United States indice good evening ladies and gentlemen uh pursuant to njsa 10 colon Ford the open public meetings act notice of this duly and regularly scheduled meeting of the Jackson Township Zoning Board of adjustment has been published and posted in all appropriate locations Mr book here miss FR is absent Mr Hurley here Mr ricardi is absent Mr Hudak Mr St Smith here miss pares and miss Bradley here do we have any resolutions this evening yes we do we actually have several is it working okay there we go all right tonight we have five resolutions so just bear with me resolution number uh 202 3-47 resolution of the Zoning Board of the township of Jackson County of ocean state of New Jersey granting a D5 variance to permit one acre lots in the R1 Zone without public sewer connection for property located at East Veterans Highway block 19701 Lots 12 13.01 13.02 13.03 13.04 and 13.05 eligible to vote are Mr book Mr Stafford Smith and Miss Bradley we need a motion and second please move to approve second roll call please Mr book yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss Bradley yes second resolution is resolution number office building for property located at 540 North County Line Road Block 2101 Lots 16 and 17 eligible eligible to vote are Mr book Mr Hurley and Miss Bradley move to approve roll call please Mr book yes Mr Harley Miss Bradley yes resolution number 2023 -49 that's the resolution of the Zoning Board of the uh zoning Board of adjustment of the township of Jackson County of ocean state of New Jersey denying reconsideration for warehouse office building for property located at 540 North County Line Road Block 21001 lot 16 and 17 eligible eligible to vote are Mr book M uh Mr book Mr Hurley and Miss Bradley move to approve roll call please Mr book yes m Mr Harley yes Miss Bradley yes resolution number [Music] 223-5046 Mr Buck yes Mr Harley M Bradley yes and then finally we have resolution number 23 uh 2023 uh- 51 that's resolution of the Zoning Board of the township of Jackson County of ocean state of New Jersey granting variance relief for an as built six foot solid fence and two sheds on property located at 87 Buckingham Drive block 13201 Lot 36 eligible to vote are Mr book Mr Hurley Mr h buak Mr Stafford Smith Miss Parnes and Miss Bradley move to approve second roll call please Mr book yes Mr Harley yes Mr Hudak Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss Parnes Miss Bradley yes that concludes the resolutions for this evening do we have any minutes this evening yes we do we have minutes from September 20 2023 October 4th 2023 October 18th 2023 and November 1st 2023 move to approve all minutes as just placed upon the record roll call please Mr book yes Mr Harley yes Mr Hudak Mr Stafford Smith yes M pares and Miss Bradley yes yep I have two vouchers before me one from the township of Jackson for the recording secretary for $150 and the other one is from Kings reporting for our recording secretary also for $150 I need a motion in a second to pay both vouchers please move to pay both vouchers Mr Buck yes Mr Harley Mr Hudak Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss Parnes yes and Miss Bradley yes and Mr Murphy do we have any announcements this evening uh yes we do we have several I'm going to start with application number three since Mr Paxton is here if you'd like to come forward Mr Paxton if you would just enter your appearance please yes thank you Mr Murphy Michael Paxton on behalf of the applicant very good um I understand that the applicant is requesting to be carried due to the um uh lack of sufficient board members for use variant that's correct okay um that that application is going to be granted um so uh I believe that we've selected February 21st uh 2024 is the next listing correct that's correct all right and the applicant will wave time through that date yes we will okay so uh the app uh application number three 30 cville Road Carol neolo and I AP oliz if I I said that incorrectly uh use variance 3470 block 17302 Lot 19 that application number three on tonight's agenda will be carried to the February 21st 20 uh 24 meeting of the Jackson Township Zoning Board of adjustment as it's been carried on the record no additional notice will be required uh and um the applicant has been kind enough to wave time on the record um so that will be carried again until February 21st 2024 thank you thank you Mr Paxon have a good night you as well um we also have a couple other announcements um number four is being carried correct do you have the date for number four so we'll move forward uh application number five thank you thank you okay application number number four let's back up application number four Area Properties at Pinewood Estates LLC that's interpretation V 3487 that's block 102 lot one that application is going to be carried to the January 3rd 2024 meeting of the Jackson Township Zoning Board of adjustment uh there will be no uh further requirement for notice and the applicant has waved time um application number five that's uh bmj Inc uh uh that is minary final site plan 899 um and previously approved use variants 3316 block 641 lot 22 and Lot 21 uh that application is being carried to the February 7th 2024 meeting of the Jackson Township Zoning Board of adjustment no further notice will be required the applicant has waved time and then finally number six which is on the agenda for this evening uh that's uh applicant Kahala de Brookwood for preliminary final site plan 880 with use variance 3441 uh that is block 62 Lot 2 and three that application has also been carried to the February 7th 2024 meeting of the Jackson Township Zoning Board of adjustment no additional notice will be required and the applicant has waved time that concludes the calendar announcements this evening but I do have a general general statement uh that I'd like to make on behalf of the zoning Board in light of recent events in the township of Jackson I in my capacity as attorney for the Zoning Board of adjustment of the township of Jackson have determined that a public statement is necessary on behalf of the chair the vice chair all members of the the Jackson Township zoning board and the zoning board's professionals zoning Board of adjustment of the township of Jackson is a quasi judicial board and all of it members have sworn an oath to support the both the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of New Jersey further all board members have sworn to faithfully impartially and justly perform their duties as members of the Jackson Township zoning board I can state with the utmost confidence that the members of the zoning board who sit before you this evening along with those members who are not present tonight do not take their Oaths lightly I can assure the public that each member of this board has in the past acted faithfully impartially and justly and that each board member will continue to act faithfully impartially and justly as they strive to make the appropriate land use decisions under applicable law to the best of their abilities for the benefit of each and every resident of the township of Jackson recently there have been publicized calls for certain board members to comment on certain ongoing items or issues within the township as members of a quasi judicial board and considering the oath to faithfully impartially and justly is my opinion that it would be inappropriate for any board member to offer any comment on any one specific item or issue or the issues or items as a whole while sitting on this dis in their role as a board member I have coun I as councel have expressly advised all board members um that they should not offer any comment uh have expressly advised all board members that while they are acting as members of this board they should not offer any comment of any nature on any of the items or issues currently ongoing within the township or any item or issue which may occur within within the township of Jackson in the future the only items or issues that members of the zoning board are permitted to address in their role as board members are those permissible land use items or issues affecting a specific land use application and those comments are to be made only during the public hearing or hearings on that specific application this statement by council is intended to address all other items or issues on behalf of the board this board all of its members and its professionals expressly condemn discriminatory comments of any nature during my tenure serving as the board's Council I have publicly condemned discriminatory speech of any kind and I have ended any commentary which in my opinion had the potential to taint the impartiality of a meeting record due to due to the discriminatory nature of said commentary discriminatory comments of any kind have not been tolerated nor will they be tolerated in the future public commentary on a land use application should be limited to the merits of the application itself and comments which are discriminatory in nature have been and will continue to be stricken from the record and the person and persons making said comments will be warned in short discriminatory comments are not and will not be tolerated Andor supported by the Zoning Board of the township of Jackson thank you very much yes we are and if you'll allow me to make a uh resolution for that purpose uh whereas the Zoning Board of the township of Jackson is subject to certain requirements of the open public meetings Act njsa 10 4 and whereas the open public meetings Act njsa 10 4-12 provides that an executive session not open to the public may be held for certain specified purposes when authorized by resolution and whereas it is necessary for the Zoning Board of the township of Jackson to discuss in a session not open to the public matters relating to the item or items authorized by njsa 10 412b those matters being litigation or potential litigation now therefore be it resolved by the zoning Board of the township of Jackson to enter into executive session for discussion of litigation Andor potential litigation it is anticipated that deliberations conducted in Clos session may be disclosed to the public upon the determination that public interest will no longer be served by such confidentiality Madam chair if I may have a a resolution made move to go into executive session second Mr book yes Mr Harley yes Mr Hudak Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss pares and Miss Bradley yes should we second so move thank you second Council Mr karowski to the chair yes sir uh there is a matter that I'd like to make a motion that we reject the rfps that have been submitted for engineering foric microphone I'm s here we go there we go how about there you one more time okay Miss Black I'm sorry I Mr G rasi didn't answer I'm sorry could you guys just uh quiet down to Mr uh sta can make a motion please sorry I'd like to make a motion to the chair that we uh reject the RFP responses for engineering and have them resubmitted I'll second that motion roll call roll call please Mr book yes Mr Harley yes Mr Hudak Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss Parnes and Miss Bradley yes thank you I will let uh I will let the um Clerk and purchasing of the township know that those rfps will need to be re um bid thank you you're welome I I will let the uh Clerk of the township as well as the uh Purchasing Office know that those rfps will need to be rebid any additional matters for discussion Mr Murphy I have nothing further this evening okay we're going to move forward to applicant number one John and Tracy der ruville P Mr gazowsky we can't hear John and Tracy derville preliminary and final site plan 8 62 and amended approval 862 D1 with youth variants 3181 good evening oh I usually say thank you gentlemen for raising your right hand I won't say that this evening thank you for raising your right hands do you solemly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments that you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the TR truth yes yes thank you if you would each please state your name and your positions with the board Evan Hill Board engineer Ernie Peters Gina Tumalo assistant zoning officer thank you very much now we will move forward with applicant number one sorry about that good evening Steven Leone um first Mr Murphy I believe you've advised me and we've consented that there are only six members of the board here to vote on our application this evening the applicant consents to going forward uh and um we're we're aware of that thank thank you Mr Leon I appreciate you putting that on the record could I just get one uh clarification with that obviously I have no objection to Mr Leon proceeding forward with only six members being being present but my understanding is then at the end of this meeting that will conclude the hearing and we will not be coming back whether it's additional missing member or members to hear testimony or or vote on our vote on the matter I think that's a decision in in my opinion that can be held till your case in Chief is concluded um I am not going to preclude any request uh based upon the lack of board members um to to uh to carry uh the vote uh at this time that's a decision that I will make at a later time if it's so requested um as far as I'm concerned Mr Leon has consented to moving forward with your case which is where we are um again if if it is so necessary I will ensure that any other board member who might if if that request is made and granted this is all hypothetical if it were to be requested and granted of course I would ensure that any of the board board members who voted would be so certified to vote um but at this point I'm not prepared to make a determination as to that Mr gazari what I'd like to do is continue with the uh with the case thank you so it's my understanding the applicant has completed its direct uh testimony of all its Witnesses and we're at the point of open public comment and any obors I'm ready to go forward refresh my recollection I believe that we did open public comment at the end of the last hearing is that correct that is my recollection that is my recollection as well I I believe that we we always open public comment at the conclusion of testimony count um and I believe I I did rewatch this and I to now I'm questioning my own recollection but to the best of my recollection public comment was opened and closed yes at the end at the conclusion of the applicant's case and my last note is we return on 1220 for Mr gazzari's Witnesses yep so I believe that we will not be opening to the public at this particular moment um but Mr gazari is so long as you have concluded and you've rested um Mr Mr gazari is free to move forward with his case and chief sure I didn't Mr G are ask you are free to proceed I'm sorry Mr Leon has concluded his case that was that is uh as far as I'm concerned that is what Mr Leone just put on the record that's correct I reserve the right to cross-examine his Witnesses and if I have rebuttal experts to deal with it I expect to be able to do that if you'd like to Reser it's important that you note that if you'd like to reserve your right to call rebuttal Witnesses you may do so um but again uh so that would mean that your case technically is in concluded you're reserving your right to call rebuttal Witnesses yes very good so to that if he's calling Witnesses who'll be giving direct testimony those are not rebuttal uh Witnesses I mean let's assume for the sake of argument I understand he has a noise expert here if I don't have a noise expert to testify then he would not be able to have him called as a rebuttal witness that's fair I I do concur with that I concur with that objection that objection sustained if you're if you're intending to offer a noise uh expert I would do so at this point or noise testimony I don't I'm sorry I say if you're offering noise testimony well let's assume for the sake of argument my client who lives next door says she hears loud noises you're going to call an expert rebuttal witness it depends depends what they testify to and what what they have as proof of that no that's not happening well I I don't know I I I reserve the right and you can rule on it I will rule on it if you I I I I I understand let me let me put it this way I will reserve a ruling until a later date however I understand and hear Mr gazi's concern uh with that said um you know you can reserve your right to call rebuttal Witnesses and we can address that at the time um otherwise Mr gazari is free to proceed okay uh now I was shown a series of uh proposed exhibits by Mr Leone does he intend to introduce them as a part of his case no I intend to introduce those as rebuttal exhibits if necessary I've only put them there in case I need to uh use them uh I mean that's really I I think that's improper it's certainly unusual and I would object do that procedure but it's leave it to the board to rule on it can I get some clarity what what you have exhibits that have not been introduced that's correct and for convenience this evening I gave a uh flash drive to have them loaded but said they had not been um introduced yet and you're using them copies essentially what I'm what I'm understanding understanding is that you would be using them to potentially impeach a witness or testimony correct yeah I I again I don't know why we're ruling on this objection at this point but um he let's just proceed and and if he tries to enter evidence make your objection we're g to we're going to proceed forward yes okay let the board uh uh good evening members of the board ladies and gentlemen uh my name is Ron garosi I'm an attorney with offices in Red Bank New Jersey I represent in this matter Mr Dan Black and his wife uh Vicki uh they have been residents and live adjacent to the subject property uh for many many years I've discussed this matter with them Mrs uh black is prepared to give testimony uh she is rather shy and asked if in fact rather than by taking her through questions and answer she could simply read a statement into the record which of course should be subject to cross-examination for I discussed this briefly with the board attorney I did not discuss it with my colleague Mr Leone but I would like to proceed in that fashion if it's acceptable uh to the board Mr any objection I have no objection okay neither does support M black would you please be so kind as to step forward good evening M spack how are you Mrs spack you have to good evening would you prefer to speak into this or hold this close to you I'll try this and I'm not really shy I don't I think you have to use this so do I just wait a second uh I've earlier do we want to swear in do I want to swear in no I don't want to swear you in if you would miss black please freeze your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do thank you very much if you would please state your name spell your last uh and provide your uh address and affiliation to this application my name is Vicky black BL K I live at 1461 Toms River Road um in Jackson and we live next door to the applicant okay and you're objecting to this application thank you very much this black uh thank you for introducing yourself and I do in fact have a copy of uh the uh your testimony which you which you refer to uh the board has graciously consented to rather than have me question and answer you because you're intimidated by my size that you could simply read this into the record if you would you have to go very slowly don't rush take your time let me ask you a couple of questions but how how long have you lived in the township of Jackson I've lived in Jackson since 1982 now you earlier stated that you live in a residence which is immediately adjacent uh to the subject application that's correct and my understanding is if you're facing the applicant's property you are to the right of that residence yes that is that a residential home that you have there yes it is and how long have you lived in that home um we built that home in 1987 okay so you lived there for close to 40 years or whatever it may be y yeah raise your family there y uh could you just describe briefly what the surrounding area is like in other words in the area which is immediately surrounding the subject property is it rural in nature is it built upon is an industrial usage what exactly is there it is rural in nature our property is mostly open field um some Woods uh across the street is a horse farm um most of the properties are several Acres um it's it's residential okay what's the size of your property well over the years we have bought several pieces as they became available so right now we have uh just shy of 30 Acres okay would you just tell the board before you begin your testimony uh what is the nature of any construction which is located upon those 30 Acres construction there was buildings oh okay uh there is a um small house in the front on one separate parcel that um is rented then there's my husband's welding shop blacky's Welding which is on a separate parcel our home is on I think eight acres and then we bought three adjoining Lots um which actually front on Ridge Road but they all adjoin our property okay so altogether it's 29 something now uh if you like would you please read your statement into the record okay and you don't mind if I sit down to you you go right ahead okay you don't mind Mr not at all okay um some of it's going to reiterate what you just asked me but I'm going to read it anyway um so I've lived in in Jackson since 1982 and my husband Dan has lived here his entire life um we have always enjoyed good relationships with all of our neighbors over the years and sincerely regret that we're now compelled to be in this adversarial position with the applicant in 197 I'm just going to give you a little bit of background where we're coming from um in 1976 when my husband was about 20 years old he bought the home on one acre which is the rental home that that I mentioned um over the next 47 years we have bought additional adjoining properties piece by piece when it became available and now we own almost 30 Acres adjoining the derval site and we share a Westerly common property line of about 850 ft 35 years ago we built our home more than 600 ft off the road because because we wanted to have Peace Quiet privacy um recently well depends what you mean by recently several years ago we had an approval to do a subdivision of some of the land in the back the L the three lots at uh front on Ridge Road during covid we let that expire because we just were not sure how the market was going to be but it's it's certainly our intent at some point to do that again um we have both worked very hard to acquire pay the taxes on and maintain this land and we just can't stand by and watch our property and our neighbors properties be severely devalued and our way of life diminished by this application and the actions of the applicant we were notified in 2017 when our new neighbors the deral were applying to this board for approval to continue the two residences on the the property and to build a commercial storage building we didn't attend that meeting or object as we had no problem with that we thought they were just putting up a pole barn because that's what it was asking for and that's fine that conforms to the area and it is excuse me that is in fact what the board approved among the conditions of the approval however was the language quote the applicant will only store equipment and vehicles in the building or under Under The Canopy and quote will not conduct any repairs or maintenance of equipment or Vehicles it was also a requirement that the applicant reside in the home on the premises as the transcript of that 2017 hearing shows in response to her attorney Mr Shay's very specific direct questions it's undeniable that Mrs deral agreed to and clearly understood all the terms and restriction itions of that approval in the applicant's 2017 testimony it was stated that their business would continue to operate out of its Tom's River location which is in a commercial Zone on Route 9 in their current application they have said that they now want to consolidate operations to the Jackson site um among the pictures that I have um tonight are pictures from Google Earth showing that Toms River Site that they are intending to bring here to this residential area of Jackson to show what that operation looks like and the magnitude of what they are proposing what troubles us most is the disparity between the intent of the 2017 variants and the day-to-day reality of what has been going on on the property ever since shortly after that 2017 approval they started bringing in all sorts of heavy equipment and trailers on to the property their willful disregard of the board's conditions has continued over the years and has gotten progressively worse and there appears to be no oversight of what has become an industrial type operation in our residential neighborhood I've seen many 40 foot box trailers flatbed trailers some empty and many stacked with trees things that I think are called loaders bulldozers dump trucks and all sorts of heavy equipment not in the building not Under The Canopy but out in the open fields on the grass in 2019 they brought in tub Grinders excavators and piles of material that they were mixing storing and transporting out I've seen them working on heavy Industrial Equipment out in the middle of the open field in her testimony at the 2017 hearing Mrs deral affirmed that she knew Machinery had to be kept Under The Canopy and not in the open air for environmental reasons so in addition to disrespecting the conditions set by the board they clearly show little to no regard at all for environmental issues associated with using storing and maintaining these machines as Mr Leone stated at the July 20th 2022 hearing the applicant is quote one of the largest land clearing companies in the state of New Jersey and other states end quote at that hearing they entered into to evidence pictures of many pieces of very big industrial equipment that they own which they are now proposing to bring to this property for maintenance storage and repair with these machines we would have thousands of gallons of oil fuel hydraulic oil antifreeze and other hazardous materials on the property creating potential for an environmental nightmare just yards from the wetlands from something as simple as a leaky seal broken hose human error or simple carelessness it is inconceivable to me that this could be permitted in this residential Zone can I just have a drink of water thank you in testimony before the zoning board supporting their current application the applicant said that logs trailers and heavy equipment are never stored on the property except occasionally logs will stay overnight one day she said that the big equipment goes from job site to job site and is not brought back to the yard I have photos which I'll show you showing that they have been doing all of the above for years and continue to again demonstrating a lack of credibility on the applicant's part and a lack of respect for their neighbors the environment and any conditions set by the zoning board I have just for an example photos of one massive machine which looks to me like what she described in her testimony as a tree Shearer sitting on the property for weeks this summer sitting in the field um it was not in the pole barn it was not Under The Canopy or on a concrete pad this broken machine presumably full of hazardous fluids was sitting in and being actively worked on in the open field in the grass yards away from the wetlands among all of the other many pieces of Machinery that have been there for months um it's also important I want to note that the derval purchased the 4.3 acre property immediately to the west of them so our property is to the right they bought the other one to the left um and they have extended their privacy fence to most of that land they um apparently converted a garage within that fenced area of that property for additional storage and have been using a newly created drop driveway on that property to access 1435 the property that they're looking to uh build up and to me that suggests an intent to quietly expand the industrial use to that property as well from what we see they've taken this board's approval of a simple commercial storage building on what used to be a chicken farm and a horse farm in a pin lands residential Zone and turned it into an industrial site flying under the radar with no monitoring or regulation these sites have their places in towns but a trucking Depot heavy equipment maintenance and storage facility should simply not be in a residential neighborhood the applicant should inquire an industrial property and go through the rigorous planning process where all of the potential issues like traffic impact fuel oil and waste oil storage power washing of heavy equipment pollution and noise are addressed there are several properties in the jack in Jackson on the market currently that could accommodate them or they could certainly relocate to another area as they work Statewide and in New York Pennsylvania and Vermont according to Mrs darel's testimony they're not Cent Jackson is not an integral part of uh where they have to be there is no reason why the business has to be stationed in Jackson I'll also mention that despite the board's requirement that the deral live on the premises at all times from September 2020 on they are still registered voters of Tom's River not Jackson and they have voted as recently as last month in Tom's River given how they've exploited the use of the property since the first approval and blatantly disregarded and disrespected all of the board's restrictions and requirements I am beyond concerned about what would happen if any further approvals were granted I'm here tonight to ask for your help help in stopping a very bad situation from becoming much worse if one of New Jersey's largest land clearing companies were to be allowed to continue or heaven forbid expand their industrial operation in this residential Zone it would not only set a precedent of allowing this intensity of a use in a residential neighborhood but also seriously impact the environment the nature of the area and greatly diminish our and our neighbors property values and quality of life thank you for your time consideration of our concerns okay uh Mrs black when I introduced you I also stated that uh this document which you've read you were the author of that document we not did I have anything at all with regard to the preparation of this document you never saw it until just now I saw it just now okay now uh you referred to uh two things you referred to some photographs and you've also referred to uh some video and I have spoken with a gentleman who handles the video and I would like to have marked first the photographs which you have and just briefly uh go through them okay sure can we so Ju Just Just I apologize I'm going to interrupt for just a minute um there was an evidentiary issue brought to my attention um sorry there was an evidentiary issue brought to my attention apparently we have marked two items as 01 inadvertently apparently on uh July 20th of 2022 uh some photographs submitted by Miss Black were marked 01 and then at the last meeting we were heard November 1st of 2023 we marked uh the 2017 transcript as 01 is there any objection to changing the marking of uh the transcript to to2 that's fine okay I just want make no objection thank you very much thank you all right so we're at 03 then Mr gazari [Music] right four yeah hold on I'm gonna correct the record for a minute per Jeff papo's notes he has 01 labeled as a transcript from August 2017 o02 labeled as an noov and 03 labeled as pictures I matches your record five 04 no we're at 05 because we had marked two 01s 01 was marked back in July of 2022 so that should be o that transcript should be 02 so we're just going to push everything so right so the transcript of two uh November 2017 is 02 what was O 02 on and then the uh noov was labeled O2 so that will become o0 that will be 03 and then 03 labeled as Pi picks as in pictures will become 04 04 okay correct so we're at 05 now thank you I have my what oh I don't know oh is that it or is that another one Mark uh Mar oh my God Mr garasi are are you marking these collectively as 05 I'm gonna call them 05 Dash and I'll identify each one that will be that would be fine thank you okay he Mrs black uh you earlier indicated to the board that you you took a series of photographs correct yeah over the years I've taken photographs we we have marked as 05 a series of photographs and they're they're quite numerous and I want to take you through them uh one by one and just ask them whether or not you were present when those photographs were taken what you believe they depict okay okay so collectively we're identifying them as exhibit or five when I show you the first photograph it is identified as 1309 uh 2 29 that's the date it's okay 1309 and then I have the date written after so 1309 is the number you use to depict the photograph correct and what is following is the date that's right uh just briefly and please don't go into lent because you have quite a few what do they show um the first one here I have them right here in front of me I'm going to have to object to a phot photograph from 219 that doesn't reflect what's on the property today oh she's she's giving you the date that it was on the property the relevance of it being in 219 it could be 2000 and it wouldn't matter what the purpose of this is to show a conditioning continuing course of conduct as to how the applicant has been utilizing this property and I do believe it's evidentiary I agree with you Mr garasi you may proceeded the objection is overruled for for the board for the board Mr gazar rowski U you had provided all of these photos to Anthony so he could show on the board however they're by date and there there there there's probably what 15 or 20 different folders and they're not in any sequential order like you're presenting how we have to be able to show these to the public so are you able to do you have a file name that you could give us or how do we pick um I I put them in individual folders so that they would stay in date order and they are they're all in the exact order of what I have given you for so he just has to go one start with the top folder and that will be the 2019 pictures the next one will be July of 2022 right so that's the first one that and I took all of these so yes I was present at all of them this was in on February 2nd of 2019 um they were what looks to I don't know anything about this business but to me it looks like they were grinding up material mixing different materials together and shipping it out objection there's no evidence of that it's a speculation on this witness's part not a speculation as to what's there but what was going on okay and I can just say that was there on that day yeah I'm going to sustain that objection well obviously the photograph speaks for itself Mr gazari I'm going to sustain that objection we can testify to what's in the photographs but unless uh Miss Black has personal knowledge of the operations she can't testify as to what is going what exactly is being done let me let me with regard to all of these photographs you took them did you not I did yes so rather than going into speculating as to what exactly the operation was just identify the photograph and say that you took it okay and we rely upon the photograph speaking for itself okay very good okay the next picture um 1323 which I also took on February second is this was the view from our driveway back at that time box trailers lined up now there as I see it there's one two three four five six seven eight box trailers lined up correct correct okay just a moment Anthony is there a a way to make that larger thank you what to the next one uh the next one is um July 26th a trailer with logs on it you also have to read the identification number oh okay 8504 July 26 a trailer with logs on it okay let's go to the next one the next photo is the following day 727 number 8525 identify the photo and okay 8525 which is taken the following day trailers with logs on it still on the property despite the fact that the applicant said they never stay more than a day um the next picture 8627 8822 there are those log trailers still there so they've been there a couple of weeks next picture 9079 objection objection you're saying it's the same logs that were there on 72722 and on 8822 on on what basis do you make that what number what number what's the number the photog you're referring to it was you testified as the 8525 and 8627 So you you're going to have an opportunity to cross-examine okay um I'm G to I understand your question but you are going to have a an opportunity to cross-examine um she can put her case on go to the next one okay okay next one 9079 on September 27th of 22 um a I don't know what you call that but um it's sitting out there in the grass not under a canopy or in a building okay 9080 also on 927 additional um equipment out here this looks like that's in gravel and note the albourne supply uh trailer that albourne Supply is a another company owned by the deral um that is run out of another location in Toms River so they're also bringing that equipment here um the next picture is 9671 on October 31st and it's again a picture of logs on a trailer the next picture 9750 on November 8th is because you can tell by looking at the two pictures one after the other it's the same logs on the trailer a week later next picture 9888 on 1114 again logs some logs on the trailer sitting out in the open next picture 0191 on December 12th two trailers of logs and note all the the other equipment out in the background um sitting outside um and also notice the big on the left hand side of 0191 there's that red and white big piece of equipment which is still there in the next picture 0269 on December 22nd and note also the uh other stuff materials laying around this piping and which they're not supposed to have on the property next picture 0273 December 22nd is just a a wide shot of what's going on there everything out all the equipment and pieces laying around um next picture 0317 on December 27th again now we have two two trailers of logs 0331 on December 28th um just showing again what's out there in the open 0438 on January 11th log trailer two log trailers and if I look at the picture before it might you might see some evidence that they're the same and again lots more equipment building up in the background there and note that's not on a concrete pad all that stuff that's just grass 0520 January 17th a couple several trailers of logs 0592 this they have hidden between the fence that they have behind their home and the um uh old uh Stables that they want to take down and replace I don't it looks to me I think that's a septic tank and a whole bunch of other junk next picture 0920 March J March March 20th of 23 look at that some kind of crane being brought into the property I I don't know to work on something I don't know next picture 1380 42623 uh um huge equipment out in the open not under a canopy not in a building uh 1383 42623 um is that the same date as the last one yeah same same date so it was showing from a different angle other stuff on that property next is a on 42 picture number 1394 is on 427 some changes have been made to that area where the septic tank is additional stuff in some stuff out 1724 uh June 5th of 23 somebody pouring some kind of something into a something um again on grass no no concrete under that uh 1748 June 7th of 23 um they've now moved some kind of a deer John Deere piece of equipment to that uh space be and and a trailer and it looks like a truck also to the space between the fence and the old building June 16th oops I'm sorry 1872 June 16th uh I don't know if I have to say anything just lots of trucks lots of equipment at a place where they never store equipment never bring equipment um next picture 1873 June 16th of 23 um same thing 1889 June 18th of 23 the septic tank is still there behind the the fence and the old building now we have some logs being stored back there as well uh 1911 Jun June 20th of 23 look at that look I I I have no words there's just all kinds of stuff back there um 1991 June 30th that's that big thing that I mentioned in my testimony that I saw them working on at this point I guess it was just parked um n and that was uh June 30th okay next one 1996 June 30th there's some logs lots of big equipment the next picture 1998 is the same day just a different view um next one 2054 on July 4th that big piece that I showed you a couple pieces back here it is now they've apparently moved it it's still in the field but out where they can work on it more and they were actively working on it there in the open field 2731 83023 um again just another picture showing that the uh huge amount of stuff that was there on a couple of days or a couple of pictures ago which was weeks ago is all still there um that was 2731 I just did okay next is 2781 um there's a some kind of a I guess that's a trailer and lots of other things parked there 2928 this is kind of a different angle on uh September 20th this is the area to the left of their pole barn um and this stuff this kind of stuff is there almost all the time 2929 on September 20th um hold on just one second yeah so I showed two pictures back that same trailer okay maybe it's it's I'm going to say it's an identical trailer still sitting there 18 days later looks like the exact same location uh 2930 on September 20th there's that big piece of equipment still there uh 2934 September 20th just another shot of what other beautiful pieces of equipment they have parked there um 3230 this is about a month later October 15th still they're lined up kind of nicely here but there's still a lot of stuff that we're told is not being kept there 3635 November 9th so that's almost a month later that blue stuff on the right whatever that is is still sitting there these yellow things are still there that thing on the far left moark that's there almost all the time you've probably notice that in every picture uh 3636 November 9th um again it's all still just sitting there looks like a couple of things have moved but um most of it is still there 3686 November 16th um that big truck that I hadn't seen before that's there parked in front of the building on uh November 16th and in the next picture November 19th on 3709 you can see it's still there I didn't get the whole thing in the picture but all that other equipment is still there also 3710 on November 19th just same day just another shot of of what's there um oh okay November 19th a a better picture showing that that truck is still there after um after an extended period of time 37:15 that's 11:21 so that's two days later still there now the next one 3773 is just to show you what the place looks like at night with it lit up it does do the picture doesn't really do it justice but they had I don't know why they had it all lit up at night that one night so um it was it was very bright um 3857 this was just last week 1212 um this is that area between the fence you see the fence on the left and the Chicken Coop on the right this is what they have stashed in there now um tractor I don't I don't know I don't know what they're called but you can see them there uh 3862 December 12 again I think the last couple of pictures are all just to give you kind of a snapshot of what it looks like a week ago and pretty much still today so that would be 3862 3864 and 3865 they were all taken on 1212 a week ago um the next couple of pictures um I just have three more 8587 um is a picture of the outside of their Tom's River location that they say they want to consolidate here um quite a bit of equipment there but the next two pictures are Google Earth of that site just to give you an idea of how they keep it and what they're proposing to bring to Jackson the next two pictures are that about 0827 0827 yeah that's the Google Earth that's there are two shots of Google Earth from different angles so you can see what it's about now uh with regard to these photographs were they all taken individually by you yes uh was I pres with you when any of these photographs were taken no okay uh at this particular point in time I would move to have these exhibits marked into evidence Mr you don't have any objections no so moved I have copies yes now uh my understanding is was also a a video of sorts which you discussed gentleman who was in charge of making that work I have how to do that there is him or okay I'm sorry you hear me now okay you can hear me a long ways away now can't you uh yes I I did um make a eight minute kind of composite video so I wouldn't have to bore you with hours of videos that I have I just took clips of all of them and put it into to an 8 minute video which I gave to the gentleman um however he told me that he can't play the audio because the audio is hooked to the microphones so um I I have it on my phone but I'm sure the sound isn't gonna let's just let's just forget the sound let's run through them and oh the sound is okay we could do that give it a try maybe you can give us a little playby play can you hear this I have it on my phone so that's the sound of trucks coming in with those livs I'm sorry I was stand on unsteady ground ju just so we're clear this is not the intent of this is not to reflect any sign the intent is just to reflect the activity that was going on on the site wait this sound that you can't hear that truck was going cling cling don't worry don't worry about the sign just walk through okay that was a a truck making a lot of noise this is that big piece of equipment that that I said they were working on out in the field I think that's that well it's some it's a frame working on something looks like a frame to me oh you can hear it or is that just static yeah you can hear it okay it's not very loud though you really hear what I hear for now this is from my front yard it's not loud it's not the decb but it's the Drone do you hear that and banging look there's a video of that guy pouring that something in something this may not be sound this may be just a panoramic view of our view this is the uh 2019 when I said I assumed they were mixing soils this is what we saw going on that was February of 2019 from my driveway this is from the front of my house again not horribly loud but it makes you crazy you hear it all the time I don't think I have to say what that is just a a representation of what you get in this kind of a use again I don't know if that's a compressor I don't know but it's resonating from over there this was just last week [Music] maybe no I just kept kept this long because I want you to see it's not just 5 Seconds it goes on and on this is from my front porch and look how far away we are and I'm still still here for I zoomed in to try to see what it was coming from but I I don't know the door is open so maybe it's something inside that's just a clip of air brakes which air brakes which we hear here's some piece of equipment being moved around on the [Music] property more of the droning noise I suppose this is just another view of everything on a different day is that the end okay that's it okay uh with regard to the vids which we was just looked at these were taken individually by you they were um and they're just examples of what we see and hear often on a daily basis sometimes I'm out in the yard and hear it and okay and have my phone sometimes I'm in the house and I hear the ones that are from my front yard I've probably been in the house and I hear it and go outside and am able to um catch a clip let me ask this question uh you had no time utilize any type of a scientific device to measure the noise that was emanating did you no okay this was just what you heard from your human exactly okay F uh I would move to have uh this video entered its evidence as well at this time so moved that will be 06 those are all the questions I have of my client Mr Leon if you'd like to cross-examine her yes that's fine are we ready I'm sorry I say are we ready am I ready you're not cross-examining me you're cross-examining her m for you gentlemen ju just one minute please did you get that the video was marked 06 okay just want to make sure thank you Mrs black was born ready I said Mrs black was born ready okay all right Mrs Walker good evening good evening good photography forgive me for interrupting Mr Gaz rosi can you turn your microphone off while Mr Leone speaking to Mrs black please I'm sure it's not just thank you Mrs Walker where were you standing when you took those photographs as it relates to your Western Property Line different locations often I was in my front yard sometimes I was walking down we have a very long driveway sometimes I was walking down the driveway sometimes I was uh like close to the property line between the two properties right when it's close to the property line between the two properties 10 ft 15 ft have some idea I really don't know because I'm not I don't know if anyone is 100% sure where the property I don't know exactly where it is but I'm usually on my driveway or the grass or the the like leaves the dirt driveway that's on the western part of property and your house do you have any idea how far away it is from your Western property line I I don't know I'm not I know the house is 600 feet off the road and I would say it's about the same yeah about 600 feet I'm I'm really I'm guessing I don't know I'm sorry that's that's good enough for me um are you aware that the applicant is seeking to take all this equipment and put it into a restricted area that is roughly on on the Eastern the western side of its property are you aware that this application is to correct some of the things that you've observed there I don't know what you mean by a restricted area have you seen the site PL that's proposed um yeah a while ago okay do you understand it I think so I haven't looked at it like in the last month would you understand that the equipment that you see at various locations will be stored in that area yeah I do understand that and I object to that okay that's your privilege do you also know that there is a six- foot fence being proposed to go along the property line I am aware of that and um that that will solve nothing it might change what I see coming out of my driveway but based on their history now who's why watching what's going on now there's nobody to see what they're doing over there so to me that's immaterial so if you can't see it you still object to it is that what you're saying course I see of course and that's because of the sound it's because of the sound it's because of what it will do to our property values are are you a real estate expert well I'm I'm a broker I am a real estate broker did you do an analysis of what it would do no no you this is a perception of yours speculation right correct correct are you familiar with the zone and what permits in the zone um I have a a Layman's knowledge of it you you've referred to it as a single family Zone but it's really a rural development Zone it's that not it is rural development but our neighborhood is residential there's nothing else like it on what size Lots all different size Lots they're all over an acre right most of them are several are you familiar that this property is in the pine lands as well absolutely now you referred to a subdivision you got could you describe what the size of the Lots were they were going to be 1 acre lots fronting on Ridge Road just for just a minute just for the record Miss Black if you would please if you mean yes please say yes if you mean no please say no oh what was I doing uh okay I will that won't translate well for the record thank you so much you're welcome uh are you aware that is there sewer and water service to that subdivision no there is not are you aware that if there is not you need to be in a 3.2 acre not correct because we would have the upgraded septic systems which would allow one acre lots that's true is was that a proposal of your uh application yes and do you have any idea what that cost those upgraded septics I'm going to object to this line of question that me make she did in fact testify that she had I'm going to object to Mr Leone's Pursuit of this line of question she did testify that she in fact had an approval at one time for a subdivision adjacent at the property but that she's allowed it to lapse she testified to that she's responded to his questions going into details with regard to septic systems and the like at this point of time it's far beyond her direct testimony I respond to that it has to do with why she didn't build on the what does that to do why they didn't use the subdivision number one and number two whether it is of any relevance to this application here well you didn't object to the fact that she introduced that testimony into the record what she said she had a subdivision approval that's when you should have objected not now no she got an approval I I'm not objecting to that all right she why it wasn't constructed is why I'm she testified seeking test that she got an approval she did not testify that she sought that one at a time please thank you is there a question pending I continue to examine the witness you're you're objecting to what's the question that you have with her my question is uh one if she's aware of what the zoning is in the pine lands and she's answered that EST AC gentlemen the the pending question that was objected to was as to the cost of the septic systems I'm going to allow the question but with a little bit of get to the point I don't know what the current cost is when we had the subdivision approved I was given numbers of somewhere around 40,000 more than a standard septic it's fair appraise him and you we're still going to proceed with the subdivision of course okay um and the the proposed property that you're referring to as a subdivision is it a budding of the uh applicant's property it adjoins our property which adjoins theirs it's it's now like one big 30 acre piece you don't have a subdivision approval on your proper no so my question is is this subdivision AB budding the applicant's property the answer is no okay thank you yes and to go back to the other question about the Zoning for your that area are you aware that public buildings are permitted there parks are permitted there other commercial uses are permitted here I'm aware of the first two um commercial I'm not aware of commercial uses being allowed there but commercial is probably what they got approval for commercial storage this what's going on there now is not what I consider a commercial uh business that's more of an industrial property but I think your testimony was that the whole area will forever be rural residential can't believe she test that that it'll be forever or there was that that kind of testimony was never elicited from her what is your testimony regarding the development of the area I see it developing and continuing to be residential but things are always changing especially in Jackson there's a lot going on but residential is is very hot in that area there's another big development starting soon um and it's going to be an attractive area for residential and those areas are served by sewer or not served by sewer there is not sewer there now but I understand that they will be bringing it in for some of that okay good for some of the currently approved applications or developments so and you also testified that the noise affects you or concerns you yes it does yeah you problem no I don't have a problem I stand here have a problem no I don't have a problem gent to stand here you stand wherever you want gentlemen professionalism please the equipment pictures that you have shown yes um your test testimony has to do with the fact that they were not approved in 2017 to be where they are is that correct correct that is true you know if they were approved to be on the property objected the question on the property is so amorphous how could you possibly answer that question obviously they enter the property from time to time they R the property it's got to be in accordance with the conditions of the approval I'm asking this witness if she knows whether that equipment was part of the approval in 2017 not where it was but was part of the approval my understanding of reading the resolution is that there was to be no equipment on the property except in the building there was to be no outside storage of equipment and no materials brought to the property no materials but in transit you're saying uh I don't know what you mean by in transit that overnight par I think it said no materials something no no storage of materials on the market correct right okay in your observation of the activities on a property did you see any of this equipment Excavating grading or since 2017 recently because they built the building and I'm sure they had some work done there the only time I saw any Excavating going on was February of 2019 yeah in connection with their construction well you're saying they built in 2017 no they got approval in 2017 but okay either way um my question is do you see any of that excavation grading going on on the property recently I do not okay okay and your testimony also is that when you were in your home about 600 feet away from your approximately from your property line you heard noise is that correct often I hear noise even when I'm in the house did you measure that noise in any way no I have no means to do that I just grab my phone was that noise during the day or at night always during the day before six o'clock would you say I don't think so I don't think I've ever heard it before six o'clock you are you saying AM or PM PM oh PM oh um yeah it was before I can't say for sure that I can't say and what time in the morning would you have heard it I've never really paid attention to the times as much so I I can't tell you that okay with with certainty now I think you indicated you have a welding business on your property correct my husband has um Blackie swelling his father got a a variance for that back in I think the 1950s or 60s before the zoning ordinances or long time ago yeah and it's continued to operate since then okay and do you have customers coming to that welding shop not really they mostly use it to keep their equipment there who who keeps their equipment there my husband has inside the building he has you know a welder compressor inside the building right and Tools hand tools everything who does he weld for himself he mostly works for Clayton so he yeah so he rarely does work in the shop oh he goes to the site correct okay um once in a while someone will stop by and want you know something fixed and they'll accommodate them but that's very rare okay um you testified as to some activity that the applicant was conducting on the adjoining property correct and what was that activity well from what I see they took the privacy fence that separates their residential part of the property from the industrial part there's a a fence and they have extended that fence into the adjoining property they have a tenant in the house the tenant appears to have use of the front and a small area in the back they have access to the rest of the the back of the property it's accessible from 1435 and they put a driveway in that I it looks to me like they use that driveway to sometimes access the property with a car or or a small pickup or something like yeah truck right and you know what's inside that garage that you I have no idea what's in the garage okay I I have no further questions of this witness but I would like to bring up a noise expert as a result of the noise testimony I guess when it comes this time the opportunity to do that uh I intend to put on my planner so at the conclusion of my case if he attempts to bring on some type of rebuttal testimony that's fine yeah Mr gazari is in the middle of his case you'll have to wait to bring up any rebuttal Witnesses presuming that that's permitted all right so Mr gazari you may proceed Mr Leon I have some uh rebuttal questions they ask of my client now uh you testified that when you're inside your house you would hear sounds or noise which you believed were emanating from the Jason Pro property correct correct and how far would you say uh your proper your your residence is located with regard to the boundary line between the two properties I I'm sorry I really don't know I'm not at measuring 100t 200t I would say at least 600 600 feet yeah it's okay all right now you you are not giving testimony as an expert in the field of noise are you no you have no expert in that field I do not now you you stated that you heard noise while you're inside of the house uh would you if you if I represent to you when considering noise from adjacent property the level of noise is measured at the property line so the real question is what was the noise at the property line 600 ft away from your house were you aware of that um yeah okay but you you never you never took a reading or did anything to determine what that noise was no I I did not and again um if I if it was really really loud noise I might have thought oh maybe I should get a decible Meer or something but it's not the fact that it's loud it's that it's continuous annoying and continuous and clanging and banging and humming and it's people say that I'm annoying they don't need a meter to determine that yeah thank you for the rec record Mr gorowski your statement that the noise is measured at the property line is an inacurate statement and our noise expert will be glad if you think it's an inaccurate statement why don't you show me the ordinance and say where it says something different web witness will do that excuse I I am going I'm go I'm going to guide the board that Mr gazar Row's statements are not evidence and uh they should be judged accordingly yeah I'm not clear my permitted to put my rebuttal witness on now no oh okay Mr gazari is in the middle of his case through the chair yes can we ask the witness a question yes Mrs black hello Miss black Miss Black you use the word continuous to describe what you heard as quote unquote noise emanating from your neighbor would you elaborate on what you mean by continuous please I okay it's not like continuous 24 hours a day but it's sometimes I'll hear it for an hour sometimes it's for 20 minutes sometimes it's just clanging and banging for a minute it it varies day to day it's not consistent but it's not I'm not saying that it's a 24 you know or eight hours a day I'm hearing this noise but I'm hearing it enough and it's just not what you expect to hear in a neighborhood or in a residential area all right that helps but perhaps frequency and what I'm driving at is it day in and day out or is it something other now I would say most a days there's something I can't say every day but most days there's some kind of noise going on and I you know I don't go out there and I don't stand there waiting for it to videotape it or or make a clip of it but often I do just to get like a representation to show you of what I'm hearing you're welcome Mrs black just one other question did you ever notify the township being through the zoning officer seeking enforcement of the resolution I did um it was fairly recently and I I just want to give you a little bit of history on why we didn't earlier um as I said we didn't attend the hearing in 2017 because it looked benign it looked like okay they're putting up a pole bar we're good with that right away they started bringing in other stuff right away and my husband and I said to ourselves holy mackerel we we screwed up not going to that hearing we assumed all along that somehow all of this got approved why else would they be immediately defying the um the the ground rules of the board so you did notify the township we did but not not in the beginning we did within the past did you get any response from the town um yes they told me that they essed a fine I think of $500 and they took a couple pictures then I um when was that um roughly I'm going to say maybe six months to a year ago I don't really remember okay thank you um do you do you want me to answer about the followup or you're okay okay thank you I I I believe uh 02 was a not I believe o02 was notice of violation from the from the code enforcement correct Mark that 04 just is that the only response that you've gotten from Township how many times have you contacted the township relative to the violations um well that one time I did um and then when I followed up with them to see what happened as a result of it I was told in an email that they nothing will happen because they have a pending application before the board so because the application is pending they're not going to follow up thank you you're welcome anything else redirect a question question did did the rupes ever offer to meet with you to discuss any of your your complaints she did yeah I'm sorry Mr Leone I didn't I didn't hear that I apologize I said did the rueles ever offer to meet with the blacks to address any of their complaints did they ever offer to meet with her they initiated the meeting you're saying yeah yeah yes she did send us a letter um asking when when we first came and objected sent us a letter asking if uh if we would meet to discuss but in our opinion there's nothing to discuss they're clearly not going to um because we don't like it just clean it up I didn't feel there was any need to discuss it what what what could we have uh what terms could we have come to I didn't see any use I'm sorry sry but you declined to we did yes we declined thank you okay they respectfully declined passively respectfully decline yes thank they respectfully asked am I through I'm done with you yes any additional questions for this witness yes assume that the photographs that you took and the video that you took were taken with your phone correct and is that an iPhone it is uh just as an FYI there are dozens of decel meters free that you can download from the I Cloud store and record them and okay so thank you again it's not really a deciel issue for me it's a it's just the the the constant sounds the annoying sounds so for the for just FYI for the board uh those apps are not scientific instruments they cannot be relied upon they're not accurate they cannot be admitted as as evidence so while they exist they're for entertainment purposes only for the most part and any sound consultant will tell you that so just FYI okay okay any additional questions for Mrs black all right we're going to take a five minute recess just before this time I would like to call take a recess it's after nine o'clock so we're just going to take a fem minute break Ron before you get started I do have one announcement to make Mr Paper if you want to come forward Mr karowski all right Mr Paper you want to come forward all right Mr Pape has been waiting around but it's clear to me that we are not going to finish this application by the end of the evening so as a courtesy to Mr Pape and his professionals um the board has determined that we're going to reschedule application number two um based upon the fact that we are not going to reach it tonight so um Mr fa you want to enter your appearance please Jared Pape on behalf of the applicant thank you this is application number two the kebler Family Trust variance number 33951 blck 9702 lot 20 um this application uh was listed this evening it was carried from the December 6 2023 meeting um this will be carried uh with consent from both uh the board and the applicant to January 17 2024 um this application will be listed as number one on that particular agenda based upon my review um and the applicant has uh wav time uh and no additional notice will be required is that your understanding it is thank you very good so application number two the CUO Family Trust variance 3395 D1 block 9702 lot 20 will be carried to the January 17th 202 24 Jackson Township zoning Board of adjustment meeting no further notice will be required from the applicant uh and the applicant has waved time so any members of public who are here from that application uh again I I uh I on behalf of the board offer my sincerus apologies um but it has become clear that we will not be finishing this application this evening thank you with that said we'll move back to application number one Mr gazari you may proceed uh thank you Mr T uh before I proceed with my last witness who is Gordon Gemma a licensed professional planner I know that there is a person in the audience who wishes to present some very brief testimony I am not calling her as a witness but she asked that she'd be able to speak her name is Felicia Finn so if she's in the audience if she would come forward uh hold on one second you're not calling her as a witness no I'm not then we're going to wait till public comment for public comment that's correct we'll hold it for public comment we have we have procedure and we're going to follow it I'll call her for public comment let's let me proceed forward with Mr chairma give Mr oh Mr Jemma thank you for raising your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments that you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do and for the record Gordon Gemma Gemma 68 Sena Place Oceanport New Jersey and you're a professional planner yes sir would you give the board the benefit of your credentials please I'm a licensed professional planner and have been as such since 1987 in the context of being a professional planner I've testified in front of hundreds of boards and accepted as a planner before the courts of the state of New Jersey I've testified in front of the State Assembly and I've been here a few times this board accept your credentials thank you thank you m Madam chairperson thank you uh Mr JMA you were retained by me to give professional testimony before this board were you not yes sir and as a result of my retaining you did you in fact uh visit the property site in question yes uh did you also you view the minutes as well as some of the transcripts of Prior hearings yes now are you prepared to give professional testimony today with regard to your impression and your opinion with regard to this proposed use yes rather than take you through it step by step uh I would like you to just simply present your testimony as you have on other occasions as well sure and I well I've been he through most of the meetings I read the resolution 2017 I wrot the ordinances I read a 2009 master plan the 2023 master plan Amendment and just for the work even though it's been discussed but there might be some uh confusion the applic the property is in the rd1 zone the uses that are permitted in the rd1 zone are not commercial and Retail uses they are agricultural single family detached houses of worship Parks public buildings or community recreation centers for AG SCP communities that's what's permitted in the rd1 zone so just to be clear about that it does not permit forestry it does not permit mining uh either onsite or offsite uh and as we discuss later um that the use that's it's the variance that's required is a D1 variance they I think even the applicants plan are acknowledged that's the Rel that they're seeking and so before I get to the test I want to just go through a few things that are in your ordinance that I think think you should be cognizant of and the first thing in your ordinance is that section 24467 clearly indicates that this property is in the pine lands is appropriate for Pine lands commission review once it was not now it is and that's an indication of how maybe this town is treating this type of property second indication of how this town is treating this type of property you're welcome and I'll try to go slower I'm try I'm cognizant of the time I'm trying to try thank you there you go you're you're welcome I've never been asked to speak louder section 244 d17 6.2 contains a statement and that statement says that all uses not expressly permitted in any given District are expressly prohibited that's not just a statement about what we use is required it's a statement of intent not every ordinance in every T in every town in New Jersey has that statement what it means is that you've considered things throughout your zoning ordinance and you've said if I didn't say it's permitted it's not omitted it's prohibited permitted it's prohibited and that's a statement of intent and then finally I want to go through a few things that you do permit section 2446 defines a truck terminal and a Truck ter teral is defined as quote a location at which the prime purpose or use is the parking Andor servicing of trucks which transport Goods or materials not produced received for sale warehoused or used in manufacturing at that location what the applicant has testified is similar to a truck terminal that's important because Jackson permits truck terminals not here but other places similarly although not defined Jackson also permits contractor's yards again not here but in other locations and finally I'd ask you to consider in your ordinances that you have specific definitions at 2441 197 of how do you park nonresidential vehicles and you have specific definitions and you talk about you have to have stalls you have to have descriptions you have to have so many that are permitted and you go through great detail about that and then you say at the end of that if is any change of this then that's not permitted and You' got to go back in front of the board you try to control that the applicant is a site plan in front of you the thing that they don't show you in that applicant in that site plan is where they're going to park everything they don't have those stores lined out they're going to put them over there so there's a reason you did that because you want to have control and you don't want to have that sprawl and there's something else and that is paragraph seven of the statement of operations that the applicant gave you said that tractors as well as other equipment may not exceed 15 at any one time you saw photos what's on that property you saw at one time eight tractors you saw a lot of equipment I'd profer it was more than 15 more importantly you saw a photo of the yard in Tom's river that they want to bring here now I can't count very fast very well but I would lay you odds between what was shown on that area and what existed in those photos you saw is more than 15 and that's really what you're putting or allowing to be permitted to be put here so I'll ask you to consider that and now why does it matter that in fact you may allow these types of uses in other locations uh and we'll discuss this in Greater detail about the issue of particular suitability but the New Jersey Supreme Court in a case called called price fee Hemi to h i m e ji Hemi I'm going to turn to our jurist over there and ask him if I got it right I think it's amii hedi HGI thank you 2 NJ 263 said that a board's analysis of alternative locations where the use may be permitted is relevant so keep that in mind when we get to the issue of is this permitted someplace else and more importantly is it not permitted here and finally I took a look at the master plan and the master plan was adopted in 2009 and in 2023 was an amendment in the middle of this application and you know what it said the objective was in the middle of this application it said the objective was to provide for limited non-residential development in residential zones while protecting the existing character of the neighborhood now I wonder what they were thinking of when they put that amendment in mind just this year finally 2009 master plan what does that say well that says there's a few goals and objectives of your master plan and one objective of the master plan in the land use element page G2 says it's to achieve a pattern of mixed land uses that achieve various Community planning objectives sounds pretty good but it says objective number one it's an objective to direct growth in suitable areas and away from ones appropriate for resource protection we'll get to that in a second objective number two it says that objective to provide Economic Development and local employment area employment opportunities in areas well suited for that development so it said we want to do these things but it kept on cap the audient in areas well suited for that development in 2023 he made it clear in residential areas if you're going to impact the residential character that's not well suited for that development I ask you to look at some of the maps that they have in your master plan and you can make a determination about how you consider things the first map I have for you is simply from your master plan uh map Lu two L lu2 L2 I'll give one to Mr Leon I'll what does L2 show it's relatively simple property is clearly in the rd1 zone surrounding the property in the rd1 zone is your Pine lands protection area and all your Pine lands area is your protection Pine lands protection area and all your Pine lands areas so L1 in 2009 said look at this property look what surrounds it you also have another map and that's map C8 that's your critical area map also from your master plan of 2009 what does C8 show C8 shows that across the street have a critical area now C8 cannot be used to infer what exists upon the applicant's property that's not fair and it's not appropriate but what is fair and is appropriate is to say that there are critical areas near this property so when you look at the uses that the applicant is seeking to permit on this property you have to consider it in the context of the surrounding Zone and the proximity of your critical areas so now let's go to the standard of proof John did a great job as he always does and articulating the standard approv for use variants John didn't do such a good job in talking about some of the cases that interpreted that standard appr Pro I'd like to one case famous case called kinder Road Associates the mayor of C idell 421 NJ super and that said that quote use variances should be granted sparingly and with great caution the court went on to say quote because of the legislative preference for municipal land use Planning by ordinance rather than variance use variances may only be granted in exceptional circumstances so you have to ask yourself in that standard of proof If someone wants to put a essentially what could be defined as a truck stop in a residential zone is that the exceptional circumstance that the court in Kinder KAC and other cases we thinking of and that's really what you have to consider in the context of that weighing they ask you to do and this issue about amending a prior approval now I know this is a new application but in amending a prior approval you have to ask yourself what changed why are they back in front of you now normally the zoning and planning reasons the area changed the town adopted a new Zone the only thing that changed here is the applicant changed well that may be important to the applicant that's not a purpose of zoning that's not a reason that's personal to an applicant on a piece of property not to an area that hasn't changed not not to a zone that hasn't changed so you've got to look at it in that context and finally when it comes to the burden of proof we'll get to it's up to the applicant not the objector to say it doesn't have a substantial detrimental impact in terms of noise odor runoff on the adjacent property it's up to the applicant not the objector is it doesn't have a substantial detrimental impact upon their Zone plan it's not did you break the Zone plan it's not did you fracture it it doesn't have a substantial detrimental impact and you have to look at your Zone plan and your master plan and what did they say and if you have substantial detrial impact upon what you said are your goals and objectives are your intent as of this summer then a substantial detrimental impact so let's go through this John when he spoke about the purposes of zoning that's the first step he brought up subsection g i and m of section two of the ml now subsection uh G is interesting there was a certain judge in Middle sex County who held a case called stus Edison Zoning Board of adjust adjustment that was affirmed by the appell division and that judge made a few good points about what it means to look at subsection G uh and the subsection G if you recollect is you've got to provide sufficient space in a variety of locations for commercial uses and first the court asked whether and where other similar uses may be in the area in order to assess the need there hasn't been any determination that this area this use is needed in this location to meet that need in fact just the contrary the applicant has testified they go throughout the state the tri state area so what is the what is the specialness in this area in this location the other thing that this jurist did in Middle SE county is said that Shameless pandering I know Ryan that they did in this one was how does this meet the needs of all the residents of the state of New Jersey that is in subsection J the applicant certainly is meeting its name which is important for the applicant we get it but it doesn't meet the criteria as set forth in subsection G to show that this use here meets the needs of all the residents of the state of New Jersey so unless the applicant can make a showing that somehow this use on this location meets those needs doesn't meet subsection G subsection I mind V Burbridge aesthetic improvements the applicant said I'm making it look better I'm putting all these things on the property I'm making all these improvements the also said I'm also parking a lot of trucks commercial trucks in and around here now in a residential Zone that clearly my client can see from her property now it's true building one big building May hide some things but doesn't hide everything it wasn't intended to hide everything in fact you have to ask is this actually advancing a purpose of zoning by making it look better or making it worse remember the applicants not not just asking you to build a big building the applicant is asking you for use to store commercial vehicles on this property not in the big building so I don't know how that quite advances a purpose of zoning and finally m m talks about that's the Clause that was put in about uh trying to make the um everything of I'm trying to make sure I got it right for M basically it talks about m is making the argument that um encourage coordination of various public and private uh usage in order to be efficient that was in I know something's there and so the applicant saying well look obviously you now I have my business that's not that's not permitted in the zone I want to be able to store things here I'm not permitted in the zone that's an efficient public and private use that's not quite what they were saying when I met M about the efficiency of public and private they were talking about things like residential side Improvement standards trying to make development more efficient not how do I have an non-permitted use and then I add more things plan non-permitted use if that were true everyone who had a commercial property who HED property had a commercial building or a residential building I'm sorry who would then say I want to store my commercial trucks on my residential area which is more efficient for me it's not efficiency for the applicant it's efficiency for the purposes of zoning and here this just doesn't do it you can't use those so when it comes to the issue of the purposes of zoning I don't think they met the burden they have an advanced a purpose of zoning they Advanced a purpose of how to meet their business needs but that's not a purpose of zoning and then finally you go to the issue of particular suitability the applicant says well it's a big piece of property 6.1 Acres my client has 30 Acres uh doesn't mean that they should be able to permit commercial uses on there in fact a lot of the properties there are big at this at the tax map this property is no different than a lot of them there in fact it's same size as some of them so it's not particularly suitable it's big it's part of what the rd1 wants they want Big Lots that are residential not commercial uh one of the things they talked about in terms of particular suitability is it wouldn't have an adverse impact when I gave you those maps and particularly the critical area map the issue is is this the location to have a use where you're going have 55 gallon drones where you're going to maintain even with the best intent these big vehicles are you going to put it here in the pine lands that's a critical area or not and it seems to me that all the areas are particularly suitable this ain't one of them in fact it's particularly not suitable to this type of use in this location and finally let's go to the issue of the negative criteria uh the applicant I'm not going to repeat what Vicki testified to you have to look at the context and character of residential neighborhood and she showed you pictures that she could see from a property you you heard what she heard it's not every day and the applicant made a point look they can have construction activities and they're right you can have construction activities in a residential Zone and that would be allowed it would begin on a certain day and it would end on a certain day but you built the structure doesn't go on infinitum as long as the use is there and that's the real concern so it may not be something that meets certain levels but it's the same industrial sound from an industrial area that you hear with banging and trucks going back and forth that's just noise you haven't even gotten to the issue you saw that one tractor the plume of smoke coming out of it uh that's pollutants yeah runoff no matter how wellmaintained it is so those are the adverse impacts you potentially have from living next to this type of facility in a residential area does that the context and character of a residential area there's been discussion about the installation of storm waterer system uh but when you add about suspended solids and other fuels coming from fluids coming from parked vehicles or vehicles that are being worked on you have to wonder is that sufficient is it being maintained how does it impact the ecosystem is what type of you know Mr Leon asked does this have an enhanced septic facility to it well I would profer does this storm water have an enhanced biofilters to it you've got to go through a little more detail than that to be able to say it can handle commercial runoff you haven't done that it was also a discussion about 55 gallon drums being stored on the property there wasn't a discussion how they can to be maintained how they can to be disposed of who does that how many times how many 55 gallon drums what happens when they leak are they going to Pad but you know they're going to be there and it makes sense because the uses a use that you need that type of stuff the question is it this location so all that goes to the issue of um the negative substantial detrimental impact upon the neighborhood then you go to the Zone plan now they brought up a point they said well look agriculture is permitted here you can always Farm agriculture is permitted here you can always Farm go ahead you just slower okay some of your words okay apologize not a problem I I make more sense when you can understand me at least my wife tells me that going to the second prong of the negative criteria which talks about the intent and purpose on the Zone plan and they made a point that agriculture is permitted here that's true agriculture is a permitted use you produce agriculture on the property you don't store equipment to harvest Agriculture and then Harvest it from someplace else that's not what they were saying they said if you're going to grow things on here then you can grow things on here there was a question about forestry must have been omitted after while why would they have forestry agriculture forestry well two things forestry is not defined in your ordinance but your ordinance does cross reference the pine lands act and so what does forestry mean forestry means the planting cultivating and harvesting of trees for the production of wood products including firewood or for Forest Health now it's not being done here forestry forestry is being done someplace else but they're stowing equipment here so they can go forestry someplace so you can't make the analogy that this is similar to agriculture but this is not forestry as defined in what uh Jackson uses as the definition for forestry so basically the applicants asking to store and maintain equipment some in a building some outside of a building that's permitted someplace else in your Zone and not here the the master plan plan looked at that and said maintain the residential character so from my opinion you can't argue it doesn't have a substantial detrimental impact upon the intent and purpose of your Zone plan because it does and then there's that mediche case that John discussed and the reconciliation how do you balance this how do how do I reconcile that they don't permit this in this Zone and the answer is you don't because they didn't miss it they didn't not think about it they didn't not con not be concerned about the economic imp the environmental impact they work they have it all in your master plan so I don't think you can do the reconciliation I don't think you can say that it was ignored it wasn't I don't think he can analogize it to permitted uses they're not so for all those reasons I don't believe this applicant has meant its burden of proof that the court talked about an exceptional circumstance is needed in order for you to find that the use variance that they're seeking is warranted I have nothing else [Music] I I'm sorry I have no question further questions of my you have no further questions I have no further questions thank you very much Mr lean thank you Mr Gemma you referred to the zoning ordinance that applies to this property which is rd1 and all the uses permitted in the pin lands area um development zone right pine pine lands Village Zone which would be section 24487 are you familiar with that yes okay and is it your testimony that only residential is permitted no that was not my testimony and your testimony was that commercial was not that's correct I call your attention to paragraph B1 of the pin lands Village Zone it says agricultural commercial establishments is is that a commercial establishment an agricultural commercial establishment but it is a commercial establishment is it not well let's define what that means let's let's define what yes or no is it a commercial it it uses the word commercial okay I'll go on Section B4 private garage space for storage of Motor Vehicles is that commercial it doesn't have to be doesn't have to be but it can be right it well private garage bace for the storage of Motor Vehicles you have to look at what motor vehicles to find that okay so motor vehicle in my mind would but it's not residential no it could be residential Steve it could be residental it could be but it doesn't have to be it may be many things but it it doesn't necessarily have commercial all right you've answered that question then finally it has as a conditional use resource extraction does it not as a conditional use meeting certain conditions so that's not residential either that's not a permitted use either pardon it's not permitted it's a conditional it is permitted but you have conditions well let's be clear I said what with a permitted use this is a conditional use so resource extraction is a conditional use and conditional uses are not permitted if they meet the conditions then it's conditionally thank you good okay you've been to the property yes well I I take it back I've been to my client's property not to your client's property right how often have you been there I've been there twice since this application began how often have you been to the area surrounding the property in the Rd one zone up and down the road I've been there twice since this application began you see other commercial establishments in other areas of the rd1 I I can't tell what is and is not the the beginning of end of the rd1 Steve I did see the sign for the welder my client's property I did see across the street the horse farm further down the road there were other uses but I couldn't tell where that exactly ended or began so I couldn't testify with specificity Did You observe any subdivisions of residential houses yes let me finish the question go ah of residential houses uh on one acre lots or or uh um 3.2 acre lots in this Zone again Steve I I wasn't I saw residential subdivisions I wasn't able to articulate what size the Lots were by just observing were they in the zone I don't know Steve I said I saw in the area I couldn't tell without with specificity whether they were in the zone or not all right you testified that the applicant was relocating its operation from Tom's River to this Zone that's what I understand the AL can testify to no you can you quote that someplace I have to go back through the I sat here through the months of this part of when the applicant was here I believe the applicant indicated at least my recollection is without having a transcript in front of me that they intended to close the Tom's River location and relocate there I'll correct you that's not her testimony then you may correct me and I stand correctly to you could point to the same transcript you're referring to thank you you're pointing to the transcript I'm pardon you're pointing to the transcript of [Music] testimony I'm sorry your point I said I'd be happy to be corrected if you could point to the transcript no I'm telling you that okay then I Steve I trust you okay thank you um is there any public s in the rd1 zone I am not aware pardon I am not aware you're not aware I am not aware which doesn't mean there is you don't know that there is but you don't know that there isn't I am not aware either way why wouldn't you study that as part of your overall because it wasn't relevant to my testimony is that right yes okay I would like to call uh my planner up to comment on this testimony Mr gazari do you have any redirect I have no redirect okay um are you finished with your case I am finished hold on time out do the board members have any questions for this witness Mr Gemma I think you've answered this question already but I had asked Mr taana I hope I pronounced that correct tyina um I asked him this question what use is permitted in in the rd1 zone um that closely resembles the proposed use and his answer was agricultural can you respond to that do you have any you have any answer to that question sure the answer to the question is none and the reason for that is there is a definition of agricultural use and the definition of agricultural use says it is quote a land use to derive income from the production of crops Andor raising of livestock no crops or livestock is being produced or grown upon this property you cannot make that analogy you found that you found that in the dep in the definitions correct that is in the definitions as defined in section 2446 of Jackson Township okay I also asked Mr tyina about the relative to the positive criteria and he talked about the military bases across the street you have any idea how far Maguire or Lakehurst naval air station is from this site I don't have an exact definition of how far it is from the site um but I failed to see how the proximity for that has anything to do with this site now to be fair what John meant was that they need to clear I think John was talking about the airfields they need to clear the hazard zones in front of the airfields when the planes land which is true they need to do that but there's no reason why they can't do that by storing the equipment someplace else so I found out to be a non secator all right other things that Mr Ty uh TAA mentioned was that he equated foresty use forestry use to an agricultural use do you agree with that I agree that the definition of forest re use is similar only in the context that it has to be done on site and it's defined as the planting cultivating and harvesting of trees for the production of wood products including firewood and or for Forest Health on the property that's not being done here okay one other comment I asked him to address was the issue of storage versus parking and he equated he I think his words were they're synonymous but I said well one can be a principal use and at the same time be an accessory use so parking could be a principal use parking could be an accessory use would you equate storage and parking as being equal No in fact you the town defines it what a truck terminal is and it says a truck terminal is defined and again 2 44-6 location at which the primary purpose or use is parking and or servicing of trucks Andor servicing of trucks which trucks transport Goods or materials not not produced received for sale warehoused or used in manufacturing at that location in my opinion this is a truck terminal okay I just have two two further questions one is on the enhanced quality of proof I believe Mr tyina had indicated that essentially and I'm I'm paraphrasing his his testimony and if he's coming back again I guess he can address it um my notes indicate that his words were that it was an oversight by the by the governing body because of the evolution of these various uses and that the governing body does not understand the Nuance uses in in rural areas can you comment on his on his response sure one truck terminals are not an oversight they're permitted someplace else two in the summer of this year the pl the governing body made a determination about what should or should not happen in residential zones when they amended the master plan and they said when they amended the master plan that an objective is to provide for limited nonresidential development in residential zones while protecting the existing character of the neighborhood they didn't ignore it they focused on it they said don't disturb the residential character of residential zones hard for me to say they ignored it I guess my last comment or question is going to be this this board in 2017 granted a use variance so this this applicant is allowed to continue the use as aov approved back in 2017 but limited obviously to non-maintenance obviously to storage indoors things of that nature um how different is is there a difference in your mind between what's being sought here and what was previously approved obviously the obvious differences are maintenance uh additional building but I'm I'm I'm having some difficulty with the additional building con concept because there's a chicken Coupe there that can be used we're supposed to be used for storage um so all they're doing is replacing that building with storage what's the difference here I would profer it one that this is a bit bigger than a chicken coop I'm sorry I would profer that this is a bit bigger than a chicken co uh for what's being proposed but more importantly when they discussed this they talked about but 15 Vehicles if the vehicles were to be stored inside and there was no maintenance I think you're right but the vehicles are not intended to be stored inside and they intend to have maintenance and they intend to have 55 gallon drums to maintain it and they intend to put in a wash system so all those things are far in way what was approved in 2017 okay thank you thank you any additional questions for this witness thank you my my calling uh Mr Jemma as a witness uh he is my last witness and that in fact concludes the obor's case okay Shone do you have an application might I ask one question please what time does this board intend to conclude this meeting we we normally take testimony until 10:30 but obviously they're are members of the public they've sat here graciously we will let them speak uh but I guess we'll let Mr Leone uh he indicated earlier he had some additional information he wanted to provide I I think we can honor the board's requests to complete our application by 10:30 whether you deliberate at that point afterward orer that's up to you I we're still going to open to the public pardon we're still going to open to the public yeah okay so my question to you Mr Leon is do you have an application for for the board I have two rebuttal Witnesses I'd like to put may I make one comment uh and I appreciate the board's attention to this particular case but I have an hour and a half drive home so I would just like you to consider that thank you okay can I go forward is there another public objector here I don't know what's that is there someone else from the public that wants this speak yes did you want to speak on the an objection are we going to hear the you you first hold on that that's the application I'm looking for are you looking to bring your rebuttal Witnesses up yes all right which Witnesses do you want to present first I'm sorry Mr Murphy which witness did you want to present first I have a noise expert I would like to put up and I have the planner to rebut some of this testimony I will ask the question again which witness did you want to bring up first noise expert if there's no objection proceed Mr dowy thank you raising your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments that you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you very much if you would please state your name spell your L provide your affiliation and your credentials please I'm Norman Dy D TTI I'm with Russell Acoustics in forkid River I'm a Consulting acoustical engineer m madame cheer lady I would like to voice my objection uh to the call I'm sorry I'd like to establish his credentials on the record before we address your objection okay thank you I am a graduate from Stevens Institute of Technology my my mechanical engineering degree I have a master's from NJIT I have a dozen postgraduate courses in Acoustics I'm an appointed member to the state noise control Council by the governor uh we that body writes the noise regulations and other related things for the state d uh I have testified at local boards such as this uh Municipal Court state court and federal court in New Jersey throughout New Jersey Mr an expert I'm sorry forgive me this board accepts your credentials sir thank you thank you Mr gazowy will hear your objection now yes uh let me just First State for the record that I do know Mr Dy uh I have appeared before with him on several occasions I do not for one second uh question his qualifications I don't question his good intentions uh but the applicant has concluded his case uh the objector stated that she is not alleging that the applicant is in fact violating any noise ordinance uh uh if in fact he intended to call Mr doy at any point in time it should have been when he was presenting his case he's being called as a rebuttal witness a rebuttal to what Mr Leon I rebuttal to two facts one there's been an allegation that there's a noise violation existing and there's no such violation and Mr Dy can testify as to what is required to be in violation of the no noise ordinances and second not withstanding um the testimony of Mrs black she testified she was near the property line as to the noise she heard and there is a fact there is a uh um regulation that deals with where measure uh noise number one and she testified that she didn't have any kind of a uh equipment to do that so I think it's important for us to be able to rebut the testimony as to or or disregard any testimony as to noise Mr Leone wasn't the testimony of the the witness in a lay capacity as to what she can and cannot hear that was me the board's attorney sorry Mr Murphy I didn't s un hear with the question that I I didn't hear the question question the question that I had for Mr Leone was isn't the testimony of the witness in a lay capacity as to what she can and cannot hear from the premise from from her her her own premises I didn't hear any expert testimony I just I heard testimony as to what way witness could and could not hear so I I I would move that all of her testimony regarding noise be disregarded on what basis on the basis that she's not an expert she measured it at the wrong location and she alleges there's a violation and there's no violation she never testified that she ever measured anything she said very clearly she did not use a device so Mr Leon's comment that she measured it it's just not not in the record secondly uh I made my position known that it's my position that when you're measuring noise from an adjoining property you measure it at the property line she did not testify she listened to it at the property line she did not testify she measured at the property line this was an observation on her part which might quite frankly a more appropriate response could come from the planner but not from Mr Dy who is in fact a highly respected noise expert and noise consultant Mr Leone would you agree that you actually raised noise during your direct examination of the uh applicant herself I did not because of several factors that I appreciate the board uh considering and that was this application is has been heard over a year period of time the November uh schedule date Mr Dy was not available I did not ask for an adjournment we we sought to move forward to complete the application as much as we could and unless there was testimony tonight about noise I didn't intend to bring Mr Dy in Mr Leone respectfully I I do in fact specifically recall testimony by the applicant uh herself um as to the noises that uh she heard from she can hear from her property is isn't that accurate the my witness Mrs deral testified as to what the ordinances would be were both state and Municipal and that she would comply with them but she also testified as to my recom not as an expert I am not in possession of the transcript however I I agree with you she did not testify as an expert right however she did testify as to the noise that she could hear from her property specifically as it relates to uh as I recall it uh The Joint Base and the truck traffic she testifies that yeah absolutely but she also testified that in her opinion she did not violate any noise ordinances I don't think there's any allegation that there was that there are noise ordinance violations from what my my recollection of the test and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and and Mr gazar I'm going to straight I'm gon to ask you straight at any point Have You alleged that there's a noise violation in relation to this property we have not made an allegation of there being a noise violation we have not retained uh a noise consultant to take measurements and make a complaint you know and I was here when Mr doy I believe might have been pres at one prior time Mr Leon for whatever the reason may be chose not to call him as his witness and he's claiming now that he's calling him as a rebuttal witness a rebuttal to what uh Mrs my client was very very clear what as to what she heard uh the W would take that into consideration as to whether or not that particular activity activity uh doesn't satisfy the criteria ior for the granting of a used variant I mean calling Mr Dy at this point uh a rebuttal to what rebuttal to a humming sign Mr Leone had M Mr gazari this question is for you Mr Leon has alleged that there has been an allegation made by the objector uh that there was a noise viol violation or a noise violation that is currently pending in relation to the property I do I personally do not recall hearing that testimony I don't I I specifically and I quite frankly I didn't coach my wi she said very specifically she was not alleging that there was a noise violation she just said she heard noise okay may I comment on that please yes Mr Lam please do my recollection is her testimony was she made a complaint to the zoning department of noise and that she she did that a year ago or so no followup other than there was a noise violation there was a violation issue there is a it is a wellestablished fact Mr Leone that there is a notice of violation that is currently pending in relation to this property the testimony as I recall it was that the notice of violation has not yet been dealt with because of the pending application I don't recall noise being mentioned at all in relation to that notice of violation I don't um and quite frankly again from my perspective and Mr doy I appreciate you being here and this is certainly not a reflection on you i' I've never had the pleasure of listening to you testify but I have read transcripts where you have testified and and certainly I agree with Mr gazari and Mr Leone that you are well qualified to testify on it as an expert in noise but I don't believe that a rebuttal witness as to the observations of a lay witness in terms of what she can and cannot hear from her property require the expert rebuttal uh from Mr doy I I don't see a basis under the appical standard to to allow that you had brought noise into this application during your case in Chief Mr Leone you had the opportunity to call this expert witness as part of your case in Chief if you thought that noise was going to be an issue Mr gazari has not called an expert witness to establish anything related to noise there's been no no allegation uh no indication no testimony no evidence submitted that indicates that uh that the objector has measured noise um all the all all the applicant has testified to uh I'm sorry strike that all the objector has testified to from my perspective uh and from the testimony that I I have sat through uh is her observations as to the noise that she can hear from the property I don't believe that expert rebuttal is is warranted I don't I there's nothing to I I concur with Mr gazari as far as I can tell there's nothing to rebut accept your ruling I I will only say again that I believe her testimony was she made a complaint to the zoning officer about the noise levels and again and I resp I respect I respect your recollection uh Mr Leone but I I I I also respectfully disagree okay um I don't think that was a testimony I don't believe there's any testimony that there is a noise violation pending um I don't believe that there's any uh allegation that a noise VI violation has been issued in relation to the property um and I I don't think that noise is a is a an issue that that at this point requires rebuttal testimony especially given the fact that you had opened the door to this testimony during your case in Chief and I understand that Mr doy was not not available at the last hearing um however I did provide you with an opportunity and I asked you at the beginning of the hearing are you are you are you finished uh I also it was indicated at the beginning of this hearing uh prior to Mr gazari beginning his case in Chief that there was a noise expert available um you chose to again and and and certainly I I it's not my job to make request for you um but I certainly left the door open for you to make that request so that I could weigh it at the time but you indicated that you would use him as a rebuttal witness if necessary I had indicated at that time that I didn't you know necessarily think that the rebuttal witness would be required and again after listening to the obor's testimony uh in my opinion no expert rebuttal is required uh nor should it be considered by the board in relation to noise like I leave it to the board weighing of her testimony how however I I was under the impression that we closed my direct examination at the last hearing and that only what was re available was the public comment and the objectives comments you no doubt said to me asked me tonight whether I was finished I didn't think I had the opportunity I'm sorry if I misunderstood you to say you got the opportunity to to put on your um noise expert okay I understand uh you know and again I you know given given the nature of the testimony of the objector um I simply don't feel that you again the objector has not offered any noise testimony any expert testimony as to noises is how I should rephrase that um and I I quite frankly I don't I don't feel that um that the uh for Testimony is required or should be admitted at this point okay thank M you Mr Mr Leone to be fair here I was concerned quite frankly that you didn't have a noise expert and you were given a number of opportunities to bring a noise expert before this uh board I think at the last meeting that we had in November maybe it was December it must have been November um you were asked if you wanted more time and you said no you were finished you weren't bringing any more witnesses and I was surprised again that there was no expert witness I'm also surprised that the objector didn't bring in an expert witness so I don't know why you would have a rebuttal witness to an expert to ad to AB but two lay Witnesses your client testified simply to the state Act and the and the municipal ordinance and all she said basically was we intend to comply that was it that's the extent of her testimony as far as the obor is concerned we had you have another lay witness who testify that this is what I hear no decibel levels nothing of that nature not alleging there's a violation for you to bring in the witness at this point you've had every opportunity this board has given you every opportunity I think this is four hearings that we had on this matter and to be fair we gave you every opportunity now to bring in a rebuttal witness to rebut against lay an expert to rebut lay witnesses to me doesn't make any sense I understand the problem I mean you're asking us essentially to reopen your case accept your U opinion Mr Earley I will only say that Mr Dy was available for the four other hearings that we could not reach them because of either testimony adjournments for various other reasons and the applicant was ready to present him if it had the opportunity the one time that it had the opportunity he was not available he had we we gave you every opportunity trust me the chair lady here was was explicit in asking whether or not you had any other Witnesses you he could have been available for some of the other three times once he couldn't make it I understand whatever that was but it was always available and you just didn't seem to want to present an expert witness as far as noise I have no criticism of the board the board's been very fair my fault okay Mr Dy thank you for your time thank you you happy holidays to all I finally got to have a witness that's from Stevens It's My alato and I'm not going to hear him you know Madam Sher it's 10:25 I mean we're not going to finish this case today I for well first of first of all uh I believe Mr respectfully I believe Mr Leone does have um another uh rebuttal witness that he wishes to call um and I will recommend to the chair that we continue with this application despite the hour um as we are very close to the finish line and it has been numerous numerous hearings on this uh particular application um and I think that uh that both the applicant and the objector have earned the right to finish this application this evening thank you Mr Leon please call your other rebut a witness yes thank you ma'am Adam Mr teina yeah you can you sworn in again I'm swarm already sworn I uh uh this it is the um practice of this board to re swear Witnesses do you solemly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do n uh please state your name uh your um your affiliation and your uh uh credentials please my name is John tyina I'm the managing member of all things planning and development in South brunck New Jersey I am still a licensed professional planner since the completion of my studies at Ruckers University in 1992 and I've had the pleasure of appearing before more than 125 boards around the state of New Jersey forgive me for interrupting this board accepts your credentials thank you madam chair uh Mr teina you heard the testimony of Mr Gemma and would you please address the the his testimony in particular and your exception to some of the things he's testified to certainly um do I have the ability do we have the ability to show his what he put what he entered into evidence is that not do I just have to refer to it it's never requested that those items be marked um but for the purposes of the record um I think they should be um I'm going to I technically I suppose that the board could take judicial notice of these because they are part of our own um master plan but I am going to Mark uh lu2 uh the first map produced by Mr Gemma as 07 um and and the second map uh CB uh as um 08 uh just for the purposes of the record Madam cherle I'm going to object to any attempt by Mr Leone to introduce copies of any Maps uh photographs area photographs and the like you had ample opportunity to do that these these these these Maps were introduced by your planner I'm marking them as your exhibits because you did not and for the purpos of the record I'm going to mark them and I marked lu2 as 07 which is objectors 7 and I marked CB as a 08 which is objectors 8 these are your exhibits not Mr Leone's exhibits I can go great so um I would like to point out a few things and and the exhibits are um they are what they are so on 07 which is the uh uh lu2 uh map that uh Mr Gemma referred to uh the thing I would like to point out he was asked uh where is the uh is the Joint Base and I would point out that if you look at 07 uh they Circle the vicinity of our property uh in red and actually the the lower leftand side of his red circle is the Joint Base so that large green area that encompasses the uh southwest corner of the township um that is all The Joint Base so while it is shown in green um it is in fact the largest military installation in the state of New Jersey um so very you know critically important um so you know we talked about you know many of the questions were back and forth about um whether you are agriculture or or whether you were forestry Etc and I remain um with my testimony that this is most similar to an agricultural use and I would also reiterate my testimony that my experience in 30 years of land use in New Jersey uh is that um much of the Agricultural uses uh as well as the forestry uses are carried out at properties where the equipment isn't based and the it is they may have a one farm and then they Farm 10 surrounding Farms or they have uh one forestry facility and they Farm many surrounding forestry facilities and that is certainly my experience um in New Jersey it's certainly my experience in central New Jersey um that that is the case and that it would be entirely appropriate and that this property be suitable um for the base of of Forestry as a an adjunct to their facility in Tom's river which Mr ruvel very clearly testified is going to remain an operation uh it is not a relocation to this to this area um this is a an adjunct to what they have going on there and as we testified many many times we are merely looking to provide for the additional storage building and to recognize that uh there would be parking and storage of some equipment outside now Mr Gemma talked about um the fact that there aren't stripes for the for parking spaces on the proposed uh ground cover material whether it be concrete or gravel and the applicant is certainly happy to place uh parking spaces or storage spaces PES or whatever they um whatever that instance may be uh for the 15 pieces of equipment uh that may be in those locations that is certainly a reasonable uh condition um the uh he also talked when he talked about I want to really go back into his order um he then went into the discussion of uh what we would call the special reasons or the purposes of zoning and um you know obviously we have you know G for you know providing appropriate locations uh for different uses um and an i for providing desirable visual environment and again those um desirable visual environment in of itself could be a single reason um and we are certainly proposing to have more equipment that would be inside we're proposing a fence we're proposing substantial land keeping and could certainly uh enhance that in any way uh that would be appropriate for the board um uh it's disappointing that the uh neighbors couldn't talk um I've been lamenting it the entire time that that all of this time and money and effort could have been much better spent uh with some judicious Landscaping between the two properties than on attorneys and planners and and noise experts um but that is the uh the situation we're in and then the final one and I think this is critically important was he talks about you know the coordination of public and private procedures uh and the efficient use of land and and what that really relates to is that it recognizes that New Jersey is a multi-level um type of government and we have a state government we have um quasa judicial uh State organizations such as the Pinel lands um then we have County government and we have local government and each has a role in the uh land use regul regulatory process and what that is really saying is that each of those individual processes should defer to um the actual entity that has jurisdiction so for example uh you know we all a knowledge that Tom's River Road is a County Road and any access there on is going to be regulated by the county and and the engineer the town engineer and the town plan they recognize that and and come you know very specific in their um in their recommendations as it relates to the road likewise as it relates to the Pine lands and your your ordinance is very very specific in that the pine lands regulations need to be satisfied so when when we talk about the uh improvements that are proposed for the property in terms of its storm water and it's uh it's washing it's it's washwater management Etc all of those um proposed improvements would be proposed to the highest standard of the Pinel lands and and have to meet their storm water management and environmental requirements this is this testimony that should have been brought in as a part of the applicant's original case how is this rebuttal it's not this is absolutely I I disagree continue thank you um so again when you look at that specific purpose of zoning you know it is it is critically important we we understand we acknowledge we're in the pin lands but again that we're meeting those High those very high environmental standards that specifically relate to uh water quality uh we think that that's critically important um then in terms of uh in terms of particular suitability and um I'm I'm not going to uh you know do the um unfortunately I I can't relate I can't recite all of uh judge Harley's uh cases from from middle six county is uh as Gordon can I I unfortunately did not pass the bar um but uh it is important to note that that in some in some of in some of those case law um that the fact that um even though and it's it's the safia case which refers to that I think that was three meetings ago when we talked about is this an expansion or a non-conforming use or a or a new D1 variance and we all agree that under the Sal sadala case excuse me let me get it right um that it's a new D1 Vari Varian but critically important that um that that case also recognized that the presence of the existing use the existing facility is there is a is something for the board to consider when it considers uh the uh both the particular suitability and uh and the negative criteria so um it is that is also important um the fact that it is there um already and was granted by the board is relevant and and I understand and um and it is frustrating for um for the lay public and uh you know I laugh because I um all of my cases I prepp you for my wife and if I can't convince my wife I know I'm gon to have a hard time that night and um and things frustrat her and but I will say to her no some of this is just due process that if you have that if you have an application and you have something that whether it be a violation and interesting the notice of violation was issued in 2023 a full year after this application was filed so it was almost moot immediately upon filing immediately upon issuance but again the applicant recognized hey we need to do something different here and and come more into compliance with the board's approval is and they brought an application forward that they believe is an improvement on the existing situation and and they're entitled to that and we understand and sometimes that's frustrating for for the L public and we understand that but that is a critical part of the process um and uh and then finally I would I would just I understand that um you read a definition the definition of truck terminals there and and you know I think we all agree this isn't a truck terminal um if I if I came to if I came before this board and presented this information and and asked you to make a determination that it was a truck terminal I think that um I think that that that is would not be the interpretation that this that this board would make but um I recognize uh the words of the definition um you know and and and then as it related to the definitions the um some of the final things there are uh you know would there be an opportunity could they grow something there sure they could could they grow trees there sure they could you know but again I think they're being realistic in terms of of of what they are and what they're doing um prior approval focused a lot on the residences um not really you know and then and then on the um and then on the storage use um you know maybe not enough on the storage use frankly uh when you look at it back in hindsight but we came forward this time with an approval with a request for what we think is is a reasonable uh a reasonable use of the property um in terms of its uh reducing impacts on the neighbors you know could there be opportunities to turn the building and have it you know have it Shield more of the neighbor property likely I mean all of those things are uh are individual things that frankly would have worked out very well if there was a meeting between the property owners um but unfor fortun unfortunately we're here tonight so um I think that uh you know I recognized Mr gemma's uh Point um his point on the master plan specifically on the 2023 uh revision to the master plan um it's it's ironic he's he's citing is saying well we're going to have limited non-residential is specifically what that Amendment you know was for but saying well it wouldn't apply here and um you know we acknowledge that uh you know it might it probably was about something completely different from this um but you know to say that this isn't you know this isn't on point with that I don't think is true and then the last thing and and uh you know this board knows very very well a conditional use that meets its conditions is a permitted use and you only see the conditional uses that don't meet the conditions but um an extractive industry such as Clayton Which is less than a mile from this property um is a conditional use in this Zone and as long as it has its state permits under njsa 79 I think it is um it's a permitted conditional use um so again to say that the zone is purely single family residential is just not true um it has different aspects of commercial uh that are related to agricultural it has a and it has Agricultural and then it has extractive so all of those things are true and um I'm available for your questions mrina I have one question want to stay up I'm sorry okay okay you've been to the property several times is that correct yes and you've been to the area s times is that correct yes are there any single family developments within the rd1 zone that you observed single family developments no they are predominantly um property that are single homes on single properties um that appear to have developed over time I would consider a development to be something that's built together you know even five six S 8 10 homes uh that would be developed you know frankly what Mrs black was discussing you know up on Ridge might have been you know considered a development um because it would have been built contemporaneously Etc but the predominant use in the area are are individual homes of different um vintage of different size of different style um but it's it's not it's certainly not a single family residential area as I called it the the pristine R1 type uh that's not that not that type of area in terms of negative criteria The Zone permits Zing single family homes on either 3.2 lot uh acre lots or one acre lots depending upon the storage is the is some future use of the property a negative impact on that property because it can be done in the zone no I I don't believe it is I I think that any future use of any of the surrounding properties would consider uh what is here and and again I think with a with a property either um you know existing as it is or uh hopefully with the new approval with the new indoor storage Etc and and the environmental improvements that'll be there the Landscaping Etc I think that I certainly believe that we would have no no substantial negative impact on the area so what are the uses in the zone is schools is that right yes so a school could go next door yes go on this property yes can the residential um aspect of a school be permitted as well I in conjunction with it as an accessory to a school um is there anything that prohibits that I'm frankly frankly Steve I don't know I never read it that way I read schools I didn't read schools with a with a head Mass I that that's a little too I read this public I read this you can you can do a school all right you've answered the question thank you I have no further questions Mr garosi yeah I hope to be brief uh I I've listened to your testimony and you've identified that most of the uh uses in the area are single family residential homes that there are not subdivision things of that nature correct that is what I said yes would you describe the area as rural in nature it it is um it is rural in terms of its density I was very clear in my testimony um specifically as it related to Tom r Road and as it related to the Pres to the base across the street um it is not um a uh bucolic idelic reserved um you know country Retreat well it's certainly not bucolic once your client got there is that not so I disagree entirely oh you think you I mean do you see the exhibits screen attorney and hopefully you looked at it also would you look at all of these photographs of the trailers the trucks the lock you think that's bucolic in nature no I think it's agricultural in nature and you want you think it's agricultural in nature you want you think you want more of this more of this bucolic uh so to say development correct all of these logs and trailers and tractors and the like I think that a use that is consistent with what our we have proposed with the two indoor storage uses with the limited outdoor uses in the two concrete areas um that that would be an appropriate use of thect I think I think you referred to saying this is a agricultural commercial use in nature did you not it's an agricultural use yes are you familiar with the zoning ordinances in in Jackson yes I want to refer to uh section 244 D 87 A and B I'm sorry could you repe I'll 244 87 capital A and capital B uh 244 87b says the following accessory uses shall be permitted one agricultural commercial establishment is that what you think this is no it goes on to say provided that the products sold were grown by the owner on the premises are any products being grown on these premises that are being sold to the public or to anyone no now there was some testimony in reference to uh an adjacent parcel upon which uh the applicant was in some fashion utilizing it as a part of his site are you familiar with that yes okay now do you know whether or not that lot in Block was included in this application Mr gazari what's this got to do with the rebuttal of what Mr Gemma testified I'm sorry I forgot already what the question was what do this have to do with Mr Tea's rebuttal of Mr gemma's testimony yeah thank you he offering testimony supposedly in rebuttal to Mr Jim's testimony exactly and when he began I objected to his testimony because he was not in fact rebutting Mr Gemma but he was giving new testimony Mr gazari I'm going to disagree because Mr Murphy said it was indeed rebuttal he re he was rebutting what Mr Gemma or he was giving his opinion of Mr gemma's testimony an opinion he was giving his opinion his rebuttal his professional opinion of Mr well you know you may very all be right but that's not the way I was hearing it having said that and I think he acknowledges do you not that in fact the applicant is utilizing a an adjacent lot which was not a part of his application as objection objection excuse me one second there's there's no Foundation that the applicant is using and adjoining property in violation of any zoning ordinance or as part of this application I thought this witness acknowledged that that was going on and I think Mrs no no what witness Mrs black testified as to that Madam chair lady I really as through our attorney it just seems like they're going beyond the testimony of Mr Gemma um we have people from the public who want to be heard yeah I I would agree I'm gonna cut you off Mr garosi it's getting late and I have no further questions right does the board have any uh I'm sorry strike that does U Mr Leone have any redirect no I have no further questions of this wi does the board have any questions for this witness thank you you have been very patient and I thank you no problem um if you would please raise your right hand be swarm do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments that you uh are about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes uh if you would please state your name spell your last and provide your uh sorry the hour's late provide your address please felici Chef Finn my last name is spelled f i NN my first name is spelled f e l i c i a my address is 1760 Patterson with 1T Avenue Whiting New Jersey thank you thank you so I would just like to say that I am a licensed real estate agent for 20 years and the last 10 I've been a licensed real estate broker and uh um I've sold many many homes in Jackson Ocean County I've been involved in um new construction sites I've sold commercial properties and Industrial properties and it is my professional opinion that the industrial operation next to the black's home will most definitely hurt the black's property value whether the property remains is objection this is my opinion I'm allowed to you're not an expert in terms of appraisals of Val of values you're a real estate broker that does not make you an expert as to Value I object to testimony as it relates to Value she's she's facing her opinion based upon numerous transactions uh that she's conducted in the area it's an opinion as a real estate agent broker sales person she's not offering any appraisals she's she's offering value testimony well she could well I can say that if you I sell an Ocean County and in Jackson very often she I thought she was testifying as a from the public not as an expert witness from the public she's testifying as a member of the public not as an expert witness testimony testimony can be weighed accordingly overruled so it is my opinion that the property value whether it remains as it is 30 acre lot or if it is in a subdivision that any of the operation if it continues the way it is will hurt their value in addition Builders don't want to purchase land for building um homes and in Jackson homes are ranging new construction homes could be anywhere from $600 to $800,000 homes on acre lots um that would this would turn Builders away and um as if it was just the black's home sold as it is right now single family buyers will also be turned off by the operation next door I have visited the property so I've been on that um driveway it is definitely something that a buyer would walk away from and that's my opinion thank you thank you one moment please have the blacks listed their property with you for sale thank you thank you Miss Finn have you been paid to come here tonight no sir I have not been paid thank you for raising your right hand do you solemnly swear affirm that the testimony information questions or comments you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do please state your name spell your last and provide your address Robert Connor c o n n o r 1411 Tom Road Jackson thank you I live next to the property the second property that the applicant bought now I know you have your 200 foot roll so my property is basically 200 foot from where they want to put it the new building but since they bought the property next door they've been using that driveway for Ingress and egress into the business they're actually driving on my property to get in and out because they don't know where the property line right that's one thing I've been to The Zing board Jeff's not here to defend himself tonight but so we won't get into that but he told me he couldn't do anything um everything that's going on over there has nothing to do with the variance they got in the beginning of 2017 they're doing what they please and since they got the violation and since this is a litigation this is going on they're brly doing more and more of it that's a slap in the face to you to this board it just goes on and on it's got to stop me me and Jeff are going to straighten out our differences some some somewhere along the line but but Mr Leon I guess it should have been your your job to notify me when this went through so if they're driving on my property I should have been notified that this was going at all right I'm sorry I can't hear you Le the question posed by Mr Leone was are you in 200 feet of the current uh property yeah I I think Mr OK Conor is it or Connor is referring to the adjoining property which is uh lot 32 right which your client is using for Ingress and egress into his business that's not true yes yes it is I have photos and I gave them to you may have a photo of my client going on his property he has no business gentl two gentl not connected I have a very simple question is lot 32 part of this application no thank you I mean I asked his Zing if he got to the subdivision nothing they didn't consolidate the properties we were here on the September 20th the young man to put the uh ATV track in his backyard he was told he had to consolidate that lot and this house why is this different you know something very fishy going on that's the way I see it but this has to stop yeah I just know own that right owns that who owns lot Mr Leone the applicant uh the uh the rals own that lot rent it out res to a tenant on that property but they do not use that lot for any activity on their property it's lot 31 under sized in the zone is lot 31 undersized in the zone no it's a conforming lot each application is taken on its own Merit okay uh there's a very specific reason that the application that you were referencing which is not part of this application um acquired that particular condition okay again not part of this application um but but here uh because of the size of the Lots the doctrine of merger uh would not apply in my in my opinion off the cuff um and so uh there's really no requirement that those lots be merged um it's two separate Lots though correct you have a rental in the front but that the my point is under the municipal land use law notice must be sent to properties within 200 feet of the of the property which is the subject of the application no improvements as far as I can tell and and no testimony has been uh proferred uh to to uh tell the board that any improvements are being proposed as to lot 32 in respect to this application uh given that that's the case case the 200 foot notices under the municipal Landy law uh would would be in relation to lot 31 um so that I don't know if your property is within 200 feet of of lot 31 well my problem is if he's going to use lot 32 use the driveway from there and come up to there access 31 if I may look we're we're talking in circles here the bottom line is this that lot is not part of this application there's been there's been no testimony on it if you feel somebody is trespassing across your property call an attorney that's not the zoning officers that's not the zoning officer's job right if you feel that that lot is being accessed and used by a commercial business that is a Code Enforcement issue that's not Jeff that's code enforcement so you're speaking with the wrong people either talk to an attorney if you think somebody's trespassing on over your property right simple or talk to code enforcement if you think it's being used for commercial purposes without approvals but it's not part of this application so this is not the this is not the jurisdiction to for your complaint no well I've done that went to code enforcement any was there and he turned it over to Jeff see that's the problem it's not part of this application that's the issue thank you Mr Conor anyone else good evening good evening if you would please raise your right hand do you solemnly swear affirm that the testimony information questions or comments you're about to present before the board or represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do if you would please state your name spell your last and provide your address Daniel J black 1461 Toms River Road Jackson New Jersey you are the objector yes you're represented by Council I'm I'm Vicki's husband yes I'm represented by Mr gazari Mr you were not called as a witness during Mr gazar I can I uh speak into public I didn't know if I can technically no you're represented by Council okay all right no problem sorry about that oh okay thanks thanks I do uh my closing statement is as follows I'm tempted to say that this is just simply an outrageous application it's outrageous because back in 2017 the applicant paid before the board and sought what would be a a relatively uh quiet application and there were specific restrictions which replaced on the approval uh right from the GetGo the applicant uh abused all of those restrictions pay no attention to them and ran his business the way he wished to and contrary to uh the the resolution of approval of 2017 he was served with numerous violations which are still ongoing but the most important part of all is that his presence is going to stifle the further rural development of this property when you look at the series of photographs that were produced by my client how can you look in good faith at those photographs and say it's bad enough that we have this existing condition do we now want to double it by allowing this applicant in this particular application going for a use variance to double the intensity of the use I would respectfully submit to you what you're going to do is you're going to permit uh the destruction of one of the quiet areas rural areas of Jackson now when I first began my practice I was very familiar with Jackson I think that particular time was one attorney in the town and is course now grown and it's grown because of the perseverance of the governing body to establish zones that prohibit and restrict the overe exploitation of the land that is what this is this is the exploitation of a rural piece of land very selfishly for a business person thank you thank you Mr Gaz rowski Mr Leone yes uh first of all I want to thank the board and the Professionals for over a year uh giving us the opportunity to present this application I think the questions have been very uh insightful probative I believe the the witnesses have addressed all those questions I think that um the application had been filed here over a year ago and because of either time the board's reorganization other reasons it has taken a long time to get to this point but the objective of the application is to comply with whatever this board approves and reduce the uh activities that are objectionable on there to the extent that we tried to meet with the blacks to see what else we could do to accommodate them we were declined we've tried to provide the applicant has tried to provide privacy fencing restricted areas where they can uh put their equipment there's never been a question about the type of equipment that would be on this property it was a question of whether it could go inside of a building or had to be outside they didn't properly address that at the time they're trying to cure that um condition at this time so I think Mr tenina has provided special reasons to Grant the variance uh it is a D1 variance we understand that his only comment about an existing use of the property has to do with the negative criteria that's not going to deteriorate that property there's a lot of speculation as to what can go on on adjoining properties but the fact of the matter is it's speculation it could be a school it could be uh um other kinds of commercial uses it could be other kinds of residential uses so I want to thank the board for its consideration I ask that you allow this uh applicant to continue its use of the property uh it will respect and comply whatever conditions are on the property and um it'll be a rable a continue uh rateable for the for the commercial use of this property and I know this town wants to have ratables commercial uses in addition to single family not in not as an exclusion to other uses so I thank the board again wish a happy holiday ask for your approval for the chair I would just like to remind the board that there's two components to this application that that you're delibera ating on first and foremost is a use variance a D1 variance for the for for this for what for the use that they are currently proposing as part of this application if you were to vote favorably on that use VAR there's a second component that's the that's they're they're seeking both preliminary and final site plan approval that's the design details that's the design layout that's is there enough Landscaping is this is the parking in the correct area and so on all right like any site plan application there's two components to a site plan there's preliminary and there's final if you feel that there's sufficient information if you were to approve the use variants and and find that there's sufficient information uh presented for both preliminary and final you can vote on both of those together as one if you feel that there's insufficient information for final site plan or that you want to see additional details and additional changes to the those plans you can just grant preliminary but please start with the use variance vote first and if that were to be approved then you can deliberate and even ask me questions on on the site plan component Le only just for the purposes of the record I'm going to clarify on once more and we've addressed it at the beginning of the hearing the board only has six members you are you have chosen to go forward is that correct that's correct Mr Murphy thank you madam chair I'll jump in it's late I've got some preliminary observations I'd like to make right away on a record uh I've been out to the property twice I've driven around the back of it I went down wcome Road and every which way I go I see Residential Properties everywhere although the word bucolic has been used to describe this as not not a bucolic area I don't necessarily agree with that description simply because there's a county road that runs through it I'm very impressed by the by the nature of the neighborhood and the character of that neighborhood and that it is very residential and it is very quiet uh that's number one uh number two uh there was some uh some commentary that was made in regards to what the uh what the objector could hear and although there I think the ruling was correct and not allowing a noise expert uh what the objector could hear and what was testified to I think goes to the goes to the U goes to the nature of what's happening on that property uh and it's a continuing type of business nature uh on the issues of Forestry and agriculture I'm not buying that for a minute uh this is this is this is not a forestry operation it's not an agricultural operation uh I believe the the the semantics that we used to try to to try to bootstrap this into some type of a of a of a reasoning to to have us believe this is agriculture or forestry is U is an error I think Mr Gemma uh adequately addressed that I think clearly it for it to be def forestry or for it to be agriculture it's got to be something that's grown and developed on that property and it is not next as to the U the concept of does it promote the general welfare that's a critical issue that we always have to deal with when we're dealing with used variances uh I do not believe these special reasons were were adequately expressed upon a record this this I do not believe that this site is particularly suited for what they want to do on this property I believe that what Mr Gemma had talked about in terms of the amended master plan we should not disturb the residential character of this area and by allowing this type of business to operate on this type of property with those type of machines the type of the type of uh of of noise that they generate uh the lack of testimony in terms of how you would deal with the spill off the hydraulic fluids and everything else that would generate from that type of work is has not been nearly presented clearly enough for me to even consider this as a as a reasonable argument to allow a use variance um I've I've been out there I've seen these these vehicles and these trucks they're too big they're too loud there's too many of them there's and they're there too frequently and uh those are my observations and I think it gives you an idea as to where I fall in the application those are my observations Madam chair lady I wholeheartedly agree with most of what um Mr book just uh spoused one problem that I have here is that this applicant is allowed to use that property for storage um that's already been decided in 2017 uh what what they're here for now is kind of an expansion of the use and I'm not talking about an expansion of a non-conforming use I'm talking about an expansion of the operation Itself by adding an additional building putting a bathroom and another I couldn't care less about the bathroom obviously it's required under OSHA from what I've what I've heard testimony of um so what we're looking at here is a D1 variance that's been seeded to by Mr tyina um by by Mr Leone that this is just a it's a D1 variance I had indicated and I still believe that when we're looking at a D1 variance uh to satisfy Mr gazi's arguments although I'm I'm not supporting his argument I'm simply addressing it that we do have to look at we have an the board has an obligation to look at the overall operation and the impact of what's being added to that overall operation um so that that satisfies that that question that was presented whether or not we we should be doing this application a new or just looking at it as an amendment uh we are looking at it as a new we're doing it U absolutely a new because we have to consider what this what the impact is of the the additions to the existing operation so it's a D1 relative to the positive criteria I agree with Mr book I'm not satisfied with Mr ta's testimony relative to the pro the positive criteria uh we have to keep in mind that when you look at the special reasons uh not only do you look at the purposes but you have to look at the particular suitability of this property um when we talk about particular Su suitability we have to look at the general welfare uh the general welfare is served because this use is peculiarly fitted to the particular location that we're talking about all I've heard is that the benefit here is to the applicant I haven't heard benefit to the general welfare I've heard Mr tyan tyina say that the benefit uh being proposed is because we have military in installations nearby whether it's Maguire or whether it's Lake Earth Naval Air Station we have aircraft in the area I agree wholeheartedly that the areas must be must be cleared for safety purposes to approach the runways no question about that that doesn't take an expert to testify about but there's no there's nothing on this property that creates a problem for any aircraft Landing in the area I'm speaking about this this property whether they're working on properties in Pennsylvania to clear a an approach area or in Vermont to clear uh to clear approach area we have to look at the benefit that's acur to Jackson because of the because of this use being proposed on this particular location this particular location as far as I'm concerned is is almost nude uh it just has a pictures that have been provided to us of only equipment on a site whether that violates the 2017 uh res resolution is not for us to decide that's for another agency in the township to decide so as far as the positive criteria I know Mr tyina testified re relied on G uh G being the the uh purpose of zoning to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations his response was and support for it was well we have we have sufficient space we' got six plus acres here um that the Zone allows a a a multiple type variety of uses but he equates the agricultural use to the use that's being proposed here the agricultural use I think it was defined by Mr Gemma from our ordinance which indicates that it's for a process that ongo on the site there's no such agricultural go site uh uh activity going on in this site Mr Tao also compares the agricultural use to a forestry use Mr gemo also testified as to what definition of Forestry uses are there's no forestry use going on here I think what the applicant is asking us to believe as an example and this is my example you know truck trucking is very very important to our existence there's no question about with without truckers we could be we'd have some major economic problems but to equate for example let me take a Budweiser if if a truck comes in to Budweiser in Newark where they're manufacturing beer and they pick up the beer and they go to a retail outfit outlet for for sale the manufacturing took place in Nork the truck went to the retailer that becomes a seller that's a different operation you cannot say that the trucking is part of the manufacturing of the beerer it is not it went from a manufacturing type of aspect to a commercial aspect of transportation and Retail so I discount Mr Ty's examples in in that regard he also States uh purpose eye where promotes a general visual environment and he's relying on the fact that they're going to demolish the chicken Coupe and build another facility okay uh under the 2017 resolution if I'm correct you know the applicant can use that facility for purposes of storage but it's been indicated the new facility is going to be significantly larger maybe not significantly it's going to be larger uh than what is currently existing they could rehab which I think is part of the the resolution 2017 they can rehab the the chicken Coupe for purposes of storage so I'm not accepting uh purpose eye in in that regard and I'll get that a little bit further on he's Al Mr Tao also relied on on paragraph M of the uh purposes and that's to encourage the coordination of various public and private procedures and activity shaping Land Development quite frankly I was confused by that and it it brought up a number of questions in my mind uh he indicated that it was more efficient use of land to use it here rather than use the the operation someplace else that went over my head that one I it just did not make any sense I thought Mr gem response to that was was more accurate and acceptable it's also important to note that as I indicated not only is the applicant required to establish the the special reasons special reasons don't stop with the purposes of zoning I've said this before and I'll say it again the purposes of zoning as they are listed uh in the municipal land use law initially were to Aid the municipalities in designing districts uh for the various types of of uses to to be uh utilized within the township itself it has been decided that these purposes support zoning it's a benefit to to zoning a a a benefit to the municipality but it also requires particular suitability and particular suitability uh as I've indicated before uh goes to the general welfare the general welfare is served because this use that is proposed is particularly fitted to the particular location I haven't heard anything about that quite frankly I'm I'm I'm quite surprised by the testimony that's been presented in that regard the particular suitability presented by the applicant through his planner was basically hey this is a a large site it's six plus acres it already has structures on the on the property so consistent with those those uses are what is proposed here well you know that's like saying because I got a variance before I'm entitled to a variance again well no that's not the way it works Mr tyano also indicated in in his uh particular suitability he indicated it's a wide variety of uses that are permitted he did mention even when he came back uh in rebuttal indicated the extractive services extractive uses that are permitted in the zone well extractive uses are significantly different than what what is being proposed here it's I'll ask the planner to correct me if I'm wrong but extractive services are conditional uses number two they are allowed to expand up to the borders of the property without getting another variance that's not what applies here this is another use that's being added to to this this site so I'm not accepting his testimony relative to the the fact that the wide variety of uses that are permitted uh are a a an element of particular suitability lastly we get to the enhanced quality of proof but that enhanced quality of proof is really directed to the negative criteria so let's talk about the negative criteria is there a substantial detriment to the public good as I said before I was quite concerned that the applicant did not provide any noise testimony that was the first thing in my mind that would come up with all these trucks going back and forth I was also surprised to hear uh the the applicant testify that they were going to turn off these backup signals in these trucks so that none not so as not to disturb the neighbors I hope they notified their insurance company of that because I got to tell you if somebody gets hurt when those those uh noises are are turned off I don't want Jackson Township to be a party to it by saying hey it's okay to do that so we're making clear we're making no comment relative to that issue at all but I was I was surprised that there was no noise expert being presented as I said before Mr Leone was given an opportunity a number of times to provide the expert witness expert noise witness and he waited until he wanted to bring up the witness as a uh rebuttal witness but there was no witness to rebut they were just lay Witnesses saying I heard noise okay nothing there was no traffic expert that really got involved we didn't get any I mean we're talking about consolidating some uses from Tom's River into Jackson and although there's no testimony that they're going to shut down Tom's River but there was testimony they're going to consolidate it to me they're bringing some of those uses from Tom's River to Jackson I mean these are trucks and heavy equipment and there's no traffic expert what's the traffic impact you can't tell me that that's that's that does not create a problem for at least the neighborhood in general regard for purposes of the negative criteria so I don't think he's met I don't think the applicant met its obligation in that regard with regard to the other part of the negative criteria that it doesn't substantially impair the intent and purpose of Zone plan and the master plan Mr gem talked about the master plan Mr TAA talked about the U master plan I've got to tell you my My overall reaction is that this property with the 2017 res Solution that's been granted allowed it to have a commercial use okay but this property now under this application is evolving it is evolving not to a commercial use but to an industrial use we're talking about heavy equipment here we're talking about maintenance to heavy equipment we're talking about a totally different type of use it becomes more industrial than it does anything else the increase the increase in the number of buildings bringing in additional work to be to be maintained on the property to be repaired on the property to be washed on the property to be stored on the property is a a serious increase and that becomes more industrial than it does even commercial even if commercial were permitted in in the zone as far as they enhanced quality of proof which is required to support the negative criteria I forget if it with Mr Mr TA kaanaana or Mr Gemma who indicated that it's supposed to be very difficult to get a D1 use variant it's not supposed to be an easy thing to do and the applicant has a as a significant obligation to prove its specific uh elements and I don't think it did that and when it comes to the enhanced quality of proof Michi gave us examples of that and I I talked about it at one of our previous meetings and I I suggested uh for example the Wawa type of operation where there was a gas station and now they want to expand it to gas a gas station and a a marketplace where they sell coffee and sandwiches and everything else and the question became is that one use or two uses and in fact it ends up being two uses and you need two variances for that if one may have been in expansion of the use to permit the the gas station and the other is a D1 variance to permit the marketplace uh associated with it but then as a result of that case the municipalities saw a new type of use it it evolved so now they allow these gas stations with the marketplace associated with it as a single use that means the towns look at these things all the time this variance was granted in 2017 the master plan was was reviewed I think someone testified in 2019 we don't see any changes here the governing body hasn't reacted to it at all Mr taena says it's just an oversight on on the part of the governing body if he knows about Jackson Township Jackson Township has been involved in litigation over Zoning for the last 10 years and it's governing body has had to look at the various ordinances that that impact the various types of use is involved admittedly you know a lot of the litigation you know is is based on uh equal protection and that is that one use should be treated the same as other uses but that means you look at all of the uses that we allow and how how one is impacts the other you can't tell me that the governing body has not looked into it they had to look into it so i f i find I feel that the the activities that uh were suggested by by the applicants planner that it's just an oversight no I'm not buying that at all we report to the governing body on an annual basis variances that are granted this variance was granted in 2017 and the governing body still has not acted to change the zoning in any way so based on that I I I find that the applicant has not met the positive criteria for the reason stated has not met the negative criteria has not met the uh enhanced quality of proof necessary to support the negative negative criteria so I think the the the my My overall opinion here is that the the proofs are lacking and the application for the uses for the use variants be denied it should be noted that if if if the denial is supported by this board that the applicant still has the right to use the property for storage using building number four uh but not for maintenance not allowed uh and not much there's nothing we can do about that what we are denying is the expansion of this operation as I've indicated to me the expansion goes from what was commercial to something more industrial which is not intended under the master plan or the zoning ordinance and um the applicant is left for what what it's entitled to and to make comment on that thank you I just have a few quick thoughts um kind of separately from what was discussed I think a lot of the objections seem to be more code enforcement issues um while I sympathize with you know the conditions um I don't I I didn't seem to think they really carried so much weight into our decision um however I I well not however but um a couple of other points with the traffic um and noise um I didn't think those were I mean noise was a concern but um not really one with with with regards to like a violation of any ordinance noise ordinance you know not um not really speaking to it being exceeding decibel levels or being at times of day that are you know would would be a challenge um however I I I think one of the arguments that was made by the applicant was um that some of the concerns that were brought up were um were the the this application was attempting to remedy um and I I guess I found that to be a little bit of a stretch though to kind of make that a um a positive criteria in some way I'm not sure if that wasn't specifically the argument but um you know that that's uh like remedying a violation and I can't speak to whether there is or isn't violation but you know if that were um that's you know that that doesn't seem to be uh really a consideration um I think a a challenge of intensifying like almost like what seems to be an industrial use um I guess much to the dismay of neighbors is uh is is is I think my my big biggest challenge with this um and polluting the environment the um or even just using that term loosely um is is a challenge as well as sort of disrupting um what what seems to be a somewhat more residential uh neighborhood and area just a couple of thoughts any additional comments Madam chairman one last comment relative to the testimony by Miss Finn who was the realtor um I'm not considering I don't know how the board feels about but I'm not considering her testimony at all U she indicated that there would be a deprivation in in the value of the property because the operation she didn't have any comparable comparables to testify to as a uh an appraiser usually would do um and it just seemed like a backdoor attempt on the part of the objector to bring in additional testimony that should have been brought in in its case in in the objector case in Chief so I'm not considering her testimony at all Madam chair if there's no further comment by the by the board nothing else and I move to deny the motion for the we have a precisely just to clarify we are moving to deny the use variants and then by extension that would effectively deny the preliminary and final site plan application I just want to make that clear for the record and Mr book yes Mr Harley yes to deny Mr Hudak yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss Parnes and Miss Bradley move to journ G