the plans? >> Do you want on the screen? >> Yeah. >> I I don't I'm not >> You don't? >> Yeah. I think it wants to go to the floor plan. Yeah. >> Can you help Tim?
>> Yeah. Next sheet. >> Yep. Here we are. >> Yeah. You want me to go through? >> Go ahead. Explain. That's the first. >> Okay. Yeah. So, this is the first floor. Um, if we take a look here at the screen, you'll see there are um two main
entrances to the building. And then the building is being proposed um as the client said as um office space to be leased out. So there are proposed offices on the set um on the on the plan and it's a pretty
open layout right now for the potential tenants. >> Can you explain the square footage of each floor? >> Sure. So the building footprint shrunk um significantly since the previous
application. The um actual footprint of the building. So the first floor is um okay we can see it on the other sheet but it's 22,635 square ft and then the um second floor
has slightly less square footage due to an open to below lobby. So part of the first and second floor are connected. Um and then the total building square footage stayed the same at 67,488 ft.
Go back to the elevations. >> I'm sorry. What was the third floor? Third floor would be the same as same square footage as the building footprint because it's a complete enclosed floor.
>> Why is the second floor a little less full? >> It's just architectural feature for to help draw in the tenants, you know, so that they come in and it's a double height. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, how is that building oriented towards uh Veterans High Highway? So I
believe it's shown rotated on our plans. We show it in the length, but when someone's on veterans coming into the site, it's going to be like taller. It's going to be opposite what's shown on the plan. So this view,
the main entrance is actually perpendicular from East Veterans. So someone drives into the site, they're going to go into the building from the two sides. the the the main entry doors are not actually facing the street.
>> Now, in terms of this design versus the prior design, what are some of the advantages or disadvantages? >> So, as mentioned, it's much less sprawling. um it's more condensed one
building um rather than sort of taking over the whole site plan as in the previous concept. And I'm sure you'll see much more when you when we take a look at the site plan. You'll see how it's actually just one structure rather than two separate structures that were
linked. Will there be any landscaping around the base of the uh structure? >> Yeah. Yes. >> Could you talk about the design in terms of its creativity, its uniqueness
versus the other building that existed before? >> Yeah. So, the other building was a much lower build as as we had mentioned, two stories um pretty low down and um sort of just looked a little I
would say a little more repetitive just due to the size. So now that it's more a tighter shape, um it's able to just be more condensed and it has I I would say like a horizontal
and vertical look just due to the um architectural feature at the front that raises gives a little lift and then it has um the horizontal banding as well which helps um give it like a cube shape.
I think you said you reduce the height of the uh total of the the columns or whatever uh to be was originally 60 ft. It's now 55 ft.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So there wasn't there is an architectural feature on the exterior that um was proposed at 60 ft. We brought that down to 55 ft and that will be um reflected in the next round of submission to the board. Um and that's
purely an architectural feature. It's not even the roof. It's just a parapit. So it's uh uh like you see the that orange piece at the front. It's coming down. >> Yeah. >> And what is the roof height itself?
>> The roof height itself is 45 ft. >> I'm Are you sure that >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it is. We We took We took a double check. Yep. >> Okay, good. >> It's 45 ft. So, we're lower. >> Okay. >> Um, is there a parapit wall around the top of the
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, typical, this is going to be a flat roof like typical for commercial building. Um, and the parapit um will be several feet higher than the 45 foot roof. >> About four feet, would you say?
>> Yeah, it's typically plus minus 4T. Um that's the main parapit that wraps the full roof >> and then this um the orange center feature is the point that would be the highest at up to that 55 foot limit.
>> Is there any planned recreational, social or uh eating on the roof? >> No, there's there's no rooftop access for amenity.
Please describe the materials being used on the uh outside of the structure. >> Sure. So, it's mainly glass um curtain wall. So, um and windows and then the um
um there are also pillars, horizontal and vertical fans which would be clad in what's called a ring screen cladding. It's a exterior paneling system. >> Okay. You want to add anything to your
testimony? >> Um I believe we covered it. I think our intent here is to enhance um the design and to provide aesthetically pleasing building that works within the site and would be pleasant for the users.
>> Thank you. I have no further questions for [clears throat] the chair. >> Mr. Hyman. >> Yeah. Could you just elaborate? Do you have any signage? >> Um, at this point, the signage that's being shown is building address on the exterior
>> on the building or is that by the street? No, this is well, it's on the building, but there's uh it's on the canopy coming in that like protects from the rain >> as it's shown on >> as it's shown on the screen. Yeah. >> And it's only going to be on one side.
>> Both sides. Both sides. If you look here, these are the two the building facade is basically it's a rectangle. So, it's the same design on both sides. The long side is mirrored and the short side are mirrored. >> There's entries on both sides. >> I just want to point that that I think
hear from our planner, but I think that would need variance. >> Let's do it this way. Mr. Leone, best of your knowledge, your applicant's not requesting any waiverss or variances as it relates to signage. Correct. >> Correct. And we'll comply with any signage ordinance
>> and if there is a project sign be coming back probably. >> Okay. But I think we're we're focused on building signage. So now in the next meeting, >> there's a discussion about signage. >> We should get it on the record. If you
want something, ask for it. Otherwise, the record is you're going to comply with the ordinance, which means that staff's going to deal with this staff, and there won't be any approvals for over it, John. >> Correct. >> When someone says we're going to have a sponsor for the building, we're going to have wings of the building.
>> No, >> you're going to need to come back here. >> Yes. >> Okay. that take care of the signage issue for you, Mr. Hyman. >> Thank you. I just think that on the fire report, I think it mentioned also requesting some kind of signage to be seen from the street, I think. So, not
sure how that would work out. If this is facing the side, >> it would need something facing the road that would be visible from the road. >> Okay. [clears throat] We can address any comments that would need to be addressed
between now and there's going to be amendments on the height so we can get that in. There's >> bring it up to make sure that it's you have it for next time. >> Respectfully at 55 ft you're going to see it from the road anyway.
>> I'm talking about the address. >> Okay. >> My turn. Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Um, all right. This, um, I think I'm going to have the same question to different um, for this application to different people standing up. So, I'm going to ask you, you
mentioned a whole bunch of advantages of the fact that you're going up instead of going sideways because your foot's been smaller. It's all great. Um, what are the disadvantages? What do I need to worry about if I'm a resident for the fact that you're now three
stories versus two stories? What is the disadvantage of it to me as a resident? >> That's to you. >> I'm thinking. Oh, you're thinking. Okay. >> I'm thinking. >> Yep. >> Y >> I don't want to answer you too fast. >> I know. I know. [laughter]
Because you understand. Like I said, I'm gonna ask that question. It it it's I I would really say it's a little bit of a personal preference and it's I would think it's specific to each site. So like theoretically on a site where we
would be right to the edge of the site, I would think that there could be disadvantages to going very high. You'll have you you may be very close. you're you're encroaching visually on a site that's much larger. Um
um going taller and staying condensed might be actually much more of a benefit because we have the space for the height like we're proportionate to the site and we're not actually overtaking the site by just building building out the whole
heartscape. >> Thank you. I know that was a tough question from your point of view. Thank you very much. >> No questions, no concerns as far as fire equipment or anything of argument.
[clears throat] She's she's good at what she does. I like I like what she she draws. 45 feet is reachable and it's acceptable. The five- foot parap pit makes it tougher for the fire department, but it saves
lives. It's important. She knows I like that feature, too. So, I'm not going to uh put my foot in it. I think it's I mean, it's a beautiful building. I like it. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions?
>> Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Peters. And then >> you make me stay awake this long. >> Say again. You made me stay awake this long. Thank you for your testimony. Um, so there are going to be revised plans submitted. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. I just I saw some quizzical looks from board members when they're looking at the plans. So, we're going to get revised plans before the next hearing. Um, is there any proposed
habitable use of the roof for this design? No. So, >> you're not proposing people to be out on the roof? >> No. There there is a staircase access to the roof, but that would be strictly for maintenance purposes. >> Not for tenants. Not >> No. No.
>> Okay. Um I want to ask you, but I want to ask Mr. Leone. So, you're proposing a total building height of 55 ft, which requires a variance. So at some time is is this the person who's giving
the proofs for the variance or is that someone else? >> It's someone else. >> Okay. [clears throat] >> And we understand that if it's one hair above 55 ft that it requires a D variance. Correct. >> Agreed. >> Thank you. I have nothing else.
>> That's probably why it's not changed. >> Mr. Malone >> Ernie kind of stole my question just about um you have it labeled as occupied roof deck. So that's what I was going to >> Yeah, that that's going to be amended in the update. >> So we're getting that second. >> That's where the confusion is coming from. Yeah.
>> Right. Um that'll also amend the height uh difference that you discussed. And then just to have it on the record, the utilities are going to be planned to be installed on the roof. Correct. Not going to be anything on the ground. >> I think the >> Yeah, I think that would come from the engineer. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. But there will be basic mechanical rooftop equipment, >> right? standard >> the parapit would be the your your highest projection. >> That's the parapit wraps edge. Oh, yeah. Yeah. And the the the main toll parapit would be the highest projection. Yes.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you very much. >> Can I ask one thing? >> Yeah. >> Can we just make sure that any uh redesigned or changed plans go to the fire official just for his approval? I know lots of times the original plans
are approved and then the other plans never make it to them which then I have to complain about and let's just stop that before it even happens. Just make sure he's he gets to see it please. >> We'll submit proof of that. >> Thank you. Appreciate [clears throat]
it. >> Any additional questions at this time? >> So it's 10:35. Thank you very much. That's very helpful. I'm going to go ahead and open this to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward and ask questions about the
testimony you heard this evening, please do so at this time. Obviously, they'll you've heard they'll be coming back, so you will have an opportunity. >> Madame Chairman, I I don't know if we need to bring her back. If you say we do, we will. >> Uh the plans are going to change, right?
>> Yeah. So, uh, Mr. Leon, you don't have to bring her back, but if the board has questions that are properly answered by an architect on the, uh, changed plans, then we would ask that she be made
available. Right now, we have someone from the public who has a question. >> Okay. >> Eric Jones, >> I'm sorry. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give before this board will be the truth and nothing? >> Yes, if it applies. I really don't have a question. I don't know if you're gonna
have a public thing after we're all done here or no. >> Yes. Well, you can go. >> This is the question right now. >> I don't really have questions. I just >> when we talk about the rural character of this town, this is not rural character. I understand the the struggles of builders and stuff to put
something in such a square foot. Like the first guy, the first applicant we had, he got knocked down because it didn't fit. All right. Uh, like they say, if the glove didn't fit, you must have quit, right? So,
to me, this is a monstrosity. I don't know. I drive down the Avenue of the States in the Avenue of the Americas in Lakewood. That's a city. This is a city. I don't know where everybody here grew up. They didn't grow up around here. But everybody always says, even yourself,
Mr. Heyman, you always say the rural character. This is not rural character. This is a glass house. The other building they built next to it, that's rural character. You know where the uh the Circle N place is? That's rural. This is city. This
will probably be Isn't this going to be the first threetory building in Jackson? Where's the other ones? >> County line and uh >> the one where the old gas station was. That's the first one. >> Yeah. >> County line. >> That's it. First one. The second. There
is an adjoining property owned by the Clayton industry that has got office buildings planned that I frankly I don't recall because I was the attorney. I don't recall whether they're twostory or threetory. I think they're two
>> been there forever. So >> no but Clayton hasn't developed its property but will be in conjunction with this site. >> And the other thing is how does this fit into industrial? Isn't this an industrial zone? can't hear you. >> Isn't this an industrial zone?
>> It is. And >> but how does how does an office building fit into industrial? >> Well, it doesn't it it doesn't necessarily fit into an industrial, but they have the right to request a variance. >> Well, they already have a use variance for >> correct. So, that's what's killing this town is variances.
>> All the variances killing this place. So, just to clarify, uh, the rural nature of this town, there's different zones for different things. This is an industrial zone. They didn't request a variance for a office building, but not
sure what the issue is. Yeah. If if I can just I think to clarify too, so as you said before, you already received >> we received approval used for that. Absolutely. for that. I think the issues that that Eric, if I may just use your first name, uh, is bringing up. So, at
this point, we're not addressing that. We're addressing whether you can go higher or not. >> Correct. >> Right. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> So, that will conclude our testimony for tonight. We need to come up with a date, Miss Tumalo, Miss
>> Not me. >> I don't come up with dates. >> I thought I had it right the first time. All right. >> Do we know we'll be back at the next meeting or when our next uh >> I think >> so the next available date is going to
be January 7th. Um we do have one current application on for that date or you are more than welcome to January 21st which we currently have no applications. >> Yeah, I think January 21st is when I will be available. So >> January 21st. >> Yes.
>> Okay. And the plans will be revised by then and be submitted. And >> the plans for everyone to review. >> They have been revised and submitted, but not in sufficient time. >> Okay. And would you be able to also meet Mr. Trummer's request of having the fire official review them by then? >> Yeah. >> Thank you very much.
>> Yes. [clears throat] >> All right. Um, we're going to go ahead and open up to the public. if you'd like to come forward and make have any questions or concerns at this time that weren't already addressed. Otherwise, as you've heard, they will be coming back on January 21st, 2026.
That sounds so weird. 20 January 21st of 2026. >> Mrs. Sabriani, I'll send you a letter extending time. >> Yes. Thank you. Extending time and you're waving the statuto.
>> I'm sorry. And you're waving the statutory time frame. >> Yes. Well, I'm not waving it. I'm going to extend it. >> Any notice? >> No need to re notice. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Motion to adjurnn. All in
favor? >> Motion. Bye.