I'd like to start the meeting. Would everyone please rise? Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
Please be seated. Welcome everyone. Zoning board of adjustment meeting September 18, 2025. Adequate notice of this meeting of the Oldbridge Township zoning board of adjustment has been giving has been provided in accordance with the open public meetings act at least 48 hours
prior to the commencement of this meeting by prominently posting in the municipal complex an announcement giving the time the date the location and the agenda of this meeting. Also by mailing such announcement to the home news and tribune filing a copy of such announcement with the municipal clerk and posting the agenda on the municipal
website. Miss Pchelli, could we have a roll call, please? Certainly Mrs. Andrews present here Mr. Iso Mr. Scott here Mr. Stoner here Mr.
here Mr. M Gomez here here. We are working under a handicap here. I know this is going to go down on a recording, but as I just mentioned, please if you're testifying this
evening, uh I would ask everyone here, please turn your cell phones off so there's no interference. And secondly, if you're testifying, there's only one microphone at the witness table. It's got to be shared by obviously the uh attorney and the witness. Uh we're working limited up here with one
microphone that I'm sharing with council and uh there's another one to p pass around. Uh Miss Sant has that right now. Uh tonight uh of council is Martin Buckley from the Dasty firm. We thank you for being here and being of council tonight, sir. Thank you.
Uh having said that, we'll move forward. We have minutes and those minutes are for uh two of them board members. The first one, minutes of August 28th, 2025. Hopefully everyone has had a chance to review them absent any commentary. I'd ask someone to move them for adoption.
Test the verdict. Is there a second? Andrew second. I think that was Mr. Scogno that second. Roll call when you catch up on that. Mrs. Andrews. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Scogno. Yes.
Mr. Stoner. Yes. Mie. Yes. Miss Gomez. Yes. Chairman Sullivan. Yes. Uh board members, the second one would be September 4th, 2025. Same applies. Someone move it, please. Test the birdie. Is there a second? Andrew second.
Roll call on the minutes. Mrs. Andrews, yes. Mr. Chevier, yes. Mr. Skagno, yes. Mr. Stoner, yes. Mertie, yes. Miss Gomez, yes. Chairman Sullivan, yes. Okay,
that brings us to our resolutions board. Uh, board members, we have four to get through. Uh the first one is 2020 2025Z. It's sand deep Ramali and Nitm Hunt. That's a C variance counselor. Uh this is for a resolution of the zoning board of adjustment of the
township of Old Bridge, County of Middle Sex, State of New Jersey, granting bulk variance approval for property known and designated as block 15513, lot 566, aka 34 Buttonwood Drive here in
Old Bridge Township, New Jersey. Board members, someone want to move that for adoption, please. You've heard the resolution. Testify. Is there a second? Roll call, please. Mrs. Andrews, yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Sto, yes.
Mr. Stoner, yes. Mr. Stie, yes. Miss Gomez, yes. Chairman Sullivan, yes. 24-2025Z. It's Jitten Gupta. It was a C variance. Councelor. Uh, this is a resolution of the zoning
board of adjustment of the township of Oldbridge, County of Middle Sex, State of New Jersey, granting bulk variance approval for property known and designated as block 7125, lot 16, aka 32 Gazania Drive in Oldbridge Township, New
Jersey. Board members, you've heard the resolution. Someone want to move it, please? Gomez, is there a second for adoption? Second stone. Roll call, please. Mrs. Andrews, yes. Mr. Chevier, yes. Mr. Yes.
Mr. Stoner. Yes. Mr. Yes. Gomez. Yes. Chairman. Yes. Uh, fine. 26- 20. I'm sorry. 28. What do you have next? 20 26. Okay. 26-205Z.
Harold Cunningham. C Variance. Uh this is a resolution of the zoning board of adjustment of township of Oldbridge, County of Middle Sex, state of New Jersey, granting bulk variance approval for property known and designated as block 2627
lot 62 aka 254th Street in Oldbridge Township, New Jersey. Board members, as to the resolution, someone move for adoption. I'll move the stone. Is there a second? Roll call, please. Mrs. Andrews, yes.
Mr. Chevier, yes. Mr. Stonner, yes. Mr. Stoner, yes. Mr. Stie, yes. Miss Gomez, yes. Chairman Sulliv, yes. 28-25Z uh 2025 C. Enzo Denton, C variance in a
design waiver. Council, this is a resolution of the zoning board of adjustment of the township of Oldbridge, County of Middle Sex, state of New Jersey, granting bulk variance approval for property known and designated as block 17009, lot 8, aka 19
Schindler Drive North, Oldbridge Township, New Jersey. Board members, someone move that for adoption. I'll move it stoning. Is there a second? Andrew second. Roll call, please. Mrs. Andrews, yes. Miss Chevier,
yes. Mr. Scnner, yes. Mr. Stoner, yes. Miss Tie, yes. Miss Gomez, yes. Chairman Sullivan, yes. Uh, we're going to move forward. At this time, I'm going to ask uh Mr. Buckley to swear in our two professionals here this
evening. Is did Mr. We'll get him when he comes in. U Mr. Sat, can you uh raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth or nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Before we go to our application, before
we commence our proceedings this evening, uh I wish to make an announcement and offer comment uh regarding one of our current members. Mr. Ben Stoner, seated to my left, your right, uh and his wife relocating to the Southeast to be closer to family. Mr.
Stoner has been a faithful member of this zoning board since 2014, performing as uh performing a sworn civic duty on behalf of the township of Oldbridge. Tonight uh will be Mr. Stoner's last meeting with the board. Behalf of the board, I'd like to acknowledge his 12
years of service and extend best wishes to him and his family as they begin their new chapter. I hope you would ask you all to join me in a round of applause. [Applause] Thank you very much. Uh we're going to move on with our applications. Uh they'll be in order except for the first
one. The first is going to be 41-2024Z. It's Zahir Hussein. That's the R20 low medium density. There was a CND variance. This is a continuence phys. The block is 24204 lot 36. this the physical location 12
Yusede court uh old bridge obviously twotory edition in deck Lawrence Saxs Esquire yes good evening Mr. Chairman Lawrence Sachs on behalf of the applicant uh I represent Zir Hussein property located
at 12 Yose block 242046 and the board will recall we were here back I think in July maybe July 18th Um, and at that time we presented testimony from the applicant who described uh what was being proposed and their needs for
this I'm sorry better and their needs for the uh rear yard edition uh that's being proposed with part of this application. Um, we had uh also our engineer uh Gary
Chang testified at that point and also described the project and also gave a brief description of the uh layout based on the elevations and architectural plans. And if the board will recall, this addition is confined strictly to the rear of the house so that nothing will be evident from the street. The
appearance of this house will remain the same uh from the streetscape standpoint. Um during the course of the hearing we provided some testimony as to the variance relief uh that was being sought. Uh however we recognize that because it was a D4 variance there is a
FIRE ratio variance here. Uh we needed to come back here with a professional planner. Uh and we've done that this evening uh Mr. Chairman. So I do have uh Miss Colleen Mcgherk who is a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. uh and she will provide her testimony as to the D4 variance relief
that we're seeking and also the uh C variances that are required in this application be sworn by the council. Can you raise your right hand? Do you swear affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Can you state your name and spell the last name?
Colleen McGherk. MC Gu. Thank you. All right, Miss Mcgherk, let's just get you qualified. uh if you can give the board the benefit of your professional education and background. Uh yes, I obtained a master's in urban planning from Boston University. My license is current and I am a member of
AICP. Uh my my firm Swick Stall and Mgherk began in 2019 and I have testified before multiple boards throughout New Jersey including this board. Mr. Chairman, if we can have Miss Mcgherk has has testified before this board and we accept her expertise
and credentials. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and good evening members. Miss McGerk, you I know you've had an opportunity to review the plans. You've reviewed the uh engineering plans, the architectural plans, and as well you've had an opportunity to review the transcript which has been provided to all the board members uh from the July
18th hearing. Uh based upon your review, if you can provide your analysis and professional opinion as to the variance relief that's being sought. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Um, the property in question, block 24204,
lot 36, contains a total of 25296 square ft and is located at 12 Yusede Court. The parcel contains an existing 3900 ft two-story single family dwelling and is part of Machoponics development. So, tonight we're asking the board to
allow the applicant to construct a two-story rear edition, 770 ft on each floor. The property is located within the R20 zone and this is a permitted use. In order to construct the addition, we require a floor area ratio D4 variance since the max permitted floor
area ratio is.17 and we are proposing 216. All of the other setbacks are being met. We do also require a landscape area ratio variance. The site plan approval for Machoponics estates requires a landscape area ratio
of 85 whereas we currently have 80 and we are proposing 76. The applicant has already provided testimony regarding the addition and how it would better meet the family's needs and that the intensity of the dwelling is not increasing since there are
existing four bedrooms and there will be four bedrooms. There will be no increase. The sideyard and front yard setbacks will remain the same and meet or exceed the ordinance standards. The existing rear yard setback is 77.2 and we are proposing 65.5
which still exceeds the required 40ft minimum setback. So clearly the addition can be accommodated on the property with no detriment. The addition would be approximately 50 feet from the property line to the west and would be buffered due to the existing tree line and would be
approximately 60 feet from the property line to the east. And again, there is substantial landscape buffering. So there will be no negative impacts since the addition is not large, measuring only 16 feet in length and 23.83 feet in width and will not be higher than the
existing dwelling. It will also not be visible from the road. With regard to the landscape area ratio, there is a substantial amount of trees on the property that will remain in perpetuity due to the conservation easement. So there is more than ample landscaping on the property and no trees
are being removed from the addition that is uh on the screen. There is a map that is near map and image. It's showing um 583 feet to the west of trees, wooded area, and 693 feet to the
southsoutheast. So, it's all wooded area. Um and just so the record's clear, Miss McG, that conservation easement is to the rear of the property. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Mr. Chairman, do we need to mark this? I don't know if uh council
I would mark it if you're since you're referring to it. All right. And I guess we could just continue with the rest of that. Well, yeah, if you want, mark it as uh I think our last um Let me just I don't know what you're up to. Yeah, let me just look at my notes real quickly.
Maybe we'll just take a number further down the road here. Maybe we'll say A10. I don't have 10 exhibits, but just to play it safe. Okay. Okay. All right. A10 is an aerial photo, and that's an image of the front of 12 Yusede Court.
We'll call this 11. That's fine. That is the rear yard showing the conservation easement. That is the rear yard looking east. That is the east side of the dwelling looking to the rear to the south. The wooded area.
That's the existing deck that's going to be removed. And that's looking west. And again, you can see the tree line. And that is looking north across the street. That's fine. And then the next one is just the culde-sac, the roadway showing
the houses on the street. So the project advances several purposes of the municipal land use law including goal A to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in the state in a manner which will promote the public health,
safety, morals and general welfare. This is a permitted use and the size and appearance of the proposed addition would fit in with the character of the neighborhood. The appearance of the dwelling remain will remain the same since the addition cannot be seen from the front or rear of the property. It is
also buffered from the sides by landscaping and is a considerable distance from the sideyard property lines. Goal E to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons, neighborhoods, communities, and regions
and preservation of the environment. The existing single family dwelling is a permitted use which will remain at the appropriate density. The proposed development also meets C2 hardship balancing analysis. Do the benefits of the proposed use outweigh
any detriments associated with the requested bulk variance to the landscape area ratio? Yes, the proposed addition would not have a substantial impact on the overall landscaping. The proposed 7.76 is uh still a substantial portion of the
property and the wooded area and to the rear will remain intact. For the D4 variance, what must be shown is that the floor area ratio is consistent with the intent and purpose of the master plan and the land development ordinance carries out a
general purpose of zoning, especially promotion of the general welfare and the site will accommodate problems associated with having a floor area ratio that is higher than what is permitted by the ordinance and will not result in substantial detriment to the public good and won't impair the intent and purpose of the ordinance and master
plan. This is a permitted use within the R20 zoning district. It is improving the functionality of the dwelling and living space. The addition can be accommodated on the property since all of the setbacks are being met or exceeded. It is consistent with the purpose of the master plan since it promotes the
general welfare which in this case is a sense of community. An existing bedroom is being converted into an open plan common gathering loft which will enhance the dwelling not only for the family but their friends in the neighborhood and the area. It is my professional opinion that the
variances can be granted without substantial detriment and the benefits of this application outweigh any negative impacts to the zone. The adjacent dwellings are not being impacted since the required setbacks to the adjacent properties are being exceeded. There is no substantial detriment to the public good and the
variances can be reconciled with and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone. The mun municipal land use law would be advanced by the proposed deviation from the zoning ordinance requirements and a benefit substantially outweigh any detriment. That's all I have.
Nothing further, Mr. Chairman. Mr. So, um I know I wasn't there for the um initial application or uh initial hearing, but um I know there were some concerns regarding the size of the house.
I'm sorry, Roger. I I know that there were some uh concerns regarding the size of the house. Have you looked at the um houses in the neighborhood? Because uh the reason I ask is this development match
panics estate was created as a part of a general development plan and had alternative design standards with which meant that the homes in this uh development were allowed to be slightly larger than the underlying zoning to
begin with. So, have you looked at because I know in my memo there was an analysis of the FS of the homes in the neighborhood and have you gone ahead and done any further research to see uh
where it lies because the question here is twofold right typically when you ask for a variance you try to justify based on the positive and the negative criteria in thisa case I agree with you that The addition is to the rear side.
It's not visible. But then the bigger question here is you are already very close to the conservation easement. Now with the proposed development, you are building up to the conservation line. So
which means the minute you step out of the house, you're actually within the conservation easement and there is no backyard left. Um in the recent and this is an older development but in the recent ones that we are um we have
approved we require that a split rail fence be put in along the conservation line. There are signs because uh you know people go ahead and start mowing land mowing lawns in conservation easements. We don't want that. So, uh,
should the board act favorably, they're going to ask you to put that fence as part of the approval. And if that happens, you're not left with any backyard. You cannot even step out of the deck without stepping on to the conservation easement. Was there a
thought given to shrinking the size? Because a the size of the house is significantly larger than the homes in the neighborhood. Two, you're not left with a usable rear yard. So I mean my comment and question is quite loaded and
it's I want you to explain it to the board how it is going to work because to me I think between the two meetings I I would have expected some revisions to the plans or uh shrinking of the size so
that there is some usable space. Right now the plot plan shows there is no um there is no space between the steps and the conservation easement line. Well, Mr. San at at the last meeting there were certain conditions that were
imposed. I I don't know if you've had the benefit of reading the transcript. All right. But uh we did agree that there would be signage posted uh that obviously we could not encroach into that conservation easement and that was one of the discussions we had at the last meeting. Uh the addition itself is
is fairly modest in terms of the width and it's only going back was it about six 17 feet. 17 feet. Um and they're also putting a new deck in which essentially is their is their backyard. Yeah. So uh you know this this was discussed at the last meeting. In terms of the F analysis, Mr.
Chang also provided testimony at the last hearing uh that the F of some of these other houses were of similar size. So I mean although it's being increased from 0.17 uh to 0.21 uh I would agree with Ms. uh Mcgherk's analysis uh that
certainly the site can accommodate this. I mean this is a house that Mr. that Dr. Hussein has lived in for quite some time now. Uh the reason he's doing the addition was also testified to at the last hearing. Uh obviously he's got uh his teenage daughters that need more
space. He also has parents uh who potentially could be uh residing with them in the future. Um so they've had they've had a compromised backyard forever uh because of the conservation easement which of course they haven't encroached on. Um so I know a lot of
this was testified to at the last hearing. the the the problem I have with it is not I mean in the past the board has seen many other applications where people have come in who have uh families where they want to you know house their
uh senior parents or they need additional room but in this case with the extension is literally abuting the conservation easement. If you looked at the right side of the house, the steps directly. So the last step you get off, you're in the conservation easement. If
you're putting a fence, you're really stepping on to the conservation easement. I would ideally like to see that the building is pushed back at least 3 to 5t so that you're there is some room for you to walk around. Right
now there is none. Okay. I mean, I I accept I understand your analysis, Miss Swan, and uh I guess we can take that under advisement. Um I'm not sure how the board feels about that, but uh certainly, you know, we can consider a possible redesign of this
expansion. Um I mean, my concern, my concern is that there is no space at the even walk around. Vina, your microphone. There is no space behind to even step
on. And once the fence is put in, you have nowhere to go. And we have had issues in uh the past where the fences come out, people start moving, start using that space. So at least I would want to see some sort of setback from
the conservation easement. Um I understand the reason to expand the house but at the same time I wouldn't want to compromise on um having access or giving access to the conservation easement. I we did speak about that and
one thing that was brought to light which I didn't realize is that the conservation easement is part of the property. Yes. In total although it can't be used it's part of the property. Yes. And that is quite typical in the
older GDPs that were approved. And um so uh for example the uh Khavnanian homes that have been recently built because we have been having these issues now we are taking up to the developer to make sure
that they put in the fence and put in the signage so that the homeowners visually also know that that is their limit. So the lot area is larger but that's not the usable space. So because easement encroachments have been an
issue in the past. Uh so I think to to avoid those type of concerns I would ideally recommend that the applicant revisit the design and give us some setback from the conservation easement. I I believe there was 4 foot. Oops.
Yeah. I think there's a total of there's only four foot and I think one of the board members brought it up. I don't remember who without seeing the transcript but uh how close that would be once the deck is in. Uh I don't know on the buildout if you could
slide in a little bit and and what's the width? Uh 18 18. Uh I'm sorry. Yeah, the depth. The depth. The depth is uh 16. 16. It's 16. It's 16. So 16 on the depth. I don't know what that does to the rooms and the interior. And I don't see the deck. I see that
your plan says that the existing deck is being removed and you're expanding the building onto the existing deck area and then there is a proposed patio. Yeah, the patio is is is the deck. Um and and you know, Mr. Sullivan has has
brought up a good point. The conservation easement is part of our property. uh nobody else is allowed to utilize that area that's encumbered by that conservation easement since my client does own that property. That conservation the depth of that conservation easement is probably about
uh probably about uh 60 or 70 ft uh at the rear of their property. Um we did agree at the last hearing that we would put up a sign acknowledging the fact that there was a conservation easement. Think there was a question raised by some board a board member about a fence,
but I think we decided that a fence just wasn't really particularly applicable here because first of all, they have they have the use of that land. They just obviously can't do anything within that conservation easement. They're not even allowed to cut down a tree. But I would suggest that if there's an open
area, they could certainly sit there. I mean, that is their property, but they are prevented from doing any uh improvements in that conservation easement area. Um, so I think there was discussion at the last hearing about a fence and I think the board said, "Well,
that really doesn't make sense and they had recommended that there be some signage posted there that this is an area of a conservation easement and obviously that would be some permanent signage as well when they go to sell this property perhaps in the future." Mr. Saxs, by any chance you have the
architect here? I do not have the architect here. So maybe you can answer the question. Sure. If you look at the architectural floor plan, right, there is a pantry right next to the sun room. And it looks like there's a stove and a sink in the
pantry where well the p the pantry if I'm looking at the plan and I'm not I'm obviously I'm not an architect but I could see where the addition there's the addition includes a new pantry being constructed. Correct. And the pantry. Inside the
pantry, do you see a stove and a sink? Well, there's a bump out there. Yeah. Which is which is odd. Like a a sink and a stuff in a pantry and especially because now the sun room
also has access outside, right? Should the board act favorably? I would also recommend that uh no space would be rented or used by any other uh outsiders just as a normal condition of approval. Yeah, I mean this is a single family
house. It's going to remain as a single family house and we have no intention of making it a two family house. It's not does not have two kitchens. It does not have uh uh two furnaces, two air conditioning units. It's a single family home. But whatever condition you would
like to impose, Miss Salant would be fine. We did speak about the fact that they're also uh they also wind up with an extra 770 ft below uh not below grade above grade but uh as a basement
unusable but uh the height in there but it doesn't obviously doesn't count to the F. We understand that. But the concern and it was brought up that a condition would be that that's not going to turn into further rooms or
usable rooms or uh living space. Correct. Only and I think the doctor I thought said it was going to be for or someone said it was going to be used for uh storage. Correct. I was only curious because I've never seen uh stuff in a sink in a pantry. So,
um I was just Is that a mud room or is that a pantry? It says it's a pantry. I don't have my copy. So, maybe and one of the conditions should be that the stove and the sink should come out of the pantry. I
I can remove the sink in the pantry. You can remove the sink in the pantry. Yeah. But they do have things. Well, hold on. Hold on. Hold on. I understand. You can't speak from the audience. That's all right.
I understand it's your client, but you you have to come forward and speak. That's all right. I I can indicate for the record if if uh there's a burning desire to remove the sink in the pantry, we're certainly willing to do that. Is that the sink and stove? Stuff that is the issue, not the sink.
Stove top. Yeah, that's fine also. So remove the full stove. That's a stove top. That's all on my end. Some people. Okay. Right.
Let me see uh there's any questions from witness. Sure. I'll start on my left. Mr. Ne. Oh, we got to pass that. You pass up your snack. Whichever is easier. Probably this. No, it's not.
Mr. Juan, did have the opportunity to visit the home? Not the home. Do you know of anybody from the zoning office at the visit to the home? No. So, usually what I do is I go through Mina. Now we got to do
so basically nobody from the zoning office had actually went to the home the applicant's home to see the we don't no you have no so we're working completely on the numbers and forecast of what that is correct attorneys bring
that is correct my Yeah. I just have a concern like you know Miss Swain said this is although it is their property I've lived this circumstance where a property next to me put up signs for you know conserve and
it was mowed several times until I actually had it you know say to someone I'm going to call the D on you. So, I understand you own it, but it'd probably be better if you shrunk it because it's a huge addition. Huge. It's
1540 square feet, whether you're using half of it for storage or not. I mean, a couple feet would be great so that when they step out, they're not in the, you know, in the conservative area, I think. Hello.
Is it on? No. I I think I'm confused. I thought the 1570 ft was a addition the first floor, the second floor, and then a basement, which wasn't considered in the square footage. Correct. Correct. Okay. So then it's not 1500 1570. It's
1570 living space. Okay. Thank you. Council, you have anything? No, I don't have anything for the witness. I mean, she's been factual. I I I understand that. Um, again, the only question we did have the
last time is that you're literally going to have shorter distance from than from me to you. And I I I'm assuming that the homeowner knows that. Uh, it's their property. I get that. Um yeah I mean Mr. Chairman if the uh the
sentiment is that uh we could uh relook at uh a reduction in some of the square footage here understanding 16 ft is roughly from me maybe to that back wall or you know may maybe maybe a little bit
further maybe 12 feet you know from from where I'm sitting to that back wall. I don't know how much more I can shrink this house right now. I really don't have a very usable backyard in this backyard, but that's obviously a decision that Dr. Zahir, Dr. Hussein
made when he purchased the house. Um, however, I think the board does need to recognize the fact that um the conservation easement can be utilized by my client. They are not restricted from using that area for recreational
purposes. What they are restricted from doing is cutting down trees. what they are restricted from doing is placing uh any type of structure in that area. Uh which we're not doing. Um but certainly, Mr. Chairman, if the sentiment of the board is to revisit this and look to see
if we can reduce it, uh then we'll certainly willing to do that. Um I mean, what's the width of the deck? Could we shrink that to give them a little bit more space on or or is that what they're really using the deck? Well, I think the deck is used to square
I think it's a I think it's squaring off the uh the addition. So, yeah. All right. So, there wouldn't be any savings. No, I I agree. I have a question. Messa the verdict. Go ahead. For what reason? Like would um
professionals or somebody go into a conservation easement? Like is it nature or something? Like professionals for what reason? My my question is for access would they have access to that then at this particular location if there's no room?
Oh to to encroach into the conservation easement? Um probably not. How um Mr. Saxs actually when you look at the architectural plan right and uh compare it with the plot plan it appears
that the patio actually encroaches into the conservation easement. Um it it literally jets out and extends beyond the building line. [Applause] Well, I'm looking at the I have the
architectural plan here. I have let me just look at the site plan real quick. Uh, no, I don't see I mean I see the conservation easement. I think it's right. It's I don't see it encroaching, Mr. One. I mean, I'm I'm looking at a smaller version of it, but
You're looking at the smaller version of the Yeah. of the No, not of that. I'm looking at the at the site plan. No, that's what I'm saying. The site plan doesn't show it, but if you look at the architectural plan, the patio has a bump out in the plot plan or the
site plan, it kind of squares off, but when you look at Yeah. at the corner there, there's a bump out. So, when you place it on the site, it will encroach into the conservation easement.
Okay. I I couldn't discern that from looking at this, but I guess that's something I'll have to have the professional look at. Okay. It's saying 16 ft. The max depth is still 16 ft.
It might not accurately show the boat out on here, but it's saying 16 ft, right? I I mean, just a suggestion. Uh I know that uh you want to go back and look at it, but I think having at least a 3 ft
clear distance from the conservation easement might be helpful so that you're not stepping onto the easement when you get off the uh steps. Something to look at. Well, we we have four. I thought we had we have several feet already.
I don't think so. I I'm looking at the plot. I know we we said it was for or went on the record, but I'm I don't have Well, the plan doesn't show that. So maybe the plan needs to be revised to show that then. Okay.
Because based on the plan, I'm looking at the plan and there's there's not even a feat there. It touches the easement. Mr. Chairman, I think what I'll do at this point is I would not request that the board take action on this this evening. Uh I'm going to speak to the
client and see if there's a possibility of reducing the footprint on this slightly. I mean I obviously I can't reduce it too much but we might be able to reduce it slightly and I will make and I will speak to the engineer and have the engineer and the architect confirm uh exactly where the
conservation easement is. I'll be happy to meet with the professionals um before the next meeting and we can resolve this before it comes to the board. Okay. Right. I would hope that that would be the case. Uh while you're here, Mr. Sax as far as the memo that was
authored on um July 15 uh from Mant. Uh is there any other issues on here? Uh and I would I would say uh going from page uh four of five and 505
um that the applicant either cannot perform or will not perform or are we going to agree on all that? Yeah, let me just uh sure the general comments um well comment D talks about um a revision
on the plans regarding the concert that we would agree to. Um I think we confirmed at the last hearing about the sump pump. Uh we're not below grade. It's a walkout basement. We did. All right. And um paragraph F on general
comments three is is fine. We have no issue with that. G is fine. H is fine. Um no trees are being removed uh to address paragraph I. So generally we don't have any up here. So we've cleared up all the other issues. Yes.
Uh you want to reexamine then if there's a ability to I guess shorten the depth from out from the house. Yeah. to provide just a smaller buff a little bit more buffer than the if it is 4 foot or it's not 4 foot or we can the
professionals can agree on something like that we can come back and have that information. Y board members on my left any questions that you want to present to the applicant or the applicant's attorney at this point we're probably only coming back once more let's I'm hoping uh Mr. Mr. Chairman, while
we're here, I don't know if there's anyone from the public, but maybe I'm going to check on that. I just want to get to get to the panel first. And counselor, do you have anything that you wanted to add? I have nothing for you. And on my on my right, Miss Tess, Miss Mrs. Andrew. Okay, Mrs. W. Okay, Mr.
Holahan. Okay, let me go to I'll open up a public portion on this. Uh, this is matter uh 41-2024Z. The physical location is 12 years court. This is a two-story addition to the rear of the house. Anyone here in the courtroom wish to be heard? Please raise
your hand or stand. Absent. Anyone doing either? I'll close the public portion. Do we have a date for this? November 6th. Is there any way of doing that any sooner? I
was doing it sooner. If you agree, if you can agree in a professional meeting, how much time are you going to need when you come back? You can present us 15 minutes. Yeah. Less as soon as possible
and it will be like, right, we can have all this ironed out. Okay. So 10:16 10:16 okay that's fine Mr. Sachs, that's a agreeable. Yes. Okay. I think he's waving any right to
extension time. I can't hear you. Extension of time is all covered. Yeah. Are we within it? Yes. Because agreement I don't worry about that. [Music] There's agreement to extension of time,
right? Yes. Yes. Okay. All right. So, October 16th. October 16th. I'll put you on first if you can try and All right, we we'll all get this settled uh and wrap it up in a nice little package the board
can uh deliberate and we can move forward on it. That's fine, Mr. Chairman. All right. Thank you again and uh MC. Thank you and thank you to the owners for being here this evening. Uh on that matter, matter will be rescheduled de uh October 16th. There'll
be no further notice. if you're you're not watching at home because I can't we're not on the TV tonight. But all right, we're going to move on. Uh I'd ask you to swear in Mr. Hollahan and Mr. Darie who are now on the days
raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the whole truth? I do. I do. Thank you. Thank you both. All right. Okay. 49-204Z Outfront Media LLC. This is uh black 1 19013.
You need to record this. But what I'm saying now I I'll wait. Yeah, Jeremy. I I forgot that the problem there's a switch on the stenographers. Mhm. and be sworn in. They'll let you sit to be sworn in. Go backwards.
Tina, you good? Thank you. Counselor, you're ready? Yes. This is matter 49-2024Z, Outdoor Media LLC. This is block 1901, 3, lot 6.11, physical location 1449,
Highway 18, Old Bridge. This is for a multi- message sign. The applicant seeking approval to construct and operate a monopole multi- message sign consisting of two 25 by two by 18 by9 faces totaling 952 square ft with an
overall height above grade 25 ft. This is a continuence uh Matthew Weiss Esquire representing the applicant. Sir, thank you chairman. Matthew Weiss Price Me Shman and Dormeno on behalf of the applicant. Um, again, this is for
block 19013, lot 6.11. Uh, it's the Dunkin Donuts on Route 18, just to orient the board. Um, of course, we're here for a billboard, not a Dunkin Donuts. It would be on the the same property. Um, we were here back in May
on May 1st, and the board heard from two witnesses at that time. was John Antal, the uh general manager of Outfront Media's New Jersey office who spoke about the operation of the sign. Uh he went over an aerial uh uh view of the
applica or of the location, sorry. He went over the NJ dot permit, um some simulations we had prepared as well as the public service protocols. As the board may remember, uh, Outfront offers all of its prospective municipal
partners time on the sign as a public service. Um, that would be, um, I believe it was it would be time as available whenever there is time available on the sign if if the township chose to use it. You also heard from our engineer, Bill Vote
from L2A, who spoke about the more technical aspects of the sign. He went over the site plan. uh as well as how the lighting would work and discuss a little bit more about those simulations just to run through that for the board. Um tonight we're going to finish up with
our planning expert George Williams who will of course you know run through the proofs for the D3 conditional use variance that we are requesting. So chairman if we can have Mr. Williams sworn I hand do you swear affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? I most certainly do.
And can you state your name? Certainly. Good evening commissioners. My name is George Weedle Williams. Williams with an S. The board members, just before uh George starts, right, uh a little story,
um what you're going to hear is an experience. Um as I've assisted George more than 10 years ago on numerous board hearings and uh he's one of the best aators. I would actually sit in the
audience just to listen to him. So, um, welcome George to Albridge. No pressure, chairman. I think that works as his qualifications. Hopefully, just put on the record while you while you're how you're testifying. Listen, I have to say this. He has
trained me well, too. You're a professional planner, sir. Correct. That's correct. And your license are current in this state. That is also correct. We'll take the uh expertise from uh Miss Swan. So, I I'll certainly agree with her. I believe you've testified before this board. I've seen you before and you
are a good aator. Matter of fact, look at this. Compliments all around. Yeah, that's that's where the compliments stop. I knew it. Before we start with Mr. Williams, um I just do want to clean up one thing from the last hearing. Outfront did get an updated NJ DOT
permit. Um it is dated July 15th of this year. I'm going to mark that as A7. Mr. Arve, if you could just hand that out to everybody. This, we don't need to talk about this. This would just be so that we have the
proper updated permit on the record. Certainly. Okay, Mr. Williams, we don't need to go over your experience, so why don't you jump right into what work you completed here in preparation for your testimony? Certainly. And I want to thank Mr. W for generous compliments and thank the board
for this opportunity. Um so we approach this application the way we approach all of our land use applications and that begins with a review of the municipal land use documents in this case your re-examination report and the land development ordinance and all of that in
the context of the municipal land use law. Uh also reviewed of course the site plan and site plan application that are before you this evening. I and my staff have visited the site on more than one occasion. Uh on at least one of those occasions, I was part of the team that
conducted a crane test, and I'll talk about that a bit further down the road. Also had a chance to review some of the case law and planning literature in support of the applications we're seeking, the application, the release we're seeking this evening. Uh and I did look at the ordinance amendments that uh
impact this particular land use. I also attended the previous hearings for this matter. And last but not least, certainly not least, I did review my esteemed colleagues uh review memo dated May 1st. Mr. Williams, before we move on, just because we haven't been here in 4 and a
half months, you mentioned the crane test. Would you mind briefly explaining to the board what that is just to refle refresh the recollection? Certainly. Uh and I will uh package this with part of my editorial about the applicant. Uh, Outfront Media is very
conscientious about their sighting of billboards and their site layout. As part of their uh, site layout methodology, they conduct a crane test for almost every site that they are seeking approval for. That crane test,
as Mr. Vote may have testified, is an opportunity for the team to assemble on a site using a boom truck or a crane. They lift a board with a bright striping to the height uh that the proposed billboard will be um designed.
Then the team photo surveys and measures uh the site itself. We walk and drive the surrounding area. The intent is to make sure that there are no negative visual impacts from the site based on a crane test.
So, the crane test allows us to drive up, walk up and down uh the highway, drive to neighboring areas and see if we are able to see the board that's being hung. It also informs the development of the simulations that were part of the
package that was submitted uh to the board uh by the applicant's representative, Mr. Antl. Um, again, working with Outfront Media for a number of years on a number of applications. That's part of their commitment to making sure that they can adjust the
site layout and the sign design such there's no impact, no negative impact, no visual impact on surrounding non-commercial uh development. And just to reiterate something you said there, you go around the nearby areas as the
planner and look for that board that's being raised to the height to see basically, if I'm understanding correctly, whether from the surrounding residential areas, if if any, you can you would theoretically be able to see the sign. That's correct. And if there were
concerns, you would voice that to outfront. Correct. And one of the uh good things about working with outfront is they actually listen to their planner. So we get to weigh in at the very beginning of the planning process and then the team based on those observations may make
adjustments to the design of the sign or the site layout. Great. So why don't you give us your planning overview for this application? Certainly. So you heard a considerable amount of testimony from um the previous witnesses, Mr. Antal for representing
outfront media and Mr. Vote our civil engineer. So I'll try not to be redundant. What I would like to do is state a few foundational facts that you've heard from Mr. Vote already. Uh some broad planning observations and um
uh principles and then go in directly to the uh requisite statutory proofs in support of the release we're seeking this evening. So, for the record, and you heard this from our council, the property is commonly referred to as 1449 Route 18 or the Dunkin Donut site. It's
identified in your municipal tax records as block number 1 19013, lot number 6.11 and is located on the western side of Route 18. It is in your uh community commercial zone or CC zone district. The
site acreage is approximately 0.82 and the site is developed with the onestory uh Dunkin Donuts drive-thru facility. The chairman already captured the project description which was shared also by Mr. Vote so I won't go into that
just to highlight that the height of the proposed sign is 37.5 ft. In terms of the zoning analysis, again located in the CC district, uh, as I read your code, the purpose of the CC
zone district is to establish areas which will provide a greater variety of retail, business, and personal services for an area embracing several neighborhoods. Parenthetically, I would just add that the intent and purpose of an outdoor advertising sign is to
promote commerce. And so it is appropriate in my opinion uh that the municipality uh decided to create um conditional use in for billboards in this zone as per section 250.41.z
of your code. Again, billboards or outdoor advertising signs are permitted conditional uses. And that section provides the list of conditional use standards. I will not go through all of them unless the board needs me to only because Mr. Vote did um recite those
standards in his testimony and your board planner captured them as well. I would just opine that we uh in my opinion only deviate from one of those 14 standards. That's number six, which requires that the billboard be uh
located be not be located closer uh than 5T 500 ft from a residential zone district. Uh you heard from Mr. Vote, you'll hear me repeat a couple of times. Uh we are approximately 230 ft from the
residential zone district line. Um in terms of the release sought again that's section 2550-41.0.6 uh and that is the conditional use standard that we do not meet. There are a number of pre-existing non-conforming bulan area deviations. I would submit to
the board we don't exacerbate any of those. We're not making any changes to those. uh and so uh I'll talk a bit more about the appropriate context for board deliberation about those in a few moments. I mentioned in my introductory comments that I would um begin with kind of a
high level planning observation. Uh so let me do that now. Um, I would submit to this board that as a planner that does work with outfront media quite often, it is always a pleasure to find a municipality that has actual standards
for billboards as opposed to um not including them in zone districts. It is just considered a better planning process to provide appropriate standards for legitimate land uses such as a outdoor advertising sign.
Um the project is located Route 18 uh which is a highly trafficked highway with um use for this county uh and is in my opinion as a planner and I assume your governing body agrees an appropriate environment for this
particular land use. Uh you've heard testimony already from Mr. Vote about the design of the sign monopole with a V-shaped uh sign face. I would just like to go into some of the planning considerations before I get to the
proofs and I do have one exhibit from a broad perspective. Um, this application again is for a D3 uh conditional use variance. And so it's important to understand the legislative intent and I may be repeating that a
couple of times, but in my professional opinion, the legislative intent of the municipality is to permit this land use in this area and to other zone districts, hence the D3. As this board knows, uh, jurisdiction is with the zoning board for D3 variances whenever
an applicant does not meet one or all of the conditional use standards. In New Jersey land use saw, legislative intent refers to the overarching purpose and goals that the governing body aimed to achieve. Again, they aimed to achieve the uh permission of this land use in
the CC zone district. Courts and agencies typically look at legislative intent in terms of the plain language of the code, legislative history, and the overall legislative scheme. Again, the overall scheme in
this case being the permission of outdoor advertising signs along this highway in this uh particular zone district. There are a couple of court cases. I'm going to refer to one and council may uh refer to it again later.
It's Wilson X reel Manzano v. City of Jersey City. And what's interesting about that court case is it does opine about legislative intent. Specifically, it suggests that the enactment uh of a code is part of a larger statutory
framework and should not be read in isolation but in relation to other constituent parts so that the sensible meaning may be given to the whole of the legislative scheme. That word scheme is going to be a common theme in uh my testimony when I get to the proofs. In
fact, it's suggested that we must be guided by the legislative objectives sought to be achieved. Hopefully, I'll make this clearer as I as I progress, but I'm laying the groundwork hopefully for uh the rationale for our deviation from that
one conditional use standard in your code. The plain language in this matter, the code was specifically drafted to permit billboards as conditional uses, meaning that they were an appropriate use for this zone district. In terms of the legislative history, we looked at
the master plan. We also looked at the amendments that I referred to in my introductory comments 2010-29 which created the uh conditional use billboards and 2010-32 which spoke to the fees associated with billboard
applications. While the language was clear about the use there was not a whole lot of rationale for the um conditional use standards particularly the one that we will deviate from and that's the 500 foot. My assumption as a planner is that
that distance was selected to either minimize or eliminate any visual impact of billboards on non-commercial land uses or specifically residential land uses in this case. What's interesting is
the code permits a 1,000 square foot billboard sign phase uh at 500 ft. What we're proposing and you heard this from Mr. vote is a much smaller uh sign face at a 230 ft distance.
The overall legislative scheme again the code was clearly crafted to permit billboards in certain zone districts and you heard Mr. Vote testify what those three zone districts are. I'm going to repeat them momentarily uh and provide specific conditional use standards for
that use. It's a bit counterintuitive and again I will come back to this that the code would include a standard that would preclude the uh location of this land use in the selected zone district. More on that when I speak directly to
the proofs for the D3. In terms of the impact generally speaking of this proposed use on the surrounding area, you heard plenty of testimony from uh Mr. Ant tall about being contextsensitive in the design of the
sign and the site layout. That testimony was buttressed by our civil engineer uh Mr. Vote. Uh and it's our opinion based on the crane test and the site plan before you that there will be no uh negative impact on the surrounding area
for a variety of reasons. First of all, again, the crane test. We uh used the crane test to identify where there might be sight lines that would be obtrusive or negative to non-commercial zone districts and found none. We noticed
that many of the residences on if not all uh the highway have significant setbacks such that their view of our site is extremely limited. And then that limitation is further um uh buttressed
by the fact that there are dense tree lines in this section of uh the highway such that there'd be no view or extremely limited view of the proposed billboard at this site location. Um
in terms of the benefits of the billboard, I won't belabor this. You heard this from Mr. Antl in particular. The public benefit package includes an opportunity for the municipality to use uh turns on this sign for the promotion
of activities and events that are important to this municipality. There are general benefits to the public such as the public service announcements such as Amber alerts, uh natural um weather occurrences, etc. that can be um
displayed on the modern technology or LED uh sign. Again, this LED format allows the billboard, the applicant to add more uh local and regional advertisement on the
sign because they have the ability to do the remote copy change and uh and more frequent changes. Last but not least, the LED format, the more contemporary format for billboards, allows for greater readability,
legibility, and conspicuity, which is a safety bonus or benefit to passer passing motorists who can easily read and understand the copy that's on the sign. Last but not least, the um LED format allows for remote copy change,
which results in fewer trips to the site. again, also a benefit to the public in general as opposed just to the applicant. Um, based on all my review and analysis, uh, there's sufficient proofs in support
of the D3 relief we're seeking. Uh, and at this point, what I'd like to do is, um, offer a very simple exe exhibit. Excuse me. Yes. So, I'm going to pre-mark this as A8. Um, Mr. Mr. Arvey, if you could just hand out our other
exhibit. You do. Okay. So, Mr. Williams, I'm going to hand you what I pre-marked as A8. Can you please describe for the board what they're looking at? Yes. Commissioners, this is a um capture of your zoning map with a couple of uh
labels added to Uh I apologize. Uh on the screen you can see the label. I just realized unfortunately the label of where the properties did not print. Uh so please refer to the screen and I will when we submit the actual exhibit make sure
that's that's fixed. I I apologize. Chairman. So, a small but important detail. Probably the most important detail. I I that is my mistake and I'm very sorry about that. But again, if you look at the screen, you can see the the label
and Mr. Williams will will orient you as well. Certainly. So, if commissioners, if you look at the screen, you'll see to the bottom left of the exhibit a label uh in the form of a text box with the site identification in the text box
pointing to the zone district. that district. Again, being a CC district, the intent of this exhibit is really straightforward and simple. It is to demonstrate that this is the only CC district along this section of the
highway or this highway, excuse me. That is significant as I move into the requisite statutory approves for our D3 uh um variance relief because again the legislative intent is that billboards or
outdoor advertising signs be permitted in the CC district. This is the only CC district on the highway. Uh and therefore it's important to realize that the location of this billboard uh with all the distance requirements as part of
the conditional use standards is limited to this one area. Before we move on from this, Mr. Williams, two quick questions about this. So one, you said of course this is in the CC district along the highway. We're talking about Route 18 here, right? Yes. and Route 18 billboards are allowed
in the CC district specifically along Route 18 under the code. That is correct. The other thing is there are other zone districts in which billboards are allowed under Route 18. Are any of those districts present along Route 18 as to your knowledge? No. And if you look at the uh site plan
that becomes evident for the record um the SDI or special development and OG office zones are the other districts that permit outdoor advertising. But again those are not along route 18 tier number. That is correct. Okay. Thank you. So why don't we get into the proofs.
Okay. As this board knows the um D3 variance I may have mentioned in my introductory comments is required whenever a conditional a permitted conditional use such as billboards is not does not meet each one or more of the conditional use
standards associated with that land use. The jurisdiction once that occurs is strictly with this board as you know and there is a landmark case court case which provides guidance for your deliberation and consideration of a D3 variance as you know that's the Coventry
Square v Westwood uh case which suggests that the proofs are slightly lightened compared to a D1 use variance where the applicant has to meet the Medici standard and show particular suitability etc.
Instead, under coverventry, uh the court found that um even when the application does not comport with the requisite conditions, it is nonetheless essentially compatible with the zone. Again, going back to the legislative intent.
Uh the governing body has presumptively assumed or determined rather that this use is appropriate and compatible with the CC district here in Oldbridge. rather the focus of the board must be on a deviation from the specific standard
or standards in a context of the total proposed development. Uh and that is where I believe Mr. Vote was going with his testimony about the proportionality of our signed dimensions and the distance from the residential zone
district. Finally, in terms of a D3 variance relief, the standard is more akin to a bulk and area deviation or a C variance because again the use is presumed to be appropriate. It's just
whether the site can accommodate the deviation from the strict application of your code for that conditional use standard. Again, there are approximately 14 conditional use standards. The one that we do not meet in my opinion is 2550-41.z.6.
Again, that's the 500 foot distance from the residential zone district line. And uh we come in at 230 ft in distance from that line. In terms of the proofs, again, based on
Coventry with a slightly uh lightened standard, uh the board may consider whether there are particular features of the site and in this case the sign that ameliate or entirely offset the failure to meet the conditional use standard at question. Um
I mentioned already through the exhibit, this is one the only location along the highway that would uh permit the distance. And so I'll speak directly to the distance standard. Now again the presumed intent is that the
use is appropriate for this district. Uh my presumption is that the 500t distance is to protect the non-commercial land development along Route 18 from any negative visual impacts when assigned. Uh our opinion is that the site can
accommodate this deviation from the strict application of your code for a couple of reasons. First, the sign orientation. You've already heard a fair amount of testimony from Mr. Vote and Mr. Antl about the orientation of these signs, which was deliberately designed
so as not to have any negative impact on the surrounding land development. Also to make sure that the orientation was specifically targeted to vehicular traffic uh along this highway. Again, the land development pattern as I
mentioned earlier, uh any non-commercial development along the highway is evidences significant front yard setbacks such that the residences are removed significantly from the highway and their viewshed is significantly
reduced and or eliminated because of their deep setbacks and because of the tree line and buffering and screening. Now, Mr. vote spoke about his calculus for the sign to discuss proportionality. Uh his intent was not to suggest we
don't need the D3 variance but rather to say if the intent of the 500 ft distance was to uh soften views of the billboard or uh make sure there are no negative impacts. when he did his calculations at
the proposed square footage of our sign face and a distance, we would argue that the intent of that distance regulation is still met. Meaning that given the size of our sign face and its distance which is less than the required 500 ft,
you still would not have a negative impact on the surrounding land development pattern which we assume is the intent of uh that section of the code. Before we move on to the negative criteria,
the code, if I'm correct, requires that billboards be between 10 feet set back from the highway and 100 ft set back from the highway. Correct. Correct. So even if theoretically the billboard were 100 ft set back from the highway, would it meet that 500 foot
requirement? No. And is there anywhere to your knowledge in the CC zone or any other allowable zone along Route 18 where that could work? No. And my opinion is informed in part by our um crane test uh
observations and in consultation with Mr. Vod, our civil engineer. So, what I'm getting from this, correct me if you disagree with me, is that the the governing body has kind of put the zoning board in an odd position here
because they don't actually billboards are supposed to be allowed conditionally along Route 18, but there is no lot on which billboards can actually be allowed without a D3 variance on Route 18. Is that correct? Yes, in my opinion, having reviewed the code, that is correct. And it seemed I I
think I mentioned this in my introductory comments, it's almost counterintuitive that if the legislative intent is to permit billboards in the CC district on this highway, but have a conditional use standard that would negate the possibility of locating them
uh in the CC district, that could not have been, in my opinion, the true intent of the uh uh the code. But that brings us to where we are today. It's not a decision that the board made. It's a part of the function of the governing
body creating this code. And again, my opinion would be it could not have been intended to create a standard that would not make it possible to have a permitted use. So one way to address that in your opinion would be to look at that the math that that you did and that Mr.
voted not to again not to say that we don't need the C3 variance but to say to think about it in this flexible way we could still meet the intent of the code while you know not actually you know despite the fact that we do violate it by letter yes and I'm arithmetically challenged
but I did review the calculus with Mr. vote uh at length. And in my opinion, again going back to the proportionality, we would not violate the spirit of the code, which is intended to limit views of the sign from the residential zone district. Again, because while we don't
meet the 500 foot standard, we are vastly reducing the size of the sign from that 1,000 square foot to the 380 square foot. And just to to get ahead of a question that I I anticipate, at our last hearing, you heard Miss San ask
whether we're of the opinion that these are connected uh you know connected code sections and that the 500 foot is attached to the 1,00 foot. Her opinion of course was that it was not directly attached to to the other. But that's not what we're saying. Correct. It's just we're
addressing the intent of the entire code. Correct. The intent of the code. And if we go back to the Wilson court case and the my preamble about legislative intent looking at the code in its entirety as opposed to that standard in isolation
and then following up with the Coventry standard that it's can the site accommodate that deviation in my opinion for all the reasons I've mentioned the site can accommodate that deviation of 500 foot. So, just to wrap up this little sidebar, what you're saying is
that assuming that because the code allows this, a 1,000T billboard 500 ft away from residential uh zones would be okay, a 380T billboard, we're not naming a number, but again, just doing the
math, about 200 feet away would theoretically be okay. Again, just looking at the intent, not saying that that means we don't need the variance. Correct. We definitely need the variance uh because we don't meet the strict application of that conditional use standard but in terms of proportionality
I think we meet the spirit of the uh code and more importantly the site can accommodate it for those reasons. Great. Let's move on to the negative criteria. Okay. Thank you. As this board knows the negative criteria is a two-prong test. First prong is there's no substantial
detriment to the public good. The second prong is there's no substantial impairment to the zone plan. I would submit to this board there is no substantial detriment to the public good and no substantial impairment to the zone plan. But it's important to go back to the um Coventry landmark court case
and remind the board that under Coventry the requirement of the Medici standard, the enhanced burden of proof is not required. As a planner, however, I'm always comfortable uh providing testimony about those two-prong tests. Um, again that word substantial comes
directly from the municipal land use law. In my professional opinion, if this board were to grant our relief from that section of the conditional use standards, there would be no substantial detriment to the public good for all the reasons we've mentioned. the
proportionality of the sign uh face area in the context of the distance from the zone district line. The setback of the non-commercial uh land development pattern in this area significantly set back from the highway
and then the dense tree line and buffers are such that if you were to grant our relief for this permitted use in a CC zone district there'd be no substantial detriment to the public good. I would go a step further and say based on outfront media's context set sensitive design and
site layout there'd be no detriment to the public good. Um in terms of the second prong again not really required but I would submit that after reviewing your uh master plan re-examination report there would be no substantial impairment to the zone plan. In fact,
the zone plan does uh have goals and recommendations for um looking at this highway corridor to encourage greater uh commercial diversity and um grow the economic development along the highway.
That is in fact the purpose and intent of outdoor advertising signs is to promote commerce. So we would advance that goal of your plan. Um, the master plan also seeks planning for the highway quarters to make sure
they're updated to ensure that they remain competitive. Again, in my opinion, outdoor advertising signs could help with that. Uh, I don't remember the percentage, but in conversations with outdoor outfront media, uh, the percentage of local regional promotion
is far greater than national. So, if you were to approve our application, it would certainly uh help promote that uh goal of your master plan. Okay. Uh let's move on to the the C variances, which I think the point is going to be we don't actually need them because they're non-conformities that
we're not really affecting, not just not exacerbating, but not really touching at all. Correct. There are a number of pre-existing non-conforming deviations from your bulk and area standards. In my opinion, under the Cortisini case where we're not exacerbating those deviations
to use a vernacular, they are kind of what they are. Uh we're not changing any of them. In my opinion, under that court case, no additional relief would be needed for uh those C variances. Thank you. Do you have anything further, Mr. Williams? Uh no. Um, I think that would conclude
my direct testimony, but I'm certainly available to answer questions. Thanks, Chairman. That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Williams. Matt, so um couple of things, right? Um I remember at the last meeting there was a question from me as well as the board
members. Are there any other billboards along 18 uh till the terminus. Have you looked into it? That's a good question. I remembered a question. I don't remember to answer. I don't have that answer handy. I want to say no. I believe the answer is no.
I don't believe there is any. Um I I know um Mr. Williams went in detail about the zoning, right? But the other side of the story um so in 2015 the township created the EDO zone and it was
the EDO economic development opportunity zone and uh what that did is that zone started replacing the CN zone or the commercial zone. We already created the CR which is commercial recreation zone
because originally the township was purely suburban. There were smaller pockets of non-residential zones throughout the township especially along the highways. There was CCN and CM zone which is commercial marine
commercial neighborhood commercial uh which promoted commercial users as well as OG zones. the office generals. If you look at the master plan, there was recommendation that we revisit all these smaller uh non-residential zones to see
what can be done and how we can promote more retail type of uses. So in the past we created the EDO zone then we replaced the CN zone with the uh EDO1 zone and
the intention was to clean out the zoning map to eventually even get rid of the CC zone and replace it with ED1 zone. When the ED1 zone ordinance was written, it specifically eliminated
um the billboards as permitted use as a permitted conditional use. So the intention was to prevent having billboards on these smaller non-residential zones or smaller pockets
that are closer to residential zones. And if you notice in Oldbridge, the billboards that are currently existing are in the CR zone or the EDO3 zone where you don't have residences nearby
or you have larger lots so that that 500 ft is naturally me uh maintained. The intention here like the others like Mr. Williams said that um it allowed
billboards on CC on 18 which means the property would be able to have that permitted use but at the same time it's a contradictory policy where you have a requirement that the billboard cannot be
within 500 ft. So in working with the council and in cleaning up the zoning map and the zoning ordinance, the intention is to preserve that corridor along 18 because if you look at the same zoning map, notice there is lot of
residential use unlike in East Brunswick. If you enter East Brunswick, it's purely commercial and you have larger commercial lots. Whereas the minute you enter old bridge and you start going south towards Malbero, you
have a beautiful uh landscape or we try to maintain that synic route. We don't have as many commercial uses. the EDO3 zone that is the largest non-residential zone on route 18 there too I recently
wrote a redevelopment plan to uh construct eight warehous six eight warehouses but uh the total was 800,000 square ft of warehousing but we made sure that the corridor on 18 is
maintained there is no entrance from 18 into those warehouses the entrances from Texas Road and Malbero Road and then the traffic discharges on Spring Valley Road. But this the frontage is wellmaintained. The planning board
recently approved an application right next door uh which is u called as oak 18 for uh family dollar tree. Um and uh even at that application
I was quite vocal about the sign being proposed or pylon sign being proposed. So there are few things the board has to keep in perspective by looking at this application. Um again it's a D3 uh although I'm giving you this background
the ordinance allows a billboard as a conditional use. So you have to keep that in mind and I know the board is in a tough position to weigh uh the uh drawbacks. The the one thing that I feel
in this instance or this location is if you look at the if you look at the opposite side where the residential uses are, it's all single family homes. They're the homes have frontage on Malboro, but they're
the rear side where all the bedrooms are, they face 18. So they would have direct visibility to this billboard. So you have to keep that in mind as well. Um I don't have any further question. Uh the one question also maybe you have not
looked into it. Wait, sorry. I'm just going to Can I let him address your points before you ask the next question? Is that okay? Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Williams. Do you heard all Miss Watt's points? Can you just address them from your perspective? Yes. And if I understood Mr. Swant's um
conclusionary comment, I would agree. I concur. And that's what I said in my uh direct testimony that the board has inherited a code that does permit the billboards whose legislative intent is to uh find billboards in appropriate
land use in his zone district. And the conundrum as Miss Sant mentions is that one of the conditional use standards would almost relegate them to not being available anywhere along Route 18. in terms of the um
uh so Marorrow sorry sorry Marorrow part of the crane test one of the benefits of the crane test is we drove and walked the expanse of route 18 drove back to Marboro and walked Marboro and Miss Swan
is 100% correct the front houses there front on Marboro they have rather deep lots and but for the tree lines they would have direct views of Dunkin Donuts and Route 18. My supposition is that the
tree line existed first and people built their homes uh between those tree lines and Marboro or the trees were uh planted with the intent and purpose of screening uh those homes in front of Marboro from
the highway in general. Uh and they do provide a pretty dense screening and buffering. So, I think to that point, something the board might be concerned about is is the light from the billboard. Of course, you heard Mr. Vot's testimony, just in case the board doesn't remember, uh Mr. Vot's testimony
was that the the board will admit no more than 0.3 foot candles over the ambient light in the area within 187 ft of the sign. Do you remember that? I do. So, that does not actually reach any of the residences, correct?
No. And and In addition, Mr. Vote also testified that that ambient light calculation should be considered in the context of the light produced by commercial uses on
uh the highway along the highway and the highway lights. So the other thing is at night his testimony was that the board will drop down to 3% of its normal output. Correct. That is correct. Even so, if the board were worried about
the uh the light coming from the billboard theoretically reaching these houses, um which again there will be no light over ambient, but even let's talk about ambient light. Would one of the standards is that the board has to turn off at 11 p.m.? Correct.
Correct. So, could it help if if the board were open to it, could it help to even turn off it a little sooner to make sure there was definitely no light anywhere near these houses at night? Yes. And that's could be an appropriate condition that the board could make if they're inclined to approve their
application. The D3 is similar to the D2 in the sense that the board can make reasonable conditions of approval to harmonize this use with its surrounding environments. That certainly would do it. I know that Mr. vote also testified about the benefits of the LED standard
in terms of directing light in appropriate uh fashion. Okay. So, just to clarify for the board as I just spoke to upfront as a condition of approval, if the board wanted to, you know, go even earlier than 11:00 to turn it off, they would they would be open to that. You know,
whatever we want to suggest is turning off the board earlier than 11 p.m. Um, I think we'd also have to establish when we turned it back on. That's not in the code. So we we could discuss that when we get to the deliberation portion if if the board were to act favorably. One other thing that Miss Want discussed before we let you I'm sorry before we
let you ask your other question. Um was the the 2015 zoning map and the intended future maybe removal of the CC zone over here. You heard that right? I did. Did they to your understanding remove that CC zone? No, not not as of yet. It's uh and I
think Mr. Just want to mention this, the board has to grapple with is the future planning versus what the code is as of this point or at least certainly when the applicant applied. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Thanks. Last question. Uh did you look at the
existing billboards uh along nine to see if any of them are closer than 500 ft from residential zone? I'm going to have a two-part answer. Yes, I looked at them. I did not analyze their distances. Okay. Okay. Um I would make one last comment if I
may, and that is while it's not proof positive, and I know the chairman hasn't opened it up to the public yet, but certainly worth noting that if there are no members of the public here against the application, it goes to the issue of substantial detriment. And I would argue there would be no
substantial detriment. I would argue that there is no substantial. Thank you. But of course, we we we don't know for sure. There's no public here. You're just hypothetic. This is hypothetical. Hypothetical only. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. D. You have anything?
I do not, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Holland. No. No. I'll go to the board members on my left. I don't agree with the We need a We need to get the mic. I don't agree about the density of the
shrubs or the trees blocking the signage to the homes there. I've gone past there many times. It's clear. You can see right through there. And uh although they are set back, but they are closer to the road. And uh that's where I don't
dis I disagree with Okay. your findings on that. Fair enough. I would just say that again um using the crane and that board with the bright colors, we both walked and drove and I found uh that in my
observation, my field observation that if I took pictures from the mouth of the driveway, you might be able to see the sign and often you could, but if you walk back on the property, I try not to do that uh for obvious reasons, but if you walk
back the treeine on is really pretty dense and I could not see the Dunkin Donuts from many of these positions. So yeah, I just have a question. When was the crane test done? Oh, that's a good question. I'm sorry.
Give me one second. Okay, you got Oh, sure. Thank you. Um, Commissioner, it I'm looking at a exhibit that was handed out by Mr. Antl, which is a simulations. This is A3, just for the record.
And that uh shows the crane test was completed on April 8th of this year. That's correct. And that's when all the foliage is up on the trees and all the leaves are fully covering any of the houses. Thank you. Yep. to my right.
Please correct me if I misunderstood anything, but regarding your crane test, you did crane test and you walked the streets and everything and that was to see if this sign was going to impact just the residents. Um, I didn't hear anything about doing any kind of a test.
That's a heavily traffked road and I don't know how often that billboard is going to be changing things whether it's missing children or uh commercial but that is so heavily traffked and I think that's really very detrimental because once you're coming up to Marbor Road
you're coming up to where you're going into Walmart you have across the street you have other streets going in um and having just just watching and I've driven by all the time and And I tried to picture
what it would be like coming up to where Dunkin' Donuts is. And um visually I would prefer that you would had a test for that. Not that I think there's anything wrong with having it for the residents, but as long as you were having a crane test, also have a
visibility test driving by back and forth with all that heavy traffic on 18, especially in that particular area. So we we did drive the the roadway and um if you look back at A3 there are photographs from the roadway where you could see the crane. That was our
engineer that did that. Mr. Mr. Williams didn't do that one. Okay. So at the last meeting we did speak about that with you commissioner. I can add to that that Mr. Vot's testimony included not only the simulations but he walked and marked out distances. We all drove with a camera
and videograph uh video the approach and uh departure from the sign but also Mr. Vote testified to um the how the copy Mr. Antl testified to how copy changes and how we meet the state requirements
for copies the 32nd rule for uh copy change which is based on a state's um standard for traffic safety. For example, I had one. Sorry, I have to clarify something because I cut you off in the middle and confused you. Old Bridg's requirement is
30 seconds. Correct. Correct. The state requirement is eight, but we are complying with old bridges 30 second requirement. Correct. And the messages, you heard Mr. Boat's testimony, and I believe Mr. Antal testified to this as well. The messages will change instantaneously. No transition. They don't flash. They don't
move. There's no animation. It's just static image. 30 seconds later, new static image. That's correct. So, this board, as you'll recall, did ask that the applicant consider 30 second they called flips as opposed to 8-second applicant agreed. But, Commissioner, most
important point from a planning perspective, I just can't say this enough, is that your governing body determined via that code that this use, the billboard, is a permitted use in this zone district. And so part of the presumption is that it is
compatible with the environment including your concern about um the traffic. Mr. Tivery, anything? I'm just curious like um said that um you know what about in the
winter in the fall? You know, I'm sure the res. You got to turn the microphone. Is it lit? Is it the green light? Okay. I'm sure the residents will be seeing this sign, you know, and what time are
we talking about that it would shut off? So, let me let me address that one. Sorry. We we're open to whatever the board suggests as to shutting it off. Um, you know, six o'clock. Well, I think you know when it's light at 6 o'clock, I don't know how how
helpful that would be, but you know, we can of course we're open to considering anything you suggest. But would you be doing another crane test or you know to determine like No. So, it's with the leaves all on it's going to benefit you for sure, you
know, your your client. Sorry, I didn't want to cut you off. Um, if we can we pull back up the simulations, Morgan, I think you have them in your No problem. Uh let me those are 1449 route 18 old bridge three this one third on the list up two more that one.
Thank you. Okay so can you go to the next page so I apologize we don't have copies of this with us because we introduced this last time but the the trees are actually somewhat bare in this photo despite the fact that we were there in April. Um I
think you know some of them I don't know Mr. Williams if you could tell just by looking at it. Maybe some of these are evergreens, but you can see a lot of trees don't have leaves on them when we when we took these photos. So, I would just want to clarify that for the record that we despite we took these in April, the trees were not fully foliageed,
especially if you look to the left side of this particular image that's on the screen. Uh, but to uh council's comment, and I believe Mr. vote testified to this as well. Not only is there forestation, but not all of those trees are
deciduous. Many of them are evergreens depending on where you are on Route 18. So again, keep in mind that their um views are obiscated by the setback of the homes, the um tree line and based on
those field verifications, the views were extremely limited from any of those sensitive locations of the sign. And that's in part it could also be, you know, trees without leaves can sometimes be a barrier anyway. Correct. Correct. There we have images um where
to council's point uh there is not foliage but the distance between the trees is so limited that you can't see through the trunks of the trees in many instances where there's no foliage
and that's also captured in some of the aerial photographs uh that we had. I don't know if they're Well, I'll stop there. Thank you. Yeah. chairperson. So I believe the last meeting you brought up the fact that what if the property beyond them was
sold and it looks like uh there is some construction being done there. There has been. I don't know if you want to elaborate on that. Well, I was going to elab I I have this one. I don't want to hold that. Um I'm
glad you gave out A8. This you spoke to uh Miss Swan's commentary on this something very uh noticeable. If you look at the route 18 quarter, which will be on the top left coming down, you won't see in the entire length
anything other than that CC zone other than apartments or residential. Now, the history behind Route 18 did not continue on beyond Route 9 until the early 80s. It stopped. There was no place to go.
They hadn't continued it. As a matter of fact, Route 18, the history there more or less ended once you got past the landing lane bridge in New Brunswick where there was apartments uh there were uh business and
then it came into East Brunswick. East Brunswick being a community that really didn't turn on until much later, right? Um, it's glaring that the only CC zone in the whole picture happens to be
the property where Wawa's was was put in. And that's the same property next door that you're asking this to go in opposite this roadway. It's all it's all homes. It's all homes. Some facing
Marbor Road, some facing the highway. interesting other exhibits that you sent out. I don't know what one this was marked as. Public public benefit package. That's A4. A4. I'll speak to A4.
There's something glaring about it. Page three. It's a billboard next to a looks like a business to me. Mhm. A4.
It's a billboard. Looks like highway with business. A6 looks like a rural area. Nothing around except the billboard. A7
picture of a billboard and a business it looks like underneath it. Chairman fair that could be a house. That's just a roof. We don't know what that is. And then on nine I think it's just a recap of all of them or others.
What one thing don't you see in any of these pictures? Homes. Homes. Well, again, that could that could be a house's roof on that one case. Well, we'll rip that one out. All the rest of them, what don't you see? Homes. And Mr. Chairman, if I may. Now, here I'm going to finish.
Okay, hold on. Apologies. I figured you need to catch your breath. Thank you. And grab some water. Have some water. Route eight. Route 18. a route 18 coming through Oldbridge from as long as I can remember prior to
85 or better was all about one and a half lanes each way. They didn't they didn't improve that until they actually cut through and join Route 18 joined from the shore coming northbound and it was going to the south. They're all homes and that's all
the apartments and homes and just greenery with uh probably unusable land probably most of it wetlands. So it wasn't until much later and this picture kind of typifies what I think you have
superimposed on this picture and I don't know if I can refer to what number this was. A3. Okay. A3 right across the street from homes. Now, I read the transcript today and I read page 41 in particular,
and this is the same mathematic realiz kind of ratio that you're trying to get the board to to believe because it says 1,000 square foot sign, it requires 500 foot from the
residential zone. Now you're seeking a conditional use under D3. But conditional use concern what conditions and what's the condition?
It has to be 500t away. Yours 380 ft. I don't know who the gentleman was speaking that night that talked about this, but I know sir, you you brought it up again tonight. uh your sign is only 380.
So the sign is now 230 from the residence and you want to use proportionalities which are two variables with equivalent ratios. Correct? So thus 500 ft would automatically be lowered to
190. Well, that's a lot of smoke and mirrors in my eyes because the fact is the feet are the feet and you don't meet 500 ft, plain and simple. Chairman, if if your suggestion is that we can't get a D3, I'm not really sure
what we're doing here. I mean, is the suggestion that D3s are just should not be allowed? I don't understand what Not whatsoever. I never said that. Well, so I just want to clarify because what you did say is the requirement is 500 ft and you don't meet it. So therefore you can't
you don't meet one of the conditions is what condition is 500 ft because why? Because there's residences across and we are seeking a variance from them and you're seeking that variance and there's going to be seven voters and you're going to need five of them to agree with you. That's all. That's the
and that's why you're here and I understand that. Yes. No one's saying that you shouldn't be here. I'm just speaking out my opinion. Understood. Okay, that's all I have to say for now. So, now that my water break is over, um, and I thank you for that respit. Um so
and I think Miss Swant captured the conundrum accurately and that is notwithstanding the history of the code evolution, the current code permits in this
district which is the only one on the highway billboards. And so again that was the reason for my early discussion about legislative intent. your governing body decided for whatever reason, I understand the history, uh that this
district is appropriate for a billboard notwithstanding the realities of the land development pattern along this highway. The D3 court case and uh literature suggests
the standard for granting the relief. Again, the presumption of the governing bodies of use is appropriate for this area. And our challenge was to demonstrate to this board based on coach and testimony and
uh uh exhibits that the site can accommodate that one deviation from your conditional use standards. And again that proportionality was just to show that while
we do not meet that particular condition conditional use standard 500 ft relatively speaking the sign dimensions are such that they are considerably smaller than that which would be permitted. Again, I'm arithmetically
challenged, but that deviation, that delta between 500 and and where we are, um, in this zone district, we're presenting an application for a considerably smaller sign at a lesser distance than the strict application of your code. We're arguing
that because of that, relatively speaking, we still um meet the intent of the code. But more importantly, our argument is the site can accommodate that deviation from your um D3 number six standard.
Okay, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have anything other on uh witnesses? No other witnesses, chairman. Okay. Mind if I stay seated? Of course. Thank you. How about if I uh go to the public before you sum? Of course. I assume that's what you're
going to do, right? Yes, that would be the next step. Thank you. All right. What's the number on this sheet up there? I have it buried under here. 2024. Yeah. Thank you. Uh for the public,
we're going to open it up now. It's 49-2024Z outfront media. This is the physical location of 1449 Highway 18 in Oldbridge for a multi- message sign. If there's anyone here in the room that wish wishes to be heard on this matter, please raise
your hand or stand. I assume you're not raising your hand back there, sir. Right. No. Okay. Uh, no one has. I'll close the public portion. Thank you, Chairman. Back to you, Mr. Weiss. So, just to sum up, thank you all for
your time, your comments, and your consideration of our application. As you heard through testimony tonight and back in May, Outfront is proposing here to construct what we're calling a 10 and a half by 36 LED outdoor advertising sign. Just a reminder, it will actually be
slightly smaller than that number, but for you know purposes of ease, we're we're just calling it here in the sum up 10 by 36, but the site plan has the actual dimensions. The height will be 37 1/2 ft. And of course, it will be at this this property we're discussing
discussing. Uh just to remind the board, the site has already been reviewed and approved by the New Jersey Department of Transportation and Outfront holds a outdoor advertising permit for this location. Of course, we we showed you the new one we got two months ago tonight. What we've shown here today is
that the application accom proposes accommodations that will offset the deviations from the distance requirement from the resial zone standard and importantly that there will not be any substantial negative impacts on the residential uses or zones. You of
course heard testimony back in May from Mr. Antl who is the general manager about Front's New Jersey branch as to the billboard's operations, maintenance, and use. The board is a digital contract, but it will not flash, blink, or be animated. And it will operate in
full accordance with all of NJ DOT's regulations. And just to be clear about that, if Upfront were to design this board to do any of those things, they would not just be risking their permit for this board, they'd be risking their outdoor advertising license. And I can promise you, they do not want to risk 3,500 signs across New Jersey just to
put some animations on on one sign. Um the messages so therefore will be static for 30 secondond intervals as is required by old Bridg's code and then change instantaneously. Again it goes static message to static message. There's no transition. It just you you
could see it if you you know see other signs in the area. It just goes message to message. It's very quick. Um, as we heard, the digital sign offers multiple benefits to local advertisers, the municipality, and the region by being readily accessible for emergency and municipal messaging. And this, of
course, includes responsive emergency messaging such as Amber Alerts, silver alerts, excuse me, FBI messaging, and other public emergencies. Um, in addition, Outfront has offered, like it does to all of its municipal partners, to provide public ser service messaging to the town when it is available if the
town chooses to use that messaging. Um, Outfront also will agree to turn the sign off at either 11 p.m. or again, whatever time the board would require as a condition of approval. um you know again we can discuss in deliberation
what the board would like that to be if the board were considering looking favorably upon this application. Um outfront would then again turn the sign back on at whatever time the board would suggest. Um during that time the sign will be off and the screen will be black um you know during whatever period that
we we were to decide on. Other benefits of a digital sign include crisp and clear imaging as well as directed light. Um Mr. Mr. Bo testified that the sign operates through multiple LED modules which contain internal louvers that direct lighting to the roadway. For this
reason, there are no impacts in our opinion, as you heard from Mr. Williams, to any residential uses or zones. Further, our experts testified that this is a passive use that does not contain any of the typical site plan concerns you normally see. The copies change
remotely from Outfront's uh computers in Spokane, Washington. There's no traffic, no storm weather issues, and no noise. We're only seeking uh relief for one deviation from the conditional use standards, which of course, as we've discussed a little animatedly here, is a
D3 variance. Um we're requesting the D3 variance because we will of course not meet the distance of 500 ft from the nearest residential zone. Um as Mr. Williams testified, the requirements for meeting a D3 variance are laid out in Covenantry Square versus Westwood Zoning
Board of Adjustment. Um there are positive and negative criteria like with a normal D1 use variance, but those standards are less strict for a D3. We believe we have shown that we meet those criteria. Um as Mr. Williams discussed the board must consider for the positive
criteria whether the failure to take whether the failure to meet sorry the standard at issue materially a affects the appropriateness of the site for the use which takes into account the legislative intent and whether the site can accommodate the problems associated with the provision at issue here the
legislative intent is to buffer billboard uses from residential zones and uses and the application accomplishes that without meeting the exact 500 foot requirement of the code Um the residential uses are buffered by vegetation that is thick enough that we believe even when trees are not on uh
leaves are not on the trees rather uh there would be minimal effect and the helms themselves are almost 400 ft away from the sign location because they are set so far back from route 18. Um the site is appropriate as it is along a major highway in route 18. It is in the
correct zone the CC zone and it's surrounded on its side of the road by other commercial uses. um it meets every other requirement of the conditional use under the code. For those same reasons, the sign can accommodate the problems with the conditional use provisions. The sign size is a factor here. Um you know,
we I think we've debated this more than enough, but just to clarify one more time, the point we are trying to make, just to be clear for the board, is not that we're suggesting that we deserve an automatic approval for our variance because we are more than than 190 ft away from the residential uses by doing
that math. The point is simply that we we believe and we are positing to the board that because we are proposing a sign that is significantly smaller than what's allowed, the impact is significantly less. And so if you think about it and you were to say it should be, you know, 200 ft is about 40% of 500
and we are a little less than 40% of 1,00 the imp if you were to just do it a comparison for impact purposes, it might be the case that being more than 200 ft away from residential uses would suggest that the impact would be negligible. And that we believe is the case given the
distance, given the lighting, given the fact that we're going to turn off the board at night, and given the uh the forestry over there by the the residences. As to the negative criteria, we've shown that there's no substantial impact on the surroundings. The sign will be
oriented towards the roadway and the near nearest nearest residential uses are again significantly set back from route 18. um the grant of the conditional use can be reconciled with the legislative intent for the reasons I just went over, but also specifically because billboards are intended to be allowed in the CC zone and along Route
18. Miss Sant talked about the fact that, you know, in 2015, uh the town began considering removing the CC zone along Route 18. And of course, if that zone had been removed or we were to come here at a time when that zone did not exist here, we would need a D1 variance.
That's not under dispute. But the CC zone is still there. Um, and CC on Route 18 is allowed by the legislature. I, you know, I understand the board's concerns about the history and the character of the area, but the the
governing body did explicitly allow as a conditional use billboards in this zone along Route 18. This is the only place and the property next door at the Wawa where a billboard could even theoretically be along Route 18. the the governing body has has put the zoning
board in a bit of a tough spot. We'll we'll admit that. Mr. Williams talked about that and Muan talked about that as well. But as long as we meet the requirements for the D3 variance, our opinion is that the board has to grant it and we are confident that we have met those requirements under Coventry by
going through the test as Mr. Williams did and as I just recapped. Um, just to remind you of the Wilson case, the an enactment that is part of a larger statuto framework should not be read in isolation, but in relation to other constituent parts, so that a sensible meaning may be given to the entire
legislative scheme. The deliberating body, in this case, the zoning board, also must be guided by the legislative objectives sought to be achieved by enacting the statute. The code again does allow billboards along Route 18 under certain conditions in the CC zone.
We meet all of them, but one. The problem with that one is that there is nowhere along Route 18 that you could meet that requirement. So again, the governing body put the board in a tough spot, but we do meet the legislative
intent. Nowhere else could meet that unless we were to move this to the Wawwa next door, which I think we'd be having the same comments and concerns from the board if that were the case. So you know that it would not be a much different application. The council did not intend to ban billboards along Route 18, even putting
aside the zones that billboards are allowed along uh or allowed in rather. Route 18 is explicitly named in the code as a place where billboards can be. Again, I understand the board's concerned about the character here, but we have done our best by making this board small by agreeing to turn it off at whatever time
the the board would like us to by meeting every other requirement of the conditional uses to meet the intent here, which again is to allow billboards on Route 18. Even if you were to not take into account the zones that are allowed, it says right there in the code that billboards should be allowed
conditionally along Route 18 in certain zones. But we are in that one. This, in our opinion, is the best spot along Route 18 for a billboard. It's near other commercial uses, and again, it is small enough such that it won't have a substantial negative impact on nearby residential uses. Furthermore, um, and
we discussed this at the last hearing, given the NJ DOT regulations, which require 3,000 ft of linear separation on the same side of the roadway between multi-me signs and the fact that there are no other appropriate zones along route 18 and Oldbridge, this will be the only billboard here. Again, we're
proposing something pretty small that we are confident would not have impact on the nearby residents. And I think, you know, to Mr. Williams' point, those residents were, you know, did not show up as as to whatever effect that is, the residents did not show up to suggest
they're concerned about it. Um, it is ultimately the board's requirement to be concerned about those residents for them and we respect that. But we do believe that we have designed this in the only way possible to meet the legislative intent while not having a substantial
impact. And again, there can't you don't have to worry about other billboards coming in here. This can be the only billboard like this along Route 18 in in the in Old Bridge. Even if you were to think about a non-multimessage board, if you were to think about one of the other static boards that we that you've seen
of SH around, those have to be at least 300 feet away. That can't be the case either. Again, the CC zone is the only one right here where where billboards can be along Route 18. So, you know, you if if the board were to look favor favorably upon this, this would be the
only one here and it would it would not affect the nearby residences. Um, so we for all the reasons say it earlier and for the numerous benefits which we have outlined in our testimony and throughout the entire application outfront respectfully cores, I've been talking a long time.
Outfront respectfully requests that this board approve the application and grant the requested D3 conditional variance relief to allow an outdoor advertising sign at this location. Thank you again for your time. Thank you, counselor. Mr. Buckley, this is a use variance. And
are the bulks still Oh, I'm I'm sorry. You have comment? Yeah. I just if we have any I um I'm reading my notes from the previous meeting on uh May 1st and
it says that uh Ben asked the engineer, "How far would you see the sign?" He answered that while you would be able to read it, you'd see roughly um 1,000 ft uh light from 1,000 ft. Is that is that accurate?
So, unfortunately, the engineer is not here. I'm going to do my best to to put on my engineering hat. So, I apologize. We have that in the in that transcript. That is what he said, but I just want to clarify a little bit. Yeah, I'm not disputing that he said that. I just want to clarify a little bit. So, what he was talking about testifying? Are you testifying?
She asked me to clarify his his testimony. Okay. Is that all right? Yeah. Thank you. So, so what he was talking about is is the not the illumination of the sign, but the luminance. You can see light
from much further away than it impacts. His testimony was that the impact of the light, the illumination would be limited to 0.3 ft candles over ambient within 187 ft of the actual sign itself. Of course, you know, you see you can see anything from much further away. You can
see light. That does not mean the light actually impacts you. So, that was his testimony that you could you could see the light. You can perceive the billboard being there from about 1,000 ft up the road, but that does the light itself is not impacting up to 1,00 ft.
That would just it's directional. Yeah, that wouldn't affect the residents. I mean, I I don't understand the I mean, so luminous light. It's I tried to do my best. I apologize. Yeah. Uh, so Mr. Williams' testimony was
that due to the foliage and the distance, because they're not looking directly at the billboard, they would not be impacted in the same way. It's meant to be directed towards the roadway. That is our testimony, and that's that's what we're attempting to do here. We we have no interest in in impacting the residents. I promise you we would, you know, we would not be
designing this in the way that it would. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Miss Santan, did the bulks disappear or are they still in in play? They're still there. Minimum lot area,
minimum lot width, and minimum front yard setback. Right. So, they're not they're they're existing non-conforming. I understand. But we would if if we if the D3 passes, we would still have to vote on them. Correct. I would think you would probably want
them on the record, right? If they're existing conditions, you wouldn't have to They're not being expanded. No, they're not changing them, right? They're not changing. If they're not changing at all, you wouldn't have to existing. You need the microphone. So, in the past too, when they're
existing nonconformities, we have really So in the past two uh with existing nonconformities we have not taken a different vote because they're existent. Is that working? It's on. Yeah. Let's choose this one.
No, it's working. One more time. Well, the simple answer is we don't have to. Right. We don't have because basically there's been no expansion of the existing nonconformities. Okay. If I'm understanding correct and what we're doing does not
touch those non-conformities at all. Right. Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure I covered you. No. I appreciate it. Chairman, I should address that. We're seeing uh so we come down to simply voting simply simply voting on a use variance a D a D3 conditional use variance.
Correct. Simply yes. Yes. Simply board members, if uh someone is in favor of moving this for an approval on a D3 conditional use variance, please do so. Is someone interested in moving this for
denial? Chevro denial. Second. Okay. If there's going to be a vote now on denial, don't forget you must say reason and it's yes to deny, no not to deny. So
it's just opposite of the other vote. So there's a first and a second reason. Oh, hold on. Oh, okay. I thought something was going on, but I didn't know. Uh, Miss Chevier and Mr. Sky no second as the D3 to deny.
Roll call. Mrs. Andrews. Yes. Mavier. Yes to deny. That you're going to have to say something as why you're saying you're denying. Yes to deny. And why? And why? Wait. Hold on.
Hold on. She can reach this one, right? Yeah. Yeah. I'm concerned about the residents, but I'm also concerned about the traffic and where it is in my estimation driving along 18, which is a very um to me
treacherous road. Um I I just can't see it not being um a distraction. Thank you. You can continue with the role, Mr. Yes. to deny you don't meet all the
criteria positive criteria for the residents. You're going to need this. Unfortunately, we are in a bad position with the CC zone. I think it wasn't possible. We just didn't get to do it with the 2015 master plan. However, the
rest is EDO3 and these type of signs aren't permitted there. As far as you saying that the homes are set back 500 ft, that was intentionally done, I'm sure, 35 years ago to keep the residents away from the thing. So whether there's
foliage or not, I still think it's invasive. And this is a residential area that your sign still will glow into. So you didn't meet the D3. Your shortage on your footage. Continue the roll. There you go. This one's not going to go
that far. Mr. Spagnner, thank you. Yes to deny. Once again, I do not agree with the foliage and the clearance of the brightness from the sign will affect the residents. I've been down that road a number of times.
Thank you, Mr. Stoner. I'm gonna say no. Oh, no. No, he's saying no. So he's fine. No, it'll be Miss Testy. Oh,
yes. Did the deny um doesn't meet the 500 ft criteria. Thank you, Miss Gomez. Yes, to deny. I'm concerned about the lighting effects with the residents there and they the um the crane tests.
They didn't do it in the winter time. chairman. Well, for all the aforementioned reasons, uh, I'll address a couple. Uh, probably there's no residents here because they're not in the 200 foot zone. So, they wouldn't have got they
probably wouldn't got called or notified because they're beyond that. Uh, this sign is 230 foot from the residents properties where 500 uh is
necessitated. And I don't I don't see the variable equivalent ratios that were presented. Uh the foliage is described as a forest and it's far from that. I think uh A3 I think you
said A3 clearly depicts that it's not a forest. So I don't I don't agree with that either. I don't think the site is suitable. The site's not suitable because why is that CC zone carved out there? I don't know. Did they miss taken off that the billboards? Well, it really
doesn't matter because they are a conditional use, but I'm not going to vote for it. So, my answer is no. I'm sorry. My answer is yes to deny. Councelor, that would be it. The application's been denied, but thank you for your presentation.
Thank you, Commissioners. Yes, ma'am. Yes, of course. Uh, we're going to take a fivem minute recess. I think we have You're going to stay on, but you need a break. We need to reset. We'll be back and try and make it five minutes possible.
Sorry, we're back on the record from the recess. Certainly. Mrs. Andrews present. Miss Chevier here. Mr. Scognu here. Mr. Stoner here. Miss Testie here. Miss Gomez here. Chairman Sullivan.
I'm here. Oh, he took your microphone. I don't have a microphone. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. So sorry. Oh, shoot. No, I know. I promise. We're usually running much more tighter sh
[Music] One, two, one, two. Go again. One, two. Test. Okay, we're back on the record. Uh, we've had a roll call. Uh, again, I want to apologize uh to to everyone here this evening. the technical difficulties that we've had uh
due to the storm uh which yesterday took out a major component in here that we couldn't uh broadcast. So, we're working under a little disabling conditions, but thank you all for your cooperation. I want to make an announcement at this point. U the rules of the of the board
are the meetings are from 7:30 to 10:30 with testimony to stop at 10:00 and uh with the 30 minutes remaining for public portion. The problem is tonight we went way over on the last application and those are the people that are sitting in here. Uh in front of us we have one more
application and then two more residential uh homeowners with with matters. I'm asking them uh to if they would agree to not come on tonight because I I can't fit them in. It's just we're going to go too long. They've been
kind enough to accept so they don't sit here for another 45 minutes. They've sat here all night and I truly apologize for that. But uh I sometimes have no control over the testimony and the length of the testimony. They have agreed uh to both be put on the very our very next meeting
on 10:16. I tell you when I'm telling you you're putting you're going to be put on first. There's one person coming for a vote. Then your two applications will be next. So we start at 7:30. I can anticipate you being on before 8:00. So,
please uh I'm going to try my best uh to get this other application out of the way tonight and I don't mean to diminish your application, Mr. McGowan. Uh we we'll work around it. Once again, I want to thank you as residents of the community. Obviously, we're all residents here. I know that you're you
were very patient tonight. I can only offer my apologies, but I can offer you that these applications will be put on. I'm going to read them into the record right now. 17-2025Z, that's Anthony Frankenro. Uh that's the physical location is 492nd Street in Oldbridge. Uh and the other
one is 19-2025Z. That's Nathaniel Cruz. That's 259 Amboy Road in Manowan. And those applications will not be heard this evening. They are being moved to October 16th. There'll be no further notice. And I once again
thank you very much for your patience both both of you. Okay. And and Mrs. Uh Frank, Fran, Cona, Franken Arrow, and Cruz. Thank you very much. Okay. All right. Having said that, we're going to move forward. I hope uh this is uh
ladies, we're being picked up on the recorder. Uh 06-2025Z. It's 2Gor Farm LLC, Oldbridge Point. This is blocks 5,000 50005 50006 lots 20
1-9 1-29 Lucy Drive, Lola Drive, and Port Frame Road for solar lighting. We're seeking amended preliminary and final subdivision. Robert McGawan representing the applicant. Mr. McGowan. Good evening. Yes, my name is Robert McGawan. I'm here representing the
applicant 2G poor LLC. A housekeeping question. Now that all this has been restored, do I still need to produce a transcript for tonight? Counselor, uh, I don't Are we back on live cable?
Yes, we are. I can't promise that that that it will go if a transcript is needed, we will have. But what I've also been told was we were going out over YouTube live. Okay. So, that would be there.
Okay. Am I correct, Jake? All right. So to you, sir, I appreciate then. You're willing to stay whatever. We owe you. Okay. I thank you so much. All right. We'll just give a brief
moment for the stenographer to Are you okay? All right. Okay. Okay. Goodbye. And thank you for being here tonight. It was a rough night for you. All right, Mr. McGowan. All right, you can proceed.
The uh the application of course was uh here through the last couple of years at this point. Uh the subject of the application um is a completely well not completely finished development. There's still the final site improvements. The the road
has to be paved. Some cleanup issues have to occur. But all the homes have been sold. Uh there were 35 uh there were 35 homes altogether. Uh of them 17 were duplexes. Then there was a single
included in that because of the incredibly uh insistence of uh our your planner. uh there are in fact seven affordable homes that were sold to the people and if you go there you would
intention because of the intent of how this was approved you would have great difficulty telling what's affordable and what was market uh so this is quite a unique development uh and it I think it is gone well and I think it is you know
a great improvement for the area what happened in the transition was that as uh it was being developed and they were working with J uh Jersey Central Power and Light uh and trying to analyze the cost both of the construction and the
after cost because the roads are private. Uh they are not going to be maintained by Old Bridge. They're going to be maintained by the homeowners association. As a result, the lighting is also going to be paid for by the homeowners association. So as the
developer analyzed the installation costs and then the eventual costs, it became clear uh that the eventual cost and as we know energy rates have continued to climb and in fact is kind of a political issue in the state at this point at as the advancement of
those rates uh with the solar the homeowners association will realize substantial savings. So with that, it was redesigned to do solar. Uh it was an oversight and an unintentional error that it never
cleared through um engineering here in Oldbridge. Uh our engineer went through it, redesigned it, went back and forth, everyone agreed on it. There was some confusion as to who was going to submit it, and I think each thought the other
was, and it didn't get submitted. Um and so as a result uh where Nabia could have been in engineered approval uh with further consideration and because we do have a variance in the height our poles are 19 ft where only 18 feet are are
allowed. Um we are now before the board for this variance waiver I'm sorry waiver I'm sorry for the waiver. Um, so that's what we're here for tonight is to talk about the lighting to see how it impacts the
community, see how it lines up, whether it serves the purposes, do we have any other uh deviations uh from what the the code requires uh and how does this fit into the community? Uh what I'd like to have is John Vincenti sworn in. He is a
representative, the applicant and the owner. Um and provide a little further background for you. Swear from Yes, I do. State your name and spell your name.
My name is John Vincenti. V I N C N TI. I um I'm employed by Level 10 Development, the developer of the property. I am the director of development. I'm also a licensed engineer and planner. Although um we
have our engineer here to give the expert testimony really just to to give some of the background and fact facts associated with this testifying as to I'm testifying to the as to circumstances around around um uh the
the the lighting design. Okay. So you you're a professional engineer and you're a professional player. Yes. But he's mostly testifying as I understand. We'll recognize his credentials certainly. He's testified before this board before. Yes, he has. So as as Mr. McGowan indicated, the
community is is is pretty well built out. Um the roads are paved. Uh the base course is in. Uh we anticipate um final uh landscaping, final paving all completed by by um by no November. When we first anticipated and and made our
application uh for 35 homes, we proposed um that the roads would be publicly owned, publicly maintained by by the township. And during um the uh staff reviews
um we made the switch that the that that the uh improvements would be owned by the homeowners association. Um the original anticipation was that uh like any public right ofway, JCPNL being the local utility, they have a a street
lighting program where the utility would would come in uh essentially the developer pays JCPNL to put the infrastructure in. Um uh it's a a wired um system and basically the um street
lights are then paid directly and build to directly to to the municipality and the township pays the bills. In the case of a a private property or private development, JCPNL's policy and and it
changed a number of years ago, they will not um entertain that type of arrangement even though um the look of the community may suppose or presuppose that that um these are typical
residential roads because they are maintained um by a private entity. JCPNL wants to kind of get out get out of um something that they don't make money on. Um and in this particular case, we we um
performed an outreach to JCPNL and they made it clear that they had no intention of um uh entertaining the um the the street program for for this community. So, we evaluated um a cost
um long-term and short short-term cost of operating the lights, maintaining the lights of the homeowners association um as opposed to um with with two different options. One is that the the traditional
um wired hardwired option um where uh the homeowners would be would be build uh on a monthly basis just like you get your bill for for electric at your house. And we we evaluated also the alternative of of solar. The benefit of
the solar is really towards the monthly um nut that the homeowners association would have to pay. There is no um there's no electric bill. Um they're 100% solar operated. Um
the long-term savings is substantial when when we performed the financial analysis and the analysis that we performed was based on 2003 rates. We performed it in 2004 and as as you all
well know um the um monthly uh rates that everyone in the state pays have escalated dramatically. Um as homeowners typically we're seeing 20 to 25% 24%. Um
but the street lights accounts are commercial in nature. So there would be a even a larger escalation to to the to the homeowners for this. Um the costs to the developer are are essentially are
essentially the same. Um we had to pay for the lights. We had to install them. Um the um actual infrastructure costs um of the underground installation um uh is is not necessary with with the solar.
there's no there's no wiring associated with it. Um the uh upfront costs though are a little bit more expensive uh to to the developer and and we felt the long-term benefits though really weighed very uh largely on the the small
incremental up upfront costs. Um and we're seeing our homeowners benefit bit of uh quite frankly. Um we're going to turn over the association. We have probably a $50,000 um um um budget
surplus that the homeowners are going to are are are going to get the benefit of um with with our um um reserve analysis that that we did. Um and you know, the idea is when we turn it turn over the community fully fully built, the
homeowners have a a a good good reserve. um and the um lack of paying JCPNL um played a large part in that. Um so we're here for an amended site plan approval that really just uh
memorializes the lights that we've we've installed. Uh as Mr. McGowan indicated, um we had our engineer do an analysis the lighting plan that we came up with respect to lighting intensities. um for all intents and purposes uh the
illumination um is is equal um to what uh was originally shown on the plan and I think that's borne out and documented in the um the review memo that uh your consulting engineer prepare prepared. Um
the only real difference is the fact that um these particular um light fixtures are mounted higher than the 13 ft uh lantern style. Um we have a mounting height of what we believe to be 18 ft. Um the middle of the um structure
of the the fixture is 19 ft above grade. um to the top of the uh solar panel is an approximately an additional 3 to 3 to 4 feet above the 19 ft. Um your ordinance um puts the mounting height
requirement at at 18 ft maximum. So technically we're we're seeking a waiver for that height. Um, but we we think um the aesthetics associated with these lights are are different than than what
you see um with your your typical um uh lantern style. We we we think they're a little stylish. The other benefit to these lights quite frankly is is the luminere is not really um real evident uh with with the lantern style. Um that
light bulb is evident to to the to the eye. This this partic particular fixture has has an LED that's u mounted to the bottom. So the light is projected down. So if you're in the house on the second floor, you really don't see that um the
light bulb visible. So even though it's a little bit higher, we do not believe that um it it is an impediment to the to to the visibility of of the residents. As a matter of fact, we have gotten um no comments, no complaints from from our
from the residents in the community. Now, um there were some questions um in um the the review letter um that dealt with um why why we did this and and and
really it was twofold because JCPNL wouldn't wouldn't support the community. Um um and um because of the cost savings generated to to the homeowners association um there's a question with
respect to how the energy is stored um um how it's collected by the so solar panel. So there there are batteries there's there's a battery pack integral to the panel uh underneath mounted to
the panel and that battery gets the energy during the day and then expends it during the during during the evening hours when when the the light is working. There's no interconnection be from one um light pole to the other. Each one is all self self-contained. Um
there is a useful life of those batteries. Um it it's a module that we that is popped out and and and replaced. Um that replacement cost is all was all built into the uh financial analysis uh that that we provided to the township
when we made this application that was that uh financial analysis was required by Nicole Shapiro and we provided that uh as part of the part of the application. So, um the financial benefit is is as I've indicated is
significant. So, question about the lighting of the tot lot. The tot lot is is really uh not uh intended to be um utilized after after dusk. Um the lighting illumination levels in the rear
um culdesac area are are similar to um exa act actually exactly the same as what was previously approved uh in in the lighting plan. Um, so in summary, um, I know Kevin, our engineer, is going
to go through, uh, the other bulk issues in in the review letter, but that's that's the reason behind this um, and why we are here seeking um, the waiverss and an amended site plan dealing solely with um, with the light the lighting
issues. And because it is an amended site plan, we did give notice unlike the presentation before us. Our people were all notified that we are doing this and they obviously saw it. So
all right. Uh thank you Mr. Vicente. Mr. Dari, thank you Mr. Chairman. Um we do have a review memo uh dated and I just had it on my screen and it left me. Give me one second. July 28th. July 28th. Thanks, John. Um,
Mr. Vincenti did provide some of the testimony we' requested and I guess in the interest of of brevity in the the late hour. Uh, I'll just summarize our concerns. I did get a chance to speak to Miss Shapiro um earlier today about this application. I mean, it's been it's been
a few months. We met out there back last spring. Uh, may actually been early spring, I think, when we met out there. Probably around um February. Yeah. Okay. Late winter. Uh in any case, our our concerns were
obviously the lights were installed without, you know, without us knowing that that the fixtures had changed. Um the concerns were the height of the lights, which the the approved lights for this development were uh under a little under 13 ft. They were 12.75 ft
height. Um it was more of a decorative light light fixture that was that was to be installed. That was the standard JCPNL light that that Mr. Vincenti was uh describing what what is installed is you know quite a bit taller. The actual light element itself is about mounted at
about 18 ft. The the fixture is about 19 ft. Then there's a solar uh panel and battery and everything that that goes up to I guess about 21 22 feet in height. Uh the concern was the height of the element being near the second floor um
uh windows. the locations of the lights also is different right from where it was on the approved plans were I'm sorry it's the it is where the they were supposed to be on the approved plans but they they do wind up being proximate to to the to the windows and I guess the cons you said you guys haven't got any
complaints right John but my understanding from Nicole is that she has received some concerns from some residents I don't know if that's been conveyed to to you or to Ryan Holmes it it has not I'm the president of a homeowners association I've conducted
the meetings and not one resident has um has uh made any comments with respect to um the lighting. The only comments we've we've received from the community members or they want to look at the finances and and we provided them with
with that. Then the other concern that that we had and and I was I'm looking in my files to see if I can find the the financial analysis that you referred to because I I didn't see it in my uh my files here. I noticed I noticed that you did not um
address it in in the items. I I I know that it was um provided both digitally and hard copies because I provided both personally. Okay. Um, and that's, you know, it it was, I think, conspicuously opposite.
Yeah, it's not in our memo. You didn't get it. I kind of figured you didn't get, right? And and that's and I don't know that Nicole's seen it either because her and I had this very same conversation today. Um, and I know it's hearsay, but uh, but we had uh the same same conversation today. The concern that we
have and and just down to brass tax is HOAs. I've never met anyone any HOA that is flushed with cash. Never, especially 20, 30 years down the road. And our concern really is that these lights um
the the the maintenance of the batteries and the and the fixtures, which happens throughout. And then eventually there's going to need to be more of an wholesale kind of replacement of these of either the batteries or fixtures. And our concern is that the HOA is going to basically be coming to beat down the
township's door to take ownership of these lights and replace them. And that's something that we obviously are concerned with and we're trying to head off and and our thinking of heading that off was to make sure that there's a natural reserve. And I'm glad you referred to the reserve because because that's our idea as well. You know,
brilliant minds think alike. So So we wanted to see what what that reserve would be, right? like like how much are we putting aside and designating specifically with a bright label that says this is for these lights. Don't go beating down the town's door in 20 years.
So, so both versions of the of the budget and the reserve studies that we did had money in both budgets for lights. the issues of replacement, replacement of the light fixtures, the light posts,
the in infrastructure, the wiring versus the solar and the batteries was always in the the lighting was always in the budget from from from the get-go. The maintenance responsibilities were always
in the HOA documents. Naturally, there are two different calculations associated with with with that because of the need to replace wires versus not needing to replace wires. The need to to to replace light
bulbs is basically the same, right? The poles is basically the this the same cost. The fixtures um are are very similar. the the the there is a cost associated with with the the solar and the battery and and we took that into consideration in both budgets that were
done initially when when it was wired and and and now when it when it's solar the real big cost differential is the monthly nut paying those bills for for electric and that's what really really makes the difference long long
term. So when we met with um in in in in February, it was very clear that that was um an issue and in the followup um correspondence between the township engineers office and our office that was
made pretty clear to us. Um and that's what why we we did provide the two different reserve anal analysis and and budgets. Um, so I guess and we we believe, you know, we we've
we've um met that met that standard. So the I haven't had a chance to look at that reserve analysis. Obviously both either of those analyses. Um, initially when the board approved the the application here, I think the understanding was that
JCPNL would be doing the, you know, maintenance and and and all that stuff. So I understand that you did the two analysis to to demonstrate that hey listen we intend now since JCPL is not in the picture we either would install the
standard lights or these solar lights and here's the difference between these solar lights and standard lights. So, so what I'm getting at is either way now we're we're we're we're basically approving a or being asked to approve something where the HOA is going to be maintaining these lights and we
just need to see the analysis to make sure that there is um there's going to be money in 20 years or whatever to to replace these lights if if there needs to be. The only um thing for the in the interest of moving forward here tonight
is if the board acts favorably, I I would feel comfortable if there was a an agreement that if our office and the tip engineers office reviews this and we find that there's a payment that needs to be made by by the
developer to to sort of supplement that that you agreed to that payment. And of course, you can always come back and say, you know, if if we don't agree, you can come back to the board and argue your case later. I I I would I would say um
within reason. Yes. Well, yeah. Everything's within reason, right? And if we don't if we don't agree on the number, we'll we'll come back. Right. The other the other thing that that you know um we know when when these communities are transitioned
um to the homeowners association there is a transition report that's done and they look at the finances. Another thing that we did in running um the um the uh association is we self-managed it and
and and um basically did not pay a third party to manage the association up until probably about four or five months ago. Um so there was a substantial savings associated with that. We did not pay ourselves to run the association. We're
doing that with all our communities. um especially upfront because we know that the budgets the budgets are are generally tight. That's another reason why we have a significant surplus in in the account right right now. Um that
will be made available turned over to the association. It's in a separate it's in a separate account. We collect reserves. Okay. um we we if if it's a if there's a shortfall, we kick in from our from our own pocket um to meet that budget. Um
even though we're not spending it so that when it comes time, you know, we we know the the the HOAs um are looking to be made whole at transition. And if we're transparent about it and the money sit in an account, um it's there's less
of a um a difficult transition. And that's what we're trying to to to to avoid. Personally, I I'm I'm managing probably eight homeowners associations, president of the board of of eight of our communities. I don't
want to be burdened with eight transitions that become very costly and ownorous. So, it's in in our best interest to make sure the money's there when the time time is right to turn it over. Yeah. I mean, I I hear exactly what
you're saying, and that all makes perfect sense. My my only concern is when the HOA uh takes over, they see money sitting there, and they're like, "Oh, you know, we have money here. We we need something that that and maybe this is written into your documents. We need
to see it. We need something that says, "Hey, HOA has been advised. These lights are yours, and there's going to be a long-term cost." And and I know and I want to see it. And because my problem is always they, you know, it's human nature. you know, they they're looking to to to cut their costs. They're
looking to ma balance their budgets and they're like, "Well, maybe our HOA fee doesn't have to be $120 a month. Maybe it can be $90 a month because John left us all this money." And so so that's, you know, we want to make sure that that there there's some controls in place
because I I I know you see it on your end and on my end, you see it too. What's that? You you see? Yeah, I see it on my end. And on my end, what I see is HOAs at least, you know, a few a year. I, you know, I'm sitting through township committee meetings where people come to complain about
their trash co the cost of their trash, the cost of their lights, the cost of their roads. Some HOAs don't even know that they that they are responsible for the roads and, you know, they have their residents coming to committee meetings asking for the roads to be repaved. So these are all things that probably go beyond this lighting issue we're talking
about, but I just want to make sure that this lighting issue is addressed crystal clear in those documents and in the in the financial proform you're talking about. The the the HOA documents were also submitted with the application. Yep. I will review those as well.
just I'd just like to add to that the thought that while it makes sense to look that we've properly set it up and we've and the budget that uh the developer has established is a reasonable budget and it has appropriate
reserves and so forth. There is no way that any of us can guarantee what the future homeowners association is going to do. I mean your point Resh that they may look at just like town councils sometimes look at all of this money they
have in reserve and an election is coming up and so we're going to uh you know not increase taxes this year when really a proper planning should say you should maintain the budget that you have. So, all I'm saying is we can show
that we've set it up properly for the homeowners to be protected and if they continue to operate in a in a proper manner uh and follow the guidance that we've given them, they should be in great shape. But we none of us can control what they may do in the future.
I thought DCA was making homeowners associations uh establish budgetary constraints that they have to have enough money in order to be covering. Is it DCA or it's
a did the state enact something? I'm I'm on a homeowners association. That's why I'm I'm I'm questioning that. I I believe it's the DCA, right? And what they're requiring is uh uh it might be annual or bianual, but it's it's it's
what's called a reserve study. Yes. Okay. So the reserve study is uh not intended to um to uh account for your uh daily operations, but it's your rainy day. It's your rainy day fund.
Okay. And and and to to to tell you where we are with our reserve, our our total budget is $69,000. That's what um that's what we collect on a yearly basis. I have um a $25,000
$25,000 of that $69,000 budget is the re is the annual reserve amount contribution that goes into a separate separate um account set aside for reserves. That's
the rainy day. Now, you know, the the intent is that's there for the long-term maintenance. Um which includes the paving here. It includes um you know replacing the sand in the uh in in the recharge basin. It includes the fence,
replacing the fence around the detention basin. It includes the lights. Um it includes maintenance on the retaining wall in this community. Includes uh um things things to that that nature. What I'm concerned with is JCPNL is providing electric to
everybody's home. Correct. Yes. the polls that they did. They put those poles up. No, there was a new development. So, you put the poles up. Yes. And JCPL uh JCPNL was sending electric to the pole for the street lighting
only. Yes. Totally separate that. Each homeowner gets their own bill for their own electricity. Yes. The HOA was going to share was going to pay for the electric bill. Correct. the the way well the way the way it was going to be set up, there would be separate meters
that would would power the the light fixtures and those and those the bill for those meters would go to the homeowners association as opposed to a straight bill that goes to the to the township. It's set up differently
to the township. If if this was a if this was a municipal program, there's there's no meter. There's there's no um consumption bill. There's a regular bill. The town has built x amount per light pole in in the community. If the roadway was dedicated to the
township, correct? This roadway is not dedicated to the township. So therefore, the bill went to the HOA. It would have had we done a traditional electric. Yes, I understand what happens. Who's going to fix this stuff? The HOA is responsible, right? Either either way in
this in this community either way either way the town is not going to do it. No, no. In in in with with we had an we had an option to go with the hardwired electric, but the but the the um the municipality
had would not pay for the electric bill and JCPNL would not be responsible for maintaining those utility pole th those those uh lighting poles. That would fall on the homeowners association. Right. So, we chose the solar option.
Okay. JCPNL was charging a commercial rate for to providing that. Well, whatever whatever it may be, the town wasn't paying the bills. The the HOA is paying the bill. Correct. Okay. In the in the situation where where um
the town is paying the bill and that light pole needs to be replaced. That's on JCPNL. They h they have to replace the wiring. They have to replace the light fixture. They have to fix the change the bulbs. they they have to you know that that
whole infrastructure is on them and that's where it's a loss leader to to to them. It's not the initial initial upfront cost of the installation. It's the long-term maintenance to JCPNL. That's why they're getting out of the uh
lighting business in privatelyowned developments. They're not going to sell lighting. They're out of it. They will they in no community in New Jersey if it's a private community they will they will not enter entertain enrolling that
community in the their street lighting program. They're not taking on anything new. And that's that's been now for probably around 10 12 years something like that. Well they take care of ours. They change our bulbs. That's be that's because they they that predates their change in policy.
That's what I'm saying. This is this is something new coming forward. Relatively new. Yes. What happens when this stuff breaks? It's on the ass. It's on the community, right? It's on the association. And why why is the necessity to take it from 18 to three or four foot higher
depending on it? It it it's basically the design of the of of this particular solar fixture. It needs to be higher to spread light. It's that's the way it's that's the way it's designed. It's a lantern style, but the way the the the aesthetics is not
mounting it on top of a pole. It's kind of like got a goose neck and it kind of hangs. Um it's a totally different aesthetic type of type of look. It's a lantern. It's a more um contemporary type of lantern design. And what that
does is it allow allows that um the the the light bulb, the LED fixture to be mounted flat, directed down as opposed to if it was on top of a pole, then you have to have have that um the the the
light bulb actually um visible in that lantern style in the in the four um four walls of the glass. So it's out of necessity that you did this, not not just out of choice. The height because of the way it works. It's because so the board can understand.
It's because of this part particular fixture design. That's correct. Yes. And basically you're here ask you want the board to amend the plan to allow for this. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. It's they're asking for an amended site plan to revise the lighting design and then there's also design
waiverss that are associated with it. Okay. Are you going to have other another witness? has questions. Let me I'm going to see if the board does, but I'm saying you're going to have another way. We do have the engineer if there are any questions. Okay. Well, let's go. Let's go see if the board has any question. And council, you have any Oh,
how was the homeowners that I'm I'm assuming they're not in their homes just yet, or are they? They are. How were they notified about this dilemma? So um about this this meeting they were given a
no about the change of the and and and were they so you know was it explained to them that so inherent HOA excuse me and like he stated you know HOAs I I've had a HOA I had a condo and they're unpredictable and was this
explained to them because I'm sure they bought it thinking oh the the you know the township the city light, yada yada yada. From the get-go, the the the homeowners association documents were clear that
the lighting was to be maintained and paid for by the by the association. Okay. Okay. So, it was it was always disclosed. Now, at that time, it was understood or contemplated that it would be electrical,
but it was not it was understood by us or said that the township would would pay that. So now you're saying the HOA No, no. So when we first came in with the application, we wanted it to be a
township road. When the application was discussed and ultimately approved, it was made clear by staff that they said no, the town does not want to maintain this. Then you advised it potential owners. It was it was reviewed and and approved.
Then what happens is we create the homeowners association documents. This is before any marketing is done. Okay. Okay. The HOA documents say lighting is maintained and cost uh the cost is borne
by the the residents. Okay. That information is disseminated. Okay. It didn't say you put me at ease. Okay. It didn't say um hardwired electric lights. It says it says electrical lighting. There was no
differentiation ever made between um solar or or hard water. They were pre-notified that it's on their that it's on their Okay. Thank you. One of the requirements of selling homes in in a homeowners association or condo
association is you have to have a public offering statement that's registered with the DCA and which is made available to all the homeowners. All that information is in there. Yep. So JCPNL will not come in there anymore. No, absolutely not.
They don't even want to. Nope. They'll put in regular lighting and No, not even this community. No, because Yeah, because it's a private roadway. That That's the I got rub. I got it. Okay. I just have a question for Mr. Dari. So,
what if like we have a bunch of other town um communities where they had an HOA and it's been dissolved? Yeah. or it just dissipated. No one even, you know, some people moved in there and said, "We've never even had an HOA when there was one." What happens
then? Does it still fall back on this community and we're ours are clean? Yeah. I mean, that's a legal question, not an engineering question. GCA takes over. But I I'll defer to our our our attorneys on that. Um, but the the HOAs
are are are are difficult at times. Um that's the reason why I my whole thing is to make sure it's crystal clear at this stage what everyone's responsibilities are and then yeah you just gota keep your fingers crossed that hoas don't dissolve right the only thing we can do is make crystal
clear at this point hopes that when it does happen if that does happen everybody think communities get taken over by DCA if they cannot sur survive. Correct. I I'm not sure.
You don't know the answer to that. I have a couple questions. I know what the answer is. They do. I believe you, but but I I don't know. I have a couple technical questions. How long have the lights been up? About a year, year and a half.
Do you ever run into problems where we've had three, four days of rain and the lights don't come on? No. No. Nope. That's what the batteries are for. So the batteries last long enough and even though it's a it's a cloudy day that you're still collecting energy from
through through the cells. How long can they go without that that battery backup? Is it a week or two weeks? I don't know if it's that long, but it's several it's several days. I I I I don't have the technical but it hasn't been a problem. Not to my knowledge. No.
Anybody else on the board? Any questions? No. Mr. Darie? I I don't have any more questions for Mr. Vincenti now. Um, do you want to hear anybody else? You know, Kevin, I just had a couple and I don't know if you had swear. I I apologize, but
Okay, let's do that. And and they're very tech very very minor technical questions. I We want to be right. Can you raise your right hand? Do you swear affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Can you state your name and spell your
Kevin Shelly? S h e l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l y Kevin you're the engineer who testified throughout this application right he has testified before uh this board before I recognize his credentials and his expertise so the only the only question I really
have is is regarding the illumination levels I I don't know if you had a chance to review our memo the the um illumination levels are different obviously a little bit because you're never going to get exactly the same right from yeah 12 and a half or 12 and 3/4t tall
uh acorn style fixtures and you went to 18t LED fixtures spread a little bit further apart. So the illumination is going to be a little bit different. The the question I have though is the um the averages that we have are they're
they're identical to the ones before. Did you guys recalculate them and they actually are identical or is that just something that was Yeah, we did we redid them. We modeled the the fixtures. We modeled them at different heights to see what gave us that same level that was approved and that's answers your question of how we
ended up at an 18t height. That's what gave us the equivalent lighting levels that were approved previously. Uh and how we ended up here. So you you worked from the those averages backwards to to make sure that Yeah. We adjusted it. We started at 15, we were up at 21. We found it at 18.
Gave us what was previously approved and consistent, which in our mind was an approved equivalent. Okay. then the height comes up. All right, perfect. That was my only real question because it it seemed like I was like, "Wow, that's that's kind of amazing." But that's if you start with that as your baseline and go from there, that's that would work.
All right. And then um let me just go down my list. I apologize. Uh I think Mr. Vincenti gave most of the testimony that we were looking for, but I think the only other one was about uplighting on the site sign. There is no lighting on the sight sign. So, okay. It looked like there were on the plan. Yeah, we contemplated it, but there is
no uplighting. It's not installed. It won't be installed. Okay, perfect. Um, and then the other comments about uh adding or updating the plans with the road names, we have no problem with that. Um, all right. I think I think that was it. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I I don't have any questions
for Mr. Jelly. I think the only thing left is and I think Mr. Vincenti agreed to the the one condition that I suggested, which is M. Shapiro and I will review uh the the um financial analysis that that that the applicant prepared and uh should we find that
there's a um a lump sum that's required to to to sort of you know uh augment um the reserve so that the lights can be replaced or or or repaired going into the future. The applicant agreed to
that. Should we not come to an agreement then the applicant would have to come back here to to so conditional conditionally you would agree to agree and if you don't you got to come back we'll come back if we can't agree then we'll have to come back to you sure let me see if the board members have any more questions for Mr. Am
I right? Have you done communities before with this lighting? We're seeing this particular light fixture. No, we're seeing this in a lot of other communities across the state. Same issue with JCPNL about not coming into private developments. Could you assure the board that this
works? And uh and yeah, they work. The the light fixtures actually look great. The they give a nice distribution. I think they're you're the professional. We're just the we're just the I I I think we see this type of fixture in a lot of communities. This exact one, they differ. There's a lot of options
out there now as opposed to just JCP now telling you here's two acorn styles. Um and they've all worked pretty uh successfully so far. Thank you, Mr. Dari. Do you feel comfortable saying that uh it it it we could safely
agree to amend the preliminary and final uh with the condition that it's uh I I do, Mr. Chairman. I think from a technical standpoint um all the standards are met. Uh the the only issue is the the long-term cost for maintenance and we're going to work that
out according to them. Okay. And this is already in happening. So the lights are in. Lights are in and yeah functional. Uh you have anything else, Mr. N? No, I do not. Anybody else have any questions of this witness or any witness?
No. Uh you want to sum or you're good? No, I say All right, board. You've heard everything. We've heard from the professionals. Uh they're putting their licenses on the line. So, uh they say it can work and we should be okay to do this. Would somebody be in favor of
amended uh major preliminary and then we'll do final. Chevier approved. Roll call, please. As to amend it, major preliminary. Mrs. Andrews, yes. Miss Chevier, yes. With the financial, Mr. Scogno, yes. Mr. Stoner,
yes. Mr. Testie, yes. Providing the financial. Miss Gomez, yes. With the financials, Chairman Sullivan, uh, yes. The major preliminary. Uh, and now to amend it final. Someone move it.
I'm sorry. Chevier and Testie. Wait a second. And test. Okay. Ready to go. Mrs. Andrews. Yes. Miss Chevier. Yes. Mr. Scogno? Yes. Mr. Stoner?
Yes. Mrs. Estie? Yes. Miss Gomez? Yes. Chairman Sullivan? Yes. Thank you. Your professionals, Mr. McGowan, and yourself. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Board. We didn't want to be here this long either, so don't feel bad. Well, thank you.
All right, please leave. Uh, not you. No, Dorene wants to leave. She's got to get to work. Uh, having nothing else. Mr. Dodgy, nothing from the township. Okay, Moren. Nothing from the township other than next meeting is
October 16th. October 16th. Board members, I don't think anybody has any final comments. Once again, Mr. Stoner, thank you for your years of service to the board. We appreciate that. Thank you. And pleasure. I'll ask you if you will call for an adjournment. Let's go home.
Okay. All in favor?