Good evening. Red Banks Zoning Board of Adjustment will come to order this 16th day of April, 2026. The time is 6:30. Roll call, please. >> And Tori, >> here. >> Raymond Mass,
>> here. Greg Fitzgerald, >> John Gild >> here, >> Anna Cruz, Vincent Light >> here, >> Paul Kagno, >> Eugene Harowitz >> here, >> Chris Havens
>> here, >> Darthothy Cerulo >> here. In accordance with New Jersey law, this meeting not meeting notice has been published in the iceberg park press and the two river times and is available on the municipal website and the New Jersey
Secretary of State's website. It is also posted on the municipal bulletin board. This meeting complies with the open public meetings act and will be tape recorded. If the applicant chooses to use the court reporter to transcribe the recordings, the board requires a copy of
the transcript. A break will occur on 8:00 p.m. in the conference room on the first floor. Public is welcome to attend, but discussions with board members will not be allowed. No new cases will be heard after 9:00 p.m. and a cut of time is 9:30 p.m. Any
applicants not heard will be rescheduled for the next meeting. Okay, we have a couple uh administrative matters. Um we have the regular meeting minutes for March 19th, 2026. Somebody
like to make a motion to approve? >> I'll make the motion. >> Okay, I'll second. >> All in favor? I >> I >> Okay, we have a resolution of approval
on 40 Riverside Avenue. >> Oops. At the request of the applicant's attorney, uh we're going to put that uh applica or that resolution on for the next meeting. And the applicant consented to that. Okay. >> I'll make a motion to approve moving that to the next meeting. I'll
>> second. All in favor? >> I >> Okay, new business. We have 273 Shbury Avenue, Mr. Kennedy. >> Okay, couple of preliminary procedural things. So, uh, before we begin, in no
particular order, first up, is there anyone here who had any questions or comments or concerns regarding the sufficiency of the notice they received? All right. Don't see any. Uh the board secretary and I reviewed the notice and found everything to be in order. So it
would be my opinion that we have jurisdiction to proceed tonight. And uh couple of things. Uh well, first up, we're going to swear in Jackie Dur, our board engineer, and Shauna Ebanks, our professional planner and director of community development. Jackie and
Shauna, do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide to the extent you provide any will be the truth, excuse me, to the best of your knowledge to help you guide. All right. Let the record reflect that both uh witnesses have been sworn and we will mark into the record what we
as a board have before us. So, one is the amended uh final major site plan prepared by Jacqueline Floring Ingenuity Infrastructure dated December 21st, 2023. last revised March 27th, 2026,
consisting of 13 uh sheets. And that's A1. And Charlene, just so you know, I'm going down through this letter, so that helps you. Uh A2 is the architectural plans prepared by CPA architecture dated April 5th, 2023. Last revised April 1st,
2026, consisting of eight sheets. A3 is the parking assessment prepared by John McCormack and that's dated January 14th, 2026. A4 is the intent to proceed dated April 6, 2023. A5 is the response to the first
engineering review letter prepared by Ingenuity Infrastructure dated April 1st, 2026. I'm just going to mark as 86 is a copy of the underlying resolution of conditional approval uh from 2023 and A7
will be the TNM Associates review memorandum dated April 13, 2026. And uh so before we turn it over to Mr. McKenna, just a couple of uh quick uh things. Number one, um Mr. McKenna, I
would take the position that uh even though there was an underlying approval, this is a quote unquote new application. So, new members of the board or people who are absent in 2023 are still entitled to vote on this and participate in this application. I'm assuming you
would agree. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. And then the other thing is uh particularly for newer members uh and our our new uh board secretary. So this is a use variance application. Other aspects of it too, but with a use
variance um only seven people will be called to to vote and an approval requires five of the seven yes votes. But even if someone on the board is not going to be one of the eligible voting members, they can still ask questions,
make comments, and say what they like, say what they don't like, and all of of those things. So against that backdrop, we'll turn it over to Mr. McKenna. Good evening. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Thank you very much. Um, I'd like to give some history because we
have new members here and maybe we can provide you with some uh background as far as what what transpired before and why we're here again. Okay. Um what happened was uh when we originally applied uh back in 2003
2023 excuse me um what we submitted was essentially almost the exact same application. Um the difference I will the difference is I'll go over with you but essentially what happened was uh we had applied for
32 units of independent housing all one-bedroom units. Um and it it was for the neuro diverse it's we call it neurodeiverse supportive housing. Uh it is for adults.
Um only one person, one resident per apartment. Um they're not allowed to have any any other people living in the apartment. And there were a myriad of reasons uh for that. But one of the
great parts about this was this was going to be the second facility of its type in the United States. Um, for those of you that did were not here and were not aware of this, um, as a result of
this approval, Redbank received national, statewide, and county, and of course local um, audits for this application because it
was once again the second of its type in the United States and it is providing a service that is so badly needed that. Um we are hoping that this will be a kickstart to similar facilities within
the state of New Jersey. In fact, uh one of the principles is involved in discussions with other uh potential parties. Um and we were hoping to be up and running here. Um and we have
come to this point where why we are here tonight is because of essentially some changes that were imposed upon us as a result of uh the county of Mammoth. Um what
happened was we had a the 32 units and we had four undersized units at the time that were included within the plans. the county came in and demanded uh in
order to allow this to building to be built um a much more significant right of way than what they had told us they were originally going to want from us. As a result of that, it required a dedication of land uh for this right
ofway that re resulted in a slight reduction in the building. But as a result of having to re re-engineer the building, so to speak, um we now have 12
undersized units as opposed to four. Um, the architectural plans, if you had the opportunity to uh to to take a look at them, the floor plans are almost same. You could it's it's very difficult to distinguish the apartments and their
differences. Um, and they're all, as I indicated, one bedroom. They all have the the same type of facilities, the same kitchen facilities, the same uh laundry facilities, all those types of things. All the elements of living there are the same. It's just that some of the
units had to be reduced in size as a result of the county's action in this particular instance. Um so what happened was um the architect who's about to
testify he uh after we were in what is called resolution compliance where uh the board voted in October of 2023 on a very extensive resolution of approval very detailed I think it was over 30
pages and um the board found unanimously that it was a beneficial use inherently beneficial use. Uh but there was one no vote at at that at that time, but six out of seven members voted yes. Um
so and we are going to assert again this evening of course that and Mr. Kennedy I'm sure will advise the board on what it means to be an inherently beneficial use. But in zoning in the zoning world
that that gives you significant leeway or significant enhancement of the likelihood of approving a project such as this because it's fulfilling a a needed service to the community.
Um so that that issue was number one as to as to um the need to redesign the building. The second issue was Jersey Central Power and Light. And I've been back before this board on problems that
arise when Jersey Central comes in because when they come in, they don't ask you where would you like to put your facility, meaning your electrical your electrical facility. They tell you where it's going to go. Period. And if you
don't like it, they won't install it. And if you for those of you that were here on Aelia Gardens, we had the exact same situation. And there is nothing you can do. They will literally they will tell you we are not going to install this. This is the only place we will
allow it to be. And if you don't like it, then we're leaving. So we had that situation. However, fortunately, the the facility that they are going to install, assuming that we are able to move forward uh has
really not done much to uh affect the variances that were granted in the past. For example, uh there was one variance that had been granted giving us a some relief from a buffer requirement. and
the variance allowed the facility to be uh 5.1 ft from the property line. As a result of JCPNL coming in and putting the facility in, that sideyard variance
goes from 5.1 ft to 3.5. So, it's a difference of about about a foot and a half. So, it's really not much of a difference at all, but it did change the variance. So now we have to ask you to grant us that variance or waiver and the
and however you want to uh couch it but we have to ask for that relief. Also, the the last element is that there was an office uh in the uh in the original
plans where we had intended to have a a professional in the building in that office that would be available to provide services to the residents. Um, it became very ev evident to us that you
could not find someone that would accept a position such as that. um unless they were able to see other people because they can't afford to just provide that service to that limited number of people
because they could no they had no way of gauging uh how how who would excuse me who they would see how often they would see them and it became impossible for us to get anyone. So, as a result of that,
we're asking that that office space be allowed to have someone from the public uh occupy the space, but in connection therewith um that would have a separate entrance. Uh it would be a separate physical phys
physical separate facility and they would even have their own parking space in the garage and their own access way. So they would not interfere with the operations in any way of the uh of the facility, the apartments. So
essentially, we're here to seek your help and relief in in addressing these three issues. Um we have had as as I indicated an an enormous amount of interest. Um we have now had a
commitment for financing for the facility and uh we've been in touch constant touch with the facility the one other one in the country with Arizona and we have now I've had in my office
over 120 inquiries as people who are interested in dealing with their adult children their children's parents of the uh adult um individuals who h who need a facility
such as this. So, um it it has tremendous interest. Um tre there is an incredible need and um as I indicated, I believe that this is without question would qualify as an inherently
beneficial use under New Jersey zoning laws. And we're asking you to consider that in your deliberations this evening. So, what I what I'd like to do is start out with the architect and let him uh explain to you uh the reason for the
change in the number of smaller rooms. And you know what? And uh >> there we go. Good evening. >> Okay. You know, uh Mr. McKenna, do you mind if we just swear in all your witnesses at once? >> No, not at all. >> Okay. Why don't all the professional
witnesses and lay witnesses stand up and we'll just swear everybody in at once. All right. Uh if you could just state your name and business address, please. >> Cristiano Pereira, CPA architecture, 641 Park Avenue. >> Your first name is
>> uh Cristiano. It's Christian. Pereira. P E R E I R A. >> P E R E R I A. >> Correct. >> Okay. Uh Jacqueline floor uh professional address uh the Galleria 2 Bridge Avenue
sweet 323 Redbank New Jersey. >> Thank you. >> John Klene, owner 25 Bridge Avenue, Redbank, New Jersey. >> Good evening. John McCormack with Dynamic Traffic, 1904 Main Street, Lake
Como. >> Thank you. >> Ed O'Neal O'Neal Architectural and Planning 65 Mammoth Street, Redbank. >> All right. If you could all raise your right hands, do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide will be the truth, the best your knowledge to help you God? Let the
record reflect all witnesses uh affirmed. And just Christian Pier, you are testifying in your capacity as architect and your licenses and uh certifications are current and up to date and good standing. >> Yes, they are. >> All right. And uh Jacqueline Flor,
you're testifying in your capacity as an engineer? >> Yes, I am. >> And your licenses, certifications are current, up to date, and in good standing? Yes, they are. >> And uh John Klein, you're the owner of the the uh or you're a member of Thrive RB LLC. >> Correct.
>> Okay. And John McCormack, you're testifying in your capacity as >> uh traffic professional. >> And your licenses and certifications are current and upto-date and in good standing? >> Yes, they are. >> And Ed O'Neal, you're testifying tonight in your capacity as >> planner. And your licenses and
certifications are current, up-to-date, and in good standing? Yes. >> Thank you. >> Very efficient. That's good. >> Cristiano, you were retained by >> uh by Thrive LLC to prepare the
architectural uh renderings that before the board this evening. >> That's correct. Yes. >> And you had prepared the original >> Yes, we did. >> plans also. Correct. >> Now, I I if you don't mind me taking a minute. Yeah, we have we have a few new members. So, if you could give us your
>> Oh, sure. My qualification. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> No problem. Uh, yes, uh, I'm an architect. Uh, uh, I have my degree from New Jersey Institute Technology. Uh, I have, uh, had my license for over 15 years. I testified between before this
board and hundreds of boards throughout the state and other states. I'm licensed also in seven other states and all my licenses are current in good standing. Okay. Uh >> okay. >> Yes. >> Um so you prepared the original set of plans >> correct and the construction documents as well.
>> Correct. Yes. Thank you. And you also uh recall that the Sean is this going through? Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. Um you also recall that the original set of plans had four undersized apartments.
>> That's correct. 2 by four. And as a result of the county of Mammoth requiring from us >> a much more significant portion of land than they had indicated previously. >> Correct. >> Um we had to adjust those plans. Correct.
>> That's correct. And would you tell the board in plain English what you had to do in order to accommodate the required uh imposition on us that the county proposed?
>> Sure. Um in plain English, we had to squeeze, right? We had a footprint uh we had the the a footprint that was uh you know initially designed not to take that into consideration. If I could actually flip to one of these sheets and I don't
know if if you have it up >> just for the record, what you're looking at is the evidence that's already been marked into the record. Correct. >> That's correct. The same one you read. Yes. >> Um, so if you can see from there this hatched area that's on the side of the brand along James Parker Boulevard. Uh,
so this hatched area is the easement that we're discussing, the the rightway easement. Um and what that did is uh it encroached into as you see the easement has a I almost say a triangular shape and encroached and pushed our building essentially the footprint that we had on
each each floor and reduced it. Uh and so we lost some square footage on the corner. It's not a lot. Uh it was you know if we do the math is about 266 square ft. Uh the issue of this is a this building was designed already very
efficient and uh we have items such as wider corridor, wider stairs because of the public we're serving. Uh you know there's a concern with uh claustrophobia, there's a concern with you know being able to navigate the stairs with some equipment. So you know everything that we designed uh that was
the core of the building we couldn't touch. Uh so what happened is we lost 266 ft and rather than losing that in two units and bringing those units down to 400 ft which then wouldn't you know function as they need to as a onebedroom
uh that we're trying to provide for each each individual. Uh we distribute that 266 ft in four additional units. So we had two and when I say four four per floor right so a total of eight. Uh so that's what Mr. McKenna has refers referenced. Uh so so that's the change.
Uh so we took that 266 square feet and we had to spread it out and squeeze it in or squeeze it out of the the footprint and distributed that into four additional units. So rather than having again per floor, right? Rather than having two units per floor, there were
slightly below the the 600 foot mark. Uh now we have an additional four. So six total per floor for a total of 12. So we had four before, eight additional ones. And the change is again it's you know if we if we divide it out by the you know
the units it's about 60 square feet which is really like a closet right on each unit. So we just had to arrange things a little bit and you know so that we can comply and still provide the onebedrooms that was the goal for this project right so every unit is a onebedroom every every uh resident here
has an access to a bedroom a kitchen you know a proper unit and that's what we did u so if I if I could show you on our A101 sheet um essentially we had this unit on the corner uh not on the corner but yeah this unit along James Park and
opposite to that those two units for the original two units that are undersized and and with this section that we lost on the corner of the building, we had to distribute that around and we lost some square footage on these units and a couple of units up here again to redistribute that. So, but the change is
very minor. Again, as mentioned by Mr. McCanna, if you look at the original floor plan and you look at the plans we have now, the units uh the core, the stair didn't change, the stair the the elevator didn't change. uh we have a lounge and amenity on each floor for the residents together. That hasn't changed.
So again, as you see, it's a single loaded or a double loaded corridor, you know, right in the middle and then the units distributed around. Uh and that's the essence of the change. Uh so that's on the upper level and um I believe the other item was the uh transformer vault
that was been discussed before. Um uh Jacqueline is going to discuss that in in detail on the site plan. Uh but just as it affects the building, there were two items that uh affect the building, the office and the uh switch in the sprinkler room. Uh so what happened is
the transformer uh pad uh has been now located on the side of the property here and that's going to be discussed. Uh as a result of that uh we had to rearrange our switch gear. Uh so our switchy gear used to be on the side of the property here because we anticipated feed coming
in on that side. Once the transformer moved here, we had to relocate the switch gear, rearrange the sprinkler room. Uh and that affected the depth of that those two closets is slightly. Uh so they were 5T now they are 711. So they're they grew a little bit and that affected the officer space and as
mentioned by Mr. McKenna. Uh we do have an individual door coming in from the outside along James Parker into that suite uh that has its own private bathroom and he has a different uh a separate access room not within the building but from the outside as discussed by him uh for the use of that
space. Um and that's essentially it on the plans uh and the modifications we had to do. >> Excuse me. Is there there's access to the office from the interior or just the exterior? Uh right now we're not showing an axis there because we have a grade difference. So the grade here changes
drastically about it's I believe it's about 2 feet. It's 48 to 40. Yeah, it's about 2 feet. So if we were to put a door here, we'd have to provide a ramp and stairs and we're losing a lot of square footage on that. So we decided it would be best to, you know, have that door from the outside only.
>> So the residents who want the services will have to go outdoors, make them in a turn some in some fashion and then >> Yeah. walk along and and go in. >> Correct. >> Has how has this uh affected the parking or anything
>> within the parking which I think the trash trash collection was down there? I mean, is that going to be eliminated now or? >> Yeah. So, we we'll have the civil engineer and the traffic uh discuss that, but the parking within the space didn't change. Uh the parking layout is
still the same. Um, we have the, you know, the garage door at the entrance of Oh, I see you zoomed in there. Uh, you have the the same, you know, parking garage and we have essentially the same layout. Uh, but they will discuss the implications of the office on their testimony.
>> Oh, how far did the county push the building over away from Parker? Was it one foot? >> Uh, no. It was I don't have the measurement here, but it's it's it's a little over two feet. I don't know exactly if you have that. >> Feet over. Yeah. Yeah, it was the it was
a radius condition that they asked us from the corner. So, we had to do an offset and the you can see what we did here is we had to step the building and created sort of a tooth here. So, the the whole corner got pushed back. So, it's not just a dimension this way, but
it was a full radius and it affected the whole corner. >> What what are the size of the regular units and the size of the undersized units? Uh so the the units all range between uh our smallest units is 509 which used to be the uh original uh
undersized units. Uh so there there are two of those at at that range. Uh most of the units are around 582 the undersized ones 580. Uh and the balance of the units are all above 600 with one of the units being above 700 701. So the
you know it's a minor change as I mentioned like if if we were to look at it it's about 20 square feet per unit as an average that got reduced. One of them got reduced a little more. Um but that's all it is. >> And I'd like to ask you a question. Um
excuse me. Uh the functionality of the units remains the same essentially. Correct. >> That's correct. Yeah. >> And so that all of the units will have the same amenities contained within them. Correct. >> That's correct. >> As far as their kitchen facilities,
their bathrooms, everything, the seating area, they're all going to be essentially the same. Correct. >> Exactly. Yes. >> Guess I'm confused. The original drawing had an had what what was where the office, the proposed office now, what
was there in the prior drawings? >> Uh, it was also an office. It was just initially connected to the inside of the building as well. Uh but we always proposed an office there on that corner. Uh the only difference we're saying now I believe testimony was that that that office was going to provide uh services
only to the building residents and as discussed by Mr. McKenna you know as a professional to service 32 residents how many you know like are they all being seen every month and is that sufficient to maintain an office there. So the idea
is to um and I believe the uh John is going to provide some testimony on that use. Um >> yeah well I guess I just don't understand it. It'll be explain to me why it is that when you presented it to us a few years ago it was a service provided to the tenants that they could come downstairs and walk into this area
and now that's changed for some reason. Well, it it it is it has changed because what we discovered after approval was that we could not get a professional that would perform that service and that service only
um that would work for >> for the sal I mean it's a salary it's a corporation right I mean you're paying someone to come in and >> yeah how does that work right I mean so I guess I'm not following that >> well m Mr. Uh client's going to address that.
>> All right. May I ask when were you made aware of the easement? >> Uh that was throughout the construction documents phase, right? As the plans were complete and uh filed with the county and uh we can have a further
discussion when when civil discusses that. But do you have a date? I I believe it was about a year. was about a year ago possibly about a year ago when we filed and we received feedback from them on their review and they mentioned that and then we had to redesign the whole building
and provide that and and that's when that took place >> and JPNL was a little more recent seven months maybe when they visited the site and let us know about the transformer and then we had to again redesign you know it's it's very common
as you probably know from people coming back here uh it happens during construction documents. >> If I remember correctly, according to a comment that Paul made earlier, the original design had a navigator that was a full-time resident
>> who resided on the first floor >> to help the residents. >> Now that that's turned into an office space, >> is there going to be a navigator on site full-time? No, that that wasn't the space that turned. That was always an office space. Uh the navigator suites is
still here and that residence still that that still remains. There's no change there. >> Thank you. >> Sure. >> I had a quick question on the easement. Um >> when they notified you that you'd have to provide that, did they give a reason for is that a question of like turning
radius safety, pedestrian safety? What was the reason behind that? Uh, I believe it is is a rightaway expansion. Uh, a a side triangle. Yeah, it was a side triangle. >> Got it. So, cars turning right onto Shrewsbury would have visibility.
Visibility. >> Got it. So, give us a little more leeway there so that there's not a blind corner that people would be turning on to. Got it. Correct. >> Exact. Okay. Any other questions from the board for this witness? Any questions from the public for this witness? Okay. Mr.
McKenna, your next witness. >> Okay, thank you. Um, my next witness is Jackie for Jackie. Yeah, >> I also have
it, >> right? What I'm saying is it's not Yes. >> Hey, Shauna. Um, Vince had a a technical question for you. >> I mean, you're more than welcome to sit next to me. You're more than welcome to sit right here.
Does this board prefer I stand over there or whatever you prefer? So, I brought copies because I thought that would be hard for you to see. So, if it's okay if I can approach. >> Sure. >> Give you guys some copies. It might be a little bit easier to read.
Yes, >> engineer. >> And and Jackie, just uh for the chair's last comment, since we have new board members, why don't you just give the brief history of your uh credentials and qualifications? And just before I forget, before you do that, uh should I
mark this what you're handing out as A8 >> or that's already been submitted? >> Uh this is a new exhibit, so A8. And what is A8? >> So A8 is just a colorized exhibit um showing the location of the transformer, showing the parking garage that's under
the building um and then showing the location of the landscaping on the site so we could discuss the buffer. >> Okay. And prepared by your office? >> Yes, it is. >> And is there a date on that? >> Uh there should be. Uh I got to back up now. April 8th, 2026.
April 8th, 2026. So that's A8. All right. Thank you. >> Okay, Mr. Chairman. Um, did you want me to go through my credentials first? >> Okay. So, um, I'm Jacqueline Flor. I am a licensed professional engineer. I
received my, uh, license in 2004. I graduated from Florida Tech with a bachelor of science and civil engineering in 1999. Um, since then I've been licensed not only in the state of New Jersey, but licensed in Delaware,
New York, Maryland, and Pennsylvania as well. Um, I've testified before numerous boards, including this board on this first application when we were before you before and multiple boards. I've actually sat on both sides, both where Jackie Dur is sitting as well as
presenting on this side. >> Great. Thank you. >> All right. All right. So, thank you so much. Um, I testified last time, so I know I've I've seen many of you. Um, I wanted to go through, we put together a colorized exhibit. I can walk up to this to the exhibit as well and show you, but
basically from an engineering standpoint, really what I'm here to talk about is the transformer. Um, the architect walked you through what happened on the interior of the building. What I can say is that that change happened because I think someone asked about when we went to the county.
So, we went to the county like we had submitted to the county before we even came to you. Their final approval was right after sometime right after um it was one of the conditions of approval. So, we had that probably a year to a year and a half ago. And the reason that they wanted the curb return,
it's actually in their regulations um for sight distance. There's a signal there. So, I think our thought initially was sometimes when you have a traffic signal, they don't always uh need the same sight distance because it's stop controlled, but the county wanted that
um that site triangle, they're they're entitled to ask for it. They've asked for it on other sites and so they did enforce that they wanted the curb return radius. So, that that answers that that question. And it was a 15 foot curb return radius. They could have asked for as much as a 25 um foot curb return
radius, which would have had a real effect on the building, but we were able to show them that they had a traffic signal there and that that traffic signal wasn't going anywhere and that the existing curb return on the existing curb was 15 feet. So, we were able to show them that we were really just
taking that 15t behind and then in the existing condition, it was the building was already pretty much there. And so we were able to get them to a 15 foot curb return radius that resulted in the curvature that you see now that area that's cut out of the building.
Everything on the interior I can't speak to that. That's that's the architect. Um but what I can speak to is that when we came to you before uh we did have a variance for buffer. That buffer variance was about 5.1. We're able to
still have that same buffer. If you look at the exhibit, which you have there, and you have there, you can see that our our buffer doesn't change up until we get to the location of the transformer. So, right where that transformer is,
the owner had multiple meetings with JCPNL. JCPNL has rules and regulations whenever you have to put a transformer. the the the reason this wasn't foreseen whenever we came to you the first time is that I
think that the architect and the owner were hoping that the existing utility poles could support either a transformer on the pole or being able to bring that into this site. Unfortunately, after many meetings, I mean, I even asked
questions of can we drop another utility pole and put another transformer up on another utility pole? Is there any way to avoid this? Um, unfortunately JCPNL said that this was the only option was to put a transformer on the site.
So, as a result of putting it there, there's rules on how close a transformer can be to a building. So, you can see that 10T 10T's about the closest, not about it is the closest that you're allowed to go to the building. So, you can see that located on the site. So,
then the side property line became the question. They had to look at where the existing building was, even if that building was closer than would be typical in any future building. They were very specific that they wanted to look at the angles and make sure that we were no closer than that adjacent
building being able to be 10 ft from that location. So basically situating that transformer was a process with JCPNL. But we got to a location that JCPNL was comfortable with. We tried every way we could think of to get that
to not be a groundmounted transformer. We were not unsuccessful with that. Um, but as a result, we were able to locate it on the site in a location where JCPNL can access it. As a result, you can see that the buffer line had to not go past
the transformer. There's just not enough room. There's like 3.4t between the transformer and the fence right there. So that's the reason that the buffer gets reduced. Additionally, you can't have anything in front of the transformer because JCPNL
wants to be able to access the transform. So there was a street tree in front of the transformer and we had to remove that street tree right at that location. So those are the changes that resulted from the transformer. In addition to
that, there's a slight increase in lot coverage because of just the size of that tiny transformer, but it does increase it slightly. So, if you go to your zoning table, which is on what I passed out, which is exhibit A
8 A8, and you go down the list, the number of dwelling apartments that was spoken to by the architect, um the front yard setback, that doesn't change. So, if you look at our abbreviations, it says it was obtained
under another approval. Same thing with the first one. The ones that have two asterisks are would have changed. So when you go to the um the uh coverage, I'm not sure about the building
coverage, but I can say the landscape buffer that that has changed from 5.1 to 3.4. um the parking spaces which you're going to hear from John McCormack on the on the parking but because now an office is
proposed on that first floor as a separate distinct use that does have a parking requirement associated with it. So there that does increase the parking variance. Um we always were requesting the um the uh loading zone and then the
architect already spoke to the uh size of the apartment uses. So really from an engineering standpoint, uh my testimony is to address the lot coverage um as well as the buffer variance. Um I could talk a little bit
about the parking, but really the parking is going to be testified to by John McCormack. Um but what I have heard from the uh owner is that the intention is for the parking garage. But I think I I'll leave that testimony, I believe all
of it, for for uh John McCormack to uh testify to just making sure because I could testify to some of it. >> You you commented about the loading zone. The loading zone it's depicted on the um >> No. So, so, so we had gotten a variance for loading zone last time, but I but
there is a space in the front of the building that um that will be for and I think we testified to that last time that will be for drop off and pickup >> um for Ubers and >> Yeah, I remember we talked about that. You had to go to the county. >> Yeah, we had to go to the county for
that and the and the county the county requested some additional striping and I believe the county accepted if I recall correctly. Yes. >> Yeah, we got it. Yeah, the county the county did accept that. >> So, and then what is the length of that of the loading zone? Is that for your testimony or someone else's?
>> It's 25 feet. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, then it's up to Jackie Dur. I can go point by point through this. I know most of it I think um cuz we had gone point by point back and forth with with TNM um
through the letter but I'm happy to test I mean there there was also in the prior approval if you remember we were running drainage from this site to connect down and as a result we were going to have to pave certain limits um in fast forward a
year and a half and TNM M is actually doing a project that's going to be paving that same road. So since we were ahead of that, we did some concessions on where we were paving and that was at the request to TNM. So that drainage has already been installed and we agree to pave to the limits that TNM has
requested that we pave to. Other than that, let me see if there's anything else in the letter that we haven't spoken to already other than the traffic testimony. Signage, we're going to um so in
speaking to the owner, they've decided to defer signage um to its own they're going to submit se a separate application for zoning for signage because their intent is to try to comply. So, they didn't want to try to cover that tonight because they wanted you to be able to see what it would look like. And that's not entirely finalized
yet. >> Yeah. We'll be coming back to the board uh for signs. >> Is that going to be two separate signs? one for the name of the building and then another one for um the business itself because you'll have to be to identify the um
occupant of the of the office space. >> I don't have an answer for that one. >> I I essentially what I think you understand correct that we'll have to have a sign for the office but then a sign for the building. >> Yeah.
>> And then um I know in facilities, I know you guys are still trying to figure out your signage. Um, and that's a later question, but will there be any that's I know for these type of facilities you guys like to do like a dedication of or
um is there a potential that we may have that type of situation or >> dedication of the building >> like in dedication of some person orith Yeah, a funer or sponsor or major, you
know, um partner. I know like how it is on a Parker Health, if you realize Parker Health has their major donor there, um that or do you foresee that potentially happening? >> I don't personally foresee that. I think
there's a reference. >> If you could just talk in the mic, John, I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry. >> I don't uh for see us doing anything on the outside. Certainly on the inside in the lobby, we have a lot of people to thank. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Can we just confirm how garbage is going
to be handled? >> Sure. So garbage is within the garage and so um it's my understanding that the owners and and whenever John testifies he can also affirm that we'll have a fob access to the garage so they can then
use the garage to store their garbage >> and as the condition of that approval can we just have you guys communicate that with DPU? Oh, sure. >> Just to reach out to them. Um, >> absolutely. >> To let them know what the arrangement is
>> to let them know that it's privately handled. >> Yes. Yeah. Got it. >> And going through the TNM review letter. I I'm not sure if I heard there was uh one item here 4.2 about the underground electric service being shown on the utility plan within the Dr. James Parker
Boulevard near Shay F and if that's still required. >> One second. transfer to fall off then we'll get >> So if the question is whether or not we're going to need to put underground on Dr. James Parker uh we will not
because there's going to be it's my understanding that they're going to require an additional utility pole like a feeder pole on our side of the right of way as well. So they'll take that overhead and then down the feeder pole. >> Any other questions?
>> Any other questions from the board? >> Nope. On to the next one. Any questions from the public for this witness? Obviously not. So on to your next one, >> Mr. McCormick. Good evening everyone.
>> Um we Kevin would you likewise um as suggested by the chair um go over what were your credentials so that the new board members can have the benefit of all that? >> Absolutely. Uh again, John McCormack. I'm a principal with the firm Dynamic
Traffic down in Lake Ko. Uh I have a bachelor's of civil engineering from Villanova University. Uh I have a New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania PE license. Uh I've had that for over 30 years. I've been practicing traffic engineering for those 30 years. Uh
similar to Jackie, I've been on both sides of the board. I've sat as a board reviewer. I've been in front of numerous boards including yourselves and the planning board in town. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. McCor. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Just before we start, Kevin, I had a
quick question. Do we have the um >> um the file specifically the letter from last year with respect to the part with respect to the traffic >> the traffic report? >> Yeah. >> Uh I don't have it. >> You have it or did you bring it from last year? >> I have a copy in my file. Sure.
>> From last year. Okay. Mhm. Shauna, do you want to put Jackie's exhibit back? Maybe that's the best one in case we need to talk to it. >> Yep. Yeah, sure. >> Okay. So, um we'll just jump right into it. Uh with regards to the parking, I'll
talk about the uh the frontage uh improvement um etc. So, as you're hearing, we need a parking variance. We needed a parking variance when we got the first approval. Um, since we're adding an off-site or uh office space, it increases the parking requirement,
thus increasing uh the variance. So, we are required by ordinance to provide 71 parking spaces. We have an electric vehicle credit uh because we're providing two EV units, two EV spaces. That gives us a four space credit. So,
the requirement essentially is 67 parking spaces. Um, we're providing the same 13 parking spaces that we had in the original approval. Uh, they're a mix of standard spaces, uh, ADA spaces, EV, compact, etc. Uh,
they are in the garage. They are gated, secure, and assigned. Uh, basically, we'll talk about the operational requirement as we see it. Um, as we talked two years ago, the residents of this building don't drive.
They typically do not drive. Last time we were here, we had a number of maybe 10% of the of the residents would own a car. So, if we apply that logic, 10% of the 33 units, we would need three spaces for residents. Uh if you look at the
staffing that they anticipate, uh parents with a plan and thrive and the owner has indicated that the staffing is approximately one staff for every eight uh residents. So with the 33 residents, you'd have about four staff parking
spaces. So that's seven spaces necessary for the residential unit. Um the office then is about 1,000 square feet 900 and something square feet which requires five spaces per thousand per the burough ordinance. So that would be five
additional spaces. So if you add that up the three for the residents, the four for the staff and potentially the five for the office, you would have a 12 space requirement. We have 13 spaces. I will talk about what we think the anticipated is. It's very likely that
none of the residents own a car. So, we would have staff parking and we would have office parking. As far as I understand from John, the intent is for the office space to have two or three employees. Those three employees would have access to the parking garage. So,
in essence, we're back down to about seven or so parking space demand for this for this um development. that acknowledges that because the building is secure and we are controlling the garage space, the guests for not only
the residential portion but the guests for the office space have to park on the street. So I'll just talk touch up on a little bit about the >> sorry that bus part again. So the guests, say it again, for >> any guests for the building, whether it
be guests of the residents or guests of the, you know, customers for the office space, if you will, would utilize on street. They would not have a key fob and would not have access to the garage. >> Thank you. >> So just to describe the on street parking, I'm sure everyone is very
familiar, but there's on street parking on all sides uh both sides of about five streets in the area. Right. Dr. James Parker Boulevard, Shrewsbury Avenue, Bridge Avenue, Bank Street, River Street. Um, it's free. There's a 2-hour
restriction and that's a Monday through Saturday restriction. Sunday, I don't believe there is a time restriction. So, there's an abundance of, if you will, free public parking on the street. Excuse me for one second. Immediately abuing
the building on Dr. James Parker Boulevard and across the street is all yellow >> curbs. I'm talking about about a twob block radius, you know, around the building. >> Well, not around the building. Talk a couple blocks away. There's places for people to park in different neighborhoods,
>> right? But not next to the building. >> Well, not next to it on Dr. James Parker, but in front of it there's parking. And I could talk about that frontage improvement a little bit in a minute. >> Okay. So, um, you know, as I mentioned, I've done observations of this area for the
lunch break application, which was probably almost five years ago now. I did observations for the original application before you. Um, and the observations indicate that during the weekday there's 25% maybe even 50% of
the parking on the street is open and available. I mean, just today I was shocked. I was I was even shocked. Shrewsbury Avenue, there was at least 50% of the spaces within two blocks to the south and two blocks to the north were open and available as I drove into
town. So, just wanted to kind of put out there uh my observations uh and confir confirming that. >> Excuse me, one second. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I'm reading your letter >> and we talked about this during the original application a couple years ago
>> at and at the time I was concerned because you didn't do a traffic study a couple years ago, but I'm looking at your letter here tonight and it says this office previously conducted a parking study for this site in the spring of 23. I don't think that that's true. You may have driven by it. You may
have observed something this afternoon as you were coming in, but correct me if I'm wrong. Did you do a study? Did you bring it with you? a study in 2023. We did not do parking recordings in 2023. >> Okay. So, I'm reading your letter and it says, "This office previously conducted a parking study for this site in the
spring of 23." Is that true or not true? >> Well, a study could mean a lot of things. >> What does it mean in accordance with this letter that you submitted tonight for this board to take a look at? >> It means I've done numerous observations. I drive down Shrewsbury Avenue coming in and out of town almost every day as I live in a neighboring town.
>> Right. I understand the on street parking situation in the vicinity of this building. >> Okay. So, there was no study. >> There was no formal counts done in 2023. >> Okay. I'm just I'm reading your words from your report. >> Well, I when I say a traffic study, it could be observations. It could be uh it
could be a lot of different things. It doesn't necessarily need to be recordings in my opinion. >> Did you notice how many cars queue up at the light of Dr. James Parker Boulevard that are coming down off of Newman Springs Road? You ever notice that? >> Yes. It's it's many, right? I mean, I
have lived in this town for close to 20 years and making a left off in Newman Springs heading towards the site, >> the parking the queue of cars >> from that light at James Parker Boulevard has backed up all the way to Newman Springs Road. And this is prior to this building even being built. >> Are you saying that that traffic at that
intersection is >> is what you consider uh light traffic? >> We just switched from parking to traffic. >> Oh, traffic. Do do you consider traffic at that intersection to be light traffic? >> No. That traffic that intersection is busy. It's one of the it's one of the um
busiest intersections in town. Probably that traffic backs all the way down to Newman Springs Road. >> Right. And don't you think a parking study would have helped us and a traffic study would have helped us determine what kind of traffic we're looking at when we have a parking deficiency of over 50 spaces? So, what I'll say is now
that we're talking about traffic and and the intersection, the intersection is under Mammoth County's jurisdiction. They do not require a traffic study for a development of this size. If you remember my original report, the traffic generation of this building is less than
five trips in an hour. So, that kind of traffic generation is negligible. When you consider the activity in this area, it doesn't satisfy even close the criteria, the threshold of Mammoth County that they would require for a traffic study. And I think this board in
the bureau decided it didn't require uh a traffic study at that point. >> No, I don't think that's true. I don't think we said we don't require one. I think it would have been helpful. I think it would have been persuasive had you had one because in my opinion and I did vote no the last time over this reason and I love the idea of this
project so don't get me wrong I think it's a great idea I think it's too much in this corner but uh I don't ever recall us zoning board saying that we didn't we don't want to see a parking a traffic study because to me this intersection is is awful um and I think
now with the proposal of a commercial space with the guests of the visitor of the tenants at the property having nowhere to park. Now we're going to have a professional office there with their visitors are supposed to park there. So I I think it's too much personally. So I
do feel that a uh study would have been somewhat helpful for your position. So I don't know why it wasn't done, but it certainly wasn't the board saying we don't want you to do it. Um I remember that much. But but go ahead. >> Very good. So let's describe the significant improvement that this
application has uh implemented along Shrewsbury Avenue along the frontage. Uh if you remember there were only I think about four to five uh spaces in front. I think it was about four. Uh because of the no parking restrictions etc. Um we
worked with the county um we brought some of the restrictions down to the state statutes and we were able to create two parking spaces uh along the frontage. We were able to create the 25 foot loading zone if you will. That is
the first space north of Dr. James Parker. Then you have two, I'll call them standard 2-hour parking spaces. Then the space near the driveway is a 15minute space. We're hoping it's utilized for the Ubers and the Door
Dashes and that kind of activity that we know is associated with an apartment building. And then further north of the driveway again is another uh two standard spaces. And again, those are those are free spaces. Those are two-hour time limit. Uh they are they would be striped. They would be
available for public use, for our use, for the office use, for the coffee corral customers use, for anyone's use. Um, and that restriping plan was approved by the county. >> Just show me where the loading zone is on the >> It's the one It's the red space right
where that car is driving. The first That's it. Thank you, Shauna. That's a That's a 25 ft in length. And then that red triangle is a 25- ft no parking type designation to clear the crosswalk. >> Right. So the the space though is
designated loading zone. Is there striping for to indicate that so the public doesn't park there or no? >> Uh there's a sign. We didn't put striping. We could if the county would allow us, but then the county would have to maintain the striping and they probably just want the sign. >> Okay. But the public is not allowed to
park there. >> Well, you can park there if you're loading. If you're you know, loading into our building. If you're loading across the street, it's a general oversized space at the end. >> Okay. But not for like a permanent parking, not overnight, nothing like that. >> No, no, no.
>> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Uh that's really my testimony is that the parking is is exactly the same as it was inside the building. It's managed and it's secured. uh and the the applicant is is comfortable with not only the supply inside but comfortable
with the availability of supply on the street. >> Thank you. Any questions for Mr. McCorm? >> Yeah, I was do we are we going to hear any testimony about where we're what we are expecting um the professional how many visitors per day are we expecting from him or her? Do we have any idea? I
know we we said there's three employees. We're going to have a professional in there with an office. So, I'm curious, what are we expecting in terms of trips and visits and things like that? >> And we have testimony coming up on that.
>> Um, could you also amend maybe the plan to show where the two EV spaces are located? >> Yeah. Um, when you see the one Jackie, is the other one is it the a dual charger for the ADA space and then the the one that's marked EV?
Yeah. Normally when you install the EV chargers, it's the one unit and it it splits. And that way we have one standard space that's EV and then Exactly, Sean. And one ADA space that's EV. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Any
questions from the public? Okay. On to your next witness, Mr. Mcanager. Uh good evening and uh thanks for your time tonight. I uh really appreciate it. Um we have been um we're back before you. We're creating u something actually
new, something that needs to happen for this community. And um as we've gone along, we've uh improved um a lot of the uh amenities and whatnot for our potential residents.
>> Are you hearing me? Okay. Sorry. Um and so I did I did want to come in and and talk about that. Um my background is development. uh I've been developing longer than I care to mention uh in front of this board and uh this this
opportunity to help create uh something for a neurodeiverse population which has effectively almost none. there's very little uh opportunity to live independently within our state uh has came along and
and it's something very important I think that we need to do uh for this population and I do appreciate the support of the Tana Redbank. Um my background as I mentioned was a lot of development. Um,
essentially the first floor hasn't changed as far as the the general layout and we continue to provide amenity uh for the residents of the building. The opportunity though for this office space
which is 923 ft at the south end uh will also have the opportunity to provide not just for the residents but for the community. and we felt that was a very important uh situation to make here in
Redbank. Um we have we met with u um a firm that provides uh behavioral and psycho social services to neurodeiverse population. They actually are have other offices located in the Mammoth County.
they would because of you know what we're creating would love to have an office here in Redbank. So it would be the option of our residents to to get services from their professionals but they would also be providing services to
those in in the area as well. Uh certainly Red Bank for those who know diverse uh people who want those kind of services. So there's a real opportunity. That's why um we'll no longer have
access to the interior of the building from the first floor. It would be a totally separate uh um service and uh we you know would be a third party professional office. Um uh any questions on that? Are are you
going to limit it to a service that can help with that type of >> Well, that that's that's the opportunity we have uh for us today. Um, you know, things can change in the future, but we're looking forward to having this uh
firm provide professional services not only to our residents, but to those in the community. We're not sure how we eliminate that from a zoning perspective. Um but uh we certainly that's our intent is to help the neurodeiverse population.
>> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> And excuse me. >> They they they'll have three employees. They will u be meeting with um potential clients probably more than
an hour each. So the number of um uh clients they'll be seeing each day uh is certainly less than in the in the 20s. Um uh it would be it'll be a range based on uh their time that they spend
with with each uh client and potentially a resident from our building may also you know get services from them as well. >> And oh I'm sorry. Yeah, if I may, I heard Mr. McKenna say that there really
wasn't an appetite for because of the limited number of clients for having >> into the mic there. >> Yeah, there really wasn't sufficient I know clientele is the right word from within the building. So, hence the need to have an external
entrance in practice. Is there for those same kind of people maybe you talk to, was there an appetite for this type of situation given what you're proposing? In other words, is would would people want to take advantage of this opportunity? Professionals are
>> talking about the uh for the residents. >> No, no. The actual person that would would the provider, social service provider, >> have people expressed an interest saying >> Yes. Well, the the um the owner of the firm who's also um uh works at Rutgers
Center for Adult Autism, which is that agency is providing uh a lot of direction on the amenity programs that were working for navigators in the building. um he already has a significant um
business in Mammoth County and seizes a great opportunity uh to help others in this part of the the region of Mammoth County. >> Okay. So really the obstacle was the limited number of clients from inside that they're Yeah. I mean Yeah.
>> Y >> and you've identified someone already to do the survey. >> We have. Yeah. We have >> the and the navigator is someone who's sort of like the resident advisor like in a college dorm. Someone that >> Yeah. Well, um everybody functions. >> It's it's another phrase for concierge,
but it's somebody who has training. >> Yeah. >> Uh and you know has a has a degree or is getting their master's degree from like Ruters. >> There be two other employees too to also provide services there. >> I'm sorry. >> Should be three employees on site.
>> Yes. Yeah. >> What do the other two do? There'll be three employees in the office. >> Yeah. in the office >> within our building we have >> separately you know that's provided
in our building we always have at least one and we'll have at times two employees providing you depending on the time of the day etc because you have we have to um >> one living and one also time right the the office doesn't the office has
nothing to do with thrive though right it's not they're not employees of thrive >> they are not >> and third party >> and Just to clear up, um, uh, you have a tenant for that space now or you're, so you have a company that's going to help you find a tenant to take
that office. >> We're speaking with a, uh, a tenant >> direct doctor to run a doctor professional. Absolutely. He's already providing as I mentioned he's um uh I guess it probably I don't want to overstate it but obviously uh is with
the Rucker Center for Adult Autism is an expert and also has his business and services that he provides. >> I don't know his exact >> background but it it could be a doctorate level certainly masters. Yeah. Okay. A professional. He's a he's a
professional. >> Yeah. Okay. And and it's your understanding that he sees one patient per hour. Is that is that what you're saying? >> Um uh no, I'm saying they have three employees. They would max out at three per hour, but >> three per hour.
>> They may not have that much turnover. It depends on the length of, you know, the the client, how much, you know, what what time, >> you know, this is an area I'm a developer. This is not not my expertise, but >> No, I got it. And then um
>> and and let me let me just say we're creating something out of, you know, new out of whole cloth. And we felt that this would be a really great opportunity here. um that is both not just for the residents in the building but for the
community as well which which I think for those who are who don't know where to go for neurodeiverse don't have somebody nearby that they can get psychos psycho behavioral services from so I think that's very important >> right and and then the building doesn't
provide for any visitor parking whatsoever for the doctor's office they're just going to drive around the neighborhoods and look for something is that the is that the I I think that's the easiest because we um we're limiting the access safety and security within the building and for the
residents is of highest importance and so we would not be providing access to their clients. We would provide access because we know who works in their uh in the office those employees. So they would have key cards but their key cards
would not allow them to enter the building. they would have to come through the lobby. >> Okay. >> Could I just ask one, Mr. McKenna? Uh, I'm assuming that if the application were approved, I don't know where we're going with that, but uh, just if the
application is approved, that professional office is clearly only an accessory use. Correct. And it's limited to that size that you've talked about and it's limited to psychoanalyst type of people sort of. That's a profession.
Yes. >> Thank you. >> And then what becomes of the project if this application gets uh does not get approved. What becomes of that space? >> Well, it was approved previously, I think, >> with an entrance in the inside of the building was previously approved. So, if
we say no to this and we go back to the original plan, is that what the plan would be with just to go back to what you were originally approved for? Well, um, uh, at the time we did have that listed as an office we were speaking to, but it would turned out to
be too small. Parker Clinic was talking to us about a a dental office. We thought that would be helpful once again in the community. They the uh, >> the project doesn't fail because we don't approve a doctor's office for, you
know, third party doctor office, does it? The the project is still going to thrive, right? Um, financially, uh, I think from a perspective of helping the community and the overall community, I think it's a great
opportunity and it continues the mission of what we're providing here. uh and it continues the uh strength with within the community and an opportunity for those uh people who are not getting
services now to to get services. So I think it it's it's a great opportunity. Is is it going to the project going to fail? It depends how you you measure that. But um I think you know why would we not have an opportunity for not just
the residents of this building. So and but also for those within our red bank area uh to get psychosocial services particularly for those who are experts and provide that because to neurodeiverse population. >> Yeah I think as we said if it gets
limited to that use I have no problem with that at least I don't. So you know that's why we'd like to make sure that we do limit it to that type of office. I'd like to add too just as a someone with a late father and a brother who are
psychoanalysts, you'd be having psychologists there, not psychoanalysts. Oh, so if you're using a word in your resolution, you should use the word psychologist, not psychoan analyst. >> Mr. Chairman, I also might offer this as as a thought. What we can do is we can
require that in the event that that service is underutilized or perhaps the it the it doesn't work out. They would not be allowed to do anything else there without coming back to this board and
having the board approve what that service would >> right that's that's not a problem. >> I have no problem with that. >> Not a problem. Okay. Are you finished or you have more?
>> No, I have more >> witnesses. >> One more witness. >> Okay. >> Actually, any members of the public for Mr. Klein? >> Got it. >> Excuse me. >> Got it. >> Mr. O'Neal. >> Good evening, Mr. O'Neal.
>> How are you? >> I'm fine, thank you. Um would you um offer your credentials to the collective members of the board? >> Certainly. >> Um my name is Ed O'Neal. I'm here today as a licensed planner. I'm also a
licensed architect, but I'm not testifying in that regard. Um I have a masters in planning from the from the University of Pennsylvania, which I obtained in 1983. I've been licensed in New Jersey as a planner since 1987. I've appeared before this board and planning
board and numerous boards throughout the county and state over the last 35 to 40 years. >> Great. And welcome back, Mr. O'Neal. >> Thank you. So, Mr. O'Neal, you were retained by the
applicant and to testify on planning and specifically addressing the use variance aspect and uh >> Yes. Yes. and I was the planner on the original application in 2023
>> and um the major criteria back in 2023 which still carries now is the use. So it's obviously a facility to deal with neurode diverse population and therefore is an inherently beneficial use. I feel that very strongly. The board felt that
in 2023 unanimously. Um so again I think what they're doing is a service that is desperately needed and um they feel that this site is well suited to it and part of the reason for the site's suitability is the
surrounding township and opportunities whether they're career job opportunities um opportunities to get other services they're really all in town and since virtually none of them will drive they need either that access as pedestrians
or through Uber or Lyft or whatever those services are. So if we take that as a planning start, which it was in 2023, I remember distinctly in 2023, there was a member on the board that's no longer here who was a land use
attorney who interrupted me and said, "We really don't have to discuss this because we all agree it's an inherently beneficial use. So we're going to we're just going to kind of accept that." And then I went on to talk about some specific things about the building and
that was it. So um if we really look at the positive negative criteria the neuro the um inherently beneficial use really covers the positive criteria. we are providing a service desperately
needed and that if we start ticking off things in your municipal land use law about appropriate services developed in certain ways, we hit all those those marks. So really what we come down to discussing is the negative criteria that that's really the big issue. And if we
just really look at what's changed because of the regulations, one is the number of undersized units. Uh my comment about the undersized units is what's unique about them. The ordinance says, well, one-bedroom unit has to be 600 square f feet. Now, that also assumes that the one-bedroom unit might
be operiverse apartment complex works. So, there's only one person in each unit. And since the smallest unit is 509 square feet, which is the same unit it was the first time and the other units are less than 10% smaller than the regulation, I
really don't see a problem and have a negative impact on anything. It's the same number of units. It's the same number of parking spaces. All of that's the same. It's just again a small number. And if I've looked at the units and the changes are dimminimous, they
will function the same way. Um there's also the issue of the transformer and again in the municipal land use law there is hardship dictated by having an outside agency come in and tell you something has to be done and you have really no control over it and
the transformer will fall fall into that category. So, and it's also a very after the-act ruling by JCPNL. I mean, everything was approved. They had reviewed it. They came back and said they wanted to change it. That is their purview. But again, the hardship is
there's no real other place to put the transform than where it's being dictated. And that's going to cause what I think is a dimminimous setback violation and the loss of a tree. and I don't think that should endanger the approval of an inherently beneficial use
on the site. Uh the office issue is again there was an office providing that facility that was internal to the project that has proven to be for many reasons not possible.
So the space provided is fairly minimal. It's less than a th00and square feet. I don't think the parking um generated by that is significant. And again, >> what is that based on? What do you mean? You didn't do a study, did you? >> No, I did not. >> So, you is it based on driving by it? Is
that what you're >> No, no, it's based on Mr. McCormick's testimony. >> It's based on what? >> Mr. McCormick's testimony. >> Yes. >> Mr. O'Neal, but you live right in the immediate area, do you not? >> Yes, I would live within comfortable walking distance of the site.
>> I don't think that this is proper testimony, quite frankly. I mean, why do what are we hearing testimony? We don't have a study. You didn't do a study. You had years to do it and you didn't do it. You said you did it in a letter, but then you didn't do it. >> So, I'm a little confused by this lay opinion test. I don't know. He's not
he's not testifying to a report. >> Well, what are we listening to? >> So, couple things. Number one, he's not a lay witness. He's he's testifying as as a planner. Correct. >> Correct. >> Um and number two, he can give his
opinion. Um, and what New Jersey law says is with every case, not just this case, um, New Jersey law allows within reason, uh, board members to discount all or a portion of a witness's testimony if they feel the need to do
so. So, if he's not convincing you, you are allowed to within reason discount, as any board member could do, for any witness that was presented. >> All right. So, Mr. O'Neal, you you haven't submitted anything with respect to traffic or parking, but you want to give some testimony to it. Is that what I'm hearing?
>> Well, basically what I'm saying is that if you look at parking the way it was parking based on testimony that was accepted at the time in 2023, traffic engineer, if you take square footage and you apply parking regulation to it, I
believe we still need regulation space. based upon the fact that no one who lived there >> said no one that lives there can drive but I thought earlier it was 10% of the building was anticipated to have a car
>> seems to be a 10% seems to be a covering side kind of thing it's not in most people to my understanding from Mr. Klein and from the facility in Arizona is that the people who don't don't drive because
that's part of their I'll just say issue for lack of a better term. So I also want to point out that again the office use makes this a mixeduse development which is allowed in the NV zone.
>> Okay. You testimony. Are you finished? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Any questions from the board for Mr. O'Neal? Any questions from the public for Mr. O'Neal? >> Okay, we'll close up portion, Mr. McKenna.
>> Yes. >> Are you done with witnesses? You want to summarize or you want us to make a vote or what would you like us to do? >> No, I' I' I'd like to get a vote. I would. And I I want to um express to the
board my thanks not only for the last uh time that we were here but for this time also. Um, we have here a unique opportunity and the
acclaim that was received and the overwhelming community support that was received in connection with the prior approval. If you just take that in and of itself,
that spoke incredibly well of us, meaning Redbank as a community, we we and I can tell you from my brief stint as mayor for 16 years, we were we have become leaders in many different areas.
We we were creating affordable housing when we had no obligation to do so. If you're I I don't know know how many of you are aware of this but we had on during uh those years we had no obligation to provide affordable
housing. We built 240 units of affordable housing. Why? Because we're a community that cares and this is a need that screams for a presence and they can't get it
anywhere else at the at the moment. And here we have a unique opportunity to provide this service for a population that needs it so desperately that I think it would be unconscionable to not avail ourselves of this
opportunity. Forgive me if I sound dramatic, but if any of us have had the experience of having people with this type of medical issue in their families or their friends or for that matter
their neighbors, it's it's a terrible terrible um thing to ignore it. And I can't tell you how many people I've spoken to that have people in their families and it it it it
pains them to know that at some point they're going to leave. They're they're not going to be there forever for these individuals. Some at some point they're they're going to go they're going to go
the way of God. And for them to have the ability to have a facility such as this where their children are given the opportunity to live independently as much as possible. And we didn't get into this as much
today as we did last time around. But think about this. You're right by the train station. You got food town right down the street. So, one of the things that makes this such an unusual
opportunity for us is there's employment nearby. And if you could just go over to Middletown and see the the restaurant that's over there, that that's an incredible experience if you ever walk in there. And it is
wonderful to see these individuals who have challenges in life that they're meeting every day and succeeding. And that's what we should be thinking about as far as whether or not we have not
necessarily a legal obligation, but perhaps even a moral obligation to take this into consideration. I I think a failure to recognize this opportunity to allow us
as a community to house this facility would be a gross miscarriage of justice and I ask the board to take that into consideration. Um, but whether or not
it's a crowded intersection or you don't like a particular parking space or anything such as that, the fact of the matter is these things these opportunities don't present themselves. >> Well, Mr. McKenna, we we it was approved, the facility was approved. You come back, ask for a doctor's a private
doctor's office to come back in. I think that's you haven't addressed that. We understand, we appreciate what's happening here. We all love it. We all love the idea of this. Whether or not I think it's a good location for it, obviously I don't. However, we love the idea of it, but you're not addressing the fact that you've come back to us now and said, "Hey, we want to put a private
doctor office there and by the way, it's going to have visitors. There's nowhere to park." >> Going to drive up and down Bridge Avenue and South Bridge Avenue and cross from the coffee corral and park in the neighborhoods and that's where it's going to be at a very busy >> uh location and intersection that backs up currently. >> So, you're not addressing that. But in
terms of the project, you don't need to patronize us. We all appreciate what you're doing. We love it. We understand all of those things. At least I do. I'm sure the whole board does. But I'm not quite understanding the uh this uh notion that we should approve a private
doctor's office with zero parking. I just don't understand that. >> Well, first of all, I think it's important uh Mr. Mayor, I think it's important today that uh now that the number one issue in this town that you hear from everybody is traffic
>> and parking is an issue. Both Paul and I live on streets that are very busy streets and are both parking challenged. I live two blocks from this site and I know it very well. In fact, I think there's a lot of parking >> north on Parker. The irony is that North
on Parker there is a lot of spaces right now. >> But I think it's important for every applicant in Redbank for every project to understand that traffic and parking is an extremely sensitive issue here and uh that's why we always bring it up. And I understand it and and and take it from
one, well, the the board chair knows we have times where we can't get out of our street because the traffic on Front Street is backed up all the way almost into Fair Haven. I get it. We deal with it every day. I mean, it's it's it's a
pain in the neck. But a 900 square foot doctor's office is not Riverview Hospital. Okay? It's 900 square feet. So, how many people are you going to be seeing during the course of a day? And by the way,
when we came in last time, what we asked for was a facility that would house that or for excuse me, for an office that would be housing an individual that would be serving just this community. We
couldn't find anyone to do it. That's why we're here with them. That's the that's the issue. That's why we ask for it. >> Now, now you can you can impose any and all conditions that you want and then it's up to the applicant as to whether
or not they want to uh accept the condition. But what I'm suggesting to you is it's not something that was shielded in some way or anything else. That's the way it was presented the first time because we thought that we
would be able to get someone that would provide that benefit. Unfortunately, there is no one that is willing to do it. >> Well, no one to willing to do it at, let's be clear, no one willing to do it at the terms that you've offered them, right? I mean, this is a private corporation. If you pay somebody enough,
he's going to do it, right? I mean, it's not I don't think it's fair I personally don't think it's fair to say that you can't find someone to do it. Well, you can find someone to do a lot just about anything if you pay him the right money. So, you know,
I don't know what to say to that. It's not convincing, but finish up, please. Or not finish up, but please >> I would I would just like to say my own opinion. I can only speak for myself. I actually think it's a larger benefit to have a office there that serves the broader community outside of the 32 people that live in that facility. And I
I think that would be a privilege to have someone there serving the Westside community, serving the Redbank community at large. So I see that as a benefit that you're offering as part of this, not something that's being taken away. >> And and and thank you. And and by the way, that that conclusion that you that
you have just stated was something that came out in this process. That wasn't a thought, okay, well, we got to pay this guy 150,000 uh and you know, we can't afford to do it. But your point is well taken because
during the course of these discussions that we had, it evolved from just taking care of the people in the building to offering that service to people in the community. That's why as far as defining
what that office can and should do, >> right? I think restrict I mean you know we can sit here all night and debate >> restricting it to what we said we we'd like it to be. I think that's where we need to go with it. >> I agree. I agree. I think it makes a
better better building. I just wanted to make it clear and doing this often to talk >> so >> the big issues of Red Bank or traffic and parking. That's why I brought it up. But I agree it makes it a better building. >> If I may Ray um Mr. Chair, I'm an
alternate alternate, so I won't be voting on this, but if I were, this is a no-brainer. This is Yes, thumbs up. Uh, Greg, you took my point. One of the points I was going to make with what you're proposing here makes it an even better project from my perspective
because it serves the community as well. when I won't um go on for a long time, but I just want to tell you when when this vote originally came up, I was new on the board and I'd only been on it a couple months and when we approved it,
it like it was so heartfelt for me. I went into the parking lot and called the mayor and said, "This is going to be on a par with what makes Redbank Redbank." So, I applaud you. the other things in
the request and in the application tonight, you have to do the JCPNL thing, the county thing. So, to me, it's a no-brainer, you know. So, if I were voting, it's an easy one. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Before we take a vote, any other comments from any of the board members?
>> I have one question. Um, you did bring up affordable housing and although it didn't come up this evening, the prior application had set aside five units for affordable housing and is that still the case? >> Oh, yeah. Affordable housing has not
changed. Whatever the number was, I just wanted to make sure >> five. Yeah. Five. Yeah. No, that that remains. >> Okay. Any comments from the public? And I apologize profusely because I thought I had turned this off.
>> Okay. So So I guess we move on to Mr. Kennedy. You want to >> Sure. >> Give us a vote on uh if there's uh going to be a motion to approve, I would read the conditions that I've noted. Uh if
there's going to be a motion to deny, I probably wouldn't read the uh condition. So I'll uh Mr. Mr. Chairman, do you want me to read conditions just in case? >> Yeah. >> So, some of the conditions that we would normally uh talk about would be uh compliance
with all the promises and commitments uh the team made tonight. So, that's my u get out get out of jail free card. So, if we don't say it right now, if it was said during the meeting, it counts. Um and we would never have a problem with that because Mr. McKenna agrees with that. So, we have uh compliance with all
Vince to your point, excellent point, compliance with all affordable housing rules, regulations, contributions, and directives. And then uh uh Shauna, in and of itself, if the application is approved one way or the other, our affordable housing team needs to sign off on this. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. And then um compliance with all outside approvals. And again, um just so you know, this is sort of evidence of the system works. Our our standard is if the nature of the application or the nature of the requested relief changes
as a result of those outside approvals, the applicants have to come back, which is one of the things that they're doing. Compliance with the TNM uh letter um prior uh to any certificate of occupancy, we would need your design professionals to submit a professional certification confirming that the
improvements were installed in accordance with the testimony, in accordance with the approved plans, and in accordance with the resolution. Ultimately, we'll get a asbuilt survey. Um, compliance with all the terms and conditions of the prior approval unless specifically oviated uh herein. Um,
Jackie, a dumb question, but with the real flood changing regulations, that has no impact on this on this. Okay. So, we don't have to worry about that. And then some of the things we talked about tonight again, the only one resident per apartment. Um we talked about um
uh can't mean my writing. Uh compliance is all the prevailing federal and state regulations. That's always uh we have that separate entrance uh physical facility. Uh let's see. We have um
you said it's private garbage, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And then Shauna, we have later on they're going to have to coordinate that with the DPU just to have it appropriately coordinated. Uh uh I think Vince the Nav or Chris the navigator room still remains um for lack of a
better word. Compliance with ADA regulations um drainage and drainage details to be reviewed and approved by Jackie. I'm assuming that's already in that letter. Uh I think Jackie floor you said you will pave to the limits per the request set forth in the TNM letter uh
with the signage. Um I think Ed McKenna the uh the answer is um that all signage will comply and if it's not you're going to come back at a different time and seek that approval. >> That's correct. >> Okay. and uh let's see uh compliance
with the EV regulations and we talked about um uh let's see we're going to make sure that the uh guests for the building and or the uh psychologist office do not
have access to the garage parking spaces. I think that was the testimony. >> That's correct. and we uh talked about those two EV spaces. One of them is going to be an ADA EV space and we gonna now Mr. Chairman, I'm going
to not be as uh eloquent as I'd like to be, but let's uh so with the regard to this office uh it's going to be there's no access to the office through the interior. Correct. >> Correct. And it's going to be a uh uh
that office is about 900 square feet. We said >> I think it's 927 or something. >> 927 square ft. >> 23. 923. >> 923 square ft. And it's limited. It's an accessory use and it's uh uh going to be
a psychological type of use that's available to residents and the public. I think that and uh um it's going to be roughly a maximum of three per hour and um
let's see uh any significant well let's see Ed you had suggested that if that service is underutilized or for whatever reason it's not working out um and it's going to be changed you would have to come back here that's correct because particularly of the board's sensitivity
to the parking need and generated by that uh compliance with affordable housing regulations and I wrote down affordable housing again. So I think that's the gist. So before I even get to the board, Mr. McKenna, are
those conditions uh acceptable to your to your team? Yes, except that the um a professional office is um a permitted use. It's not an accessory use. >> Right. But in that building, it's only
going to be accessory to >> Oh, yeah. >> to the to the uh neurodeiverse of housing. >> Absolutely correct. >> That that's what I meant. >> And and quite frankly, if you wanted to put a a limit on the on the square footage, you could do that. and and we generally will put in there no
intensification or expansion uh of the absent further approval of the board. >> So, Mr. Chairman, I guess the next issue is are those uh conditions acceptable to the board and then we'll have a vote one way or
the other. >> Okay. One of the members like to make a motion to approve Mr. Kennedy's uh condition. >> Yes, please. I approve. >> So, you'll make a motion to approve the
application subject to the conditions that we just referenced. >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. >> A second. >> Okay. Roll call. >> And Tori. Yes, I'd like to vote yes on >> Raymond Mass. >> Yes.
>> Greg Fitzgerald, >> yes. >> Vincent Lane, >> yes. >> Paul Kagno, >> John Gild, >> yes. >> Anna Cruz, >> yes. >> And that's it.
>> All right. So, that application is approved six to one. >> Okay. Thank you. Good luck. >> Thank you very much, everyone. Appreciate everybody coming out. Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Charlene, great job tonight.
>> Not easy. have been