e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e United States happen now all right everybody Welcome to the June 17th 2024 master plan subcommittee hearing uh and we're going to be covering uh Parks and Recreation and open space element of the master plan tonight the economic development element and the historic preservation element of the master plan um again this is going to be I believe this is being broadcasted on YouTube uh and the planning board has a sub website page where anybody who's watching this can go to to put any any uh recommendations or suggestions or opinions on what we're going to be discussing here and the elements that we're going to be covering tonight on that web page that'll be sent directly to the subcommittee uh for review and consideration so we can take that and and hopefully incorporate it into what we're doing um so at that I will uh hand it off to Mela apte who is from CME and we have Nino barelli uh councilman uh for uh the township uh he's going to be discussing a little bit of uh the open space element of the master plan all right um good evening everyone um thank you so this is our uh fourth public meeting we're going to discuss the last three elements which are going to be be part of our um Jackson Township's 2024 comprehensive master plan next slide please um so these are the three elements open space and Recreation plan element Economic Development and historic preservation element next slide please um again this is just an overview of what we've already discussed next slide and um this is the focus for today next slide please so what is an uh parks and open space Recreation element Township of Jackson did its last open space Recreation element in 2009 one of the biggest uh objectives was to see if there is sufficient preserved uh land uh both for Passive Recreation active Recreation as well as for conservation purposes um overall in 2009 it was discovered that there is about uh 13 ,23 Acres of state land which is within the township of Jackson about 1900 Acres of County Land and about 877 Acres of Township land now mind you when we say it's Township own land it can be under the umbrella of its Township own property it's for conservation it's actually used for Parks or it's actually for active Recreation um overall Township of Jackson is one of those unique uh Township that has been blessed with um you know having cons conserved land because of environmental constraints it is also served by 10 Township owned Municipal Parks uh it has three private golf course and it does have couple of County parks within its Township element what open space Recreation plan would do is it would identify what the existing open space Recreation areas are within your Township then review the national uh Park standards you have the national uh NPS standards which kind of identify based on your Township's population your Township's proximity its neighborhoods proximity to active Recreation where the parks uh how many parks are there if they are sufficient for the township or not and overall look at your list of uh already conserved land and if there are any further land to be acquired and conserved that would basically be the uh the Crux of the matter of parks recreation and open space element again the mlul land use Law requires every Township to look at area Parcels of land that they do want to designate for public or private use for enjoyment for conservation and uh uh for natural openness of the land and this element will cover that for Township of Jackson next slide please um again this is just repeating what I said like we'll look at your existing Park analyze if there are any existing gaps look at resources to enhance quality of life we will also review based on your uh DPW or maintenance of parks department which will review you know what are the conditions of existing Park if any of those need updates any of the structures they need update any courts or fields that need update and Iden ify that in your uh implementation or recommendation plan uh next slide please then the second element that this uh overall exercise is going to look at is your economic development plan economic development is one of those another elements that is permitted by mlul which is an optional element that Township can look at uh I believe economic element is one of those element that the township does want to look at again keeping in mind that they want to direct a proper planned growth in proper planned areas conserve the other areas and make sure there is enough uh you know development uh and plan development to occur throughout the township of Jackson uh we will review we will identify your existing commercial corridors where uh the growth happens if there has been any look at areas that are in Conflict where you know um generally you have conflicting land users and that shouldn't uh again the infrastructure is not there to serve them and basically make recommendation again keeping in mind economic development is one of those um um requirement as a Township that you're looking at to commercially develop as well as keep the uh Township of Jackson step moving forward for the next 5 to 10 years um next slide please and then the third element that we going to look at is the historic preservation element um Township of Jackson has a unique identity they want to preserve their uh unique identity they want to preserve their historic uh um history as well as their historic sites um the historic preservation element will look at you know the state data the national register data apparently there is already a district which has been on the national register uh in town ship of Jackson which is the cville uh District uh that has been recognized so you know areas such as these which are of importance of historical significance for Township of Jackson um areas or sites will be reviewed um again the master plan element will identify them that doesn't necessarily mean they'll automatically get on the state or national register that just means it is of historical element significance to the township and that these areas should be studied um it is critical to preserve and celebrate the history or identity of the township and this uh master plan element will kind of bring uh you know that element to uh fru next slide please uh this is one of the uh the pictures uh I believe this is in cville District uh it's it's one it's a general store um it has been identified I believe a chairwoman gave me a very interesting book on history of uh Jackson and it is one of those sites that has um you know uh played an important role in Township's history next slide please and I think that brings us to the end again I want to uh you know I I believe uh Mr sheay already said that there is the uh this is the address to go to if you have any recommendations again be it open space be it historic element be it Economic Development the subcommittee would like to hear from you um they will review it and pass the information to me and then you know that this is your Township this is your master plan and you know we would love to get recommendations or information from you guys so thank you chairwoman can I just ask a question quickly can I ask a question quickly certain okay fine I just sorry I came late so I apologize if I missed it do we have a list of all that which is currently deemed historic historically preserved in in town is there such a list available for the public we're looking we we're searching for it now okay and and I spent several years on the commission when there was one um back in the 70s so I have some I mean I'm history walking so uh I have some insight into that but I'll bet Mr resy knows as I say he has forgotten more than most of us know so I'm going to start picking his mind too okay and also do we I know know the um Council had been working on a updated list maybe we should try to get that available to the public with open space everything that town currently opens owns and the county owns and the state owns in Jackson which is a ton which is why Mr belli is here amazing he's the he's the man of the moment so we'll let him and he he very generously with several hours notice uh is joining us tonight so I'm very appreciative thank you thank you chair women Campbell um I want to thank the master plan subcommittee for the time and efforts that you've put in to uh develop a plan uh a future blueprint for development for the next 10 years or so in our town of Jackson um as you all know and the residents do too because they utilize and enjoy them we do have you know many parks and recreational spaces in her Town um they represent I think a positive reflection on her town and Crea sense of Pride among her residents and visitors alike and the township Council in uh this year and last well the last couple years when it comes to Roa Park have voted have supported and voted for um upgrades and improvements to uh Parks uh recently uh councilman um Bernstein and I and uh our other fellow Council mates voted for upgrades and improvements much um overdue upgrades and improvements to Wood Lane Park it's a beautiful space out there it's a neighborhood park off of New Prospect Road and um some of the things that we have planned include replacing the current playground equipment that is there with new playground uh equipment which will be shaded and also Ada accessible um items will be there as well as um three Bays of swings uh a board rocker uh sensory area will also be there with musical instruments so not only um you know children of of all uh ages uh can use it including those with disabilities there at Wood Lane Park so we want to make sure you know it's a conducive a very safe and uh a welcoming and also aesthetically pleasing Park like the rest of our parks are in our town so we're working on doing that for Wood Lane Park um upgrades uh from what we been told hopefully will start in the fall and it should take like six to nine weeks according to the vendor who will be working on that project and that is at Wood Lane Park I know we have so many other Parks Roba Park you know um that um 34 acres of land over there actually in historic cville area of her Town um was purchased and there is going to be active and passive Recreation there that um the current count Council and also previous Council um also advocated for and supported and what will be included there um is an Ampitheater Pavilion um just for point of information you may all know this already but just for point of information also to share it with the public so they're aware of U what will be taking place there that's going to be our newest Township um Park and um nothing is started there um as of yet there's been a lot of tree clearing uh there and um councilman uh Chisum um has helped spearhead the efforts there along with council president cun and also councilman Bernstein and uh working on uh Parks and Recreation when it comes to some of the upgrades that will be done there at Roa Park also what will be there too because there's an existing Lake in that historic part of our town there's going to be a concrete uh kayak launch as well a fish and dock um I suggested maybe even we can put a fishing cleaning a fish cleaning table there um also park benches 20x 40 Pavilion um will also be located along the shoreline around Roa park there so um that's another space that has been uh preserved and protected by uh our town and uh will be um protected from you know future development and all that so that's uh in the works that's still being um you know going through the uh the first you know early stages of it with engineering and all also um we're looking to do you know other having other venues in Johnson Park uh we have movies in the park in Johnson Park which is our largest uh State Park uh that will be starting next month uh want to thank the recreation it's local it's it's a Jackson Park not a state park Johnson Park Johnson Park yes um that is going to be you know movies in the park is started there they also started a concert series as well um there's a concert actually tomorrow night I believe it's called Latin night so want to thank the recreation department and their staff and administration for helping put that together and some of the activities that will be taking place there it's going to be like held every other uh um week uh between every other Wednesday thank you uh between now and August so we're looking to do more things at our Parks particularly our uh largest um uh Park in our town where we we H Jackson days and we will continue to and that will be actually coming up in September um hopefully we'll have nice weather for that as well as National Night Out for um great Police Department so that's on the parks front so we're always looking and we're in the early stages of upgrading our parks in recreational areas so there's more recreational uses um available for um for the kids and also uh for adults as well to uh frequent and enjoy we have the open space and um we're you know looking to do more with what we have already what's already there so on the economic development front uh commercial um Corridor front we're always advocating always supporting on the governing body more commercial development because that's going to equate to an active economy in our town that's going to help bring in obviously profitable you know businesses that will also bring in that much needed Revenue Our Town needs to offset in place um also help relieve that Municipal uh budget burden and also bring in the re the ratables in Revenue that we need to offset um to offset any kind of uh burden being placed on our fellow residents and taxpayers and that will also in turn create jobs for local residents as well so it's a plus and we're you know always also working on that front as well um when it comes to economic uh development I know councilman Bernstein council president cun um have been spearheading the efforts on that and we are um you know work they're working together um with the council to you know get some positive Headway when it comes to uh Economic Development so people can and frequent their businesses and Shop here right in our own town thank you excellent than just just what we had in mind thank you so much if I could just add one piece to what councilman Bry said with ro Roa Park in particular um the township um engineering Morgan Municipal what has been working on that project they did run into some EPA issues with the original plants and then now they're remodify the plants to try to make sure they can get all those dreams that were put in place in the past two to three years within the setbacks that the state required so we hope to have an update with that for the public within the next two to three weeks I think uh those who there are some major developments going up in that area and that will be a wonderful thing to have in that section of town which was lacking in recreational facilities so that's great and also those of us who have lived here for over 50 years know that Roa Farms was an amazing facility when it was in its Heyday I used to frequent the place in the 70s they had a big Casino not the gambling kind uh and restaurants and it it was the lake was wonderful so I'm just amazed that the township is dedicating this area I'm I think the the residents will be very pleased with this effort on the part of the township open space do you want me to speak on that as well if you Council m yeah there there's one park that councilman berelli left out that he mentioned about the last council meeting that the county is upgrading and I I I I spoke to the county commissioner after Council brelli county is updating and upgrading um Patriots Park they're adding some more um commissioner Haynes I spoke to yesterday she left me a message that they are going to be putting new Surf and some new toys for children over there and an area also for adults to exercise while their kids are playing on the swing set a very modern um thing I didn't see the specific plans but the councilman mentioned about last meeting and we checked a little more into it so we hope to have more plans in the next couple weeks for that also on Bowman Road there on Bowman Road and and I know I've frequented that area for soccer games for many years so that was pretty much all that was there were soccer fields but that's nice to know that that's being upgraded excellent uh anything in on the historical end um uh I know uh since the master plan was done uh we've had a lot of activ at the um on Harmony Road for the church that's there that has gone through quite a bit of uh effort to maintain its historical accuracy so there are things that are happening within pockets of the township stuff is always going on and that that particular um area on Harmony Road if you drive by that church it's wonderful to see it was vacant for many many years and to see see it getting active use while maintaining the history I think is a wonderful thing also definitely thank you um on the open space front we reached on the council 3,000 Acres of open space preserved and protected 3,000 acres in our inventory we're always looking um and advocating for open space um opportunities always looking around for available and valuable land to purchase I wish wish we can do more uh we have I mean this year we voted uh we voted for protecting 114 Acres of uh land we help the public schools at the same time who as you may know are going through you know Financial Dire Straits and all that so we're able to help them out while protecting um land and providing Recreation opportunities for the public school students um so we're you know like I said I wish we can do more but um on that front we're competing with private interest sometimes when trying to purchase land we can only by law state law go we can't go above 10% of the appraised value of a property that we're looking to purchase so you know we're doing the best with we can with the resources we have at our disposal like the municipal um open space fund and like councilman berste mentioned we are also working with Ocean County um to try to acquire um this beautiful open space and land as best as possible in various areas of our town um trying to work with them so we don't have to use our Municipal resources all the time they have a natural lands trust fund committee um um that meets U monthly so we try to work with them and try to send them open space leads that we may know about that we can work with them on to try to uh purchase property uh here in our town but we're trying our best to protect the beautiful environment that we have here in Jackson as best as possible um within the law and the N nice natural resources that we have in our town as well so thank you you also for those on zoom and who are listening or who will see this later please know that if there is an area in town that you think is needed that a that a facility is needed you can do two things you can get in touch with this committee and we can put that within our thought process for the Open Spaces or recreational areas or you can get in touch with the council and let them know that there is an area in town that is in need of because it's 104 square miles there's a lot of property here but things seem to Cluster around the developed areas and if there is areas in town that that you think is lacking in uh facilities please let us know thank you chairwoman C we're always asking residents um you know at meetings also when we meet with residents outside of council chambers we're you know a asking them encouraging them to send us open space leads land that they may know that's available um that we can have Administration look into because like you mentioned there are so many you know there's so many square miles of Road in our town and it's a big town we can't always catch everything maybe whether we're trying to find it online if uh for open space opportunities or um just driving through town so if you know of any um you know Parcels that may be available that we can look into um possibly purchasing you know please feel free to reach out um to myself uh my if you don't mind I'll share my email address um it's n barelli uh n b o r r l l i at Jackson T WP nj.net and um you know just let us know so we're all vested in this great town that we call Jackson appreciate all the help that we can get and try to work with everybody thank you and uh councilman thank you I I know uh you have another commitment so uh please feel free to I I promised 5:30 you could be on your way and it's 5:30 it's 5:30 that went pretty fast so time flies when you're having fun so we really appreciate the time apprciate thank you very much so much all right best of luck to you all right now uh we'll open it to the public that's here I I see two Jim you're you can you can oh we'll we'll get we'll get the person who's forgotten more than most of us remember age before Beauty all right please raise your right hand J bressie 462 Diamond Road Jackson New Jersey swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do I have a question because we talked about waterways and environment is this commission looking at putting another uh conservation overlay on this master plan plan there was one put on the last master plan to help solidify identifying sensitive areas and uh it help tremendously is it your plans to keep it or change it as need be to help assist in the developing of all types of property with that with that overlay So currently we are in the uh you know review stages we're going to gather the data on what's existing What's um you know um recently acquired you know properties that that were recently acquired remember the last master plan happened in 2009 to now there must have been properties that have been acquired uh one thing I want to say if these properties have been acquired through Green Acres Grant or open space Grant Township has already put to them in conservation they are in conservation nothing else can happen to them uh but based on the number of properties and that's when you know the planning board the subcommittee will make recommendations as to what is it that the council should do these properties because the district overlay District environmental overlay helped a lot yeah and still a lot of small a lot of small 5 acre tracks 10 acre tracks that's where that would apply yeah and it truly helps identify the sense of areas and control what goes there with the C1 waterways and so forth yeah and then currently as it stands the recom what is existing in the zoning district is staying that way until some recommendations and whenever those recommendations are made the public meeting will happen and it'll be and and we're we're happy to have your recommendations anyone can give us recommendations of where you think appropriate uh open space should be so in all honesty Dr every place we can have it right Dr Hill from this position I really don't want to do that Sunshine Law he'd be the first to yell about it so no I'm not going to do that but you guys are doing a good enough job but that District conservation uh overlay was really important and as Mr RI said the the thing element we kept on was trying to get the balance of that 87% residential tax down in the last M to plan all number there for research and that tied together then too thank you thank you appreciate it and I'm going to start picking your brain on History who are you again getting that remember you swear firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do Jim Sakia s l e CC h a sixr Field Drive uh let's see the topics for tonight so the only thing Economic Development you're going to know where I'm going with this is there in the master plan can it be designed where we actually do a study of what is needed instead of having all of these projects that are coming before us are basically assumptions that they'll be able to fill the spaces case in point contractor warehouses everyone if it I'm leaving the schools out because that that is what it is if it's not a school it's a contractor Warehouse how many contractor warehouses can this Township need agreed so so the question is can the Plan show or kind of create you know that people are doing studies of what is truly needed in this town and just instead of saying well we're going to go with you know you know it's difficult you you're I we all understand where you're going but it's uh what the market wants so if someone owns property and they want to build a Contractor's Warehouse on their property and they think that they can fill that warehouse with uh tenants who are going to pay rent that's that's how things will go we can't tell people what they have to do with their property understood that but as a Township okay if they're wrong in their assessment we're stuck with it so why can't the township at least have so couple things to your point so uh couple things that uh that the planner will be doing is number one looking at what zones we truly think are viable as to um you know where they should or shouldn't be um located number two uh proper definitions right I think part of the problem is that when we have um some of these applications that come in it's it's the definitions that really cause the issue um because it really goes to the root and foundation of the type of the application that comes before us so uh that's another thing that we're also taking a look at so nothing's written in stone yet um nothing you know is there's no finished product yet but I can we can assure you that we are taking a look at those two things in depth in significant amount of detail okay so if I may um so what the economic development plan is it's going to identify uh what has kept you know Jackson Township's economy moving for the last couple of years and what where is it headed in the next few years you're basically planning I mean you cannot um you know completely have a black and white answers to everything in the future but what you are trying to propose or make recommendation is to plan the commercial zones to plan you know where is it that we want to see our commercial development happen what type of development is all like uh chairwoman said uh it depends on the market but yes we can make policy recommendation as to what are the type of uh development that Township residents want to see where do they want to see and though that's what the master plan or the economic development plant is going to say we all know it's important commercial residential everything has to go hand in hand but we do want to make sure it's directed in areas that is you know best uh for the residents and also for the coming in commercial development in your Township I I have no complaints about Economic Development to reduce residential taxes in any way yeah my only concern is I don't want a whole Township of contractor warehouses yeah understood and we and we certainly agree and just I point in just like 20 years ago when every developer wanted to build a strip mole how many pizzerias and does this town handle and how many of those spaces are now starting to see empty spaces in them and we're not filling them and so that that's all I'm saying is it's got to be you know I want things that are going to actually benefit it's interestingly enough I've been at several meetings where we have had a large number of mostly gentlemen come to support the fact that they were going to be able to work in the town they live in that they were going to be able to have have their own business in the town they live in so they're looking forward to these contractor warehouses where they can set up their business and not have to drive uh 50 miles north or uh 40 miles west and they'll be they'll be home and listen if you if if the 650 contractor warehouses that are basically gone through the planning board in the last six months and continue to go through oh oh not quite that many I don't know i' have to add them all up if they all get filled and we're using them so be it but I guess my theory is is not I don't want to specifically say contract just in general let's have a an idea of what we're we're we're building in these places no one wants to build something and put that kind of an investment in if they're not going to use it so we've had um a large number of people coming in in and saying oh we want to build an office building and then you say well can you fill it that's not our business our business is to make sure that it's being built in the appropriate manner that it's in the right place and it's being that it has enough parking that it's uh safe that it's safe for the fire department and all those things so we we can't tell somebody you can't build what you want to build on your property so so let's talk open space a little bit just cuz but to your point we're looking into it no I I get it I get it I'm not open space just it just kind of rang with me as Mr brelli was talking and he made comment that there were 3,000 Acres of open space in Jackson that I guess is Jackson o any idea what a percentage of Jackson is that's open space now well if they're 104 square miles I I don't know how many acres are in a square mile so it's it's a it's a math problem you know but as good as I was in there are many different kinds of Open Spaces in Jackson and we will we will have all that you know Graphics I mean we already have found out that again there was about 13,000 approximately square feet County owned so we'll have that classification in the open space and I guess all and then further it will subdivide you know in the township own how much is Just conservation which which is just environmentally constrained land that has been preserved and how much of that is used for Passive and then active I guess I'm just trying to understand is does Jackson have a number as far as a percentage of what their land they would love to see is open space where if we're just kind of as we get as we buy it it adds to it like you can you can and the perfect example is you can look at you know Freehold they clearly post on signs how many open a you know open space Acres that they have in the town and what the percentage is I'm just wondering if Jackson has they they may have a Target huh they may have a Target you may just want to reach out to the open space committee that's what I was kind of hoping and that also you know is something the master plan you know there are the national uh Park standards based on which you know in your population on your location that the amount of open space that should be needed and that will give Township of Jackson as to whether they've met the target whether they need to add more and give give them that number okay so that's it just on the topics I do have an I want to go back to another topic this is for these there's nobody else here there's nobody else here topics because if I if we if we don't limit it to these three topics then we're going back to do too much history and we we we're off our schedule please I appreciate it thank you and you know you are welcome to go on the yeah the website and ask any questions you'd like or make any suggestions you'd like and we will so here's my suggestion post them on the website I saw what you did I see what you're doing here and I just went and I watched how Middletown did theirs I I spent a great deal of time reading Middletown's I've done their done their site and I have three children who live in Middletown so I'm very familiar okay another one from Mr bre all right you're swor Mr bre yeah uh speaking about control and what you can dictate in a master plan and not dictate and the last thing I want to see us become the second Mount Laural act I'm always a feor of that but I think one thing the public has to appreciate this board this planning board Council everybody can vote on a master plan and say what you can and can't do and probably about 25% of that's going to be overruled at the zoning board so when you come at the planning board meetings regularly go to the zoning board meetings too you'll find a lot of stuff that all you put together after a master plan that can happen in 2009 when that Master Plan was finished we figured 25% of it would probably wind up at the zoning board and you don't know what's going to happen then I just think that's good for the public to know and to keep in mind thank you thank you any comments I I just wanted to comment about open space really echoing what councilman berelli said earlier but um I'm on open space committee we've actually fielded in multiple I'll call it leads whether it's from a neighbor who hears that their neighbor moving and mentions to them um and we forward it obviously to the to the business administrator where Council in this former government is not authorized to negot neate asale um and many most of those leads unfortunately don't end up handing out but it takes one out of one lead one more lead you know so obviously we strongly recommend people um and there are a couple of areas that actually don't have parks that don't have open space in their vicinities that have reached out and our message back to those residents are go pound the pavement let your neighbors know that when that time comes that they want to sell that they want to retire and move on um you never know and the town's Town's definitely interested and Mr wall has has had many conversations with different land owners but usually people want the top dollar and that's where the town unfortunately is CA but we can only do our best so we appreciate all the all the leads any any comments from our subcommittee members just the number you asked it's about four and a half percent of what the town owns open space we did the math what was the number that's just Municipal right the county and state owns a lot of here also so and then of course we've got the Pinelands which is you know in certain areas bulk areas in the town is Maro anything for the good of the order just if you could put your comments on the the website we were not getting really anybody to comment and it's it's not a done deal we're still working on it and we're really looking forward to hearing from people and we just really are hoping that more people will get involved that way thank you all right we'll uh close this uh public portion we will be um looking at future dates for our Major meeting that will be looking into the fall we'll take a break now between now and and when our um Regular meeting starts thank you second we have a all in favor I thank you I e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e States stand indivisible all right everybody Welcome to the June 17th Jackson Township planning board meeting this meeting is being convened in accordance with the provisions of the open public meetings Act uh with adequate notice of being provided in all forms and appropriate fors and I will leave it off to the Madam chairwood a roll call please Mr Brey here Mr Bernstein here Mr heler here miss rker I'm sorry Mr rker Miss Rose Mr marzo here Mr treemmer here Mr wall here Mr Sullivan here Dr Campbell here uh may we have a motion for payment of voucher for recording secretary please so moved all in favor I and may we have a motion for approval of minutes of July of June 3D meeting regular meeting so moved Sullivan second a roll call please Mr Brey yes Mr Bur Bernstein yes Mr heler yes Mr marzo yes Mr Tremor yes Mr wall yes Mr Sullivan yes Dr Campbell yes um we have a a change to the agenda schedule block 1 19501 Lot 21 K Nash Avis LLC carry from July 1st to September 23rd with notice required we'll take a motion on that change please motion to change Bernstein second Sullivan all in favor I uh we have a master plan report please M good evening at 5:00 P PM this evening the master plan subcommittee held a public hearing to discuss the park recreation and open space elements the economic development element and the historic preservation elements for its master plan the public was invited to present comments insights and suggestions the final public hearing will be determined at a later date and the public will be advised accordingly in the interim the idea wall remains open for further public comments thank you we have the engineering and planning matters gentlemen uh any resolutions none at this time and miscellaneous legal matters anything none at this time okay thank you good evening for the record I'm Donna Jennings from the law firm of Wen Goldman and Spitzer on behalf of the applicant as the board is aware the applicant is here this evening seeking minor subdivision approval to divide property located on Pitney Lane and identified as block 210001 law 24 on the Township tax maps A detention Basin currently exists on the property as the board may recall the applicant received an approval Amendment on December 18th 2023 from this board lifting a condition prohibiting the development on law 24 memorialized by resolution dated February 26 2024 applicant now proposes to create two New Lots proposed lots 24.01 and 24.02 the portion of the Basin on proposed lot 24.01 will be filled and the remaining portion of the Basin on proposed lot 24.02 will be redesigned the property is located in the R1 Zone however upon subdivision New Lots are subject to the R3 Zone standards therefore the appli requires several bulk variances including for proposed lot 24.01 minimum lot width minimum lot Frontage minimum lot depth minimum front yard setback minimum side yard setback and minimum lot area proposed lot 24.02 requires bulk variance relief with respect to minimum lot depth and minimum lot area the record will demonstrate that the applicant satisfies the positive and the negative criteria under the C2 balancing test required by the board to Grant bulk variance relief because the benefits of granted the variances outweigh any detriments caused with respect to the positive criteria the granting of the variances would further several purposes of the municipal land use law including the establishment of appropriate population densities uh to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of uses including residential and open space and the more efficient use of land with respect to the negative criteria the record will demonstrate that the applicant satisfies a negative criteria which is that the granting of the bulk variances will not cause substantial detriment to the public good and will not impair the intent and purpose of the Zone plan and zoning ordinance as will be testified by the applicants expert Witnesses the original laot 24 is approximately three times as large as the lots already developed on Pitney Lane those developed lots are approximately 1 acre each therefore granting the bulk variances will not cause substantial detriment to the developed portion of the existing subdivision or impair The Zone plan or zoning ordinance the applicant will rely on the testimony of two witnesses yaso of partnoy the professional engineer who testified back in December and Andrew Janu a professional planner as a matter of recordkeeping the applicant is in receipt of the following reports the Jackson Police Department traffic saf safety unit review letter dated February 20 2024 the jacksonboro fire prevention review letter dated March 8th 2024 the board Engineers review letter dated March 15 2024 and the board planners review letter dated May 30th 2024 and I'm being handed something else we also have Ocean County Health Department dated February 21st 2024 and with that I'd like to have our first experts warning professionals let's go to our professionals first um thank you um Mr Jenning summarize the um application um correctly um M Jen you indicated there was an area variance that you were looking for I believe so because when you go to the um there on septic so it says look at the R3 bulk standards and Mr Peters put it in his table he said it Con form but when you actually read it 130,000 F feet is required for the R3 this isn't our one zone so it's a little confusing but I think that we're going to ask for the minimum lot area variance just to be on the safe side um what will the new home connect to sewer or will it be septic septic it will be septic so then I would think we would need the area would need the VAR Mr Peters sort of called it out but then he wrote conforms and I was looking at it and said wait a minute we don't actually conform if for to the rth um and any issue um with the contribution for the maintenance of the Basin uh with we thought it was a little steep but that's the ordinance so we'll have to comply that's onent thank you madam chair I think Mr CLE and Miss Jennings covered all the issues all right thank you thank you Miss Jennings we'll swear in your witness thank you please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm to tell the truth to hold truth nothing about the truth I do all right please state your name and spell your last for the record Yosef poroi p rtn all right and your qualifications I am a licensed um professional engineer in the state of New Jersey I have a bachelor's or M master's degrees in civil engineering from ngat been practicing engineering land on Land Development for past 11 years and You' be presenting testimony as a professional engineer yes I am not a planner correct okay all right and the bo accept we accept your credentials thank you welcome thank you okay so for the record um Joseph if you could please just the record confirm that your office has prepared the subdivision Bas design plan yes we have and if you're going to refer to that identify for the record we have so the exhibit up um on the screen right now is actually an aerial exhibit um it's a you know Google Earth aial um with the parcel the the state parcel lines the subject property of this application is outlined in red surrounding ones are are in yellow and just for the then we'll have the describe the existing site conditions and then describe the app okay so as noted the the subject property is block 21 21001 Lot 24 it's at the intersection of Pitney Lane and East Veterans with Frontage on both um approximately 3.48 Acres as no in is in the R1 residential Zone it's currently improved with a detention Basin which was approved as part of a subdivision known as Chapel acres in 19 which was approved in 1987 um of of single family one acre sing approximately one acre single family lots this three approximately 3 and a half acre lot was originally the was was um permitted and constructed as a as a detention Basin for the development surrounded by surrounded by residential uses um so there b the lot contains a detention base and there are no other improvements on the lot there is existing curbing along Pitney Lane there's no curb on East Veterans which is a County County Route 528 there is no sidewalk along the entire Southeast Side penty Lane so on the subject property Side py Lane there's no sidewalk along either our Frontage or anywhere along this side there is um sidewalk along the opposite side of peny Lane which was installed as part of the original um subdivision so as as um this we were before the board in December of 2020 three for an application proposing to reconstruct the existing Basin to more efficient design know Rec regrade it reconfigure it to free up some developable area on a lot to to um to know to to um free up about about one acre area um to be able to to develop with with some with the future development consistent with the other single family house Lots on in the in the neighborhood um as part of that uh when we were at the board the board recommended um coming coming back with an with the subdivision to subdivide a lot in order that in order to be able to dedicate to properly dedicate the Basin to the town which was which which was never done as part of the original subdivision application and that's why we're here tonight um we're proposing to subdivide that 3 point 48 acre lot into two lots um which will be filed by plat um proposed Lot 2 24.01 which is at to the north will be um will be the the portion of the Basin on that lot will be filled in and regraded to construct a buildable area the remainder of the um the the remainder lot will be 24.02 where we will reconstruct the Bas and reshape that base in to with and per a testimony at the last hearing that will maintain the existing no existing design characteristics existing flows and it's been modeled know to with based on entire tributary area um we have being we are in the R1 residential Zone as noted um or in section 2 44-47 D requires that New Lots created by subdivision shall comply with R3 zoning standards unless connected to public sewer there is no public sewer available so therefore we are subject to the R3 bulk standards so we have laid out this lot this proposed lot roughly in accordance with the R1 standards which is located however we are subject to the R3 the mother lot is a 3 acre lot would conform with the R3 um but this new lot um is designed with the R1 and but being that we don't have sewer we are the R3 standards apply which is um we are seeking the variances to yes yeah if you have a pointer you can um just point to what you're referring to I do not I'm sorry not there was another exhibit that was up earlier I believe yes that's it thank you so this is a this exhibit is was part of the submitted um Improvement plans um this is the this this is the Basin design plan titled Basin design plan it shows the subdivision lines um and shows the proposed regrading of the Basin and redesign of the sare associated sare management and just for the record then let's identify that as okay so Lot 24 .01 is on the left um shown on the plan left is um is the developable portion of the of the lot um just for the record the minimum lot width per the R3 standards is 200 feet where we are proposing 171 approximately 171 ft minimum LP Frontage required is 100 ft we are proposing 62.1 3 ft along East Veterans and a long Pitney Lane is 1 71.5 ft um there was a question from um from the board professionals regarding the configuration and um the frontage on East Veterans um to clarify the way we came across we came to this design was we are extending the pipe coming into the Basin so we we we sort of work by trying to get that you know inflow pipe to work and that's that to to dictate the call it the the plan left side the Basin um and then designed that Basin based on required volume that left based on you know the the geometry of that um developable area we were short on that one acre we're trying to maintain so that wrapped around our lot wrapped around the Basin to um to make up that area and that's why um there's um a leg of that lot that goes out to East Veterans Highway and I also think the goal was to give the applicant more rear yard more play area Etc yes more usable area for that lot more lot area M Jennings we'd appreciate it if you'd use the U share the microphone because we can't hear we can't hear you thank you well if you don't have an extra one you usually have two um sorry but if you could share because it's being recorded thank you so much minimum lot depth of 241 is 400 ft required where 250 ft are proposed in front yard setback 80 ft required in the r in the R3 R3 standard we're proposing 40 ft um front yard setback um side yard setback 50 ft required per the R3 standards we're proposing 20 ft um minimum lot area um 130,000 feet required per the R3 standards we're proposing lot 24.01 is at 58,000 4377 sare ft um and now lot 24.02 where it will contain the Basin um that has variances for minimum lot depth where 400 ft required 20 212. 62 feet proposed and minimum lot area where 130,000 ft² required and 93,7 5.2 ft is proposed um as noted there was um the the lot 24.01 has been roughly designed according to R1 standards assuming that there was available sewer um as not also the Bas and lot would be dedicated 24.02 would be dedicated to the town so there's no increase in density we still have a 3.4 8 acre lot um mother lot and we're only adding one dwelling unit we're only proposing one dwelling unit one maximum one Welling unit um and the planner will testify regarding the justification for these variances um the redesign Basin as testified at the last hearing would remain a a a grass bottom detention Basin um but would now be um designed we would has been remodeled we would be cleaned up um it's been redesigned remodeled based on current rainfalls um the the current rainfalls in effect and and would be now easier to maintain and and more efficient um no Outside Agency repr approvals um Jackson mua confirmed that there is water available for the property but there's no sewer available um we have not received comments from environmental Comm commission Ocean County planning board granted a conditional approval um Ocean County Health Department um Jackson Public Safety and fire Preen fire prevention all had no no comments and um Ocean County Soil Conservation District approval is pending um any other regard to any other board comments I think I've address most of them um it was a question regarding the sidewalk on the original subdivision we've reviewed the resolutions from the original subdivision um while it only proposed sidewalk on the opposite side Pitney we have we found no explicit references to any sidewalks um in any of the resolutions um and another comment we will provide uh confirmation of tax assessor regarding lot numbers that's all the direct testimony for this witness gentlemen Mr C um just just a couple as um you're not proposing any curbs or new curbs or new sidewalks there is existing curb along along Penney Lane right um there's no curb on the county road the county has not asked for curbing um along the county road um with the applicant be contributing to The Pedestrian safety fund for the improvements that they're not not providing yes they would um how is um the dedication um to the town of the Basin lot how's that going to be perfected I just don't want to be a situation we did this one time and somehow it fell through the cracks and round up being a private owner how um do we make sure that the transfer um is perfected I mean the subdivision would have to be perfected first in order for you to transfer property and then we would uh transfer it and maybe make it subject to you can't pull a building permit until you demonstrated that the property has been dedicated to the township would a note on the Subdivision plat indicating that um any dedication specifically the drainage basin lot to the township would be perfected when the map is filed you can't dedicate it when the map is filed you have to record it first so the whole world knows that it is separate a distinct lot and then we can transfer it I can't do it I don't believe you can do it exactly at the same time it has to occur right after the subdivision and that would occur exactly yeah and what you would do is you would put a note on the plan and you'd also make it a condition of the approval so that it's clear that that is part of the approval because I think that was the issue when the 80 1980 approval whenever they never actually made it a specific condition anywhere so I think it kind of fell off most boards have you know your resolution compliance and if it's written in the resolution you don't get that building permit without everything in the resolution being accounted for that's all thank you Mr Peters thank you madam chair Mr poroy um I heard you and Miss Jennings go back and forth about the shape of the lot um and I think part of the testimony was you wanted to make it an acre and so I look at the the lot and it looks like it's 1712 ft along Pitney and 250 ft deep yes which is 42875 square ft or what 600 square ft less than an acre you could just take the Basin lot and move the side Lot line over 3 feet and have 43,560 square ft yet we have what I think Miss Jennings called additional rear yard area that's 35 ft wide and 400 feet long out to another right ofo so I'm not saying the flag lots a bad idea I just don't see the justification that someone's going to use a 35 foot wide strip of land that's 400 feet long as part of their backyard the the county as a one of the county conditions um was that there' not be no driveway out to his veterans so it's not possible anyways to construct a access out my point is what's the need for the flag portion of the lot I believe it was just to give the future owner of the lot more property so that they could utilize that as a look if you honestly if you're playing soccer and you're a kid that's a great piece of property I don't know why we would just leave it to the township but I I mean not saying leave it to the town it's part of the Basin lot now we give you as Mr P I indicated the ability to provide more volume in the storm Water Management Facility but I'll leave that to the board um the proposed use of the lot I'm not sure if we got it's going to be a house it's going to be some future C can someone be specific as to how it relates to the permitted uses in the existing R1 Zone it'll be a a permitted use we they haven't decided what they're actually going to use the lot for but whatever is permitted in the zone could be an option thank you that's all Madam chair anyone from the board Mr R just as a side note uh the environmental commission has no interest in it's too small of a project so if you need a letter of you know for resolution compliance I'll email you one but there's not enough Apple to bite on right I think it'd probably be a good idea to get a letter of no interest or something from the environmental commission so we have a complete record I can accom I'll email it to you thank you Mr Tremor did you have something yeah I was just curious kind of going with u Mr Peters here why didn't we just reshape this and just make it the one I a lot like it should be you can't it's like M Jen say that we were trying to maximize the area we did start with you know with that Basin in in in flow pipe um as you see the subdivision is at no the subdivision line is at the edge of the the burm of the Basin um pushing that subdivision line would take it into the Basin but if we needed to we can try taking a closer look at that um I mean to me it looks a little strange you might as well just shorten it widen it and it meets all the requirements and then there's no question I maybe oversimplifying it I don't know all I know is this is what the applicant asked us to present to the board so the board could Grant the approval the way we're proposing it or they can grant an approval subject to your proposed modification yeah I'm I'm thinking you know as things are progressing in this town let's just do it the right way the first time and just get it done anyone else on the board I have to agree with Mr Tremor um it just it seems awkward and uh could be presenting a potential issue down the road for two structures I I would be concerned about that especially with all those uh um variances required on setbacks it it just doesn't seem to be prudent does the applicant have a planner yes Andrew Janu is here and he's going to testify gotta you're hiding back there I see you now I think these questions have been answered thank you we'll hear your next witness thank you Andrew if you can come on up thank you good evening good to see you again please raise your right hand you swear or affirm to tell the truth the hold truth nothing but the truth I do please state your name and spell your last of the record it's Andrew Janu j n i w right your credentials I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey as well as a member of the American Institute of certified planners uh I'm currently serving as the planner for the burough of Carterette for the township of Livingston and the burough of Freehold um I've been qualified throughout the state of New Jersey and just a few credentials and the board accepts the thank you thank you Andrew if you could just for the record you've had an opportunity to visit the site in the area around the site I have and you've had an opportunity to review the burrow the township ordinances and the master plan in connection with that application if you could then just go through the uh variances that the applicant is seeking and indicate whether or not in your professional opinion they've met the positive the negative criteria certainly so as uh Mr Poo mentioned this the property is in the R1 Zone however uh the R1 was modified to require R3 standards as the uh Benchmark if sewer is not available to the area and Sewer is not available uh so we are seeking the following relief applying the R3 standards uh to this lot uh minimum lot width 200 ft required 171 is provided for 24.01 uh lot width of 100 ft required with 62.1 3 is uh provided at the secondary Frontage along East Veterans Highway for 24.01 uh minimum required lot depth 400 ft is required 250 is provided for 24 .01 and 212. 62 is provided for 24.02 uh minimum front yard setb 80 ft would be required 40t is proposed for 24.01 minimum rear yard I'm sorry minimum side yard setback 50 ft required whereas 20 ft is proposed and finally minimum lot areas uh lot 24.01 proposes 58437 square feet and 24.02 which is the Basin lot proposes 93,7 square feet 130,000 square feet is required under the R3 standards um as was indicated prior the lot's approximately 3 and a half acres it's improved with a storm water basin uh there was a restriction on the lot lifted uh late last year to allow for the development on the lot and the lot has uh since been reconfigured by Mr port's office to provide a uh call it a more uh mod modern approach to the Basin it'll uh deal with current rainfall standards it'll be reconfigured and it'll better service uh the community uh and leaving a area of approximately a little bit over one acre for development uh the application process therefore is for a minor subdivision to allow for that lot to be subdivided to create a lot for the Basin which would then be dedicated to the township um as was intended almost 40 years ago with the original subdivision um and to create the additional building lot um in preparing for this evening I reviewed your master plan your ordinances as well as the correspondence with this and a couple of the uh goals and objectives of the master plan which stood out uh include to achieve a pattern and mix of land uses that achieves various Community planning objectives including the provision of quality residential neighborhoods the protection of Natural Resources the economic development of the community and the creation of a livable and desirable Community now keeping in mind this lot is being proposed into an ex existing subdivision which already has a character and has been developed for in excess of 35 years uh what we are proposing is very much in character with that um there is an aerial with the lot subdivision if we could put that up there we go so the uh that that is basically a little snippet of the immediate area the entrance to the project uh the uh subject property is outlined in Orange and the dash line is the proposed subdivision line for the residential lot and then the Basin would be uh equal internalized uh to that so you'll see that the the lot in all sense and purposes once developed will be very much in character with the immediate neighborhood and the entire subdivision in fact is one acre lots so very much in character and the homes will be Set uh very similarly uh your master plan also encourages infill development and Redevelopment where appropriate uh that maximizes the use of public facilities in in this case storm water roads and Etc this is a you know existing Frontage so we're not extending any improvements there's curbing here there's Frontage here and finally to protect the Integrity of existing residential neighborhoods by ensuring that any new infill or adjacent development is compatible and and it is it's uh very much in keeping with what's there um and as this board knows the grant of an variance is not just for the benefit of the applicant there has to be a public benefit and the public benefits are uh reiterated within the municipal land use law under 40 55d and as Donna indicated there are several that I believe uh we we can apply to this as terms of a public benefit uh the first is to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural residential recreational commercial and Industrial uses in open space both public and private according to their respective environmental needs to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens in this case we are within a residential neighborhood we're posing a lot that's identical in configuration to the lots that are already there and the added benefit of this will obviously that the Basin will finally be dedicated to Jackson now was originally intended and that the Basin will be improved to uh to more current standards in terms of capacity uh an e is to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that'll contribute to the well-being of persons neighborhoods communities regions and the preservation of the environment again it is the intent of this application to develop the lot with a permitted use as envisioned within the R1 district and finally to encourage the coordination of the various public and private procedures and activities shaping Land Development with a view of lessening the cost of such development in the more efficient use of land again what we have here is land that once reconfigured essentially be excess land it can be developed uh in configuration similar to what's around it it's going to use existing Road Frontage existing curbing so it is a very efficient use of land and it'll create a new Housing Opportunity within the community which brings us to the relief that we're seeking tonight uh what we're seeking tonight are bulk variances or C variances and C variances can be considered under one of two standards there's the C1 which is the hardship variance meaning there's a particular uh issue with respect to the topography existing structures that warrant the consideration of a variance or the second is the C2 um or the balance test which means it's a better zoning alternative and it has to meet five prongs uh within the CR criteria uh within the C2 standards the applicant has to show that the application relates to a specific piece of property and it does that the purposes of the mlu well would be Advanced by deviation and I read at least three that I believe would be Advanced through this application and that the benefits of the de deviation would outweigh any detriments and in this case again I believe the the benefits are that it creates a Housing Opportunity while cleaning up the Basin finally dedicating the Basin to the community and the subdivision will operate the way it was originally intended to 40 years ago with respect to the negative criteria the applicate applicant must demonstrate that the variants can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and that the variants will not impair the intent and purpose of the Zone plan and zoning ordinance with respect to substantial detriment to the public good uh again this is in the R1 Zone this Pro this subdivision was developed with one acre lots these lots are all developed with uh public water and septic system as this will be it'll be very much consistent with the man there'll just be another lot within the subdivision it will provide a new Housing Opportunity and because it's going to be developed with a use that's permitted within the R1 district there won't be anything here that would be considered a nuisance meaning it won't create any excess traffic it won't create any excess runoff it won't create noise and the like it'll be developed as intended within the R1 district with respect to the intent and purpose of the Zone plan again the The Zone plan uh seeks infill development in a density and and configuration that's appropriate for the location we're on point with that we're going to be very much consistent with the neighborhood so when we look at the balance I think uh certainly the benefit to the town is being able to take possession of the Basin finally and to be able to ensure the long-term maintenance of the property to have a reconfigured basin that's working it'll clean it up um and provide a new Housing Opportunity so when we look at this on balance I certainly believe that the criteria are met and the board can consider an affirmative decision tonight Mr Clay any questions for this witness yeah so uh so we are proposing 50 ft which is consistent with the R1 I believe what's required under the R3 standard is so we're talking about the rear I think we're compliant with the rear actually 50 yes Mr Peters chair Mr Jano you testified a number of times that that this was going to be a new Housing Opportunity um is this going to be a single family detached home as was testified it will be something that's permitted within the R1 District single families are permitted within the R1 so it very well may be well so my question is what are the permitted juices in the zone they have here single family dwellings Community shelters Community residences are all permitted within the R1 District that's the entire list uh no that's uh just my notes I don't have the entire list in front of me are houses of worship permitted in the zone um I believe they are okay you've indicated my count three times in your testimony is a new Housing Opportunity it is an opportunity you use the phrase new Housing Opportunity I want to make sure that and it is a new Housing Opportunity it very well may be which is permitted within the district I just want to make sure that board weighs the testimony you keep calling it housing and Miss Jennings tells us it's something that's permitted in the zone and there are uses in the zone that aren't housing that are permitted in the zone I'm just trying to tell what's going on Mr Peters I also testified that it would be something that's permitted within the R1 housing is permitted within the R1 it may be but my testimony was that it would be a use that's permitted Within the R1 District that's all I have Madam chair thank you Mr reker Mr gon so your planner extraordinaire flag Lots in my opinion and there's several in town they're junk they're useless they get deed over to the town here's a piece of junk you deal with it so in your planning and design can you tell me with all your years of experience how that flag lot satisfies multiple criteria that it's wonderful it's a benefit to the town it's an efficient use it's not an efficient use it is a stall for dead cats and candy wrappers so Mr rker when you refer to a flag lot what I typically think of a flag lot in planning terms or a lot that has its sole access in a stem of a property because there is no other Road Frontage this is a little bit I wouldn't disagree but I am struggling it's it's an unusually shaped lot I'm not going to argue with you and as was testified Mr pooy the county has put a condition on their approval that access cannot be provided in that stem so it is basically excess land if you will okay so it's junk land somebody's going to get stuck with it somebody's going to have to clean it up somebody's going to have to look at it we don't need a buffer for the adjacent property so there most likely will never be a stockade fence there so what is prohibiting the applicant from enlarging that lot because it looks to me like that was purposely done for a purpose that we're not declaring so either we can declare the purpose or we can make the lot a rectangle and not have wasted land I mean you know we're going around this town we're cleaning things up we're doing things the right way and I'm very unsettled with creating a flag lot it's not needed for Access there's no right of way to the best of my knowledge you know there's no underground utilities going there because everything is already been developed the this the storm structures are in there is water to the neighborhood I believe so I'm questioning why we would need it for a future use it's buffer I'll give you that but it's a basin we could make the Basin bigger or maybe 10 years from now we might have have to make the Basin bigger if you're going to De it over to to the township of Jackson so why can't we just clean this up now and put this application to bed this evening rather than come back and discuss it again it's to me it's very straightforward I see no benefit whatsoever to that flag lot to the township I would disagree that it's a proper use with you in all due respect so my recommendation is would you please offer us that that would become a rectangle and we could move on with the proceedings thank you yeah with the applicant be amendable to uh do we need some time to figure that out yeah I'm trying to reach him U by E text message um so hopefully he'll respond but we could open this up to the public well when we can have Mr hmer has some comments I guess my one comment would be you know I come in here often with applications and you guys want secondary access and now we give you a a property with secondary emergency access and you don't want it first of all you want all these waivers and variances which I don't understand why we always conveni we want all these different changes we're trying to put you know 5 pounds in a four pound box but that's what you guys do that's what you're make your money for but what's the guarantee that you get all these waivers and variances where you prove it and now this lovely little flag lot that you made oh let's get another waiver variants no curbs and we do no in park and put a house of worship there which would infuriate the neighbors and have them come back here screaming and hollering but a house of worship is permitted in the zone so I'm not really sure where that going yeah but you won't admit what you're going to do with this property I first of all I'm not doing anything with the property I don't own the property I'm not the applicant right but we're playing a little game here and you know think my client's trying to keep his options open to be honest with you so so just to just to be fair just to be fair the applicant has the right and the ability to because this is just a subdivision uh keep retain it to any use that's permitted within the zone so so that let's just cut that argument out but for I think safety purposes I think we want to take into consideration the shape of the lot so if we can if we want to wait until to hear back from the applicant to see if that's amendable then we don't have to speak in hypotheticals because I that maybe uh well I mean I apologize if I'm over the line but I am also a taxpayer in this town so it concerns me a little bit but I I'll resin some of that but my point is this like I said earlier I don't understand why it can't be reshaped into a different type of catch Basin let's have your standard lot and then there's no supposition no I understand exactly what you're saying um hopefully I'll hear from my client but this is what I came in with because this what he told me he wanted and so this is what I have to go forward is that the last expert that we have correct correct okay do we we want to open the public yeah thank you all right so we're going to open to the public for cross-examination of the experts that just presented their affirmative testimony do we have anybody who wants to come up to the podium and ask some questions seeing no one come forward I move to close the public cross examination second all right so before we before we even get to the general do we want to um I think to to be fair to the applicant into the board want to do you think uh Miss Jennings if we took a 10-minute break might give us an opportunity to hear from your client uh yeah I'll try to reach out to them all right okay all right we Madam chair before we break I just want to say I think Mr rker is dead on with his comments and I'll just leave it right there dead on thank you and please if you would allow me to add to that um from personal experience living in a place that had similar lot issues I would highly highly urge the applicant to reconsider this thank you all right we will take a 10-minute break 10 minutes means 10 minutes please thank you e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e any words of wisdom so I spoke with my client and he would like to continue as he proposes to keep his options open because that is correct that one of the permitted uses in the zone is a house of worship and one of the bulk standards for house of worship is that you have Frontage on a main road now if the board doesn't want to Grant the variance he'll just keep it as the three and a half acres and he can still do a house of worship because he'll still have Frontage on the road we came here because you request Ed us to do a subdivision so he's really just keeping his option he has no intention of doing that right now um but if that somebody comes along and that's what they want to do he wants to have the ability to sell the property for that use and so that's basically his position all right so and just to be clear the board is not stipulating that the applicant um restrict the property to any any specific use this is a pure subdivision correct it's just subdivision that is correct right so so the use aspect is not on the table all right so this is strictly a subdivision uh application and use is not in the carts um so when the board takes everything into consideration at the time of determination I just want to make it very clear to the board that the use of this property is not an issue now when gets into the uh positive and negative criteria of the variance that they're requesting that's what the board can deliberate upon all right um so is Mr janow uh is he still yeah no he's still here you're hiding thought he was could I could I ask you a couple questions mind if you grab a mic certainly um all right so if you just lay out uh because I don't think you identified which um which numbers of the ml um that the letters uh that the applicant's going to be complying with uh pursuant to the statute so if you could just lay out which yeah just let me grab my outline again sh my testimony was uh e which is the promotion of a population densities and concent ations uh G providing sufficient space and appropriate location for a variety of uses and then M the coordination of various public and private procedures shaping land use to a view of lessening the cost of such development and more efficient use of land right so egm egm correct all right and then just short brief summation of the um negative criteria certainly so with respect to the negative criteria uh my testimony was just one moment make sure I'm consistent uh with respect to the variant uh being without substantial detriment to the public good again it's going to be developed with a use that's permitted in the R1 district there are variety of uses that are permitted but the R1 District anticipates all the uh issues that are typically nuisance issues within uh the district so with respect to noise traffic storm water uh trash generation uh the Zone plan anticipates all the uses within the R1 so there would not be a nuisance created and finally with the variant not substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone plan the Zone plan uh was very clear that any infill development should be consistent with the character of the neighborhood were on point with the character of the neighborhood in terms of lot size and configuration and again the added benefit obviously being that the uh Basin would be dedicated to the township um as was intended many years ago all right so so the positive criteria is egm the negative is not looking to make a nuisance uh character neighborhood and dedication correct all right all right this will like that and we have an understanding that um in the future if there is a decision on what will be built on this property you'll have to come back to us for that anyway no it depends on what it is if it's a single family home we just go in for a building permit exctly if it was a house of worship you're correct or a group home or anything like that we'd have to come back here all right and that I think that clarifies it for some board members thank you Mr rker in a professional opinion since you guys do this more so than we do this if you conceded hypothetically the removal of the flag if you chose an alternative to a house structure would you still be able to accomplish that um not without coming back here okay but it could be done with a variance hardship or whatever it could be done it would it would require relief of a bulk yes okay it's not the end of the world is what I'm saying you know it's not a it's not that you're being prohibited it's just for a lack of better terminology do process or whatever it's it's not a it's not a firm hard no is what I'm trying to find out here from from each of you what I'm trying to well it seems I guess from a legal perspective why would I want to create a variance in the future if I can avoid it today and I do understand that and I respect that and I understand that your time and your applicant's time is money uh but I'm trying to figure out the best way to resolve this for everybody you know it's not our intention to preclude you from doing anything that your your heart desires over there and I just I guess I want to hear you say that should you have that wish in the future that wish could be accomplished you know there's a pathway to it it's not it's not a we're not boxing you out is what I'm asking you well sort of because now we're going to be creating a hardship this would be a self-created hardship by giving up the frontage so we come in with the house of worship application in the future if we were and we go to put the positive and negative criteria on the the record you're going to say well you guys agreed to take get rid of the frontage so you created your own hardship so I can't use hardship any longer what am I going to use that's my best argument I'm I'm looking for amicable resolutions you know I I know we can't shape it this way because it's done so I'm just I'm looking to you I'm not trying to insult you or or anything like that I'm looking to you as an alternative no we we we thought about it I mean we're stuck with where the detention B B in was constructed and we can modify that but that's the frontage on East Veterans and the only way to keep that Frontage on these veterans is to create the lot that shape is there a minimum Frontage required sorry is there a minimum Frontage required on these veterans to utilize that Frontage and do you fit that well minimum lot width we don't meet no WID from that flag it's it's undersized so it's any Frontage can come back to the board if we if you keep it yes any Frontage would satisfy the condition of a house of worship just as Frontage Mr rer maybe it's worth it just sugges kill me take a step back from this and put in for the house of worship now do it as one thing and done if you didn't do the house of worship could still do the house but we could clear it up all in one shot it wouldn't you know what I'm trying to say I understand what you're saying the problem is to design a house of worship is a full sight plan application and that involves a lot of work and money and there is no house of worship he the owner just wants to keep open his options there is nobody knocking on his door saying hey when you get that subdivided I'm going in tomorrow with my plans for a house of worship there is no house of worship standing there waiting to use that piece of property it could very well be a single family home chairman I have a question I hear the applicant talking about uses I don't know why they're still talking about uses I'd like to get to the attorney uh to the extent that it would be appropriate to strike any of the language on uses period if that's a relevant uh way to for the record here I would support that and getting back to whether or not this application makes sense on the merits whether it meets the criteria or not and vote on it up down or what have you and be done right so we'd be voting on a a minor subdivision the way that the applicant wants it Varan and then if it were to become a single family home it would go directly we wouldn't see you again if there were another use proposed in the future we would see you again so we would have an opportunity at that time to uh make any uh adjustments suggestions yeah and just for myself I don't care about uses I don't want to hear about uses right I see a chopped up application that's what I see so I'm just sharing my view I see a chopped up application and we're we're to decide whether or not the positive criteria overweighs a negative criteria whichever the legal framework is and be done with it I gather the issue is the ability of the applicant to use the property as the applicant chooses and that this particular layout would do that for this for the applicant is that pretty much it correct but we don't work for the applicant no but you did actually ask us to subdivide it so we don't have to subdivide it and we could just leave it the way it is right just to be clear what the board would be voting on would be the subdivision in its current form with the variance relief that's being requested and the board has to uh believe in and make a determination that the applicant met the variance relief pursu uent to the reliefs that they put on the record right the proofs that they put on the record so if the board does not agree with the proofs that were put on the record and the board has the ability of denying the variance relief therefore the uh subdivision would be denied so that is where we're at there is no there is no topic of use that is in this record whatsoever it's not in the application um it's it's not in any of the documents that have been presented to the board it's not anywhere this is strictly a subdivision with variance relief and that is what the board is going to be uh voting on well respectfully if the current R1 standards have different bulk requirements than the house of worship standards in the R1 requirements and they ask for relief from the R1 standards and they don't meet the standards of the house of worship and they come back for a site plan what's the board do then I'm asking that question over there you'd have to demonstrate whether or not we meet the positive and negative criteria for any variances that we would seek in the future we're not asking for any variances for house of worship at this moment we're simply asking for the variances related to the shape of the lot perfect thank you so the board doesn't have any other questions so we want to open it to General just a quick one I think there was testimony that the the the layout or the configuration is consistent with the other Lots developed Lots in the area in terms of depth and width of the body of yes is there any I'll call it a flag is there any flag Lots in in the area no but well there's triangular Lots there lots of variety of shapes but uh something like this again you call it a flag I mean I look at flag as something that has its sole access through the stem this isn't a flag that's additional land to the the but the configuration is somewhat odd it's certainly different and but it's not really consistent with the rectangular Lots in the area well again there are rectangular there are trapezoidal there are triang there any like this yeah no there are none like this okay this would be chair Mr being a retired construction manager I often say everything that I needed to learn I learned in kindergarten triangles are triangles rectangles are rectangles polygons are polygons and that is a flag lot you can color it orange green yellow blue whatever you like sir but as a planner it's a flag lot okay it's a flag lot it's a classic flag lot I got one across the street for me in my development and it's the same useless lot that's been there for 40 something years and does that flag lot use the stem for Access okay I want you to explain to me what access you need the utilities are done the water is done the sore is done is done and being a former firefighter I've yet to see a Bas and catch on fire so we we're not using it for Access we don't need it for Access as a matter of fact the county you are indicating it is for Access so I want you to tell me the Grand Story in ABC all the way through M why that needs to be access and what benefit it is to the residents of Jackson Township because you're deeding us over a basin that you want us to maintain okay well you asked for the subdivision you want us to maintain you asked for the subdivision for the Basin because it was never deed I ask for anything I asked for an explanation and I'll give you one excuse me I am speaking so you are going to deed over that so Public Work In Perpetual life like a cemetery is going to clean the garbage out of it everything that goes into that Basin just like they do with all the other basins in the town yes and if it was and there's a big fee that we have to pay it's $44,000 it's no little fee okay if it was my world I wouldn't buy any bases okay so that lot along there you don't want to maintain it you're just going to leave it there and you're telling me this Grand Story of access that I don't understand no you don't understand you're misconstruing my statements and if you allow me to respond I'll explain to you what your misunderstanding is what I said is that the traditional flag lot as communities either approve or don't approve or allow and don't allow relies on the stem for the sole access to the larger portion of the lot where the home would be located that's not the situation here we have Frontage on Pitney we're not relying on that stem for any access and in fact the county restricted access access in that stem so that flag isn't for the purpose of access as the traditional flag lot is that stem is there just to provide Frontage along Veterans Highway in order to preserve all the possible options that are permitted under the R1 District the lot would be access from Pitney it has Frontage on Pitney just as all the other Lots there now we as Donna said we don't have to do this subdivision we could still develop the lot um it's cleaner it's better uh that's my opinion that was my testimony um through the chair um if you won't call it a flag lot then what will you call it it's an L-shaped plot okay again the stem of a flag excuse me I'm speaking the stem of the flag is typically required for access in a swag lot let me know when you're done I'm done now you are sitting here laughing and you think it's funny I'm not laughing okay we're at we're in what almost two hours on a simple application you think it's funny hour I'm trying to get this thing done here and you we are as well and and I don't find you humorous it's not I'm not trying to be funny I'm TR you don't have to keep shouting at him seriously let him speak all right one at a time guys and we appreciate your public service and I understand what your point of view is however we are not relying on the stem of this for any access we are preserving our rights to develop this under the R1 standards you can grant the subdivision you can deny the subdivision we seek to maintain the frontage along Veterans Highway to preserve our rights under the R1 zoning you're you're testifying that this is a benefit to the township of Jackson and there's an assumption that there are other places like that there are not this development I'm sorry and I don't concede that it's a benefit to the town I would agree that you know it has some value to your for Frontage or whatever but honestly we have been trying to clean up lots make things better all the way around and that is of no benefit whatsoever to the town appreciate your opinion I'm I'm sorry you know it's it's land I understand your pathway but at the end of the day you know whatever gets built there it doesn't matter in my my ey you have the right to build whatever you choose to but for the next 30 40 years unless the the fella down in the right triangle decides that he would like to buy that it's dead land it's dead land and what happens in Mr wall you could prove me wrong but in instances like this they gift it over to the town after they stop paying taxes on it they don't want it so then you know so let me point to you to the lot that fronts on East veteran next to the title block you see how that constriction open up so is is that a similar situation where there's no utility to the back of the lot it's an existing condition I understand but you're saying it's dead land is that in your opinion Dead Land it could be it's a waste it looks like it's cleared it's landscape they have something there they're using it all right would would the applicant be amendable to taking what the board has put on record and consideration and coming back uh no he would like his vote this evening he this is what he wants this is his proposal he'd like the board to vote on it this evening Madam chair all right so if Donald what you said Miss janning sorry what you said before about no difference what kind of Frontage it is how about we decrease it to even a half a foot of Frontage and the rest of this Township where I'm sure no one's going to recognize that there is any property you have that tiny sliver of Frontage on these vets and it's pretty much township owns would that be amendable minimizing the entire reare setback rear yard setback to literally a half a foot no I'm talking about eliminating it entirely and just keeping a half a foot of Frontage on these veterans Highway which is really nothing you still get your Frontage and I think Mr reer might be happy with that so I guess what you're saying is hypothetically off of the main road there a 50 foot lock depth forgive me for using the word flag in you know a four or five foot lot line going back it still keep it still keeps your Frontage which is what I think your desire is but you'd have a really narrow right of way is that a solution is that a legal solution I the board can make any requests that they deem necessary basically if if what I'm I'm understanding Mr heler you're just narrowing the flag portion the PO the pole portion make it look look like a golf club more or less correct an inch I don't know what what's the minimum required I I think the problem with that is then the lot area gets shrunk and you're buildable when you go to build something we'd have less lot coverage so would it it would impact um the developability of what's left over so why don't we go back to my original suggestion andhap the basin that now you have your on M and then a 5 foot strip down the back whatever whatever the bare minimum is so you can do what you got to do and like for me I see it as no in so it bothers me that's why I'm against it so we reshaped that it's more MIM to the rectangular lot like we're talking about there's no questions whether flag or anything else it's you have a rectangular buildable lot you have a basin that fits in there it's less of a waiver and everybody's house they could pick up off the back lck line of that existing house come over to that 5 foot Mark and youd pick up some some decent square footage yeah I mean you could Square this thing more compact the lot side of it bring it in and now it's I know it's not what they as but it takes a lot of speculation out it does the job it does the job excent idea a solution that gives everybody something to look for okay if as long as we can maintain that acre of land that's the most critical part we could do what Mr Tremor is suggesting and make the lot wider at the top portion and shrink the stem to the 5T that's been suest suggested by Mr heler could we get the proper wording for that please so we would want to keep the same square footage as we propose just in a different shape and for the record the square footage was 58,4 37.0 7 Square fet thank you Mr heler all right any other comments from board members any comments on this plan from the professionals does does that new just to our board professionals does that new recommendation as long as it doesn't change any it would essentially be the same shape except that the stem of the lot would shrink to 5T and The Wider Square portion of the top would become wider so that the tension Basin would get deeper but narrower do we have do we have a laser pointer available to us I'm I'm still struggling with the consistency of this lot that they're proposing with the neighborhood I I'm not seeing any Flags or any shapes like this I see rectangular Lots all up and down Pitney I think that's this lot could be um your typical um rectangular lot and the drainage basin gets bigger it seems to me that that what we're trying to do here is make a consistent uh lot size with the neighborhood while allowing the owner of the property to have options for use the the struggle some of us are having is the shape of the lot and the potential perhaps attractive nuisance of the lot if the shape were changed um perhaps we could go maybe there's someone in the uh audience who has comments General comments we could do that first while we're considering these issues question Mr brzy so there is a an exhibit there of vot um should be a table exhibit no it's TR this is what we submitted so yeah so ju just for the record we we looked at can we go back to the aerial so we looked at the lots that are in immediate vicinity within the subdivision within that yellow area the average lot size of those lots is 1.04 7 Acres the average lot width of those lots is 157.18 we are proposing 1.34 Acres which is larger and we are proposing a lot width of 171.5 in this configuration which is wider than average so then you're staying with the the neighborhood is all matching just about yes thank you let's move is there anyone from the uh um audience who would like to speak upon this about this generally seeing the one come forward I move to close the public portion second all right then um M Jennings if you could conclude for us so that we can come to a decision please so I think that you've heard an awful lot of testimony so I don't want to belabor the issue um this obviously is a application uh to do the minor subdivision with several variances we did come here really kind of at the request or direction of this board um we can build on the lot without the subdivision but we do think that that's probably the better way to go and we're aable to the suggestions of Mr Tremor and Mr heler with regarding the shape of the lot thank you all right okay all right so just to the board so that the board is clear all right so what the board has to determine when they're making their vote is that they have to determine whether or not the positive criteria and the negative criteria have been met with the C2 variants all right the positive criteria that the applicants relying upon are E G and M I'm going to read these into the record so that the board understands that this is what they're making their determination on all right e under 40 55 D2 e is to promote the establishment and the appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of the person's neighborhoods communities and regions and preservations of the environment G is to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural residential recreational commercial industrial uses in Open Spaces both public and private according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of New Jersey C citizens m is to provide or is to encourage the coordination of various public and private procedures and activities shaping Land Development with a view of lessening the cost of such development uh and to the more efficient use of land all right now the negative criteria the applicants relied upon is that they're indicating that this is going to um the shape of this lot is going to create less of a nuisance um that the shape of this lot is in with the character of the neighborhood aka the shapes and sizes of the other of the other lots that are uh in the development um and that the dedication itself um is is a positive aspect which you know they're dedicating a drainage basin so it is what it is um that is what the board has to deliberate each each member if you want to put your own reasons as to why either uh agree with it or disagree with it that could help we'll set a motion now uh I'd like to make a motion one Mr wall you're absolutely right I think we have to take out considering what can be used there that's not the issue in front of us tonight it's a subdivision uh maintain the same size as the rest happen to know why that detention Basin never got given to the town originally we can go through a history here and I could explain it uh and it never worked um given the movement from the applicant even though it's so slight it does change it a lot and it's a subdivision and we cannot really weigh the uses tonight we're just doing the subdivision and with that I make a motion to approve looking for a second ask a quick question the motion to approval was with the new plans I assume okay fine so I second that motion discussion discussion on the motion I'd be very interested in having someone reconcile the inconsistency between the planner for the developer who spent an inordinate inordinate amount of time arguing and questioning board members and Mr CLE who talked about how it's inconsistent with the the uh the other character I don't recall exact verbiage of the adjoining neighborhood so somebody can reconcile to me that clear and consistency that would help me as far as moving forward I still see a chopped up lot and I don't see it Meeting those tests either as as you just stated so if somebody can help reconcile I think a failure to meet those tests and our own planner that would help me with this discussion anyone want to answer Mr Wall's discussion issue we'll continue on with the um we we have a we have a motion motion unless the board planner wants to put any testimony on we have a right well then I'll focus it in on the planner for the applicant testified I believe that it was keeping in character or the as far as the uh uh the other Lots our planner I'm sorry Doug you here as the engineer I apologize our engineer testified that it's not did am I missing anything there with or or are they at odds or they no longer at odds that's my question maybe for just just from a factual standpoint not just from that testimony did did you have it answer to your satisfaction as the engineer that um what he had indicated that it's consistent with the U the other lots that are in the vicinity yes or no basically that's my question no okay so that answers my question and the reason why I don't think this application met the test that's fair so you're answer is no it's still in discussion but if you're going for a roll call you can certainly go for a roll call this has I could care less about the use whatever the use is the use is I I was under the impression that we got consistency of the lot sizes when the lot sizes of the adjoining adjacent Lots were given that were within the same and maybe if you could give that again that's correct I testified with respect to consistency with lot area and with lot Frontage again for the area that's outlined here in yellow which are the lots in the immediate area the average lot area is 1.47 the average lot width is 157.6 the lot we are proposing is 24.01 is 1.34 Acres so roughly uh more than a quarter acre larger and 171.5 in width which is approximately 22 feet wider than the average lot okay so convince the engineer and I'll be convinced because right now we're at an impass as far as this issue unless I'm hearing wrong Mr C did that help clarify the consistencies not really um I still how and how did it not clarify I I still don't see why we just can't make proposed lot 2401 a rectangular lot um and incorporate the flag portion into the drainage basin lot and whatever area that you might lose by um taking out the flag portion just Shi the lot line um of 2401 towards East fetan Highway to make up the area now you have you know rectangular lots for the uh lot that's going to be developed and you have a more a somewh rectangular lot for the drainage basin now chairman if that's a condition a resolution the conditions of approval then that sounds like a conversation worth having to me I think we've blaed the point we're we're ready for a vote one way or the other we are with the Mr I'm talk I'm still having a conversation on the board level not with the applicant it always concerns me if the if the professionals are at odds with the uh testimony because we rely on our Professionals for their advice uh so I think we we have as individual board members we will take both the testimony and our professionals concerns into account as we move forward with the vote how does that sound Mr Walt you're the chair thank you we'll move forward with the vote V so the any other board members have any other comments according to Mr K means they lose Frontage right on these veterans do they lose Frontage based on your suggestion they wouldn't have any frage on V at all be out because that would be part of they probably still need a V for that of the dra run thank you we'll continue with the RO call please Mr brzy yes Mr Bernstein yes Mr heler yes Mr rker yes Mr marzo no Mr Tremor no Mr wall no Mr Sullivan Mr Solomon no Dr Campbell yes so that's five yeses four NOS thank you very much thank you a five minute break five minutes and that means five e e e e e e e e e e e e Mr CLE have any comments on this application before we begin you're missing part of your board are they coming back we have the attorney we swapped we swapped I don't blame them I said five minutes I guess they didn't hear me they were chatting Mr rker is moving slowly he just had surgery we're grateful he came Mr wall Mr Sullivan Mr heler must be having a meeting in the Men's Room hope not I hope not that's right we ordered a pizza close enough thank you thank you madam chair um just just basically you know two two comments we have received revised plans um and I was a little surprised I thought we had stipulations from the applicant that the road was going to be private it looks like we're back to public and I think there was a stipulation that the applant agreed to that there would be a traffic light a Chandler and the new private roadway and um the current application proposes no no light um and just um two inconsistencies in the um uh preliminary list and design waivers um relating to the public and private road um the uh statement of um or the design waivers is dated November 22nd uh last revised May 2024 um one of them indicates private one of them indicates public that's all thank you Mr Peters thank you madam chair I have nothing to add the I think the applicant should put their testimony on projects still a permitted juice in the zone and we should go through what different between this set of plans and the last set of plans agreed thank you thank you je for the record Donna Jennings from the law firm of Len scan and Spitzer on behalf of the applicant uh since we were last here back in February there have been some back and forth so I'm going to do a little bit of a a preliminary statement so that everybody knows where we are so as everyone's aware the applicant is seeking preliminary and final major subdivision and preliminary and final major site plan approval to construct four private religious schools a wastewater treatment PL and a proposed public gr to provide access to the schools on property located at 390 and 394 Chandler Road identified as block 801 Lots 62 and 63 on the Township tax map applicants also seeking to subdivide Lots 62 and 63 into three proposed Lots which are labeled as lots a b and c hearings on this matter took place on November 6th November 20th and February 26th of this year at each of those hearings the board requested the applicant considered designating the driveway leading to the campus as a private road rather than a public road prior to the February 26 2024 hearing the applant agreed to make the road a private road and the applicant engineer began the process of revising the site plans to comply with that request the applicant finalized those revisions and submitted same to the board on March 26 2024 in the revised plans the private road was designated as lot D creating a fourth lot proposed to be subdivided from Lots 62 and 63 following their review the board's Consultants raised a number of concerns most significantly Mr Peter's review letter dated April 12 2024 called out a potential D1 use variance to create for the creation of lot D because quote a private road as a structure is not listed as a print principal or accessory conditional use in the R3 Zone use variance relief from the zoning Board of adjustment may be required in addition his review letter also called out three bulk variances based on this feedback the applicant decided not to go forward with the private road since a d variance would kick this application to the zoning board and the applicant would have to begin a new instead the applicant has decided to revert back to the three lot proposal and to have the driveway be classified as a public road that would be dedicated to the township which will eliminate the need for any variances as this board will remember the original proposal only called for relief for several designed waivers accordingly prior to this hearing the applicant submitted its latest proposal which included among other items the most recent set of site plans and subdivision plans which were last revised May 7th 20124 notably in response to request made at the February 26 2024 hearing the applicant submitted a supplemental traffic analysis memo that implemented updated traffic counts to address concerns raised at the February hearing further in response to the Township's traffic safety unit review letter dated April 18th 2024 the amplan is proposing to designate the area along Chandler road in front of the property as a school zone and to install school zone speed limit signs to reduce the speed limit from 40 m per hour to 25 miles per hour as will be expanded upon by the applicant's traffic engineer the applicant contends that the installation of such signage will alleviate the concerns raised in the traffic safety review letter and Mr peters's review letter dated April 2024 the applicant also believes that the school zone signage will alleviate concerns of Mr Peters April 12th 2024 and 20 June 11 2024 review letters related to site distances the applicant this evening will recall the following Witnesses shimone greenbound in his capacity as the architect sitting to my left Jim Henry in his capacity as a site engineer and professional planner and Justin Taylor in his capacity as a traffic engineer as a matter of recordkeeping the applicant has been receed of the following following additional reports the board plan and review letter number three dated April 12th 2024 the board planner review letter number 4 dated June 11th 2024 the board engineer review letter number three dated April 12th 2024 the tree specialist review letter number three dated March 27 2024 the tree specialist review letter number four dated June 12th 2024 and the Jackson Township traffic safety unit review number two dated April 18th 2024 so with that what I'd like to do is first call up the architect to introduce one new exhibit and then he is here for the cross-examination Mr gazer Browski had not cross-examined him yet M Jennings if I could interrupt just as a matter of recordkeeping I was out during the February 26th hearing for surgery um I will go on record that I have watched the hearing on YouTube and certified the same and I've been following along with the doctors just as a matter of record keeping so that wa I can get the certification from you Mr right thank you thank you you know I'm I'm really concerned about some of these major issues that we thought we had put to rest and that we had discussed at length so I would like to hear from our professionals their opinion of your stipulations concerning the public road and the signal previous considerations they were supposed to give hello and they backed Adam I heard that but I want to complete from our professionals are they reasonable to had to back out creating variances creating other Lots by doing that can you give us some schooling on that on why they couldn't accept doing that and the traffic light also even with the signs up and stuff why can't we have a traffic light there well I I would strongly suggest that until they give some testimony on the revised plans that you don't hear from us first they've made changes to the plans otherwise we're going to be talking about a set of plans that hasn't been discussed in the public since when M Jennings February February so there's been two sets of revisions since February so I think it would be improper for us to comment on quite frankly relates to our review comments our review comments are meant for the app applicant to come in and say we we did this for this reason we think this is a good plan if it requires relief this is the reason we're doing it I I I think us going first and putting forth our our comments again without having heard makes sense their response so we'll listen to the testimony and and you will be listening super careful so you can let us know why we should change our minds and just so the record's clear the applicants no longer going to be putting in the traffic signal on at the intersection correct it's not going to be warranted all right um all right we we we I'll let you put your testimony on for that um but the the tradeoff is that you're going to request from the township the township designated the school zone correct all right all right and just so we're clear the the township itself would have to designate that by way of resolution correct correct right um so as a prerequisite before we even get any further is is the applicant going to make this a condition of approval whereby they cannot even begin to seek building permits zoning permits anything of that nature until this until the township uh approves that yes and I would assume because it's a safety issue the township would be more than happy to adopt that resolution Mr Shake I just clarify could could we explain what a a school zone is and B what that requires a resolution and ordinance just because I'm the council I want to make sure I so what the applicant what the applicant is proposing is so I'm I'm going I'm going by let them speak right right I'm going by Mrs Jennings June 4th 2024 letter but m JS I keep telling you Miss Jennings Miss Jennings right there you go all right we're ready all right so we're going to start with uh the architect first he can introduce an exhibit and then he'll let Mr gazari do his cross-examination and then hopefully um we'll be done with this witness and we can move on to the next one all right please raise your right hand do you swear from to tell the truth to hold truth nothing but the truth I do you did testify previously in November right please state your name spell your last of the record Shimon greenbound g r e n e b a m all right and you testifying as to what so I'm testifying as to I was asked to discuss the wastewater treatment plant elevations so we have that um if we admit it I think it's 820 you marked it as 821 M Miss Jennings if um if we can just divide up the mic since we only have two so one for you one for Mr Gaz rowski so see you and the architect we just have to share since we're apparently low on thank your phones I was going to say something I'll keep it to myself um yeah could we go to exhibit a21 you have you for you have all our things you had them since before the April meeting no you would have to have all the exhibit in the prior hearing at any meeting do do we not do we not have a copy yeah can you can you email it to Anthony real quick but the future all the exhibit should always be yeah I got his email spe for e e for for for thank you so much excellent job in a clutch all right thank you so we were asked to present the a a the elevations or the design for the sewage treatment plant obviously the sewage treatment plant as it has to be designed for the plant itself the height may move a little bit further down once we once we get the equipment that has to be in there but essentially we're looking at a 30 about a 3500 foot facility um very much like a typical garage we're trying to M we're trying to aesthetically relate it to some of the other buildings with the banding we're looking at basic split face CMU uh very simple Affair so um what you're looking at over there would be uh Mand access to be able to get in and basically clar story windows up top um if we go to the next page we have a a prototypical layout um on the interior there's no interior walls just all a whole bunch of holding tanks and and um treatment treatment um equipment um and if we go to the um page P4 which would be um the elevations um that's basically what I just described um we have few courses of banding few clory Windows split V CMU and a pitched roof which would probably be a good opportunity for for uh solar because I know that question is coming next so that essentially was his direct testimony and then he's really here because Mr gazer Browski wanted to cross-examine him so Ron the floor is yours unless of course the board has questions about treat plan anyone on the board have any questions about the structure that was just structures lovely what a brag about the use but it is attractive Mr gazari very briefly within any of these buildings uh where I think three of the buildings are for uh boys correct and one for for girls um yes that's what proposed within any of these buildings is there any area or a gymnasium mum or a play area or exercise area within the building itself um I believe we've testified that there were some playrooms within within the building um within I have to remember which ones they were but we did have some areas that would be able to be used for it was a recess room in the boys Elementary in both boys elementary schools um in in the basement um the boys high school probably not have as as uh well for example in the boys high school it's your a gymnasium no there's there's no gymnasium I think we've discussed at length um at this board and at the zoning board the way the religious boys high schools work and um typically we we won't we wouldn't find in most of the same similar use high schools in indoor gymnasium would you repeat that please we typically in in the many many different boys high schools religious boys high schools that we've designed most of of them do not have indoor gyms I believe that we have one or two out of probably 20 or 30 similar buildings so you're saying basically in a boy's typical high school uh as this one particular is now this is this is a high school it's not a religious school is it the it's a religious high school it's a religious High School yes and it is an exemption there's no need for an area for play or exercise or it's it's a programmatic um question having to do with the way these typical schools are operated um and typically most of the day is spent in in study um there are break times those break times are usually more relaxed um walking or tossing a ball in the backyard or something like that but um the gyms are are found to be ex expensive expenditures for the schools that they typically do not have a need for with regard to your mentioned uh playing out in the yart of the like are all of these schools particularly the boy schools relying upon a specified area within the site plan uh for play or outdo activities pardon me that's the engineers site plan is engineer testify I'm asking him whether there's an alternative to what he every everybody one at the time all right so let's just just make this clear right right now everybody speak one at a time just so that the record is clear uh Morrison has notes the transcribers able to transcribe correctly um garasi Mr garosi just uh just speak closer to the microphone I shall okay is is it basically your testimony then that with regard to exercise or activi such as that there is none provided within the schools themselves but you're relying upon uh outdoor activities no I I stated that the boys elementary schools have recess rooms within the school and I stated to the boys high school in particular would not necessarily have an indoor space for organized Indoor Sports does not have it does not have okay thank you I have no further questions that's it that's it wonderful thank you you're excused unless probably should open it to the public if anybody has any questions about the wastewater treatment um building anyone wishing to uh cross-examine this witness regarding the Wastewater management treatment building may approach the day is at the time approach the microphone just on this particular issue it' be for architectural any cross-examination for architectural questions well he was cross-examined by everybody already the only one who didn't cross-examine him was Mr gazer rowski yeah we just want to give the public an opportunity seeing no one come forward I move the close to public uh portion of cross- examination second all in favor I I thank you thank you we appreciate you being here thank you you're excused at this time I'd like to call back up the site engineer Jim Henry and he's going to go through the changes to the site plan and how we landed where we are today and thank you for saving the day with the plans always leave it to the engineer right all right please raise your right hand you swear or affirm to tell the truth to tr the truth nothing but the truth I do all right please state your name spell your last of the record James Henry h n r y all right you previously testify did the board accept the credentials I have okay the and planner that's correct professional engineer and as a professional planner okay that's correct Henry iib don't M Jennings I just request that you use the microphone for recording purposes I'm very sorry no worries I can repeat myself I remembered what I said so Mr Henry if you could um when you do your testimony please identify any exhibits that you're going to rely on we'd like you to walk the board through the site plan changes so we can understand how we got to where we are today and I would like you to reiterate in your testimony specifically your planning testimony the design waivers that the applicant is seeking and also to address the two variances called out in Mr Peter's uh review letter which we believe we do not need and why but of course we'll leave that up to the board to determine whether or not we need the variances so I would also like you to put on the record uh criteria positive and negative in support of the variances as the board determines that those bulk variances are indeed uh needed or required for this application with that I'm going to hand you over the microphone great thank you if we could just pull up uh a24 which is the overall site plan and this exhibit uh is dated 617 2024 and it's the overall site plan rendering prepared by Dynamic engineering uh this exhibit just shows the overall site uh from a high level view there are also zoomed in images of each individual site if we want to look at each individual site in particular similar the way we did it last time um so there were were some changes to the plans and I will go over them shortly uh I just kind of want to reiterate um you know what we are proposing is permitted use this is a variance free application uh we have 10 design waivers and one submission waiver uh there was some discussion um in Mr Peter's review letter regarding a lot with variance uh which we provided testimony on the last time um we disagree with uh Mr Peter's determination uh we provided you know pretty detailed analysis on why we believe there is not a lot withd variants um and I could go through that now um the real question is is is the lot width Mr Peters I think had indicated that there's 115 foot lot width whereas 200 foot is required and our indications um we provided an exhibit and I could refer to the exhibit now but um we provided a lot depth of 1,749 Ft as far as lot lot depth and 264.0 foot as far as lot width uh based on the ordinance definition of how you read lot width and lot depth obviously um you know we're referring two of the Lots we're not I think we're all in agreement don't have any variances the one lot which I believe Mr Peters and I don't agree on is Lot C and as you can see Lot C is on the bottom of the page um which is the you know kind of a longer uh property yep so Lot C is the longer property which runs really on the southern souly side of the uh it's a yeah yeah I give you something unique here I have different colors if you want but no that's the red one so um so on the on the bottom part of the site this is Lot C you can see it gets narrow uh kind of in the middle of the property and then it bumps back out where we're proposing the actual school um So based on our determination um and review of the ordinance and we provide a pretty detailed summary on how we came up with that calculation but we we show it as being compliant with 264 foot width uh I know there was discussion as far as public Private Road uh the applicant was willing to work uh with the board as well as professionals as far as making it a making it a private road however you know in order order to avoid the D1 variance uh you know we're almost required to to leave it as a public road um so that's what we're proposing tonight one other thing to to mention um on the revised plans we do indicate the play area and if we could skip to each lot so we're going to go to lot a uh which is exhibit a25 this is the lot A1 rendering dated June 17 2024 um and the play area quick yeah and the play area is indicated at the at the rear of the property in a dashed area um behind behind the proposed school and then jeez what was that um the next next lot next property go to exhibit a26 which is for A2 again there's a dashed area to the southeast corner of the school where we indicated there would be a play area and that's that's approximately 3,000 square feet uh skipping ahead to a27 which is Lot B this is the girls Elementary similarly there's a dashed area uh to the south in the east side of the building uh where we have an area indicated for play area as requested by the boore board um and then the next exhibit which is a28 which is Lot C also has a dashed area behind uh the building indicating um um a play area uh so lot a has approximately uh for the high school is approximately 4,000 square foot of play area lot A's Elementary has approximately 3,000 foot play area Lot B has approximately 4,900 square foot play area and Lot C has approximately a 2500 foot play area those play areas are going to be fenced in correct how how are they going to be we we were just asked to designate where they were um I I'm not an operations person we were just asked to indicate where the I I don't think the applicant would object to that so if you want them fenced in we can certainly delineate a fenced in area that's fine uh okay so so the condition of approval would be fenced in area around those areas so if we could switch back over to a24 which is the overall site plan rendering um just going over some quick changes that were made on the site plan there was some discussion about adding a um mountable island in the middle of the entrance Drive the public road and we've uh complied and added that uh island in the middle um we've added concrete aprons at each of the driveways to eliminate that waiver uh We've enlarged the radiuses at the entrances to provide uh 15t for right-and turn and to eliminate the waiver for the proposed driveway uh we increased the radi where possible to be compliant um from a radi standpoint throughout the site from a lighting perspective um we modified the lighting uh to reduce the lighting uh near the intersection with Chandler Road to make sure that we were at zero foot candles along the adjacent property line with the gore area uh from a storm water management perspective we modified uh five of the basins to change them into being infiltration basins instead of Bio retention basins and then we also shifted the Basin to the north along Chandler Road uh basically to the Southwest further away CH away from Chandler road I'll get into why we did that in a minute um the generators have been indicated on the plans I believe we had discussed that generators would be required for each School uh so we do call them out on each individual property um the treatment building was updated ated to add door locations which was requested by the board uh and we did provide that on the revised plan uh from a d perspective we did hear back from the njde on njac 7 colon 13 we had submitted a verification to confirm there was no streams within the vicinity of the site um the D came back and on the other side of Chandler Road uh just to the north of the site they had indicated uh there is um what they believe to be a regulated water on the North hand north of Chandler Road not on our property offsite uh so one of one of the reasons we shifted the Basin away from Chandler Road was to move it out of the buffer area and we're going to be pursuing an individual permit to construct the private road through that buffer area which is allowed via njac 7on 13 uh so was a slight shift in the Basin up towards Chandler Road in order for accommodate for that change uh we are also appealing the determination by the D as we do not agree with their determination on whether or not that's a regulated water uh but that doesn't either way we can still get it to work uh through the pering process um from a Wetlands Loi perspective impressively it's still pending um that's been with the DP for a number of months um and we still have not heard back from them we followed up with them several times and we still have not got confirm we have not received confirmation uh that there is no Wetlands on site we did have a certified Wetlands professional go out on the property and delineate the wetlands and we submitted that to the DP for approval as far as outside agencies we have submitted uh you know to all the outside agencies you know and we've gone through that sorry there's a bug in here keeps jumping on me um Jackson mua we went over uh Jackson fire fire uh Bureau of fire protection Jackson environmental commission the Forester Traffic Safety recycling coordinator Ocean County planning board Ocean County Soil Conservation District Ocean County County Board of Health uh from the D freshwater wetlands flood Hazard verification and individual individual permit as well as any other permitting that's required uh for the utility improvements um just quickly I want to just go over the you know if so based on recommendation if the board does take um does agree with Mr Peters that a variance is required so I just wanted to provide some planning justifications if the board believes that a lot width variance is required in this application and doesn't agree with our interpretation of the ordinance um so if if that is the way the board feels um I just want to provide some additional testimony from a planning perspective as far as why the board could issue a variance uh for Lot C in particular um so Mr Mr Rie uh Peter's review letter indicates uh a few both bulk variances uh there are existing bulk variances within the review letter specifically for the overall site there is an existing lot withth variance um with the proposed improvements the lot width variance is going to continue um based on hit I'm just going to assume that I'm just going to talk as if the board uh doesn't agree with my determination so I'm just going to assume that we're going to take the position that a lot variance would be required if the board didn't agree with me so and just so the record's clear where is that lot withd variance just so we're clear so the lot withd variance um I'm not sure how it was calculated I I tried to figure out where Mr Peters re got his number from um so the way the way we read it was basically Chandler Road is considered our front yard the way the ordinance reads it we allow we're allowed to pick which when we're on a corner lot we're allowed to pick which one's our front yard and which one's our side yard so we're taking Chandler Road as being our front yard and then all then our southernly lot line for Lot C being our rear yard so then the uh new unnamed Road would be a sidey yard and then basically the the side yard would then follow the Westerly or the northwesterly property line along the uh side sides of the property so when you take that and you take the midpoint so the lot depth is basically the almost the entire front edge along the unnamed Road um and then if you take the midpoint which is the way I read the ordinance as far as taking you take the midpoint of your lot depth um and then you take the lot width at the midpoint that's where I get the 264 ft from um that's where I I determine the lot lot width to be um the the way the ordinance is written um isn't very clear I would say on on how it's not I wouldn't say it's very well written on how where it's taken from but it does say it's supposed to be taken from a lot width so obviously if Chandler Road is the front Road front front the the front uh of the property and then you know back by 195 is the rear of the property the lot width should be taken from the midpoint um between the rear yard and the front yard based on the ordinance determination or the ordinance uh definitions um so going into um planning testimony I think uh the C1 I think this this lot withth variance really could be uh justified through a number either a C1 or a C2 um as you know a C1 is is considered a hardship variance and it could be granted uh for variances if strict adherence to zoning Provisions is impracticable because of exceptional narrowness shallowness or the shape of a specific property again going to this property we've gone over under the existing conditions it's very unique it has very little Frontage on Chandler Road and then as you get to the rear of the property um you know it kind of opens up so you have a very very little frge along Chandler Road uh and then B is exceptional topographic conditions we've gone over extensively uh that this site has very unique topographic conditions uh there are a number of retaining walls all over this property that are generated by the unique topographic conditions and they are creating a number of the um waivers that we're requesting uh so there are unique uh topographic conditions here and then any other extraordinary situations or circumstances that uniquely affect the property or legally existing structures and I don't think that's the case for here so so laty is very you know the overall property as it is is an existing you know very unique property and then Lot C is also unique the way it's uh designed um you know it is a corner lot it has Frontage on um Chandler and then as it comes around the corner uh it gets narrow and then it opens back up most of the development on the proposed lot that we're proposing tonight uh on Lot C is in the wider part of the site and we'll get into you know really there's no bulk variances being requested for this so we are conforming with the overall ordinance but as from a lot subdivision standpoint the lot width is a believe what we're what we're discussing um and then C2 variants could also be issued by the board which is a flexible C variance uh that can be granted the applicant can show the purposes of the municipal land use law would be Advanced by a deviation from the zoning ordinance requirements and if the benefits from the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment if the variants was were granted so a board um must review variant is requested on its merits and confirm that the applicant um relates to a specific piece of property and that the municipal land use law can be Advanced from the deviation of from the zoning ordinance requirement so some of the goals that would be Advanced by the deviation would be goal a of the municipal land use law which relates to the encourage Municipal action to guide uh the appropriate use of development of all lands in the state in a manner which would promote the public health safety morals and general welfare goal G uh to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural residential recreational commercial and Industrial uses and open space for both public and private according to their representative environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens goal M which is to encourage uh the various public and private procedures and activities shaping Land Development with a view of lessening the cost of such development to a more efficient use of land and then goal I which is to promote a visual desirable visual environment um and then as well as goal H I believe our traffic engineer has said that this is you know is a permitted use and from a traffic you know our traffic engineer will has already testified but he's going to further testify after um after I go um that we're not anticipating any significant impacts from a traffic impact or a safety uh perspective the proposed schools will provide a needed local access for schooling for the Orthodox Community um no detriment to public good uh is anticipated because the deviation will maintain much of the heavily wooded area possible on site and then also provide additional screening and Landscaping throughout the site in order to buffer the proposed use um from a waiver perspective uh waivers can be granted if the requested waiver is reasonable uh there's a lower burden reproof than a variance and we're just going to go quickly through the waivers that are requ requested um so 1A um which was provide survey requirements for certain topographic features within the site within 200 ft of the site um the land uh within 200 ft of the property uh was provided there was an aerial image of the property and there was also USGS mapping that was provided uh for properties within 200 ft 2A which is parking within the front yard uh parking in the front yards is proposed on Lots A and C it should be noted the lot B does not require a variance 2B uh not more than one two-way access or two-way access Drive shall be permitted on any Street lot a provides one two-way or two oneway access drives for each proposed school for total and it should be noted that this requirement is only for Lots with less than 50 parking spaces um so lot a has more than 50 parking spaces so the requirement is no longer applicable uh to that lot 2C is the minimum safety Island uh for cars for is minimum safety island with uh parking lots with over 50 cars there's a 10-ft requirement for safety Islands uh that were provided at the end of Drive aisles uh but in some areas we do propose uh Drive uh islands that are approximately 5 ft wide really the goal of those safety islands is really to separate the traffic and I think a 5 foot wide Island does that and we did provide Landscaping throughout the parking areas in accordance with the ordinance requirements 2D which is the minimum internal uh curved radi uh the minimum radius per year ordinance is 5T and we're proposing in some areas approximately a twoot safe two foot radius and this is primarily in these uh safety Islands generally in front of the um the proposed schools really separating uh the drive aisle the Bus drop off area from the loading zone um and that's where we have a 5 foot wide Island uh 2 and 1 12 ft radius uh is required there um 3A which is provided which is providing required sidewalk and curbing along Street frontages uh there are no sidewalks in the immediate vicinity of the site and uh we're proposing that the children be busted into this facility the applicant is going to agree to donate to the Jackson Township pedestrian safety Fund in order to address this comment um 4 a which is the minimum width of a buffer area lots a a through C do not provide the minimum requirement of 35 ft around the property um this is mainly because of the retaining walls around the site but there are also um some areas where we're where we do encroach and we're proposing significant Landscaping in those areas to offset any impacts 4B which is location of the parking area within any buffer similarly um there are some small areas which do encroach within the buffer area and we're proposing significant landscaping around these areas in in order to offset any impacts 5A which is a tree removal requirements we're just requesting a temporary waiver from providing tree removal requirements and replacement schedule and we'll provide that as condition of approval uh Solid Waste storage there's a minimum of 5ft landscaping for ride at all around all Refuge areas because of the unique topog topographic conditions on site there is a retaining wall adjacent to um one of the trash enclosures so we did provide Landscaping as much as we could around one of the trash enclosures however uh there is a portion of it that doesn't H isn't fully surrounded by Landscaping so we did provide Landscaping on the lower side of the retaining wall but there is a retaining wall that abuts against trash enclosure so we we tried to provide As Much landscaping as we could in order to screen the trash enclosure 11 uh which is retaining walls um should be retaining walls installed in slope controlled areas shall be constructed shall not exceed onethird of the horizontal distance from the foundation of the uh foundation wall to the face of the retaining wall and shall not be located within any buffer areas again this goes into the unique topographic conditions on the site uh there is a required 35t landscape buffer and some of the landscape some of the retaining walls do encroach into these buffer areas as well as a portion of the basins within within the the buffers the areas which the basins do encroach are generally in the front yard of the property and really only impact um the adjacent uses which are facing each other so that's a summary of the uh the waivers which are required as as I mentioned I believe there's 10 uh we were at I think 13 last time so we did remove a number of the waivers which were required uh you know through uh you know the feedback we receive from the board as well as the board's professionals uh so I think this has been very very productive uh in trying to meet the ordinance as best we can and really trying to meet uh our client's needs as well as uh the municipality needs and just so the record's clear uh we actually have nine because we eliminated the one with respect to lat a and the driveways because we have subsection D of the ordinance that allows something with more than five 50 parking spaces to have two access points is that correct that's correct uh so again the waivers can be granted if the waiver is reasonable is a low B burden of proof lower burden of proof than a variance uh so we just went over the waivers there are you know in our opinion there's no variances requ required uh but we are providing this planning testimony uh just so it's on the record if the board does feel that a variance is required from and just so the record's clear the variant these waivers were discussed at the first and second hearing but since that was back in November I wanted to make sure that the record was clear so and there were some changes we did eliminate a few of the design waivers so this is the current list of design waivers with this application thank you um so just going into the negative criteria uh so no variant should be granted uh if it will repr substantial detriment to the public good or if it will impair the intent and purpose of the Zone plan and zoning ordinance uh so the first prong is substantial detriment the variance can uh can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good um you know this is as we mentioned this is uh uh the lot width issue is really a uniquely this is a unique shaped properly uniquely shaped property under the existing conditions uh and under the proposed conditions um the impact of the lot width really doesn't have any impact on the proposed development the proposed development is shifted all the way to the southernly side of the lot uh and does really doesn't require any variances based on the site plan that's before you tonight uh so I think we've we've shown that this lot can be developed and not require any bulk variances even if the lot width uh does narrow you know in a on a certain portion of the site uh the areas where it is fairly narrow are mainly areas where we're proposing utilities um and then the really the the the use itself is really proposed on the southernly side of the parcel the parcel is not Square it's not rectangular shaped uh it has unique top topog topographic conditions um and the school is being developed on The Wider side of the property there's also a significant amount of landscaping proposed around the perimeter of the site to really uh minimize the impact any adjacent uses and in the area where it gets the narrowness as you can see on the exhibit on the overall on a24 you can see where it does get very narrow there is a a very thick landscape buffer and really very little development where on the narrowest part of the site second prong is impairment to zoning um this this really goes into the zoning plan we reviewed the master plan it furthers the Township's master plan goals it eliminates the need uh to expand the width of the lot uh to limit encroachment on nearby properties and encourages encourages the use of planning techniques that will effectively integrate desirable residential communities with viable commercial and Land Services uses resource prote in open space areas um so that concludes my planning testimony uh in summary I think the changes that the board had requested at the last meeting we really took to heart uh we tried to comply with them as much as humanly possible uh we we think we have a much better plan after hearing all the comments from the board as well as the board's professionals uh we did review you know each of the board's professionals review letters and provideed an itemized response to each of the professionals to really make sure that we complied with each of their comments and I think overall this is um a significant better plan based on your feedback and we appreciate uh the opportunity to present tonight so if if I may just real quick just uh just go back over the negative criteria just one more time just just very sarily just so I can put them in the context so the first prong is the subst substantial detriment uh so I don't think there's any real substantial detriment by issuing a lot width variance because the lot with itself really doesn't have any substantial impact to the development of the lot we're not proposing any bulk variances we are able to fit the proposed use on the site without any variances um and the overall development really is shifted to the southernly side of the site um the narrow part of the site which is really to the Northerly side along Chandler Road uh really doesn't have it just has a a basin U some utility areas and as well as a thick landscape buffer around the uh Westerly side of the property and then as it opens up as you get to the South uh that is where the development is and that's really where the widest part of the site is so the area where it's most narrow um really there's no development proposed there um it's it's just utilities and and and and stormwater basins so most of the areas that are going to impact any adjacent Properties or really to the southerly side of the site um as far as the impairment to zoning uh we we believe that the proposed use uh you know is in accordance with the township master plan goals this is a permitted use this is a use that's that's allowed by ordinance um the WID really doesn't have any impact it's very uniquely it's very a very uniquely shaped property it has a lot width variance under the existing conditions this is just a continuation of the lot width if that's how it's interpreted by the board uh but it's just shifting where the lot width you know I'm not really sure where the lot width is measured from based on the review letter but if a lot withth variance is required I would assume that it would be required to the the narrowest side which is on the Northerly side of the property and then in the middle of the property it gets very narrow so I don't really think that um you know this property is this property is very uniquely suited for this use we've gone over traffic we've gone over the whole appliation and shown how this is a variance free application not just for Lot C but for the other Lots uh so it's very uniquely suited and also um it eliminates the need to expand you know the overall the development uh you know have several schools in this area because we have them all concentrated here and that it also encourages the use of planning techniques that will effectively integrate the desirable residential Comm communities in the area to viable commercial and service uses and and resource protection and open space areas all right Mr Peters would this be appropriate time for you to answer those concerns whatever order the board would like to go through things if the board wants the question our minds right now pardon while that's on our minds right now okay um Mr Henry thank you for your testimony um when you talked about the lot width issue um I have notes from the November meeting that you were referring to an exhibit a13 um is that the same exhibit you were referring to tonight or are you referring to the new set of plans so a13 a13 still out Still Remains substantially the same uh a13 shows the the lot width of the of Lot C Okay so have you ever have you had an opportunity to review that exhibit with the zoning officer no I have not okay um Madam chair the the short answer to lot withth is um Mr Henry's testimony regarding um a not very specific definition um is not untrue so if I measure the lot withd up along Chandler Road requires a variance if you interpret how the lot with ordinance reads I we referred to that in one of our previous reports and in testimony from I believe the second meeting in November then Mr Henry's testimony is correct and no variance is necessary sometimes the easiest way to verify this is the person who reviews the zoning when it comes in which would be the zoning officer um so I'm not GNA stand on a soap box and say someone's right and someone's wrong I'd like to take an opportunity since neither my office nor Mr Henry reviewed it with Mr proro to review it and simply refer back to it prior to closing of the application um as it relates to the use issue um well Mr Henry you didn't give any testimony to it did you have an opportunity to review the use issue that was in our third review letter with the zoning officer could you just clarify what what you're specifically referencing you are we talking about the most upto-date review letter or the or one previous April 12th 20124 review number three where we called out lot D might require a use variance yeah L Pard the private public Ro you we agreed with you that's why we Swit our plan you great a testifying I I really appreciate that but my question is is did your witness review it with the zoning officer we did not review with the zoning officer uh we we saw your review letter and we agreed with it and that's why we modified the plans to show a public road so I try not to be factious or sarcastic on the record I just want it noted for the board that I got Miss Jennings and her applicant to agreee with me um I would like an opportunity also to review that with the zoning officer because please understand all applications for development start with the zoning officer we can't expect Jeff to run through 87 sheets of plans to figure out whether or not something requires a use variance a bulk variance or a design waiver they were you rely on Doug and I to do that sort of heavy lifting but I would like an opportunity so the records clear to make sure that Jeff is in agreement with with what we've come up to tonight that the things that we talked about in terms of the use and in terms of the lot with variants are agreed to at that point in time I think we can then put them to bed in so far as that particular issue is a real sticking point uh as far as the private or public road issue is concerned I would I would hope that the applicant uh and our own professionals come to some agreement upon that issue because it makes a huge difference well I think we've we've discussed it I'll put the ball back in Miss Jennings court at the November 20th meeting we did talk about roadway ownership and they did indicate that it was under consideration so to the extent that creating individual ual Lots in a public right of way would 99 times out of a 100 ignore the responsibility of the RightWay to the municipality in this particular case is a site plan with non-public improvements so I I think what the board was asking in November of 2023 was is there a way that we can create a public right of way so you can have separate individual lots that you can transfer title to as you want by somehow figuring out a way that the town doesn't own and have to maintain this what amounts to a private road so in response to that as you recall this is now technically our fifth hearing we didn't get heard in April I have objectors and objector attorney he's raised an issue and called out a use variance I'm not going backwards I'm sticking with the private road um or the public road because that is clear is not a variance and so I don't want this going back and forth Mr Gaz rowski can always challenge the zoning officer determination if he flip-flops and comes up with a different decision than Mr Peters where before the planning board we want to remain a fully conforming application that'll be decided by the planning board I am not going over to the zoning board Madam chair I'm not I'm not sure it was our intent to ask them to go to the zoning board I think it's been the board's intent since before we brought up the use issue back in 2023 at our November meeting we talked about the roadway ownership is there a method there's a lot of smart people in the room of providing a public right of way without having the municipality take ownership of the road and without um incurring variance Necessities because if the if the concern is the variance we we don't we can we don't need to be concerned about the variance issue we're concerned about the township not being responsible for a private road forever Paving it snowplowing it uh striping it or whatever they do with private we don't want the township does not want to incur a public road for a private use it is strictly a long driveway it is not a road to anywhere but schools that are private well actually it's built to the township ordinance Public Road specifications and it is no different than any other subdivision that comes in and has single family private homes you get there by a public road so I would disagree age with your analogy there um Madam chair the the subject major subdivision is part of a major site plan not part of a residential subdivision as of right now the applicants keeping it as a public Ro right all right so I Mr Peters the uh when it comes down to the um with it comes down to the variance that we're looking at do you deem that as C1 or c2y how do you view that I don't yet I don't I just heard the testimony tonight I want the opportunity to review with the zoning officer his interpretation and we'll we'll copy you in or ask you to be in on is fair on the conversation about the Jackson Township land use ordinance definition for lot with we can sit here tonight and I can read it to the board four or five times and we can debate it for a while or we can take it back to the zoning officer and say this is what we think if he agrees with that's totally fair if he agrees with Mr Henry I think we're done right I'll capitulate to that and say yes I agree with him otherwise we have a concern the board can quite frankly say Mr Peters we've listened to Mr Henry's testimony we don't think he's wrong and say that there's not a variance required you've disagreed with Douger ey before right no professional degradation by suggesting that right you don't agree with us however we've noted it because of the way the ordinance is written they've given you testimony regarding it yeah yeah I agree with I agree with the Z off our determination would be that you and Mr Henry have a sit down with Mr papora and discuss this issue because it is a real sticking point with this board um in we have been through this in other applications and we don't like to saddle the township with private roads publicly makes no sense and that's our I believe our determination well honestly we tried to sit down with uh Mr Peters and the township before we went down that path and we were told they would not take a meeting with my Consultants we would went ahead and did what we said we were going to do and then they write a report saying we need a d variance I'm not going down that path again this is the application we're not going backwards you it it's it creates definitely an appealable issue and Mr gazari sitting right there saying this is great you just gave me something I can go for if they change that back so we are not going down that road I I object I object to the use of my name dly noted I apologize Mr C thank you m chair the issue of the roadway in public or private um I think the I say the um the D1 issue comes when we assign a lot number to this to the roadway because private roadways or roadways themselves are not permitted um as as a permitted use in in the zone but is there a way to establish it as a private um roadway I'm what I'm going to is an easement instead of a lot lot D I think the road was why not just have a roadway easement over over the Lots and assign make it private that creates a property that doesn't have Frontage on a road you're going to have we have the three lot subdivision then there none of them are going to have direct access to a road they're going to have access to an easement we don't we don't want to do that okay we have a variance free application as far as we're concerned and we don't want to create any variances but I think if the board was weighing um variance relief for no Frontage on on improv Street versus the uh burden of maintaining this public road for a private development I think you know the board could easily weigh in on approving that variance for no Frontage on an improved street again this is going to go to an appeal and I don't want to have to defend any variances I want a variance free application Madam chair just a brief question I'm assuming the answer is no will ask it anyway is there a method or legal mechanism to have a 99y year maintenance agreement of some type some type of vehicle whereby the it still maintains the status for the application but they're taking on the care and maintenance of that that piece or or is that just something a nonstarter of that concept well what an interesting thought yeah we we're discussing not going backward you I understand why you don't want to go backward but we don't want to go backward either we thought we had an agreement up till lately that that would be your responsibility not the Township's responsibility so we're we're at an impass when we both don't want to go backward um because our responsibility is to protect the township and and at this point we are more than willing to make any variance issue go away so that we don't have to burden the township with a a road to or perhaps it will come back to none of us in this room after a certain period of time my response would be I don't know any other private citizen who's paying to maintain a public road and I think that would be very unfair for you to impose that condition upon this applicant that that's your opinion well that was my attempt thank you nice try just just follow say we going to be a public roadway public roadway can we get some um input as far as what's the town going to maintain of course they're going to be responsible for snow plowing the electric for the um for the street lights um maintaining the pavement maintaining the curb um how about the drainage I think there was some um indication that the drainage facilities are going to be privately owned but what about the catch basins and the pipes in the public roadway so since since those the catch basins are located within a public RightWay that would be the municipality's responsibilities uh we we discussed previously I read through our transcripts where we said that we would enter into developers agreement as far as the maintenance of the basins because the road does drain into uh private property and that the basins would be maintained by you know for private property I think that the basins are basically the only thing that would be maintained by our client uh as other than that it would just be maintained the roadway would be maintained by the public uh in accordance with Municipal standards the the discharge pipe from the roadway drainage system which the town is going to um own um the the pipe that goes into the drainage basins on the private property who owns and maintains that the private property would uh with a developers agreement with the municipality so that there would be an easement and then a developers agreement yep from the roadway um Inlet structure to the private um drainage basins that's going to be um maintained by the property owner correct through the chair um I hope the applicant has come to the realization that if this becomes a Township Road it then can be accessed by anybody and used by anybody and that then creates security issues for your schools it could I don't have any comment on that as a Township Road you're putting curbs and sidewalks up down the whole thing yes we went over that we're putting uh curbs in and then we're contributing for the sidewalks so this has been subdivided into three lots specifically for this reason yes our goal was to have a completely compliant uh subdivision plan as well as a site plan no I'm just saying that because it was four and I didn't realize until we've gone through this line of questioning why we're down to three buildings but now I see yes there's four buildings but there's there's three lots yeah there's four buildings plus the plus the tree plan sorry just clarify Mr Henry did I hear you say you're contributing for sidewalks yes which I believe is permitted under the ordinance would you be willing to cck the sidewalks in we'd have to come back with that answer we have to ask the clients I mean they are allowed to contribute under the ordinance no understood and well taken just that's that that's why I'm saying it probably be a prudent idea being in the school zone all right Mr guys do you want to uh I I have uh good evening Mr Henry good evening uh I've been here of course from the very beginning and I think I missed something but can you tell me why since we've gone back and forth several times with regard to public versus private why has now been determined that this would be a public road uh because based on the uh board planner review letter we were under the impression that a D1 variant may be required and the applicant decided that they didn't want to risk potentially being punted to the board of adjustment so we went back we reverted back to a public road to a what to a public road okay now with regard to the public road uh my understand that with regard to a public Road there is first the ownership of the underlying fee of that Public Road in this particular case who will own the underlying fee the property owner or the municipality I assume the municipality I'm not I'm legality of that I'm not I'm not a expert in no I understand that it's a little known Factor but so the public would then own the underlying fee as well as the traveled way I would assume so again I'm not I'm not an expert in how that what the ordinance okay it says regarding regarding that in particular you don't have your law I don't have my law to agree so with regard to the other questions being posed particularly with regard to the sidewalks and the like if this is in fact a public roadway as well as public sideways within that RightWay anyone within the township of Jackson would have the right to drive upon that roadway and walk on that side work I would think so yes okay thank you now when we look at the plan uh can you identify for me the three individual lots that we're speaking of and if you can uh with your pointer just outline each individual lot you understand my question yes thank you uh so lot a is located at the North uh easterly corner of the site so so there's a dark line which outlines um outlining on the exhibit gu it's exhibit a24 um I'm outlining the property itself okay if you could stop there for a second yes on that particular lot there are two two buildings correct three actually three buildings but there are two schools yes do you know who will own those schools they owned by one person or will they be in separate ownership I don't you don't know they answer to that no do you know whether or not the owner of those schools will in fact be the person identified as the applicant uh 394 Chandler Holdings LLC I don't so it's possible that with regard to the two schools on that first lot we would have individual uh owners of each school would that not require a subdivision of that lot that's a legal question it's not my perview well as a planner as a a planner are you familiar with the zoning ordinances in the township of Jackson as far as whether there could be two different owners of the two buildings on the property again you have no you have no response to that I don't okay let me ask you with regard to that particular lot you just identified there's also a uh another building on that lot a third building is it not what is that identified as that's for uh sewer treatment plant okay now it's my understanding that that a sewer treatment plan or a treatment facility is permitted as an accessory uh to a use is it not that's my understanding yes okay now there are the two there are two other Lots on uh this facility or on this property or there're not as well two other Lots in the overall subdivision yeah yes would you just outline those for us also as well sure sorry the screen's a little I just want to look at my exity here so proposed Lot B um is located on the souly corner of the property okay and I'm outlining that on exhibit a24 make sure I get the property lined down on the corner there correct so it runs right there okay so that's lot that's Lot C as I mentioned okay or that's sorry that's Lot B B sorry how about Lot C and the lot C runs uh along the unnamed Street all the way up to Chandler Road then the westly side of it runs okay so Lot number c with regard to the uh area going out to the roadway uh it's bordered I guess on whether that's the North or the South it's bordered on one side by the public road correct no so that would be public it would be Chandler Road on the North side and on the east side uh would be a public road as well the uned road now as that proceeds toward the building uh would you not need a lot depth uh variance for that narrow area uh on its way toward the where the building is on Lot C no we measured the lot depth to be approximately 1,749 uh ft uh which is measured from Chandler road all the way back the rear lot which is located along the southernly side of lot SE why why would you not why would you not have to also measure it from the the the new public roadway going into the property because of how it's defined pardon me because of how it's defined on how you can measure lot depth okay now we know that the uh treatment facility located on lot a uh why was there not a subdivision of lot a into two separate Lots indicating the two separate buildings since there will not be common ownership of the buildings we never said that was the case we never said that was the case and it's not necessary for the proposed use it's permitted now my understanding is is that a treatment plant is in fact permitted as an accessory on a lot is it not that's correct now how about with Lot B how is the uh the sewage from Lot B being treated so sewage is being uh put into a septic tank and then it's being pumped onto uh lot a so the uh facility a lot a is separate and distinct from not being present on Lot B why then if that's the case why would not that sewage Street facility be identified as an individual lot servicing to other Lots it is not an accessory building to Lot B and it is not an accessory building to Lot C is it it's not located on the other Lots but it's uh it's going to be connected via Home Owners Association similar to that's not my question my question is with regard to the treatment facility which is located on lot a that building is not an accessory use on Lot B nor is it an accessory use on Lot C so then why not is that re required that that treat treatment facility be located on a separate lot it's the same thing as if you had a water main going through several different Lots it's a utility that could be used by the overall development um it's very fre frequent where you have a sanitary sewer man located on a piece of property that has an easement it's the same kind of thing uh water sewer running through the lots and then servicing all three lots is is pretty common well what excuse me water I'm sorry excuse me what I one at a time guys I apologize my answer sure I'm sorry so I think it's very common to have utilities on several different properties the lot itself or the building itself is located on lot a uh which is our permitted use as far as the underground utilities the underground utilities run between run within the public roadway and connect each of the Lots um and it's very similar to any other utility you see with any other sort of development well my understanding of water lines or sewer lines uh they are lines running to a public facility for the treatment of effluent or water are they not here this is a privately owned who who will own who will own this building located on Lot number a the treatment plant Facility Who will own that there'll be an association between the uh three different prop three different Lots pardon me there will be an association that will own the treatment facility and it will be an association between the three separate Lots well if if the association owns the treatment facility then why then is it not a separate lot why is it not a separate lot because it's per it we just discussed that we could have two different schools owned by two different entities so you can have an association own the water treatment as well now as I as I read the ordinance uh a treatment facility can in fact be an accessory use uh to a use and here this particular building is being in accessory use proposed to be in accessory use on one lot to two buildings well let's go beyond that where in the ordinance in Jackson does it permit a treatment facility located on a different lot to be deemed to be an accessory use to Lots B and C where does it say that I'd have to look through the ordinance if you if you want I'd have to look through the ordinance obviously I you know I don't think it specifically says that but I could Pi up and I appreciate that but but you are a planer are you not yes and and you acknowledge that as a result of this being a public roadway the municipality in fact owns the land under the public roadway as well as it owns the right of way correct yes now particularly with regard to Lots A and C they are completely separated by a public roadway are they not yes then how possibly how possibly can this treatment facility located on Lot number a be deemed to be an accessory uh to a house on or a school on Lot C please explain that to me I've done it's very common to have a shared Pump Station between several different properties it's the same idea pump stations oftentimes share effluent through public roadways um so this is a common practice in development well I'm I'm not questioning the fact I'm not questioning the fact that you could have a a separate use on a lot but here you're having a separate use on a lot that contains two uh buildings and you could argue that it's an accessory use to both of those buildings as there's comant ownership but how is that facility a an accessory building to Lots BNC ason answered I don't think it was answered we're done well I don't think he did I'd like to have a speci any objections address me please we asked to answer this several times he's not changing his answer so move on okay what is the answer I I I said it's an accessory Building located on lot a and that there's piping that runs to lot a okay answer that's your answer yes okay just bear with me for a second please now uh Mr Henry uh as a planner you of course have appeared I'm sure before many planning boards with regard to site plan approvals have you not yes and in many instances perhaps the applicant and or the owner uh is a National Corporation such as McDonald's or the Wendy's or something like that right yes so when that person comes before the board the board knows uh what they're about or who they are here in looking at this application and looking specifically at comment on page three it it lists as a question owner and applicant information uh it specifically says owner SL applicant it says 394 Chandler Holdings I guess is the owner but are they applicant for these particular school buildings are they the ones who are going to build the these buildings own these buildings and operate these schools not really a site plan issue and the answer is uh we don't know who's going to actually run them we're getting a subdivision and these buildings built that's fine so you're basically coming before this board uh saying you don't know who's going to own it you don't know who is running it isn't that called speculation spec buildings are built all the time and we've done this before yes they are so you tell me that when McDonald comes in with an application on his site plan and they're identified as a national entity or corporation uh that speculation that they're going to run it is that what you're talking not they say but can you just go to site plan issues please he he this gentleman is a planner and as a planner I think that he has to give consideration to who the applicant is and what they're going to do there has not been one iota of testimony from the owner of this property as to how this is going to be run it's pure speculation they have not even identified the individuals who operate those four schools and you're saying that you believe that is credible sound planning testimony he testified as to the variances not to the ownership bu or the operations one at a time one at a time guys he's testifying as a planner with respect to the variances and the design waivers that but not as to the S point he's not getting into ownership it's irrelevant ownership is irrelevant to a use ownership the board the planning board can only regulate use not ownership so the ownership is not an issue be addressed at this board all right so Mr garousi you're Crossing him as to engineering and planning testimony correct just I just have a few more questions perhaps I don't want to be repetitive uh you have no idea who will operate these schools no can you show me where in the Jackson Township uh zoning ordinances it permits three uses on one lot if you know I I can look it up I don't believe there's a pro I don't believe there's a prohibit prohibition yeah prohibition from would you would you agree me that with regard to sorry that with regard to Lot number a one building is a separate use yes would you agree with me that building number two is a separate use yes would you agree with me that the facility for the treatment of sewage on that one lot is a separate use as well that's an accessory use but yes it's a separate well it's an accessory used perhaps as to one of the one of the buildings out Lot number uh one but is an accessory use to the buildings on Lots uh two and three I think it's an accessory used to both of the principal uses on uh on lot a so you say it's an accessory use to all of the buildings located within this three lot subdivision no I think it's an accessory used to the two buildings that are on lot a and that there's piping which goes between the separate the separate Lots I think it's isolated to lot a only okay with regard to my earlier question uh with regard to lot I just will call it number c which is the bottom lot is is is it your testimony your position that the frontage for that lot is on Chandler Road so the way the ordinance reads I believe you can take the Frontage for both the unnamed Street as well as Chandler Road um so the total Frontage is the Comm ation of the unnamed Street as well as Chandler Road and you you say that for that narrow strip of land uh which has Frontage only on well no it has front I guess you could say it has Frontage on Chandler as well as a new public Street uh that it does satisfy the depth requirements of the lot yes how about the width requirements it also complies with that can you listen for me the subsequent approvals that are necessary that this board does not have the jurisdiction to Grant but must be granted some Outside Agency sure I believe I already went over that in my direct um M can you excuse me for one second maybe I could help out a little bit I don't really want to help you but I want to just clarify the question okay I can answer the question so Jackson Township mua Jackson Township uh Bureau of fire protection Jackson Township environmental commission Jackson Township Forester Jackson Township Bureau of saf traffic safety Jackson Township recycling uh coordinator Ocean County planning board Ocean County Soil Conservation District Ocean County Board of Health uh the NDP freshwater wetlands njp flood Hazard as well as uh any other sewer uh permits that are required for the proposed treatment plant and the proposed septic systems okay have applications been made to all of those entities no have applications been made to any of those entities yes how many which ones um believe the only ones we have not submitted uh entirely for are some of the utilities and then also for the uh the individual permit uh at the flood hazard level why would you not have made those applications and why have you not received answers uh we were going to we're going to wait for the board to find out whether or not it's approved okay let me answer this question with regard to the uh Senator system you say that the applicant requires njde tww approval and the like to the best of your knowledge number one are you saying that applications have been made to those agencies I stand by what I just said pardon me I stand by what I just said as far as the status when do you anticipate those agencies if applications have been made how long do they normally take to either approve or disapprove the applic it varies um you know two years ago I would have said fres I would have said freshwater wetlands would take 3 to six months and here we are a year plus after so it varies well why why would not would you agree that any approval which might be granted by this board must be subject to you're getting all of those approvals before this resolution becomes final no why not something you know I'm not so sure about that but of course you might be a lot smarter than I am probably yeah you probably are you don't have any answer to that I don't I don't I don't want to get you don't want to get in the middle of that I I have no further questions thank you for your thank you thank you for the courtesies you've given to me problem that was a that was a good try I have a brief question I have no further questions of this witness I had a brief question just so I understood it if that's to be a public roadway is the applicant also asking in advance for municipal approval to go under that roadway how does that I'm just wondering what that intersection is of the law like does does an application does an approval presume that they're guaranteed a right of Plumbing under the street so I I'll let Mr Clay explain that one better you probably articulate it better than I could I'm not sure all right does believe the way it works is you as the owner of the property before you dedicate the road you give Grant yourself easements and the easements run under the roads that's how it all works I'm sure I don't I don't understand that I mean if this is a public Road uh I ask one question are in this particular case is the is the owner agreeing to fund the maintenance of this public road and if they are how is that legal no the owner is not going to maintain the road because I don't know of any other private citizen who has maintained a public road they're not going to be maintaining the road it becomes a public road the township takes over ownership and maintenance so so so the burden of this development is placed upon the taxpayers of Jackson correct as long as we comply with the ordinance and uh construct the road in accordance with the law yeah it's a road to No Place well that's your opinion thank you all right so we're done cross I have no further questions all right yeah we would like to open this uh for public excuse me for cross examination cross examination of the witnesses only thank you come forward you've been here a while too long tonight all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do all right please state your name spell your last of the record uh Jim selia s ECC hiia six harfield Drive Jackson New yeah is it no can you hear me okay um just so we can set some standards here when I look at the when I look at the layout here I'm going to reference a is the three buildings B is the to the right of it and C on the bottom okay that's correct for my questions so you've laid out three pieces of property A and B are going to end at the public road correct a a and b will front on the the unnamed street right the new UN so the addresses for both of those complexes will be whatever the unnamed street is that would be up to the tax assessor but I would assume so and what about c c would uh again it would be up to the tax assessor so I'm not going to apply on that okay but all the driveways leading into these schools are coming off of the public road all the driveways are coming off of the the new Public Road the unnamed Street along the public road to the right if I'm looking at it here to the right going out is there any land owned by the applicant that he's maintaining it I'm I'm I'm unaware you're not aware or he's not I I I'm not I'm not the applicant so I I'm I'm not aware if the applicant owns any other property isn't that part of the plan as far as knowing who owns all the property in the vicinity I don't well I looking at your picture there's green to the right of the road everything that's bright green seems to be part of this application so that's why I'm just trying to understand you're saying whether or not the applicant owns the property itself the property the the Lots the the little strip of green going along the right hand side of the road so lot 62 and lot 63 is what you're referring to again it's the green strip leading from the schools out to Chandler Road on the right hand side of the road if you're going out is that darker green to me that that you're trying to show us as part of the property so is that staying as part of the property um I don't know if you want to just point to the area you're referring to I know sorry it's purple yes so that part so there's a Gore area uh to the north Northeast of the property uh which I believe is what you're referring to we did not include that uh in the application uh the gore area is an area between uh I'll give you the exact lot give me one second so it's not an applicant owned sorry it's not applicant owned so it's a Gore area which is an area uh between two properties that isn't currently claimed by ownership because back in the day there was surveyors which weren't always synced up and basically the property lines were set by two different surveyors and that area was not claimed okay that's all I have thank you all right do you swear or affirm that tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes all right please state your name and spell your last for the record Linda MTZ m o k w TZ all right your address for hardwood Court Jackson Township thank you would you please put your microphone down thank you okay he was taller good evening or good night I'd first like to thank the planning board for their hard work we don't always agree with your decisions but we're thanking you in any case and I would like each of you to State how long you have lived in Jackson Township I hang hang on hang on so I don't want to don't stop me I've been here three nights no no no this this is just for cross-examination of the plan please answer my question I am a resident a taxpayer of this town I understand that please answer my question but this is for cross-examination the general comment will come later I'm General please answer the question it's very simple ma'am how long you live part of procedure it's this is not a cross-examination of the board this is a cross examination Examination for Mr Henry planner and it's it's the procedure okay fine Mr Shay Mr Henry yes the parent drop off areas it's been discussed before what I do not see and I know it covers planning and uh traffic and everything else how the children who were being dropped off their by their parents and we were told told at the prior meeting that they the parents were to pull into the parking areas how are the children getting safely from the parents' cars to the schools now in front of the schools are possibly a line of school buses dropping off the children our traffic engineer will be up next and he can answer that for you yeah he is here today if we can finish up he'll be up tonight okay well planning you're not a help the solid waste um I garbage yes and where are the solid waste receptacles placed with with each building uh on lot a they're proposed uh for the high school is to the right of the building uh on the elementary school uh it is also to the right of the front of the building on the girls Elementary School it's in front of the building and then looking at the building Lot C as if you're facing the front of the building it's to the left of the building and where are the play areas that were described for the elementary school and the girl school in relation to these solid waste receptacles uh they're not really in the same proximity we're positive of that yes okay um all right the next would be about traffic so I will wait until the traffic person comes great thank you seeing no one else come forward I move the close the public cross examination thank you ma'am we have closed the public session ma'am no one got up so I just I'm Gloria Rea from 25 deire way hang hang on emergencies ma'am hang hang on we have to sare you in ma' hang on hang on one second hang on one second can't hear me let's open the public session I'll make a motion to reopen public for the courtesy of this young lady you'll be sworn in by the township attorney attorney I'll take either one night thank you m j second that all right um all right so there's there's a motion on the floor so we got to all in favor I okay thank you all right ma'am please raise your right hand what is your right Ma'am why please raise your right hand again all right do you swear or affm to tell the truth the hold truth and nothing but the truth the answer is yes yes thank okay and your name all right and please state your name and spell your last of the record Gloria Rea R A Y A okay and your address 25 Devonshire Way Jackson we're worried about emergencies Jackson Mills Road is jammed already oh dear now the ambulances have to get through excuse me ma'am Department excuse me ma'am this is no good you can only question the gentleman who gave the testimony that is where we are in the process at this time the traff the traffic engineer is the next person this has nothing to do with the e any any engineering or planning questions that you have you can direct your questions towards this man right here and ask him whatever you want as to engineering and planning oh the engineering planning I'm I'm worried about emergencies and things like that engineering I have no idea what's going on with the engine thank you ma'am is there anyone else who would like to question the applicants testimony as to engineering and planning engineering and planning only sir all right please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the hold truth nothing but the truth I do all right and please state your name and spell your last of the record Robert Goldberg and the address is 43 Chester Field Drive okay uh yes I understand that the uh building for the uh waste management is covering the three properties and yet it's on one property do you have any questions and yet it's on one property why can't the road which is part of property C also be uh a private road handled by the three the same as the waste management the road isn't included as part of property C it's a it's a public RightWay no but it could be considered it's still covering the three properties just like the waste management is right well it's a public road so it's it's the public road is allowed to have driveways from each individual lot but once you build these things it's going to be only used for the schools nobody else is going to be using that road again that's up that's subject to interpretation thank you sir ma'am all right please raise your right hand do you swear or firm to tell the truth the hold truth nothing but the truth do all right please state your name and spell your last of the record Victoria Regan fores Jackson Manchester Field Drive as well um so for the engineer what's your right the address 44 Chester Field Drive don't come to my house I have cameras I have cameras and security okay the question is for him um so uh we've been at pretty much every meeting I don't know if we addressed this but I know there was an issue with the private or public road whatever it's going to be just one uh road going in and one going out being the same road has that been addressed resolved I believe that was discussed with our traffic engineer and our traffic engineer is going to be the next person who testifies so you can discuss that with him because I believe that's regarding access to the property okay so it's 10:30 the cut off then we're going to have traffic and public probably won't be able to address correct that's why a lot of us are here well well we we are not sure how long it will take the traffic gentleman to speak and then cram be cross-examined by Council so we'll see you next month or so it's probably going to continue it won't be ended tonight correct oh no ma'am I just want to make sure okay there'll be more uh also the uh what came up at one of the meetings was the landlock issue on the other side uh close to I I guess a so the B property the the long upside like the the L-shaped thing on the right hand side next to 195 that area there's no exit or entrance that and if it's traffic then forgive me but there was an issue about security and landlock area like that if something were to happen how would anybody get out is that also going to be traffic yes okay and lastly emergency vehicles so ambulances a lot of times those are private uh in those in these types of communities and schools is how does that so is everything private or it's Jackson Police and Jackson emergency Jackson Fire how does how does that work or will be as far as municipality I'm I'm not sure how you know if there's how how it works from a emergency services standpoint whether it's public Prov I I don't know if there's a volunteer I'm not not familiar with you know how the Emergency Services work and sometimes there's you know first aid public first aid sometimes there's private I'm not sure how that works it does kind of make sense we just have to make sure that there's it's accessible and it's designed per standards it kind of makes sense to have the owner or the applicant here so that they could answer some of these questions but thank you that's it thank you seeing no one else come forward I move the close the public cross examination hang on hang on all right please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the hold truth nothing but the truth I do all right I'm sorry please state your name and spell your last of the record Jean Martin all right and your address 42 Chesterfield Drive I I'm sorry to say that um I resent the taxpayers paying for the road that leads into the schools and I also want to say I resent going over things that were already discussed and decided we we're paying for an attorney and um this issue is already a problem for many people in the um in the community financially so I want to tell you that we resent it hang hang on ma'am so are you represented by Mr gazer rowski my my my okay you know I don't know okay that I don't know I don't know exactly so we're going to leave it that way yeah ma'am please sit down there anybody who's represented by Mr gazari cannot come up and they're they're represented by so goodbye thank you in any event I resent it now I resent it more thank seeing no one else come forward I move the close seeing no one else come forward move the close the public portion second second of the Cross examination all in favor I I all right thank you all right now we had decided uh that we would stop um uh testimony at 10 o' however since we have public here who is interested in hearing the testimony about traffic perhaps we should listen to traffic uh we've we've waited this long we might as well hear what he has to say and uh then um Mr gazari will be able to cross okay um Justin's approached the the area he did do direct testimony already so this is just his supplemental supplemental testimony and to yeah all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth to hold truth nothing but the truth I do please state your name and spell your last of the record Justin Taylor t y l o r all right and the board already has your credentials does the board accept we accept thank you all right it's great to see everybody again um so I can I'll try and be brief given the the hour that we're at at this point we prepared several supplemental studies um that have been submitted to the board uh to address comments and concerns that we had received at the planning board and through some of the other review letters I'd like to start with our updated traffic analysis dated March 21st 2024 in this analysis we conducted updated traffic counts at the last meeting in February the question of the counts from 2022 came up with the validity of those counts so we had the opportunity between then and now to recount the intersection and update our analysis what I will say is those counts confirmed the statements and the opinions that I had given at the last meeting that the data was correct the volumes that we found along Chandler Road um were actually slightly lower than the grown volumes that we were utilizing from 2022 so what we found was they were either s uh percent up to 8.3% lower than what was originally counted and so when we conducted the Capacity Analysis we came up with the same results that were set forth in the traffic impact study so the conclusions of that traffic impact study remain valid that the driveway and access to the site is going to operate safely and efficiently with good levels of service the second report and supplemental analysis that we prepared was based upon a memo that we receiv received from the traffic safety group and in that they put forth a speed study that they had done along Chandler road in front of 307 Chandler which is a little south of us it's between our site and 195 and what they found was that the travel speeds along Chandler Road were in excess of the posted speed limit of 40 miles an hour um in fact they were uh the average speed was 49 mes hour in that section and the 85th percentile was 54 milph right this was for the westbound Direction approaching our site coming from heis and so we took that really to heart we it was a question on whether the travel speeds there were representative of the travel speeds directly in front of our driveway because of the curvature of uh Chandler Road so we wanted to go out and just verify what the speeds were as they were passing our driveway so we conducted a similar study to what the police department had done and what we found was that again the speeds were not as high as they saw there but we did see Vehicles averaging in in excess of the posted speed limit and what that draws is a conclusion that there is a speeding problem in this area and there should be some sort of mitigation in order to to rectify that and so what we did and it was discussed briefly I know Miss Jennings sent a letter to the board but what we're looking to do is introduce a school speed zone in this area to alert the people that they the school is there and reduce the travel speeds in the proximity to where the school would be just like you would with any other school where the children are present the uh the New Jersey statute allows you to create these school zones and then they provide within the mutcd guidance on what signage is appropriate for the uh for the design so we would introduce the uh the school speed limit and the advanced warning signs with a posted 25 miles an hour in order to really bring the speed down um of the motoring public along Chandler we put together an exhibit but before I get there we coupled it together with another request of Mr Peters in looking into whether or not a left turn lane should be provided along Chandler now based on my original testimony and the analysis that we found the delays for that Northbound left as you traveling up to the site and making a left into the site don't necessarily warrant it we had good levels of service and cues on that but he asked us to run some additional analysis using different warrants to see whether the left turn lane um would be benefit and what we found was that it does meet the warrants that are set forth in uh the nchrp uh record of 211 so we took a look at what the geometry of uh Chandler Road is and whether or not that was accomplishable I'm happy to um present that there is a currently approximately 36 feet of cartway curb to curb out there um presently with 12ft travel lanes and about 6ft shoulders uh on both sides and what that allows us to do is to restripe the roadway to accomplish a left turn lane now Not only would that give a refuge area for vehicles turning into the site it also actually helped to slow down the traffic as well because you're giving a narrower perspective of the lanes as you come through there while all meeting current and Industry standards for width it's still visual um DET turn as you're coming through this curve so I'd like to bring up um I believe it's marked a29 and it's an exhibit that we put together showing this um the left turn lane as proposed and the school striping I mean the school signage along um along Channel Road perfect so again what we were able to do within the existing cartway of uh Chandler Road which is 36 fet in this area is to restripe provide a Gore section provide 100 foot left turn lane and allow vehicles to be able to turn into and out of uh the proposed roadway we are providing this as a as a option to the board I think it's something that Mr Peters thought was um was important he did bring up a comment and we do agree with him if the board chooses to impose this and I still don't think from a capacity standpoint it's necessary but if they were to choose to impose it we would need to take a look and redesign the radius on the outbound area to accommodate the school buses it is a modification that we need to be made um but it wasn't something that we were uh necessarily going to do if it was determined that the left turn lane wasn't wasn't necessary so briefly those are the two additional analyses that we had done um to to address the comments and concerns we had heard from the board I will take two seconds and just address a several of the comments that I heard from the public while I'm sitting back there and hopefully we could knock them out if we could go back to a24 there was a question about where the drop off students and how they cross if you look each one of these schools is designed with a crosswalk that connects the parent drop off area with the schools and is identified to be utilized with that it would be my recommendation that there are members of the school that are also helping the children acrossing the drop off at time in the afternoon the way it's going to work is the the parent pickup kids will be releaseed at a separate time usually after when the the busing students go um but we are providing a dedicated crosswalk for each one of the schools to get the children from the parent drop off to the building so that's what I got um I think uh one of the serious concerns we had was left turns coming out of the complex uh which could be very dangerous there there's a curve there um did you address that issue at all because that's why we had originally thought we had come to an agreement about a signal light there so I should hit that right there in the beginning I don't think that we ever discuss constructing a signal at this driveway there was a discussion of the signal that's necessary at Chandler and heisen that we are currently working with the county on because of the degradation and the left turns at that intersection but it's my opinion based on the analysis that we have here and now the introduction of the reduced speed limit and the left turn lane that there will be uh Clear Sight lines and adequate sight distance for vehicles to navigate to and from the site so I again I don't think there was ever a proposal to construct a signal at this location there was definitely a proposal to to uh have a signal light Not only was there that discussion and agreement that that would happen it was going to happen prior to any construction at all so Madam chair then maybe I was misconstruing what you were saying we talked about that about when it was whether it was prior to co or prior to building permit OB was here for that conversation it was a discussion of the signal at Chandler and heisen not at this driveway so I sorry I'm sorry if we were confusing the issue but there's never been a proposal for a a signal at this at this driveway absolutely there was a proposal and an agreement to the proposal and an agreement to construct it prior to construction because we were concerned about construction vehicles coming in and out and making a left and if you'd like to look up the testimony I'm sure we can can find it oh no I'm not mixing it nope I read my entire transcript this afternoon but I we can go back through the record and and if let's let's say let's say we we leave it at this how about a right turn only out of that driveway and a curbing that forces right turns oing because going across that road we're talking you know how many school buses there are going to be coming out of that building we do and I mean the majority of the traffic based on the analysis that we did is is heading right would be a left in and a right out it does limit the ability to get two points west and southwest you would have to come down to heis and make or down Channel and make a right onto heison and then back to Jackson Mills through that direction and it's pushing traffic through that area that's not 100% necessary given the signal right at at Jackson Mills so I think based on the analysis that we have the the levels of surface that we're seeing the cues that we're seeing I don't see it as an unsafe maneuver to make the left out so is that the applicant saying no we're not agreeing to stipulation I mean it's a it's a question we would have to run by them I don't think it's necessary but I can't make that determination without discussing it with the applicant okay all right so so just put that on record to to discuss with the applicant get back to me on that one I ask a question so you've determined that there's already a speed problem on this Bend we have determined that the yes the average speed is and 85th percen 85th percentile speeds are slightly in excess of the speed limit now they speed around that b but we won't sugarcoat it so now you think that putting up a school zone sign is magically going to fix it rather than a traffic light to stop them hold on hold that thought before you answer now if you're going to not listen to what Dr Campbell said about putting a hard divider and no left turns we just had a major incident over a week ago on a very similar Road in a very similar area that with horrific results and it had to do it speed and a blind turn so for me if you're not going to divide that that's a problem now even with your turning lane that you're putting in there you may have 20 30 moms lined up coming in guess what you have a log Jam on Chandler road now you're going to have people cutting everybody off so again your opinion do you live here in Jackson no may I ask where you live I live in freeold I live about 15 minutes away okay so you know how it is really drive to Road I I mean I understand that there's traffic in the area yes so and I remember your last traffic study that you did was all algorithms and different things which I don't agree with but that's my personal thing thing so now you have this whole issue here of not wanting to do a light but you're willing to let people make left turns in front of speeding cost that's an issue so so let's unpack that a little bit with the introduction of this speed limit right it's now a ticketable offense and now it becomes an enforcement thing that people will start to learn around this Bend you were not allowed to speed 999 times out of a th that does work very well one time so I mean they take that that example to the extent you could put a traffic light in and have somebody red a r run a red light one time over a thousand but we have to design as Traffic Engineers we have to design that people follow the law right I have to design it The Prudent driver I can't right so that the introduction of this as well as the provision with this speed of safe sight Clear Sight lines but you don't have a clear sight line but I do based upon the enforcement and the the speed reduction and we have stopping sight distances for the dve driveway for the Post-it speed limit even as it is providing in a perfect world we're now looking at a scenario that's not a perfect world here you're on a turn middle of the winter let's say downhill you could have a bad incident uphill come around the bend oh my God there's that sign somebody hits their brakes and they don't realize it's Black Ice hypothetical I I get your point but on that's one of the reason on it is one of the reasons that we're not introducing just a single sign it's why the mutcd recommends Advanced signage on this too so you don't come around the curve and realize oh my gosh it's 25 miles an hour right you do um advanced warning as you're traveling along it so just just so that case that's the last thing we want is somebody to come upon it that doesn't know you need to give the warning signs as you approach school zone ahead right 25 miles an hour ahead and then you enter the enter the school zone again you're playing with people's lives so I am utilizing nationally published information for the safe design of intersections I'm not gambling with any I'm not I'm not gambling with anybody's life I'm following the metrics that we are given as Traffic Engineers to design safe intersections and safe roadways right you also go by national traffic studies at are 20 years old and things have changed too but with do traffic study wait can I can I in what relation of to 20 years old what are we talking about there's some older stuff that you guys have been using but again that's my opinion sure um why don't you do a traffic study on a Monday what are you talking about your study your accounts are Tuesday through Sunday aren't they my accounts that the the traffic data the speed data they go from May 14th to um yes the 19th we did Friday March 1st um nope sorry Tuesday May 14th to Sunday May 19th you did May 14th to the 19th Tuesday through Sunday why not Monday honly that's the busiest day on that road honestly we left them down and the tubes had come up and so the data was not recoverable from Monday I typically leave them for 10 days to tr try and get that and when I when we got there the tube had come up and so the data that we had ran through Sunday or it would have provided it wasn't a choice to Omit a day well then it's incomplete but that's all right it anybody else just following up on what Mr Tremor said um the hours of operation for the school are Sunday to Friday so why wasn't the speed study done done Sunday to Friday we had attempted to do it for a full week that's typically in the industry you put it seven days down to pull a full week's worth of data because of the um the tube the the pneumatic tubes across the road coming up the data on Monday wasn't recoverable so we picked up Sunday um Tuesday all the way through Sunday so we we missed we missed one day out of that whole uh span but you also did it on a Saturday and the school's not open on Saturday so but what so what we're looking at here is not necessarily the school we're looking at the speeds of the existing traffic along the roadways so understanding that the school may not be open we're still using the analysis of what's going on on those streets to build in the average and 85th uh percentile speeds thank you okay Jackson Township I don't know if you know this is 100 square miles the level of enforcement that you would need with turning left out of there and not giving us a signal light which believe me Madam chairman is correct you did agree to a turn signal now all of a sudden it's disappeared Into The Ether um but that level of enforcement that you would require is not going to be feasible so either give us the turn signal back or consider seriously making that a right turn only thank you um Mr gazar rowski I I would ask your patience um because the public has been here for four times now uh we're we're going to be coming back we know we're coming back anyway well I I understand that but I'd also like to give the public who obviously wants an opportunity to discuss this I'm H we we'll let Mr gazar rowski if he can uh move it along all right that makes it even easier Mr gazari all right thank you appreciate it so now just for the traffic Gentlemen Just questions for his testimony that he gave tonight I I I just I got two questions real quick I just need to ask so um I'm gonna hold you up you g be here as long as we are um so first question is is when it comes down to the Prat share contributions that the applicant is looking to contribute for any improvements into the Ingress you know egress roadway exactly because now the record's not clear as to what exactly the applicants agreeing to because apparently what the board thought the applicant agreed to is not what the applicant has stipulated to or agreed to so so exactly what is the applicant agreeing to when it comes down to contributions to the roadway to the entrance to the Ingress ESS what is the applicant looking to do so so my understanding of what I had testified to was the construction of the roadway as shown on a24 with an unsignalized intersection there and the full construction of a signal at the intersection of Chandler and heisen because of the left turn maneuver that was going on down there and it was something that I thought I'd brought to light considering it is an offsite intersection that is not really under the purview of this because it's a permitted use but when we identified we had studied where the traffic was going to go to the two connecting County routes and then throughout the rest of the neighborhood where where it continued to go and we identified what was going on at heis and determined that the the signal was necessary down there I my testimony was not that we were putting a signal not the driveway and I apologize if if that came across or that somebody else mentioned that that I'm not aware of but but that was not that's my understanding okay so so that leads me back to my question then what is the applicant looking to do left so is the applicant agreeing to any contributions any improvements anything at all what what what is the applicant's position right now as to what they are what they are going to do so I think at this point we would agree if the board would so choose to come in and do the striping improvements that are shown on 829 and the signage improvements there so it would be a Northbound left turn lane into the site it would also be the school zone signage um to reduce the speed to 25 miles an hour and also it's my opinion that they've agre already agreed on the record to do the signal at heis and and construct that um in in uh in total okay and that's everything uh yes I believe so okay so so that that we have to have a motion open public okay um okay if you want to make a motion to we'll uh entertain a motion to open the public meeting meeting please so moved second all in favor I we go again all right yes yes you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do for the seventh time today yeah something like that Jim selia s ECC H six or Field Drive Jackson New Jersey I'm going to start with this comment board may not like that I'm going to say it his statement regarding the light being for heisen road is exactly what was talked about at the meeting I agree and the reason I can tell you that is the big concern was making a left of construction vehicles onto Chandler off of heisen and you gotta kind of do a a u-shape to get into heisen I also know it because he also made a statement and don't think you're getting away easy on this because I do have things I'm getting he also stated that since there's a light at Jackson Mills and Chandler putting a light at the curve is too close in the way they look at traffic stes so I will give them that that's my view you guys can go back and look at now let's let's hit the the rough spots your traffic study I have a hard time believing when you state that your numbers were l lower and I say that because the Town Council at last meeting presented two traffic studies done in Jackson and each study and I have all the numbers I won't go through them all they they were done one was done on a cesac which this is a culdesac and there were over 480 trips a day and we were told it was significantly higher than what was projected the second Road was a road going between I'm sorry sorry second was a road going between South Hope Chapel and White Road and that one had over 930 trips per day it was predicted in the traffic studies that there would only be 500 that day that that in two in 2024 so I have a hard time all of a sudden this is the road that so many people travel is going to be a lot less than what we're seeing elsewhere in Jackson so so I I have to say as a Prof profal right we conduct traffic counts and we certified those traffic counts I'm not out here lying to you about the numbers I'm telling you we at the request of the board we counted additional volume and what we found was they were comparable or slightly lower than what we had projected from 2022 to a baseline of 2024 I didn't call you a liar I just said I had a hard time believing your numbers that's all I take that as the same thing and I I'm not I'm not I don't call you a li you're a professional I get it now can you tell me how far the public road is going to be from the curve on Chan Road there the distance from our newos the new road that you're proposing to the center of the curve and I assume the curve is to the left if you're heading out of this complex 250 ft to the center yep about 250 ft okay may maybe even a little bit less than that so I I think you also said you have timed people in into the curve how far from the center of that curve if you're coming from Jackson Mills into that curve how far away from the curve is it before you actually can spot the car making a left into the complex so the site distances required are 200 feet that's required I asked what you found um I can tell you we have greater than 200 feet I don't have the exact calculation here how over over 400 feet okay and I know you can't fix stupidity for people speeding I I wish wish we could figure something out on it that stoppage time is if someone is going the speed limit correct that is not taken into account people exceeding this speed Li so the 200 feet that I quoted to you is based on 25 mph posted which is 30 mph design speed okay now let's go to the the signs and making it making these things a school zone can you tell me how many schools in Jackson have a school zone that isn't on a entrance to a School Road not on a road that's not the entrance into the schools so out of the public schools in Jackson one two three four five of them have school speed limits in front of them and where are they on the roads where the school has the entrance or are they on roads that they are adjacent to the frontage of the school similars to what we are proposing so we have Frontage along Chandler Road right and so we it it's a similar nature of what's being proposed here I'm glad you answer that way because that's exactly what I expected you to say I don't believe it's a school road it's Frontage by because you're putting a drainage in there but I I I think there's some serious concerns as to how you're going to get people in and out of there safely okay including school buses uh you know and it's it's all about safety I I you know I I know one of the the board men MERS mentioned you know the the tragedy we had a couple of weeks ago I can tell you the Town Council two meetings ago changed a an ordinance in 1979 that didn't change and and on that Tuesday they Chang it that Friday there was a traffic accident coming out of that road so things happen and and we have to be smart about it we can't just say well we meet this criteria we got to look at what we're dealing with I'm going we have a lineup of people all right ma'am you swear or affirm to tell the truth the hold truth nothing but the truth I do all right please state your name spell your last of the record Linda moscowitz all right m o k itz for Hardwick Court Jackson Township all right uh Mr Taylor I've heard you testify before I found you very well prepared um right now there's a development being built close by and they have two Road access uh there are going to be approximately 250 townhous in there the main road empties on to Harmony Road which is a curvy two lane Country Road however they have a second Access Road for 911 Vehicles now I have complained about safety about this project every time I've been here you have one road coming in off Chandler God forbid there's anything that happens on that one road every other emergency vehicle will be blocked from getting to the site what can be done to make access safer you've got over 2,000 children and approximately 250 in staff I I I just see this as an absolute nightmare not to mention I feel they are trapped in there the way it is ma'am before he answers one question you're not represented by Mr gazari correct no okay so we heard the concerns of that and it's why even in this concept and layout we have maintained the boulevard design on the main access road and what that does is allow two means of access and egress in case there is something that would block one way the 18t width on both sides provides enough width for inbound and outbound traffic and it's the it's the guidance that we take from the New Jersey and the Department of Community Affairs for Designing residential developments of uh similar size and traffic nature Okay so we've got 36 foot width total yes separated by a 10 to 12 foot I know that was new last time it is taken to the first access point where there is options of traveling in a different direction and that's the guidance of the DCA as well okay so if something were blocked further down you have the ability to use the school driveways to navigate around the obstruction it's still tight okay Robert Goldberg 43 just to Fai Drive yes you swear tell truth the whole truth nothing but truth I Swear To Tell the Truth uh there's two points one I don't think that your estimate of the traffic is accurate once they build that school because on Harmony Hill Harmony Road they're building 200 approximately 200 units which is going to be a lot of traffic and they're going to go down Harmony Road most of them are not going to go down country line to get to uh nine if they want to get to nine they're going to go through Harmony Road and then cut into Aldridge which is most of us from uh Matia K do so the traffic is going to be a lot more and this this is probably going to be finished by next year I mean right now it's hard to get out of our development sometimes I have to wait five minutes until the traffic e is up on Jackson Mills to get in so this is going to increase the uh a problem with the traffic another thing I had said this before if you have any questions for him now is a time for questions what now is a time for questions cross-examination questions so P public statements we can make at the end well my question is is he going to take into account this that's fine if you have any questions just directed at the I'm sorry so we did not specifically take that development into account what we do is we add a background growth rate um that accounts for the various traffic um growth in the area when we build it out to a no build condition yeah but this is going to affect the time when the school is built so that's going to change all your traffic uh information so again I think that the background growth rate that's utilized from the njdot accounts for developments in the area that are that are coming online prior to our development being fully built out thank you sir and the other point that I want to make is uh I had asked this before but uh as far as uh in case of any emergency or fire or anything like that in any of the schools I know I was at the plane crash where the plane ran out of the uh South American plane ran out of Gears anyway it crashed and it was at the end of a one uh of two LAN road that only went to there so there was no other access and three fire engines pulled in and they could not make a U-turn So within 10 minutes by the time ambulances and got there there was no way to get in into the road and uh we had to walk like a half a mile to get to where the crash was and it took him like four hours to for all these uh Emer question to back up now is there enough room on that road for a a fire truck to turn around yes without going to the end without going to the end I mean the ladder truck is pretty W is pretty long it would need to use the culdasac at the end of the bulb or one of the driveways for the schools but depending on where they're fighting the fire they're going to be ins interior to the school layout anyway and they'll be able to use a lot the driveways of the schools to turn around well you know when there's a fire usually they send more than one engine absolutely so and once they go in it's you can't go to the end to make the U-turn well I mean so each one of these driveways has each one of these individual Lots has a circulation pattern uh to enter and exit via the two driveways and there's room for the emergency vehicles to navigate through the parking lot I know I went down that road it didn't look it thank you all right do I have to be sworn in again too yes uh quick question you rep you're not represented by Mr gazowsky no okay all right uh you swear from to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes I do all right and please state your name spell your last of the record Victoria Regan R GN 44 Chesterfield drive for Neighbors I didn't know um so before I I I don't want to take up too much time it's very late I mean we've here since you a little after 6 so guaranteeing a seat which obviously there's not a lot of people here is a little discouraging but I I mean it's traffic going to come back I mean I really hoping that the lawyer that left is a signed that we're still going to be discussing this and it's not going to be decided tonight am I right I believe he said he'll bring his own uh expert with us Mr gazari has has Lee Klein his own traffic engineer who's going to be back to put on his his own affirmative testimony okay I I mean there's a lot I have a lot of concerns I don't want to you know be here all night I I'm I've had 10 back surgeries I can't sit here any longer um the first case ran quite long as you know so I'll try to make this quick um the studies that are done I mean I don't know how true to life the traffic studies are I know that's what you have to go on but my concern is not Chandler Chandler is not a very busy road in my opinion what's busy is Jackson Mills okay so you got a development right off of Jackson Mills sou Four Seasons maton where some of us live and now you got the thing going on in harmony which is is going to be a large complex and Jacksonville's is very very congested now and like the gentleman said before me it's difficult to get out of our community at this point and there's nothing even built yet so now you're talking about adding 2700 students 250 staff I believe you said 90 some perc of the the children are going to be on a bus is that correct yes so we're still that 90% figure pretty accurate yes although I remember um chairman chairperson C saying something about the buses would not be full so there's a chance that there could be a lot more buses the traffic concern for us is is so great I I can't even get everything out at this one meeting it's it's late I can't even think straight but that is the concern is not really Chandler so what where did the buses come from I know this question was asked I don't think it was really answered where are the buses coming from are they coming from heis are they coming from County Line are they coming from Jackson Mills do you know where the student population is coming from so we have a uh projected distribution of approximately 30% traveling north towards Jackson Mills and about 70% traveling towards the south towards heison right and that is a combination of both the parental drop off the Staffing and the buses 30% North to Jackson Mills that's correct is that coming in or it's coming in going out that's correct it's coming in and going and how do you get to that figure it's based upon the information provided by the applicant on where they thought some of their student populations would be coming from and some of their their teaching uh there some of the staff North Jackson Mills like from Lakewood area south of County Line Road is that accurate so regionally what we looked at is about 30% going to the north okay I is that I'm trying to in my mind I'm trying to picture that I know uh I know I see I see buses I see Jay's bus service all over Jackson already I I don't know where they're coming from I don't know where the schools are they're going to so I'm not sure how you guys track it I certainly can't um but it wasn't really answered last time it was kind of based on some study and I know um uh Mr Tremor had said before or one of the uh one of the council people had said something about you know real life studies it doesn't really represent real life where are they coming from no knows the applicant doesn't know it's never really gotten answered and so I don't know how you come to 30% but again traffic concern is so great so I will also tell you based upon the analysis that we did the impact to Jackson Mills Road shows all good levels of service with the addition of the site generated traffic I'm sorry I he the last line uh still operates with good levels of service with the projected traffic that travels through the intersection and has been reviewed and um concurred by the county okay I disagree 100% but that's all I have I appreciate you answering it anyway thank you Joe uh I move to close the public cross-examination second second all I I so we should choose a date M Js uh looks looking looking like you'll be here in September it sure is and we have we have issues right so August one of the August stes are you here in August so yeah m m Jennings you got one on uh September 23rd how about Hampshire August the August dates are the 5th and the 19th we could probably those aren't extremely large applications so we might be able to fit it in that's up to you um who's there what's the application a a stupid office again yeah with any luck August 19th that's small small I think we better do September September we already I think September 23rd we already have two houses of worship on that day oh sorry oh I must have missed that oh I no I see there's another one that just got added oh I see It'll be on the next agenda Hampshire Hills we have Hampshire Hills and we also have the one that was carried from July ju to that date all right we carried that tonight October 7 y we're looking at the 19th it's a minor subdivision and a consolidation that might be possible August 19th worship y um we're going to have to the fifth the fifth is just um it's stuen coming back for the office space and a twostory office retail August fifth okay so we're going to have to also talk to Mr gazari see if his experts available and then we have to check with Mr gazari so so could we could we hold until we so so we have to have uh the applicant wave uh time of decision uh as matter of course number one number two uh we don't because Mr Gaz uh left we don't know when he is going to be available um so if we put a placeholder put you in on the 5th August 5th because that one may may pull out M Jennings you have a conflict though right oh you have a conflict on the fth yeah all right um August 19th yeah I think it's a big you have time to do what you need to do July 1 no we have we have three yeah we got three we have three on the first the first one was car the first one's carried and then we have two uh yes one is yours I I I don't I don't know if we we got to figure out from Mr gazowsky if he's going to be then we'll carry it okay all right as long as the the applicants amendable to that M Morrison the 1 of July okay all right so let's go for the first hope for the best anything else we need July 1 all this the applicant wave time of decision to July 1 gotta we have a motion to uh motion to close h no motion car motion to move and close second Sullivan all in favor I I all right thank motion to close second all in favor