today is the fourth good evening to the March 4th 2024 Jackson planning board meeting uh this meeting being convened in accordance with the provisions of the open public meetings Act of New Jersey an adequate notice has been provided in all the appropriate forms and places thank you madam chair um roll call please Mr brei here Mr Bernstein here Mr heler here Mr Herman here Mr reer Mr marzo here Mr Tremor here Mr wall here Mr Sullivan Dr Camp here and uh approval of the February 26th minutes for the regular meeting um I'll accept a motion bur roll call please Mr brei yes Mr Bernstein here Mr heler Mr marzo yes Mr Tremor Mr wall yes Dr Campbell yes uh legal matters first and then we'll go into okay all right we have one legal matter on the agenda uh on TW in February 27th uh this board received a correspondence from Township attorney uh requesting that the planning board initiate the process for a full master plan review now in order to comply with those recommendations uh this Board needs to create what's called a master plan subcommittee now master plan subcommittee just so everybody's is aware uh can only have between two to four members has to be less than a core um now the uh pursuant to the Robert Rules of Order the chairwoman uh has the ultimate authority of appointing and removing members from that board now what happens the the responsi of the sub responsibility of the subcommittee are twofold first uh what happens is that the uh subcommittee is responsible for uh making recommendations as to the retention of professionals um to the township Council who is the ultimate Authority in determining who to uh hire in that capacity in those roles could be one could be more depends on what they want to do and how the extent of the master plan review um the the second uh part of that is that the subcommittee conjunction with the professionals once the feedback gets taken uh it gets brought back down to us from the township Council um is that we we analyze the master plan itself and make recommendations accordingly uh along with those professionals um that goes back to the uh Township Council for review uh and further feedback so it's a back and forth process um now this is the first step in the process and this is all we're going to do today um therefore I'd like to ask the chairwoman uh to request from the board a motion uh to create the master plan subcommittee uh and then we can go from there all right we'll accept a motion please all right uh so what I'd like to do is uh ask Miss dearo and Mr heler to serve on their Committee of the subcommittee and uh Mr Bernstein will of course be our lays on to the Town Council uh so I'll get in touch with you later on that that's four members which is under the five of Quorum all right all right and uh in we need to vote all right go ahead roll call please Mr brzy yes Mr Bernstein yes Mr heler yes Mr Herman I'm sorry I just didn't um quite understand the um for this U master plan review this is going to be a full review of all the aspects or any specific aspects of the master plan meaning is the housing element going to be part of this with the affordable housing coming up is this going to be a we'll get culation plan element that's going to be not the question the question right now is the subcommittee that's the question okay that's what you're voting on now not on any master plan will there be a vote on any more tonight no not tonight but no eventually I'm sure there'll be more than a sufficient number of so it's it's just strictly so as of tonight uh again this is the first step of the process right so as of tonight it's just a creation of the master plan subcommittee that's it uh everything else is Way Forward down the line it's going to be a very long processess we'll come back before the entire board before we before the board moves ahead with any specific El based upon the recommendations of the submit of the subcommittee eventually eventually there will be a full hearing where there would be public notice and everybody will will be able to review everything that's done fully out in the open has to be done according to the open public meetings act uh everything is out in the open so yes yes that will happen so again so just to bear it's going to come back before the board what elements the subcommittee recommends to move ahead on before they move ahead on those elements it's a full so so the master plan right it's full it's a full review of the master plan including the how how we go about that and in and the order that we go about those 14 points we'll get back to you all but we're not going to discuss tonight okay but I'm saying it's going to come what I'm GNA what I'm going to say at this point is any questions when it comes down first of all we don't even have the professionals lined up yet we don't even know who the professionals are going to Big so once the professionals uh are retained once the township decides whether they're going to do it or they going to punt it back to us to determine whether or not we're going to be the ones to do it so they give us jurisdiction to do it at that point a determination will be made as to the extent of the master plan uh what elements they're going to look at what elements they not going to look at the subcommittee will review it go over it um and if they need to allow it into a public session they will um if not um and it's just going to be the regular M run-of-the-mill Master plane which is really rather extensive and it goes down almost every single one of the elements anyway um you know we'll get to it at that point but we can't make any promises or um any determinations right now without the advice uh the professional of the professionals no 100% I'm not we have my that's not my question we could have four or five professionals we could have somebody for transportation starting the process just starting the process so the only thing we're doing tonight is we're not saying what we're doing how deep we're diving we're just affirming the sub so what I'm gonna ask my question is going Mr Mr Herman what I'm gonna vote tonight is the subcommittee but what what what I'm gonna what I'm gonna request you have any questions send it to me all right I'll get you the answer all right um in the quickest most efficient way possible all right but right now we have a motion on the floor so we got we have to vote on this from that I just don't I don't understand the uh we'll get Technic thank you he's abstaining okay continue Mr marzo yes Mr Tremor yes Mr wall yes Dr Campbell yes all right and and to help the process along just so that because many here are new um I I asked Mr Jones to give us a brief General overview okay you have a microphone I do now good so yeah so when any municipality undertakes a master plan I guess um we'll start with there's two parts two types of a master plan there's a re-exam which we've done relatively recently um and then there's a full master plan um I think using the term a full master plan is just a little bit of a miscalculation because each master plan is made up of various elements um those elements that are required is a statement of objectives uh a land use element and indirectly a housing and fair share element now that said the housing and fair share elements are a a separate process that can be adopted at a separate time but is a required element at some point in the future um obviously as those who know affordable housing is ongoing in the state of New Jersey and um there's some things being kicked around in the legislature and should things change most municipalities will likely be doing a new one of these at some point in the near future but um so those are the three required elements then there's lots of other elements such as uh Transportation utilities um economic development sustainability these are all called optional elements and so what really ends up happening is through a municipalities conversations of budget time constraints all of these things decisions will need to be made on what is or is not included like I said the ones that are required is a land use and a um statement of objectives and goals and then also indirectly as stated that housing element so there's a about 14 various optional elements um I could go through the list I don't think it's necessarily important but the point is based on budget timing all of these things you have to make a decision on what it is you want to include rarely I have never seen a municipality do all 14 at one point all right thank you appreciate it thank you all right now Mr Clay anything before we start uh okay great all right uh we need to to uh we have a resolution we're thanking uh M Morrison again for her duel roll tonight as secretary resolution 2024-the Board of the township of Jackson County of ocean state of New Jersey granting preliminary and final major site plan approval with design waivers for a church and adjacent structures for Evangelical Lutheran Emanuel Church block 11 1801 lot 80 eligible to vote are Mr brei Mr heler Mr Herman Mr marzo Mr chmer Mr wall and Dr Campbell um call for a motion to so moved Bry second Herman okay Mr brei yes Mr heler yes Mr Herman yes Mr marzo yes Mr chmer yes Mr Wolf yes Dr Campbell yes now we have one schedule change uh block 102 lot one ysf Rothenberg carried from tonight uh and uh what's the schedule looking like here this will be with notice required I believe good evening uh Adam fefer I'm sorry we're just checking the dates so we're looking at our dates and then we'll say well how your dates me no problem okay what do we what can we offer to uh Mr Feer well the schedule you have is is current so there's nothing else so you could look at that um looks like May six maybe there's two applications we could maybe do that so if I could just give some input so uh as you're aware um at one of the previous meetings um we were here there were some objectors um we've been working with them and we believe we've come to resolve I can't say every single obor's uh comments but um again this was a preliminary approval that already occurred we're seeking final um we have made some revisions to the the final we don't believe we need a new preliminary um it's tweaking of all in line with what happened in the preliminary those plans are are scheduled to hopefully be submitted this week um to your professionals um if possible I know there are two applications on the first I'm here as well well if we could list it for that obviously it only would work if your professionals have enough time to review it um and get a report out and if we don't get reached then we'll go to the May meeting but if we can list it for the April 1 that would be great if not I leave it to you it's looking I think um the secretary says it's looking like May 6 what's the first look like well April 1st are two rather large applications that are starting so might be able to start this but I don't think we would get through everything we're probably better off sticking because what's going to happen is they will happen first you'll be third and chances of getting to you are slim to I was saying I was here anyway on the on that night un unless you talk very fast and get us through I could always try my best I know well it also depends if the to we would also have to coordinate um with the interested party that would most likely have to be in attendance anyway right correct everything I'm saying is is is the plans that we've already revised have been submitted to them they were just they said that initially it looks good but I'm just waiting for their technical review before I submit it to your professionals so if you so as long as as long as you're able to uh believe is he gonna need uh traffic and and fire uh to have to review as well on the new plants for the yeah probably right so uh just make sure that that you get them into fire and traffic at least 20 days befor so they're they're due to be submitted this week just just so we're clear so so that would really mean it would be less than a month so if you can make it happen if you can make it happen um Laura can you put that on the schedule then it's the first and you'll that will be the third not the the other two understood and we will also know at a worst case scenario if it in the next two weeks if that doesn't happen you'll be able at the March 18 me to make that announce that it's not going to be until the till the May 6th but I plan on having it done and and submitted this week so we can get on for the April 1 meeting and you have time for notice as well yes all right okay that's good thank you okay um any board matters for discussion before we begin uh just take a vote on the um vote on that change please and we'll take a motion take a motion move with April 1st ring second okay Mr brei yes Mr heler yes Mr Herman yes Mr marzo yes Mr chmer Mr Sullivan oh sorry Dr Campbell yes Mr wall did I call you I'm sorry yes yes all right then um Mr feffer um your next I think we'll have Mr CLE any comments Mr CLE on um block 7403 Lot 2 how realy yeah thank you madam chair um this um application relates to a 2021 approval uh for 26,000 two 26,000 two story U office building the uh plan was has been approved it was deemed resolution compliant and the Apple now is um uh requesting some modifications to the drainage to the drainage system everything's more technical in nature um the the public the board is not going to see anything different than what was approved um you could probably easily make make the case for me being able to just sign off you know on this but me lacking the um courage I'll say um I just wanted to keep the board you know apprised of the um the situation but it's just you know technical revisions to the drainage drainage system long and short all right good Mr Jones anything from you on this applic um nothing to add uh I did look at the parking and and the site is still compliant that came up in the last review so it is still compliant all right Mr feffer it's up to you now good evening and I I hope this should be the shortest application of the year um uh as indicated by your professionals nothing really has changed and and thank you the exhibits already up that basically substantially is what was approved when we came here originally um there were some changes made to the design of the storm water management basically everything below ground um the county has reviewed it the county was fine with it the county the only change that you possibly could see uh to the site is that the county had asked for some additional uh basins um to to collect more runoff we complied we've made those plans red it the county has signed off for it I have our engineer here to say exact to confirm everything that I just said um as Mr CLE indicated um you know this is a technical nature and his office I don't believe had any any objection to it other than it was not what the board had originally seen on the approval um and that's really it that's the whole application um I could swear in my professional and he can say he agrees and we can go from there all right please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth nothing but the truth for the record I do please uh spell your name uh my name is Jason bero b r NE y KO State your credentials for the record I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of uh from 19 years now um I'm employed by new Lions land consultants in Lakewood New Jersey I graduated from New Jersey Institute of Technology with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and I've testified before several townships uh throughout New Jersey including this Jackson Township plan planning board in the past thank you the board accepts the conventionals we do thank you uh Mr Beno you heard what Mr C said and what I said if you can confirm and give any other technical comments uh that you feel unnecessary uh yeah I can just expand on that um everything that was said before by you and Mr CLE is correct um the uh there are no changes if I could just ask that uh we had submitted an exhibit I I believe it was called d four right so this exhibit here um the two the area shown here in the red uh Cloud revision that is an underground recharge system um basically due to some uh difficulties in the applicant uh sourcing some of the material for this uh and wanting to do some value engineering uh We've applied infiltration rates into the sizing of this system um which is now um Allowed by the njd storm water regulations um so we've been able to basically reduce the size of this system here um and the one of the requirements for the infiltration rates that are used is that it has to be half of what was actually tested in the field so we went out and we did soil permeability tests used half of results that we had out in the field in in order to uh complete our design um now in addition to uh resizing and making this footprint a little bit smaller of this recharge system we've also provided a water quality unit which is Upstream of this system uh this is U manufactured by cont and it provides 80% removal of the total suspended solids in the runoff so that provides an addition to the um water quality before the water the runoff gets infiltrated into the ground through this underground recharge system and then one other comment that the county had was that they wanted to see two inlets uh right in this area um which is basically at the entrance drive to the site and that's just going to reduce some of the amount of runoff that's running off onto Brewers Bridge Road and it will uh redirect this water into the underground system which will actually promote some additional groundwater recharge which is one of the um benefits that the storm water rules uh look for to um to maintain some of that groundwater uh that you might lose with all the impervious coverage that's put on the site um and as it was stated the ocean Count's reviewed and approved the plans um the design complies with the requirements of the township code and the njd regulations um so so we're seeking approval for this amendment to the storm order system tonight Mr Clay that that pretty much you know sum sums it up and as I indicated I really don't have any problem with the uh modification in design the only common or question I would have would be there's always a storm water um onm manual operation and maintenance manual um site site specific that's recorded in the uh uh County clerk's office is want to make sure that um that revised docu or revised document will be provided to reflect the revisions that we we're seeing tonight yes and that will be part of the resolution great yes it's required it's part of the resolution compliance anyway but we will I'll make it part of the condition and anyone from the board have questions then we'll move for a uh determination please public oh sorry anyone from the public who' like to make any comments on this particular application seeing no one coming forward move to close public session all all in favor I now we'll get a recommendation make a motion to approve based on what professional stated Footprints are all the same looks like it's an improved system and profession professions agree on make motion to approve thank you second h Mr Bry yes Mr Bernstein yes Mr heler yes Mr Herman yes Mr marzo yes Mr chmer yes Mr wall yes Dr Campbell yes congratulations you may have set a record and Mr alery we are ready for you uh our professionals anything before we begin this Mr C com subdivision is proposing to sub property into two lots there is a variance required for lack of Frontage on the approved Street and maybe some testimony from the app regarding um the certificate of fining that was immedately secur from the Pence Commission was inconsistent with the um CMP so they some testimony from the applic as to have PLS to address thank you Mr Jones anything from you on this application um I just so we drafted a letter I just have some outstanding questions regarding uh the calculations for lot area and just there's two systems that this Zone requires uh depending on if it's a standard sep septic or an alternative septic and then based on that your L area standards are yeah are based on that so some clarification regarding that thank you Mr alfair good evening Madam chair members of board salvator alfery clear giobi alfery and Jacobs on behalf of the applicant um as the board professionals indicate this is uh a essentially a two lot subdivision create two lots where one currently exists um there's questions in the report as to whether this should be classified as a major or a minor subdivision we have no issue classifying it as a major really doesn't affect the application per se if there's waivers that are required we would just simply request those we only have one witness tonight Mr McFarland who we would request be sworn in and qualified all right you're gonna be swearing in as um as both the Prof both professional planner and professional engineer Patrick all right please raise your right hand do you do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth nothing but the truth for the record I do all right please state your name short Graham MC Farland professional engineer professional planner uh principal of PDs appeared before this board many times previously agre the board approved the credentials absolutely thank okay gr U could you identify the document that's on the screen sure what we have up on the screen is uh is A1 which is an aerial exhibit of the of the subject property um block 18601 one lot 20.01 you can see the subject property uh outlined in in yellow uh Frontage on Dorothy's Dorothy's Lane goes in and out on his screen Som front is on Dorothy's Lane uh you can see that there is an an existing private Street known as New har Lane which is to the east of the subject property with some houses located along it and I'll talk about that a a little more uh detail as we as we go along this application is to subdivide the oneing existing lot into two New Lots uh the lots are in full conformance with all of your bulk standards in the ordinance with the exception of uh this one lot on the bottom does not have direct Street Frontage uh the other lot on the top portion does have Street Frontage out to Dorothy's Lane so we are asking for the variance uh to provide the lot which is which does not have any direct Street Frontage uh and again you can see the nature of the uh of the development proposed you can also see in the back the back portion of the property has freshwater wetlands and it does have um some TNA species limitations as confirmed by the by the pine lands so you can see the uh those two rectangles where there was no cross-hatching that's the that's the limit of disturbance that is proposed or or is permitted in accordance with pine land's requirements essentially the Pine Land says uh the property does have Wetlands it does have some habitat for T species however you can develop the lot as long as there was no more than one acre of total land disturbance proposed so th that is the condition of the certificate of filing um the second second condition of the certificate of filing since new regulations went into effect last year for storm waterer management minor subdivisions also have to provide the storm water management similar to what a major subdivision or a major development has has to has to do so this application would have to provide roof dry Wells and a system of storm waterer management for each of the two lots in accordance with the current requirements of the Pinelands that that those storm water rules were enacted in February of 2023 after this application was submitted uh but then during review pin lands you know again had issued the inconsistent certificate of filing with the stipulation that we have to comply with those again those those new rules so the applicant is obligated to comply with with those requirements Anthony if you can go to A2 for me so A2 and A3 A2 and A3 are uh exhibits that show the subdivisions of the lot that L to the east remember I spoke about uh the private Street why is this not the private Street New har Lane and the subject property is down here a little bit a little bit to the West uh A2 is a is a final map that was that was filed in uh 2000 that created three lots from that from that parcel so that created one two three lots from that existing parcel with Frontage on new har Lane what's highlighted on that map and unfortunately you you know you can't read it from uh from here but what what's highlighted on that map is is identified as a 50 foot wide Ingress and egress easement for Lots 88 and 89 and for emergency vehicles with turnaround to be maintained by owner of lot 80 805 so again that that box clearly identified or established that street that new har Lane as as a private Street not as a public RightWay uh if one looks at the looks at the tax map you would you would first think that it is a uh that is a public Street the way it's drawn and depicted on the tax map but the file map is is clear that this was presented and approved as as a private street again you know you could see all the signatures on the map and this is the file map uh so again that new heart Lane was was created as a as a private Street uh again not and also not providing any access to the subject to the subject lot and we're not proposing to access in any way that that private road correct Anthony you can go to A3 for me next please so A3 was filed a year later in 2001 so A3 was filed a year later in 2001 and A3 then created two additional Lots two additional Lots at the end of the culdesac here remember the the previous A2 created one larger parcel here A3 created two additional Lots on new har Lane and again highlighted and and I'll read it for the record it says uh existing 50 foot wide Ingress and egress easement across Lots 8010 for Lots 808 809 uh for emergency vehicles with turnaround and for proposed Lots 811 8813 to be maintained by owner proposed lot 812 as shown on a map easement for Ingress and egress to run with to run with the land and also just again just to be sure we're perfectly clear uh right here this road again is indicated as an Ingress and egress easement right here under the call out of new har place they do call it a private road so those terms you know my opinion are both used interchangeably on on this map a a private road or an Ingress and egress easement only for the benefit of the owners who are on the uh you know the top side or the east side of of uh of new har Lane so that map was filed in 2001 so Anthony you can now go to A4 for me so A4 is now where we get to the uh you get to the proposed application uh you can see you know similar to the aerial the two lots that are proposed uh the Lots do do have do share common boundary with new har Lane but as stipulated by those prior agreements our existing lot was not given the right and does not have any access to that private street so the only alternative for developing this this uh this property is to propose an additional lot that would not have any direct Street fontage you can see that proposed lot 2013 does have Street Frontage out to Dorothy's Lane proposed law 2014 does not have any direct Street Frontage so in order to provide access for lot 20.4 we've simply proposed a uh an access and utility easement from dy's Lane to service lot 20.4 uh the the test of this variance has actually uh is actually quite um it's actually quite simple uh for an existing street right for for a lot that does not have any a any direct access to a street there was a a court case resolved in 1969 known as the klingman vers lman case and that case confirmed that the purpose of the regulation requiring uh Street access the purpose of the regulation is to ensure adequate access to the structure for emergency field access access to protect health and safety so the most important element of of how and when a lot can be subdivided and its particular arrangement uh has to deal with emergency vehicle access uh for this application we did submit to the Bureau of fire prevention and we have a uh letter dated August 3rd 2023 uh which says after review of the information and site plan submitted dated 11:15 21 are acceptable should you have any further questions do not hesitate to contact this office so the the local Bureau of fire prevention has approved this Arrangement as proposed and do not offer any objections or any comments to this uh arrangement to provide for a a lot with with no direct Street access the followup question the the hatched area if you will um to the north is that this all the way to the back yeah yes um that'll be constrained in some sort of conservation easement or some other type of documents Yes again uh referencing what I stated about Pinelands earlier Pine lands allows a maximum of one acre of disturbance so each of these uh rectangles um indicate that one acre of disturbance that is permissible on each of the two lots okay uh everything else will will be protected and placed in a conservation easement and can you discuss the septic system that would be required by pin LS yes the or this the ordinance uh in the Pinelands Village Zone does allow for two Alternatives uh one is um is is oversized Lots uh but the second is lots that meet a minimum of of one acre lot area with with Advanced septic system um so these Lots meet that meet that criteria so we're proposing uh proposing the alternative um or Advanced treatment systems uh just just back to the the variant requests on the lot with no direct Street Frontage there's a second prong of that U of that to be considered and that second prong is just to confirm that this application uh would would protect any future Street layout as shown on the official map or adopted master plan so if one had an application where where it was a very large parcel that was being subdivided and there were uh you know surrounding streets that required access or or needed to connect to that property it wouldn't meet the test of the uh test of the requirements for this for this variance uh for this particular piece of property it does meet that prong is there there's no alterations uh or impact proposed to any you know official map or adopted master plan that that has has to do with any streets proposed in this particular area so so that's that U that point is satisfied and the third item that's of particular interest for this for this case has to deal with the nature of improvement of this of this driveway back to that first case that I that I cited that klingman case uh there was a particular finding that that a private Lan or easement across lands uh of others in in that particular particular case the municip they cannot compel compliance with ordinance created Street specifications so the board does not have the authority in this particular case to dictate that this private access drive would have to conform to public Street standards it is viewed in a separate category and again that was that was a finding of the uh of the court in that in that claiming in that claiming case as to the uh as to the particular requirements of these uh of these two lots and and satisfaction with bulk standards um each of the Lots satisfies the require the minimum a minimum acreage requires one one acre minimum uh there was a little interpretation or a little discussion as to uh two of the items contained in your ordinance that are regulated which are the lot width and the uh and the building and the front yard setback lot width in the ordinance is clearly defined as measured at the building setback line and in this particular case this particular case uh each of these Lots you can see the building the building setback line I'm following with the uh with the pointer so with each of those for each of these two lots the minimum building uh the minimum lot width is satisfied lot depth of 250 feet is satisfied for uh for each lot front setback uh is also a little bit um a little bit tricky to uh to interpret but I'm confident that the the the way that the ordinance is written uh the ordinance is an open space on the same lot with the principal building extending the full width of the lot and situated between the street line and front between the street line and a front yard setback so that's the definition of the of the front yard so the front setback is measured it clearly says the front setback is to be measured from the street from the street line uh since we have since we have no l since we have no Street line on these particular Lots uh the front setback frankly doesn't doesn't apply to uh to these Lots these lots are unique in their Arrangement and and front setback as defined by your ordinance doesn't doesn't apply uh sidey yard setback 10 and 30 feet combined which we satisfy rear yard setback 50 feet which the application uh satisfies Anthony just go to A5 for me real quick and A5 A5 is uh what we call a development plan that just shows the uh the footprint of the houses that will be proposed locations of the uh septic systems arrangement of driveways that will be proposed and it also shows the grading of the lot and that was important to show to the Pine lands again in in keeping with that limitation that we can only disturb one acre of land for each of the two lots so that that shows compliance with the with the Pine Land requirements again related to that particular requirement now we do have uh we do have Rie review letters of course from both of the board's professionals and uh I'll just run through uh running through Mr C's letter letter first dated October 6th of 2023 he he summarizes the uh the zoning and confirms that uh everything complies with ordinance standards and as testified I agree with that he he asked us to confirm water and sewer and we do have uh public water available in in Dorothy's Lane and we will provide Advanced septic treatment in accordance with Pinelands requirements and ordinance requirements uh he asked about the improvements to the access e the access easement uh Provisions for ownership and maintenance I'm going to defer to Mr alfery I think he's had some discussions on that yeah we would there would be a kind kind of a common document a common driveway eastment that the two Property Owners would um would enter into and it would be recorded in the county clerk's office your board professionals would have to review that document as a condition of approval and it would be recorded so all subsequent owners are aware this going be part of the de pardon it's gonna be part of the deed correct will be in the deed and it will run with the land of both lots and then Mr Cay just points out the uh the variance for the front is on improved street that we are requesting of course summarizes the Outside Agency approvals that are required and uh then he just has some other um mostly really administrative comments uh you know giving us a list of what's what's going to be needed to get this application across the Finish Line then we Al also have a letter from Mr Peters for you there there was a comment about concrete curb and sidewalk in both letters um and we're seeking a waiver of installing sidewalk on the road uh correct there there's only 30 ft of Frontage at dorthy's lande that will be occupied by the uh by the proposed driveway and payment due in lie of the installation the sidewalk that would be paid yes corre yes I'm sorry go ahead that's okay and then we have a letter from Mr Peters dated December 11th 2023 and of course Mr Peter summarizes everything that's received and reviewed uh points out the varant request for uh unimproved or lack of Street Frontage provides a zoning table with the two alternatives uh for larger lots and for smaller Lots permissible in in this Zone uh he does identify uh that there may be other variances requested but again they were related to the lot width the front yard setback and the side yard setback which uh pursu to my testimony we comply with all of those requirements uh Mr Peters just wants confirmation that we're proposing Advanced treatment and we and we are uh and then he has uh just couple comments about satisfying uh Pine lands lands comments which of course we we agree with um he does mention the an access easement that's going to be required from what 20.02 which we would agree as a condition of approval but can you show the board what we're talking about correct uh We've proposed we've proposed a very small access easement at the corner where our driveway will intersect with D's LAN L just so that we can get our driveway at a 90 at a 90 Dee uh angle so there's a small access is required from the adjoining uh lot owner uh and just for the record that that home that lot and the lot next door were were built were owned were previously owned by and those homes were built by the uh by the current applicant and then Mr Peters just uh comments that the application of course has to meet rsis and local require Ms for off street parking based upon uh you know number of uh number of bedrooms so that summarizes the uh my testimony for tonight that concludes our presentation M chair thank you couple couple of questions the maybe I missed this but the the the variances that you're requesting or the variance that you're requesting is it C1 or C2 variance well it's a it's it's actually under Section 65 of the municipal then l usel so it's really quot they call it like a planning variance it just have to establish that you don't have to show hardship you just have to demonstrate that uh fire safety Vehicles could get right and and that's that's the so we're not looking at a C1 or C2 we're looking at it right you agree yes agreed okay all right and and the standard for that just so the board is clear is if you can put that on record well yes it's really um I mean it's really again documented by the um by the case that I referenced it was a klingman lotman case in 1969 which uh which primarily said that uh these applications are all about emergency vehicle access and if one can provide that e emergency vehicle access then uh the test is satisfied on the board is is justifi and granting that that relief okay I said section 65 it's 35 I apologize and just just so the board is clear that takes the place of whether or not it's a a C1 hardship variance or uh the positive criteria balancing test uh a C2 so that's it that's all I got we're clear anyone from the board have any questions anyone from the public have any comments please come forward thing hi my name is Tina Roman you can you hear there's a process so please raise your right hand bring your microphone a little closer please all right uh do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth of the record I do all right please state your name spell your last of the record sure it's uh Tina Roman how do you spell your last name r o m and you where do you live 10 new hard place in Jackson in Jackson okay all right they're the ones who own that private easement um road that all Mr McFarland they're not represented by you correct no okay no I'm I just um thank you for having us I appreciate the notice and I appreciate you all listening uh today um I I just wanted to say congratulations to JN I appreciate them building the homes it just betters the neighborhood so I'm all for that um my concern is just making sure that we keep the area clean although you're progressing and growing and producing the neighborhood should still be clean last time we had incidents with debris coming over the fence the proper material was not laid out so that things would not go to our side and it just left a big mess and to this day we still have a flood that piles from the time that the fence was taken apart it wasn't put by right so we we're still taking care of some issues that wasn't done properly the first time so we are just asking that if those things could be taken Tak care of in the future um because this is another issue and more stuff that's going to happen so we just want to make sure that all due diligence is being um set forth so that that issues don't happen um again was was there a fence there originally yes well we we put the fence way before he built okay yeah yeah so we we would have to get fre Soil Conservation District ocean Soil Conservation District not freeold um and we'd have to put up a Sil fence which is required and perhaps that wasn't maintained in the prior construction but we're obligated to to do that um right no it wasn't done and we have no issue obviously complying with it because it is the law right well I appreciate that he's doing everything proper now and moving forward we I'm hoping and I expect it to be done the right way I mean we all pay taxes here my taxes are not cheap and I just want to make sure that everything is done right because I do what I have to do properly and right to live live in Jackson so I just ask that the same is done that's it really and um and just to reiterate just so that we clarify he is making the driveway adjacent to new hard to go like an l and um can we also reiterate the pipelines for the gas and stuff you you're coming you're going into daroy yes okay yes he doesn't have access to to New Heart now he doesn't but the last time he did dig a hole in newart so that's why I'm just making sure again we won't have an issue okay those were my three concerns I appreciate it again you guys hearing me out um did you have anything you needed to say no okay and the applicant agrees to work with the neighbors to address all these issues I appreciate that thank you I'll make it part of the uh we'll make it part of the resolution anyone else please come forward all right please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth for the record yes sir please state your name and spell your last for the record Steve melck Mel n and you are address 764 Darth East Lane I'm on the bottom right hand corner of that property where the last two dwellings were put up and you are not represented by Mr Al no but I do have a couple of questions because on your proposal here of A5 if you can zoom in on that if you have capability of zooming in if you zoom in on that bottom right hand corner of their proposal of that subdivision their storm water management is running right into my property so how are you going to address that storm water because your elevation is pitched strictly to the other properties that exist there well what we're going to end up with is uh is dry Wells or or roof recharge systems for this property so it won't have any any direct discharge to any properties so so the water would be we would be collected and then put into underground systems and then recharge ground water okay so my other question is obviously your picture right there you're depicting that there's a tree line between those the two lots that you built there right as your client had gone in and constructed those buildings correct if you if you could move the microphone a little closer because we're recording thank you gotta thank you no I'm just asking the question because he came in and he clearcut the entire property so your map is actually fictitious of what exactly EX today but if you go back to let's see your your A2 proposal I have a question on this one because you talk about fire egress an emergency vehicle egress into new har Lane and it looks to me as the proposal of where that that original document was and I don't know if that was your last one or if it was A3 that you said is the most recent smle of 2001 I believe well a A2 was filed first uh then A3 was was filed so A3 would have been the most recent the current stat A3 was the second application is that road actually 50 feet because there's no way in the world you're going to get a fire truck down that road well that's got nothing to do with us that's a that's a that's a private road that was approved by but you're you're alluding that this other Road you're going to put in 30 feet let me let me answer the question yes sir let me answer the question uh I showed A2 and A3 because they're important to understand that that new heart Lane is a private Street as shown on this map it's a it's it's basically a private 50 foot wide Road of way or right of way that existing street is only uh 18 or 20 feet wide okay that but that was approved by by this board year year years back and Ocean County planning board uh to allow that road to be installed as a as a private road not a public right of way and improved to the the St whatever standards the board agreed to allow it to be improved to okay so we're not proposing to use it we're not proposing any alteration of it I guess the question for the board and Dr can't but you said this in the last couple meetings that the whole purpose of this is to make the town better make it better this this may be a little bit helpful here so I maybe able to some light on it so uh we're here for a minor subdivision and what happens is that this is just a subdivide the land right if they um and at these things it's kind of it's a lot of hypothetical when they come back to actually build anything or anybody does what's going to happen is that uh whatever they build there is going to have to uh be presented on a plan uh and you especially going to have a chance to come here take a look at what they're building fire will safety will so everything you just raised is most likely going to be addressed in in the in the fire Bureau letter uh as to the Turning Rus of the vehicle the the width of the road how they're going to be able to get around the building anything like that that's constructed so right now it's kind of hypothetical if they ever go to build anything then they're going to be subject to significant amount of of scrutiny when it comes to all those issues my other question is did you actually get the pine lens approval yet or is that still in the works well we don't have a P land's approval yet we have a certificate of filing okay Pine land's approval happens after all other Regulatory Agencies issue their approvals then we have to submit everything back to Pine lands and at that point the pine lands issues an an approval okay so we have obviously a waiting game now I guess to me it's the dumbest thing in the world to cut a Road next to a road to put in two houses I mean you all serious you guys were going to move not long ago so you really didn't have a vested interest in this I'm just going to call what it is we can't have that kind of conversation so I mean I have all the respect for them but put the road put the driveway in the side thank you thank you thank you anyone else from the uh audience wish to come forward accept a motion to close roll call are all in favor is all in favor anyone opposed no good thank you all right uh any other comments from the board on this application professionals then we'll accept a motion I'll make a motion to approve because we're only doing the subdivision um thank you for the professional testimony and your concerns presented very professionally I like that and uh what would be addressed later and uh there's been a lot of lots to years like this in the town that come through and get subdivided so I have no problem the subdivision I make a motion to approve looking for a second roll call please Mr Brey yes Mr Bernstein yes Mr heler yes Mr Herman yes Mr marzo yes Mr chmer yes Mr wall yes and Dr Campbell yes congratulations thank you thank you for a very good presentation I'll accept a motion to uh adjourn make a motion toj second all in favor all right your T Mr Ashton could you just stay for a few minutes I'd appreciate it thank you and thank you again