all right everybody good evening to the July 1st 2024 Jackson Township planning board meeting this meeting of Jackson Township planning board has been convened in accordance with the provisions of the open public meeting act and in accordance with the adequate notice Provisions uh and all forms and avenues have been provided in the appropriate measures Madam chairman uh I'd like to open by welcoming a new member Fred weard raise your hand you can wave happy to have you uh we'll um have a vote for the vouer for the recording secretary please moot all in favor approval of the minutes for June 17th regular meeting a roll call please let's do roll call Mr brei yes Mr Bernstein yes Mr marzo yes we're just doing roll call here just that's okay Mr Mr rker here M Rose Mr tremer Mr weart here Mr wall here Mr Sullivan and Dr cam here all right now approval of the minutes with a roll call we get a do we get a motion by a motion please second record okay Mr brei yes Mr Bernstein yes Mr marzel yes Mr heler yes Mr rker yes Mr tremer yes Mr wall and Dr Campbell yes and I don't think there are any resolutions no thank you changes to the agenda schedule block 801 Lots 62 and 63 394 Chandler Holdings LLC carried from tonight July 1st to August 19th with no notice required should we vote on them one at a time or all three is fine block 2603 lot 5 and 22 Jackson Mills business park carry from July 15th to October 7th with no notice required block 1204 lot 34922 heisen LLC move from October 7th 2024 to July 15 2024 with notice required may I have a motion to accept those changes so moved breker second heler thank you all in favor I um master plan report please miss de Marza good evening on Monday June 24th 2024 from 6 4 to 6: PM the master plan subcommittee met with Ocean County Engineers to discuss future Road improvements in Jackson and how to implement this into the the forthcoming master plan this will be an ongoing process the idea and comment web page remains open to the public your thoughts and insights are welcome and appreciated thank you uh gentlemen any engineering and planning matters thank you legal matters none at this time okay uh then um Mr alfery I think we can begin and we'll start with Mr [Music] Clay thank you madam chair um a continuation of a preliminary and final site plan application for a 4400 squ foot uh two-story non-med office office building um the um the application does require um several variances we had some testimony on the um believe the 23rd of February um that's all for now Mr Peters thank you madam chair um our latest reports dated June 26th of this year the applicants located in the LC limited commercial Zone um they are in fact a permitted juice they should provide us with some testimony with regards to what's being proposed on the site as Mr CLE had indicated the site itself is undersized so when you put all the setback requirements um on the property there's very little that you can do with it however that perhaps being a hardship they should also reconcile the variances they're looking for with the intensity of development that they're proposing um I see Mr McFarland here so we're going to get engineering and planning testimony um we should also get some testimony with regards to the emergency access and how we're going to keep it to just emergency access that's all I have for now thank you thank you good evening Madam chair members of the board salvator alfery clear giobi alfery and Jacobs on behalf of the applicant um this application as originally filed did not include one of the lots that are be before you this evening uh when we were getting ready for a prior hearing we realized that the property owner owned a lot that was contiguous to this I just handed to the board attorney Buy sell letters that we've sent to the contiguous property owners in an effort to either acquire land or sell land to try and make the lot more conforming there were three adjacent there were four adjacent Property Owners one happened to be my client so we've revised the plan Incorporated that additional lot into the application that's before you tonight as it relates to the three non um applicant contiguous Property Owners we have not received a response to the buy sell letters uh but we should have them marked at least so that they are in evidence Mr Shay if you don't mind all right uh Miss Board secretary if you want to Mark these three letters as a12 or we just do A1 all three and thank you we have two witnesses present uh and the applicant in case the board members have questions the applicant but Gran McFarland our engineer and planner and Scott Kennel is our traffic expert and we're starting with graham okay all right do you swear or affirm that tell the truth the hold truth nothing but the truth I do right please state your name spell your last of the record sure it's Graham McFarland ma f a r l n professional engineer professional planner previously recognized by this board we've seen you once or twice thank you you to be testifying as an engineer and a planner correct correct okay yes thank you Graham um refer you did submit the board accepts your credentials yes thank you happy to see you again thank you and you did submit in advance of tonight's hearing the exhibits that you're going to be referring to is that correct yes we did we did uh we did submit three exhibits in addition I can see that the uh the site plan set that we had submitted is up on the screen right now so since that's up on the screen we can just kind of uh go through that real quick I'll explain the uh the context of the application give a board a a good understanding of of what the what the project is you can see we have the cover sheet up on the screen which shows the location of the property it's a series of existing Lots uh that will be Consolidated into into one new tax lot in total the area the land area of the project encompasses just over a half an Acres about 23,000 plus or minus uh square feet the existing lot does of course create some challenges for uh for development in accordance with ordinance requirements the existing lot is located along Brewers Bridge Road in The Limited commercial Zone uh the the lot only has a frontage of just over 100 feet about 103 feet on Brewers Bridge Road and actually uh about 80 feet on the back side of the lot which is a paper Street known as known as Louise Street you can go to the next sheet for me please so in the next sheet you can see the site plan that we have prepared and submitted in support of the application it shows the proposed building footprint in the uh you know in that beige color in the in the middle of the of the sheet we're proposing a two-story office building with a total floor area of just under 4,400 square feet as Mr Peters alluded the uh the geometry of the existing lot does create some challenges because it does not conform to the lot size requirements the lot width or the lot Frontage requir Ms so we are asking for uh for relief of those those conditions related to the application you can see that we have located the building uh closer to Brewers Bridge Road as opposed to locating it way in the back of the property when we designed this project we kicked around several ideas and I frankly felt very strongly that it was better to have the building located closer to the street to create what I felt was a much more uh aesthetically pleasing streetcape instead of throwing that parking up in the front and then having the building push back um the last thing we need is to have more sites where we just see parking and and a building which is going to be nicely designed and proportion you know sitting way way in the back so we felt it was appropriate to locate this building in a front portion of the site even though it does require front setback relief and you can see on this plan we do have a uh a front setback proposed of of Just a Touch over 25 ft where the ordinance does require a 50-ft setback but again when we Tred to work out some some layouts and some arrangements uh we were ending up with parking that was either divided half half and half or it was in the front and the building way in the back and and frankly I just feel this is a much better design uh design solution and much more aesthetically pleasing so that's why we're asking for it for that particular Reef uh relief the building will have five parking spaces located underneath the first floor you can see them you can see them where is it right there so there are five parking spaces that will be covered by the second floor of the building they go they go partially under the building the remainder of the other 17 parking spaces uh will be will be back behind the building so we have a total of 22 parking spaces provided plus we get the uh bonus credit for the 1 EV so we have credited to to 23 parking space which does comply with ordinance requirements the uh the one other variant we're asking for which is not related to uh the hardship created by by the lot size or the inability to obtain additional property relates to impervious coverage we are asking for uh 63% lock coverage where 60% is required as you look at the plan you can see on the left side of the building there is a fire Access Lane that comes back out your Brewers Bridge Road uh based upon reviews we got from the from the fire department that is what they have asked us for they originally had had indicated they would accept grass pavers then they came back and said they wanted the fire Access Lane paved and they wanted 20 feet wide uh my my personal opinion I think they're both a little bit excessive but we're trying to accommodate their uh their request and when we change that from grass paper you know to the to the paved access we're uh again about three about 3% over which on this particular lot is about a 600 square foot increas in impervious uh in any event I would really consider that a dominous variance request but the relief is required um you know none the uh nonetheless um Mr Peters mentioned at the beginning um how are we going to limit that emergency access to emergency access only yeah yes of course that's a very valid point because as we look at this plan uh right now somebody could enter the site pull around a building and come out the other driveway and we certainly want to protect against that so we'll work with the fire department to provide whatever type of uh gate or Locking System that they want so that that can only be accessible to emergency vehicles we also had submitted a couple of uh couple of exhibits one of which was the uh the architectural rendering maybe we get that one up and we'll just show the uh show the building so there we have an exhibit that we had called A3 which was the architectural rendering that was submitted uh and prepared by the architect in support of this application you can see the two-story building uh I guess it's mostly mostly going to be concrete and glass construction as you look at the uh the top illustration that shows looking at the side of the building where the uh where the cars would be parked so where you see those uh you know those shadow figures those are the parking spaces where those uh cars cars will be parked and then you see two other perspectives of the building uh showing the front and then showing kind of the uh which would be the back right corner of the building as well you can see that we are uh proposing two signs for the building one on the front facade and one on the side facade I do believe that does uh does require relief so we are asking for that to provide for Clear building identification for any motorist anybody who may be visiting the uh the premises we also have our uh our main identification sign located 10 ft back from the RightWay where your ordinance does require 25 feet so we're asking for that relief as well I I have certainly uh testified to that one many times before this board and and am of the strong opinion at having the signs located a little bit closer to the street to make them more visible again to motorists and people coming to the uh coming to the building is a better design and that's why we are asking for that relief to have the sign sign located closer to the to the street Mr Peters also points out a little a little anomaly in your ordinance where the ordinance clearly indicates in what zone signs are permitted and unfortunately the the sign ordinance does not uh frankly permit any signs in The Limited commercial zone so we're asking for that relief to allow for a sign you know this ground mounted sign to be constructed in a limited commercial zone of of course that is in the interest of Public Safety providing for Clear identification of the building and I they it certainly advances that uh that particular particular purpose um can we focus on the size of the building there there's a discrepancy between the statement of operations and then the plans themselves what's the correct square footage well we have uh we have 4,388 square feet on our plan I think the architect had 4,384 square feet the statement of operations frankly said approximately 4,400 square feet uh to me they're all they're all one and the same whatever uh the final product ends up being it's a uh to me a totally insignificant difference but of course we'll uh we'll cross that tea and Dot that eye during resolution compliance all right continue um we had also submitted of course Landscaping plans and lighting plans in support of the application uh they are included in the uh in in the plan set and we're not seeking any relief related to those particular particular requirements uh that's just a survey we don't need to look at that of course we do have review letters from both of the uh from both of the professionals referring to Mr C's letter dated June 28th first of course he he discusses a project identifies the uh the property and the proposed use he identifies the variants that we are requesting which we've already had some discussion on including the setback of the sign give some findings of fact about the application uh Mr CLE asks about the need for a uh for a loading zone and we would stipulate for that for a building of this size and this use of loading zone is not proposed and not required and and while we're talking about uh potential uses or tenants the parking calculations were done based upon general office not MediCal is that correct well it it's based upon uh in this particular Zone which is frankly one of my least favorite zones in the whole town um is based upon the standard of professional office which is clearly defined by uh by the Jackson ordinance this zone is very limited in what it when what it does allow it only allows uh you know five or six maybe seven different uses when you look at other zones in the Town neighborhood commercial Highway commercial zones they allow you know 20 and 30 and 40 diff different uses this zone is uh is very restrictive in in what it allows anyhow we're here at the planning board uh applying for what is uh deemed professional office by by by local ordinance uh if that were to change if if there was uh uh some um impetus to change at the medical office my client understands he'd probably have to come back before this board and and have that discussion as right now though we're seeking the professional office are there any color considerations on that office building I only saw black and white I'm going to defer to our client for that if if he's uh willing to speak to that I'm going to leave that to him all right because I haven't been provided any color information yet uh Mr CLE did ask about additional Landscaping along Brewers Bridge Road and we would agree to comply that as long as it doesn't impact of course the emergency access or any uh um site triangle site visible ility requirements and then he has some technical comments that we would agree to to comply with as part of resolution compliance Mr McFarland the the height of that building it seems awfully tall for a two-story building no it's going to satisfy I can give you the numbers real quick it is a uh two-story building of slab on grade Construction what the architectural plan indicates is that the uh the top of the parpet is going to be uh 30t so that's within the building uh building code actually the the highest point where the um where the signage is that goes up to 34 and a half feet so that even by itself is still below 40 and again the ordinance is the ordinance um is measured to the flat part of the roof doesn't even include the parpet tech technically uh so the roof height is actually 26 feet 4ot parut above it is kind of high for a uh isn't it well it it's it's intuitive because it is kind of high for a two-story building but it creates that extra volume in the uh in the floors and creates a feeling of additional space so I know that's why the architect um and the client chose to propose a building with with that height and with that particular scale so anyway it does comply with with ordinance requirements and not seeking any relief related to Building height and in terms of storm we management I know there many technical comments in the report but you you and you agreed you'd comply with them but it does comply with the stormw management regulations yes okay I'm sorry continue that's okay and then of course we also have a letter from Mr Peters dated June 26 of 2024 he also Pro provides informational comments summarizes the variance uh variant is of course the the existing non-conformances and the ones that are proposed and we don't take any exception to what he has identified ified in his uh in his report of course he points out that the sign is not permitted in the LC Zone which I have have uh discussed Mr Peters does question whether there will or will not be an elevator in the building as a uh two-story building uh of the size proposed there is no building code requirement for an elevator to be be uh provided so it is not proposed at this time uh Mr Peters of course talks about the uh the sign requirements which we've had some some discussion on uh he had also asked us to take a look at relocating the accessible parking SPAC or closer to the uh closer to the building and we'll agree to do that uh maybe we can get it to one of those spaces underneath the underneath that second floor if it doesn't impact the building size we would agree to make to make that change uh we talked about uh satisfying the fire department to tryy to you know of course to limit access to the emergency access Lane Miss hang on one second I just want to remind the uh residents that we have moved the Chandler application from tonight until August the 19th for anyone who might be here it has been postponed I just thought I'd save you from having to sit through some things you might not be that interested in thank you very much you're very welcome we weren't notified no one was notified we just about got notification ourselves things change that's the nature of uh the planning board thank you save you some time have a good evening thank you I'm sorry that's okay if I could get exhibit A1 up on the screen real quick no the uh the aerial map other way other way one more right there there you go exhibit A1 we had prepared was was an aerial map and kind of G little out of order but shows the the the location of the site um just want to talk about for for one second because Mr Peters had asked about whether uh buffering is required uh along these property lines because buffering is required by ordinance along side and rear property lines that have but property zoned for residential use all of these surrounding properties here rzone l rzone r in the same Zone in the LC Zone however when one looks at the zoning map because these lots are so narrow and so small the zoning map actually becomes like a Big Blob and the color looks like a frankly looks like looks like a different color than than what zone the property is in but I'm here testifying that all of those surrounding all the adjacent properties are within this LC zone so there is no buffering required in accordance with ordinance requirements how many lots are you consolidating uh I think it is one two three four five six seven Lots being Consolidated yes wow into one lot which again unfortunately is still not going to comply with area requirements but it's uh it's the best set frankly it's best set we nature and then Mr Peters had some comments about lighting and Landscaping solid waste and will agree to to uh address those uh those particular comments considering the signs the signage you have three signs as of now one on the front one on the side and one on the street what about a a street sign that goes this way so that you'd only have two signs instead of three signs I I think it's attractive to have them on the building but you know there are rules there there are uh again my my opinion is that having having theide identification on the building for motorist coming from either direction I think is helpful I think it provides clear indication of of what the building is and where it is so in my opinion it makes it makes good sense to have it we are asking for that relief um just again based upon the the number of signs I I I believe uh they will conform to the uh to the area requirements in the ordinance then do you need a ground sign I mean it's visible I think we do because the ground sign will show the individual tenants whether the building has two or three or four tenants the ground signage would indicate you know ABC company XYZ company on that on the particular gr sign I don't anticipate the individual tenants names you know they're not going to be on the the building Mount that sign as they would be on the on the ground sign Mr rker would you be amable to having the ground sign in the back of the building that's where you're going to park that's where you're going to walk in I I agree with you I do favor the new style of signage on the building I I think it's smart it's idiot proof but I think you're you're you're your your customer is better served with that individual tenant sign on the back of the building somewhere well I I personally think it's important to have that on the street for motorists who are who are approaching okay so we'll work on that one that's a DOT not a check but a DOT well unfortunately we don't agree on everything that's okay you but that's why we heard that's why we heard it just seems Overkill to have three signs it's an awful lot it's such a small lot anyway okay it just seems over so so the big bite um if you recall the uh the project down on the corner where the Jug Handle is we worked on that building that building was presented to the board without an elevator uh if you followed that that train of thought that I had there would the applicant be ad meable to installing an elevator if the board was to bend a little bit on this the building footprint to allow an external staircase enclosed in in clear glass or what have you uh so that wouldn't be a detriment to your use the elevator would be the benefit and you would have that auxiliary staircase to be compliant seeing that it would be a non-simultaneous I don't think it's an egregious um we can discuss that with the applicant I mean our position coming in was that we're going to do whatever the building code requires and obviously it's not required here but I understand in my opinion it's it's a better marketable building for your for your client and at the same rate it's a fully compliant building with Ada whatnot and I I think my colle colleagues might bend a little for the non-simultaneous use square footage that we've picked up on a few other projects where I've suggested this yeah it's just it's a it's a significant expense for a building of this size it's so small it's um well it's a benefit as well all right well we'll when um Mr kennel comes up to speak um we can speak to our client and cover a few of the questions that have come up so far thank you um and there are two other reports Graham that we need to trying did you finish Ernie's report I believe I did okay there's the fire report from June and then cme's lanscape report yes and I've already had some discussion about the fire department we've had a couple rounds with them uh they issued a current report and of course we'll agree to address their comments and and also again work with them on uh providing the proper gate uh to protect or you know maintain the emergency uh emergency access link and then um the CME LTE report yes will comply with the comments of the of the tree specialist um and then I I know you described the variances and the um and the fact that there's a hardship but can you finish the planning testimony about whether there's any impact on the master plan or Zone plan or any negative if if you could just so we can have a clear record just put the legal test on the record let's identify we're identifying them as C1 right yes see one hardship variances correct and then just go right down the line let's just make the record very clear correct so we have non-conformances which are a lot area lot within lot Frontage which which all are I think very easily satisfy the test as hardships uh the client had sent letters to ad joining property owners in in an attempt to bring the property more into performance and did not get any positive feedback so the lot the lot exists in the uh in the um configuration that that it exists and that satisfies the the grant of the variance for for those hardship reasons all of the other variances that are requested for the application that relate to the uh you know the setback of the sign front yard setback the side yard setback the uh the lock coverage the parking side setback all all relate to uh an application that complies with the recommendation of the master plan it promotes um a new commercial rable promotes economic development that point is is discussed several times in the in the master plan so I think this application satisfies the test for that for those particular variances I don't believe there's any negative impact created by these variances since this project is is so small in nature of only 4,400 square feet uh you can see by looking at the aerial that there are no adjoining uh no adjoining um uses that are currently occupied so again none of those variances rise to uh to create any any negative impact to any AD joining Property Owners so I think uh they each um satisfy the test for granted this VAR granted those variances thank you that's all we have I I'll ask my usual solar question the building will be constructed to accommodate solar and but not install it it's Market driven we'll have to see how things are but it will be possible to correct thank you questions Mr TR first I'll clarify your fire department comment that area where you are looking to build their fire Tru is upwards of 990,000 lbs that's why they're requiring it you're shoehorning a big building in a little spot and there really is barely any turning radius in there so when you take a truck like that and you're trying to jack it around a corner and put it down we don't need to roll over a $2 million truck so that's why they're pushing kind of hard because it's been an oversight that's being corrected at this point so it's not that they're picking on you it's for the safety of the firefighters and to actually get proper placement to protect your building so that's why you're you're getting that I know it hurts but everybody's going to be dealing with the same thing in this town from this point on the parking underneath the building is that going to have sprinklers no has that been addressed by the fire department or uh well they have reviewed the plans that we've submitted to date and they have not commented on that uh I did discuss the question of sprinkers actually with the architect today and the architect did advise me that uh for a building of this type the threshold is basically about 9,000 square feet where sprinklers are required so the information I got was that sprinkler system is not required for the for this building of approximately four 4,400 square feet we do have um you know we do have public water service so and we do have a fire hydrant proposed on site as the fire department has requested so if uh if any conditions change or if that um interpretation changes and there is a need for sprinkers they of course would be provided in accordance with the building C but as of right now I don't believe they're required I'm not asking if they're required I mean you might want to protect your building or you doing any EV parking spots uh we have one EV parking space in that area it is uh no it's a it's a little further back uh we don't have the site plan up there but it's it's a first space in the uh it's a first space all right in the par in the parking area well I mean it's I think it's something that should go back to the Fire official and let them look at it because well we'll comply with the requirements of the building fod whatever those requirements are code official Fire subcode official we require fully require fully um comply with the building code requirements no I'm not saying you wouldn't I'm sure you wouldn't um what is the occupancy of this building I I don't have the answer to that question that is again is dictated by building code and this building is going to comply with those that criteria so how are you calculating your septic system if you don't know the occupancy that's based upon the square footage of the building as by the by the estate code that that dictates the design requirements for for a septic system it's based upon the square footage of the building not by the number of people or the occupancy in a building as derived by the building cve they're totally totally different you know approach to how things to how things are designed septic design is based upon square footage of the of the building right but you could actually overwhelm your septic system if you put too many people in there but does this go to this state the county for that any type of approval this goes to the Ocean County Health Department for the septic system and that application has already been submitted okay okay very good chair I have a question on the oh had another one I'm sorry just want to understand our current sign ordinance as this one they're looking for a variance this for our planners our engineer they're looking for a variance for the sign the sign okay if there were no variants applied for on the application what would the signage look like would there be a sign on the [Music] building the applicant can answer it too which remember there's a section of the sign ordinance that indicates that ground moned or monument signs would not be permitted in this zone so building mounted signage would still be permitted so where it says hashtag Brewers Bridge that's currently permitted that's what I'm trying to understand where it says building name is that currently Ernie Ernie ordinance only allows one sign on the building correct correct right so uh Mr if I could jump I'm sorry but the facade is allowed to have a certain percentage of signage what does that exceed the percentage no the area the area will comply with ordinance requirements it's the the number of signs because the ordinance says that each principal building may have one wall sign we have we have what we believe are frankly two wall signs one on the front and one on the side so what point is it a sign or an advertisement when the sign ordinances are designed are they designed for identification so folks can see where the building is and which would also be accomplished by having a logo or some other device at the top like even very tall buildings in Metro areas Addison Island going up the turnpike you see huge buildings with very small you know relatively speaking and so here you have this that's why I'm just wondering if this is by variance because it dominates so at what point is it an advertisement rather than a sign if you're trying to do wayf finding um and do we have anything or ordinance that's that speaks to size font language format colors things of that nature that um like here you're looking at it seems like a certain font certain language certain style a vertical or is there an approval and then you ultimately have something that's altogether different um than what's with the testimony well there is no real testimony in it's on what exactly it is I guess it's for to be announced tenant my know it's a percentage it's a percentage of building it's a percentage of coverage yes you I mean I I I can respond and I know Ernie's looking at the ordinance and he he has the citation in his um in his report um on page on page six where he he quotes the ordinance which is each principal build may have one wall sign not to exceed 15% of the principal facade area or 80 Square fet whichever is smaller your ordinance also has language that limits the number of colors in a sign to no no more than four so again that final detail isn't isn't presented uh however we're indicating that we're going to comply with both of those requirements for the area and for the color we're asking the relief to have one sign on the front and one sign on the side okay anyone thank we're going to call Mr [Music] kennel good to see you again same here do you swear or affirm to tell the truth to hold truth nothing but the truth I do all right please state your name spell your last of the record Scott kennel K NE L with McDon and Ray Associates located at 1431 Lakewood Road Manasquan and your credentials have also previously been accepted by this board yes they have as a traffic expert yes thank you thank you and and Mr kennel your office prepared the traffic and transportation analysis which is referred to in the reports from January of 2024 there was a report from January you've updated it since I updated that's correct so can you tell the board what you did to prepare that report and what conclusion you reached and and this report is uh qualifies a traffic statement given the small size of the building the small traffic generation we did not do current traffic counts or a level service analysis and that's generally accepted by Ocean County for a development this size but we did review historical traffic data adjacent to the site uh for examp on bre Brewers Bridge Road and that data indicated that the two-way traffic flow along the site Frontage is approximately 600 Vehicles during the morning peak hour and approximately a th Vehicles during the PM peak hour uh and Brewers Bridge Road in this section again is under Municipal control and has a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour the proposed office building we we consulted with the Institute of Transportation Engineers shrip generation manual trip rates for a building of this size it's projected that during the peak hour again is you know from prior testimony we look at a 60-minute period that a building of this size would generate approximately seven to eight trips during the peak hour uh it's because it's assumed that people arrive and depart over a two to three hour period for this type of use uh and then as far as uh site traffic orientation we're expected based on the existing roadway Network existing traffic volume patterns that basically 50% of the site traffic will be oriented to and from the north and 50% to and from the south having access to County Line Road uh Graham had spent some testimony on the spent time and testified as to the site plan and as he indicated the parking Supply meets and exceeds the um Township ordinance with 22 spaces and one of those spaces being an EV space uh the other item that reviewed was the operational characteristics of the site driveway and that relates to site distance for Brewers Bridge Road in this area a sight distance of um 305 ft as required again that's based on the speed limit and based on my measurements the critical sight line is to the north and we have approximately 350 ft so we meet and exceed what's uh recommended for stopping sight distance for a um private driveway onto Brewers Bridge Road uh as far as circulation uh we're providing the emergency access again to satisfy the comments from the fire Bureau so my opinion this site from a circulation standpoint has been designed and is acceptable to accommodate the passenger vehicles as well as well as the large rebased vehicles that will serve the site uh in essence that complete completes my direct and did you come to the conclusion that the drive you you you refer to it but the driveway itself will operate safely and efficiently that is correct okay that's all we have Mr kennel any questions from the board open it to you have an architect or not not present okay but Graham was going to speak to the client about the question I was just about to ask that yeah so when he we call him back up there were a couple open items you want to open up the cross-examination and then we'll let uh correct okay good all right anybody who has any questions uh for cross-examination purposes of these two experts now would be the time from from the public all right hi please raise your right hand you swear or affirm to tell the truth to hold truth nothing but the truth I do all right please state your name and spell your last of the record Thomas sanitate s n i t a te and your address 744 Burbridge okay I'm within the 200 feet of the building I'm having a hard hard time understanding why these variances are considered a hardship I mean the applicant is a very experienced real estate developer he knew the size of lots when he purchased them five years ago hang on so now is the time to ask their experts any any questions it's not General yeah General comment will come next okay I can come back okay do I have to be sworn in again any any questions for these two uh gentlemen who have given testimony no thank you anyone else from the uh audience who would like to ask testimony questions seeing nobody from the public approaching for cross examination move to close cross examination only all in FA all in favor I all right now anyone who has general questions please come [Music] forward it's procedural that's thank you so my question was the bulk about the bulk variants and why is it considered a hardship um the applicant is a very experienced real estate developer he knew the size of the lot when he purchased them five years ago he should know about zoning laws and what can be built on that land this building design exceeds the allowable space by nearly double what our law provides why is this a hardship and not a self-created hardship so the law is not whether the applicant nework should have known about the S uh the the variance issues that the law is is that the property itself has a hardship in that it's deficient in land area it's not so the the hardship exists because the lot is less than an acre and the applicant attempted to bring the lot closer to Conformity by attempting to purchase contiguous properties and wasn't able to do so so that's the hardship your comment about double the size of the property um a building that's not correct correct we're not asking for we have a slight coverage variance cor correct we have a slight variance for uh for impervious lot coverage was I I had you know testified to and and that was driven by the addition of the emergency driveway not the size of the building or the parking lot or the primary driveway so basically if you buy a piece of land and you know the size of it you can just build basically anything you want on it as long as you get a variance so so we're have that simple but yet it's so so all variances is basically you're asking um some kind of quad judicial board for Relief right so it's almost like like asking them a question right so uh or asking them for for an exception from something so that's what a variance kind of means in layman's terms so with this type of variance what the applicants doing is coming before the the board saying that based upon the regular shape of the property the fact that the lots are very very narrow and they're consolidating a whole bunch of them um the narrowness the shallowness the depth uh and the the fire Lanes The Irregular uh positioning of the property warrants itself a hardship or else they wouldn't be able to construct anything else there that they were look at the do so so that that's what so they're asking for an exception from the ordinance standards based upon the the shallowness and narrowness uh topographical features of the piece of property and it's not self-created just for the fact they're buying a small piece of land so so self-created hardship is would be like a financial hardship or would be um would would be something when they're they're coming in and there's numerous uses um and what they're seeking clearly doesn't fit into like a kind of a um round circle into a square hole type situation right in this situation they have a use it's permitted in the zone it's just because of the irregular shape of the property they have to seek this type of variance or else they or else they can't get approval to build okay self-created nature the applicant did not create this lot and or in the configuration the lot exist that he bought it as is so that there's no self-created hardship as it relates to the character of the lot and I just wanted to point out and I it's probably just a typo but on most of your maps and plans lot 71 is missing it looks like the building is on lot 71 there they start at slot 72 oh so the property starts at lot 72 but on the maps it looks like lot 71 is not there I I think we have a lot uh misnumbered on the on the site plan I see it here it actually says lot 70 but that's lot 71 okay so it's just if you look at the if you look at this aerial map that shows a correct lot numbers you know two 72 3456 that are part of the application I just wanted to yes that's something we'll clean up of course all right thank you thank you thank you sir anyone else anyone else from the audience would like to speak seeing no one else approaching the microphone for for public comment make a motion to close public comment on this application all in favor thank you so um there were a couple open points during the course of Mr McFarland's testimony and during the break he had a chance to speak to the applicant so Graham would you report back to the board on the answers please yes uh one question related to the uh to the colors which lost the building but the building will be is proposed to be uh great gray tone using several variations or Shades of Gray that's the uh that's the answer I could give give to you right now uh nothing else has has been proposed or consider at this time so it would be you know neutral great great tone buildings and again mostly uh concrete and and glass of course uh the board asked about um the interest in providing an elevator my client is not is not excited about providing an elevator for the building his opinion is that for a professional office it really is not warranted if it was Medical office it would be certainly be more warranted for that type of use but for the professional office uh as defined by your ordinance again which you know excluding the medical component uh he does not feel that there's enough of a benefit to uh to to construct the elevator uh with with this application and the signage question the signage question uh frankly we didn't we didn't get to no I I think the question was related to the ground sign whether you would be comfortable not having the ground sign in front of the building and move it to the back of the site just as a directory sign instead my my opinion was that the ground sign is is um advantageous for identification and some board members had a little different opinions so we're trying to sort that out mean the address the address should suffice so people are looking looking for an address that going to be address the applicant would agree to eliminate the freestanding sign and put a directory sign behind the building and and in consideration for that we would request the variance relief for the second facade sign be yes right so so the the sign variance is gone then the ground the ground sign the ground sign okay variance would be omitted that sign that ground sign would be omitted a directory sign would be would be added someplace in the rear of site complying with ordinance requirements we're still looking for the two building signs one on the front one on the side and again no more than four colors and comply with any area requirements so that would be a variance for one of the two potential signs or correct ordinance allows one sign per principal building any other questions from the uh board M Marza what would the size of the building be um to be variance free well um I don't know the the exact answer but again I I spoke earlier maybe we can get the site plan back up on the uh on the screen and you can see that you can see the building envelope shown on the uh shown on the plan with this dash line so the the building envelope you know just by its area there's enough building envelope to you know to change the configuration of the building but what that would result in is is taking the building pushing it back and then providing parking in front of the building and parking behind the building uh to me would be a much much less attractive design uh as to the nature or the level of intensity proposed with this application we have a building of 4,400 square feet uh that satisfies uh the the parking requirements and E even even given the need to have this parking with a very long driveway parking way behind and that fire Access Lane we're only 600 feet over the impervious coverage for for a lot which certainly has you know presented um you know several design challenges so one of the things that's keeping this building at at from being um compliant is that we've added that fire safety driveway which takes up a considerable amount of impervious coverage correct all right that helps the Board to see the issue thank you Mr rer so so to sum it up your your applicant is willing to spend several hundred, on another lot but not put a uh 6x10 or an 8 by10 uh addition on the outside of the building with the board potentially waving that additional square footage for an outside staircase and then I'm looking at the parking and there's no fire suppression under it and I see that you're going to kick the can down the road on the fire suppression but the entry door is in that concealed space so if you have a fire and you want to get out that way you're going to get a burn that that's the way I'm looking at this project you're willing to spend several hundred, on a lot but you're not willing to do a few other things correct me if I'm wrong on it but that's I'll just you understand that's not the only entry door I know you I know you see that door on this plan there's also a door at the front do do you get a choice in the fire I'm sorry do you get a choice what door you want to run out of in a fire well it complies it complies with the building code well that's great so you're telling me as a planner you're that without fire suppression to have an exit and entry door in a garage space that's nons sprinkler nonprotected is a good idea am I missing something Mr Tremor because when that when that cooks it's like a broiler anybody else would you like to sum it up for us please Mr alfair yes um I I believe we've um satisfied the necessary proofs for the variance relief due to the undersized nature of the lot and the uh geometry of the lot um and our inability to acquire land to make the lot more conforming we've agreed to address all the technical comments contained within the board professionals reports um we've agreed obviously to address to comply this board neither and this board doesn't have the power to Grant relief but we agreed to comply with all the building code issues which is not a planning board function um including at fire safety we've agreed to address the fire safety issues raised by the the um the Fire official um and then we've agreed to eliminate that one sign variance and um otherwise I think this is probably the best you're going to do for this lot considering the size and the geometry it's a very small building with minimal impact on uh the the air the streets and the community right just to be clear you guys are you're agreeing to comply with all the fire safety comments correct correct and that that report was um last dated June 26 2024 okay yes one I'm looking at all right we'll entertain a motion please well let me so before we get to that point let me just address what we're uh actually do we the board professionals anything else from the board professionals um just quickly um and I think Grammy might have testified to it if we didn't have the um impervious emergency access would you be under the coverage yes it would be below by several percent easily 3% um and you're going to consolidate the Lots correct and do we have any um cut and fill numbers is uh we don't have those yet but we'll comply with ordinance requirements and no improvements to Lewis correct correct you'd pay into the fund uh I guess technically we do have Frontage on L so we would have to pay uh curent sidewalk okay thank you fees thank you Mr all right just so just to be clear this what the board is voting on uh we have one two three four five six seven C1 variances uh with a sign variance as well um so with the with what the applicants put on the record um the legal standard versus C1 variance is hardship variance and you have to look at the the shape the irregular shape of the property the narrowness shallowness the topographical condition of the property um you have to look at the positive uh aspects of the application then you have to look at the neg you if it violates any negative criteria so in this case the applicants indicating that uh there is no substantial detriment to the public good for these hardships being approved um and that there is uh the granting of the variances will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zone plan and the ordinances right so when you're looking at these legal tests that's what you have to balance So based upon the testimony that's provided based upon uh legal test that was put on record based upon these several variances that's what you're going to be voting on we're looking for a uh motion [Music] please this motion that you're looking for is just on the variances the whole lot okay Mr Mr I couldn't hear who had put on his mic I did Mr um it's not a very thrilling application uh all of varas and so forth but when you hear the attorney's testimony what the C1 is how you come about it I I I know where the gentleman's coming with the question how's not self-inflicted C1 but this happens in land use and it's and it's in the in the right area for it's just how the lots are and given the uh input from our attorney and our professionals and the testimony wires to see1 as a hardship I'll make a motion to approve it looking for a second second hello we have a roll call vote Please Mr brei yes Mr Bernstein yes yes Mr marzo yes Mr heler yes Mr rker it's my better judgment yes Mr I'm Sorry Miss Rose yes Mr Tremor no because I feel it needs to go back to the Fire official so I'm a know at this point Mr wall yeah no sorry and Dr Campbell yes thank you thank you good night everyone think [Music] [Music] [Music] Miss Jennings welcome thank you good evening for the record I'm Donna Jennings from the law firm of L Gman and Spitzer on behalf of the applicant as a board Where We call we were back here on May 20th and we had essentially completed two of our Witnesses but unfortunately Mr kennel had a personal emergency and was not able to make it to the meeting so we were left with just uh Mr kennel's traffic testimony so if we could at this time bring him up and we'll go through that now you again yes 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 record Scott Kennel k n n l with McDon and re Associates office is located at 1431 Lakewood Road Manasquan and Mr kenel just for the record nothing's changed since you were just sworn in with respect to your credentials correct that's correct thank you another day wiser yes um if you could just for the benefit of the board uh confirm that your office prepared a traffic analysis report on this project yes uh with a revised date of November 30 2023 okay and if you could uh just briefly go through your findings on that yes so as part of the traffic study that was submitted with this application uh the first stage or phase is to do an inventory existing conditions including uh review of traffic data uh we utilize traffic counts that were conducted in November of 2022 they included manual counts uh adjacent to the site as well as the installation of automatic traffic recording devices where we had seven days of traffic counts on an hourly basis the as far as the um proposed Sho and traffic projections uh we had based the traffic projections uh based on a number of parking spaces that's required and and we assume that the morning and afternoon peak hour be generate approximately 120 trips uh that in our opinion is a overestimation based on input we had from the applicant and review of this of information provided by the applicant and basically based on the location of the sh we assume that site traffic would be oriented basically 50 50% to and from the north 50% to and from the south consistent with the Ocean County planning board protocol we had uh established a design year of 2033 where we consulted the NJ do traffic growth data and assigned uh a 10% growth rate to the Bas traffic volumes in addition there are site specific uh developments that were have been approved and considered in the analysis uh there is a uh elementary school just to the north opposite summer that was approved uh approximately 18 months ago so we included the traffic Counts from that development and then uh to the north in the vicinity of County Line Road within The Jug Handle there was an existing office building and then they submitted and it was approved for um again a Redevelopment of a larger office building we included the site traffic from that development and this site as was testified by the S engineer it's going to have access uh two means of access direct access to Brewers Bridge Road and then also a secondary access to hold in court and doing our analysis we assumed all the traffic would just utilize the Brewers Bridge Road access in order to perform a worst case conservative analysis just uh if we could pause for one second and maybe bring up A3 so the board knows what they're looking at and the public for this is exhibit A3 A3 and again as I mentioned earlier the site will be served by two access drives uh two-way driveway to Brewers bridge at the Northerly property line and then a secondary access out to Holden Court in our analysis again considered all traffic enter and exiting versus Brewers Bridge Road to provide a um conservative analysis and it was determined that the site driveway would operate at a level service C for exiting movements uh onto Brewers Bridge Road well within acceptable uh traffic engineering parameters uh in doing that analysis we also determine what is the maximum Q or the 95th percentile q and this uh will address a couple of design waivers we have relative to the driveway throat and based on the analysis the 95th percenti queue would be one vehicle uh which would account for approximately say 20 to 25 ft and where the ordinance recommends 60 fet uh my analysis in the case that the having a shorter driveway throat will not have a negative impact on the on-site operation uh in that the 95th percentile Q is one vehicle so in my opinion relief can be granted for the driveway uh throat length as it relates to the site plan as I stated there is uh two points of access so we optimized access to this site for not only passenger vehicles but for emergency type vehicles to the site uh there are 68 spaces required we're providing 65 physical spaces and six of those which are EV spaces and with the DCA credit equates to 71 parking spaces so therefore we comply with the ordinance based on the two for one credit Allowed by DCA the internal aisle widths are 24 ft and can accommodate two-way traffic and also can accommodate large wheel-based vehicles or specifically Refuge or emergency vehicles that would have to serve the site uh the site driveway specifically on Brewers Bridge Road is located at a location that provides more than adequate site distance exceeding the recommended stand standards so in summary the site plan has been designed to provide um parking in compliance with the ordinance the site driveway has been designed in my opinion to operate efficiently and safely and the um with that with minimal impact on the adjacent roadway system the direct testimony of Mr kenel uh anyone from the uh public wish to ask questions of Mr kennel or make reference to his testimony may come forward now seeing no members of the general public approach the microphone for cross-examination only of this witness make a motion to close second all in favor I thank you any board comments on this uh project [Music] we will that was the comments for the witness now any public members wish to comment on this project may come forward seeing no members of the general public approach the microphone for General comments on this application in this application only make a motion to close all in favor you getting off easy tonight guys trying we just start we softening you up yeah exactly uh any comments from the board any comments from the professionals Mr CLE Mr Peters thank you gentlemen we'll look for a motion on the project then please I'd like to make a motion to approve the project I will second that H roll call Please Mr Brey yes Mr Bernstein yes Mr marzo yes Mr heler yes Mr chmer yes Mr wall yes and Dr Campbell yes congratulations I think we made a record there thank you so much have a great night will entertain a motion to close motion to close second all in favor