e order please rise and salute the flag IED Al to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under indivisible with liy and justice for all good evening ladies and gentlemen pursuant to njsa 10 colon 4 the open public meetings act notice of this duly and regularly scheduled meeting the Jackson Township Zoning Board of adjustment has been published and posted in all appropriate locations can we have a roll call please Mr Hurley yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Mr book here Mr Hudak Miss Parnes here Mr Heyman Miss frit here miss Bradley here do we have any resolutions this evening yes yes we do we have three uh the first resolution is resolution officer appointments uh for the remainder of the period of July 1st 2023 to June 30th 2024 eligible to vote on that resolution are Mr Hurley Mr Stafford Smith Miss frit Mr book Miss Parnes Mr Heyman and Miss Bradley Mr Hurley yes Mr Stafford Smith we need we need a motion we need a motion approve that's all right thanks Ryan thank you all right now you can roll call Mr Hurley yes again Mr Stafford Smith yes Mr book yes Miss Parnes yes Mr Heyman yes Miss FR Miss Bradley the next resolution we have is resolution fence and playet on property located at 30v Anova Drive block 7801 Lot 12 eligible to vote are Miss frit Mr Hurley M Mr Hudak Miss Parnes and Miss Bradley I'll move to approve Mr Hurley yes Miss frit yes Mr Hudak yes Miss Parnes yes Miss Bradley yes and then finally the last resolution for this even evening is 2 uh resolution number 224-1 resolution of the zoning board uh approving a variance for a 6ot solid fence on property located at one Starling Court block 9902 lot 42 eligible to vote Mr book Miss frit Mr Hurley Mr Hudak Mr Stafford Smith and Miss Bradley M Mr Hurley yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Mr book yes Mr Hudak yes Miss FR yes Miss Bradley yes do we have any minutes this evening no okay all right we do have a voucher Township of Jackson for the recording secretary for $175 for this evening I need a motion in a second to pay the bill Please Mr Hurley yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Mr book yes Mr Hudak yes Miss Parnes yes Miss FR Miss Bradley yes do we have any announcements this evening Mr Murphy yes we do we have several announcements this evening um these all relate to applications which are on the agenda um the majority of them have been carried to other meetings I'll go through them um and then uh if any members of the public are here for those applications um please listen carefully because I will announce the date that the the application has been carried to uh application number one the applicant 30 cville Road Carol nulo use variance 3470 that's block 17302 Lot 19 uh that application is being carried to the April 3rd 2024 meeting of the Jackson Township Zoning Board of adjustment no further notice will be required and the applicant is wave time uh application number two uh applicant is Arya properties at Pinewood Estates l l c interpretation V 3487 block 102 lot one uh that application is being carried to the May 1st 2024 meeting of the Jackson Township Zoning Board of adjustment no further notice shall be required uh the applicant has wav time and then finally uh application number four uh applicant is Spiros bhos uh that's preliminary final site plan 831 with a previously approved use variance 3 350 that's block 2201 lot 52 that application is also being carried to the April 3rd 2024 meeting of the Jackson Township Zoning Board of adjustment no further notice will be required and the applicant has waved time that'll conclude the announcements for this evening we have no executive session this evening so we need to swear on our professionals thank you for raising your right hands do you solemnly swear or affirm that 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 yes I do yes if you would each please state your name and provide your pres with the board Evan Hill Board engineer Ernie Peters board planner Gina Tumalo assistant zoning officer thank you do we have any matters for discussion Mr Murphy um no we I I mean again application number two has been car uh has been carried I did send a brief to the board today uh outlining my my own uh position with regard to the interpretation application so um if for any reason someone did not uh receive that brief just let me know and I'll re forward it um but if there's any questions or concerns please feel free to reach out to me again that's been carried uh till May 1st but I just wanted to make it clear clear that I did send everyone a brief okay other than that I have no other matters thank you thank you we are going to move on to our one remaining applicant applicant number three yoel tesser North Hope Chapel office preliminary and final site plan 909 with use variants 3489 good evening good good evening thank you for taking the time gra is this the uh attorney for the applicant or the applicant himself I'm y tesser some people call me Joel tesser this is the record you're the applicant I'm the applicant okay if you would please uh I hold on one second let's let's procedurally here uh you are represented by Council um I know I I did speak to Miss Jennings earlier today she did advise me that her associate would be covering this hearing um I would be not yeah I see that so as a as an as an individual applicant we could start correct that's your prerogative I just want to make sure that the applicant understands that if he elects to proceed shows hopefully he shows up in a few minutes and uh and jumps in right I just want to explain to the applicant that if you elect to proceed without your attorney you understand that you're doing so at your own risk yep okay and you're okay with that hope so and honest an honest man I like it um be easy on the fair enough uh all right uh so you're you're consenting to moving forward without your attorney until such time as he arrives yeah we we about the refund later good enough okay um very good just just so long as we're all on the same page with with that said what I'm going to ask you to do all right let me just give you a little introduction if you don't mind don't if you would please raise your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments they about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth sure thank you very much if you would please state your name spell your last and we've already established that you're the applicant uh name y tesser y last first name last name t SS R I live at 10 Bear Trail Jackson New Jersey and you're the owner of this particular property correct very good thank you so man with a suit just run by so maybe looks like it Mr tesser I'm just going to ask you to do us a favor the Acoustics in here stink to be very blunt so when you are exactly closer better thank you yes thank you good evening no problem I'm here to represent you give your attorne here for if you would just place your appearance on the rec thank you uh good evening uh my name is Jason churcha I'm an attorney with the law firm of alent Goldman and Spitzer in Woodbridge New Jersey and tonight uh my office represents Mr Joel tesser here who is to my right uh and we're here to present uh our application just just not to cut you off just for the record um prior to your arrival uh I did swear in the applicant the applicant uh I placed on the record is consent to proceed without your presence um however since you're here um I will note for the record that your applicant is sworn okay I presume gr will be going first though so sure we'll sore him in when it's time uh I'll just give a very brief opening statement I apologize I did not anticipate being called quite so early but uh here we are uh as the board is aware the applicant is here this evening seeking preliminary and final major site plan approval and variances including a use variant to permit the conversion of a single family residence located at 167 North Hope Chapel Road identified as block 13702 lot two on the Township's tax map into an approximately 1530 ft business office The Proposal includes related site improvements including new sidewalk fencing landscaping and additional parking as will be more particularly discussed by our Witnesses the property is located in the R1 Zone where business offices are prohibited under ordinance 2 44-47 a therefore applicant is Seeking a D1 variance to permit that use additionally applicant is seeking two bulk variances from ordinance d uh 24447 D necessitated by the size of the lot first applicant is Seeking a variance for minimum lot area where .92 acres are provided and one acre is required second applicant is Seeking a variance for minimum lot width where 138.5 4T are provided and 150 ft are required regardless of the use these two variances represent pre-existing non-conforming conditions which would be required for any use including any use permitted in the zone the applicant complies with all other bulk requirements additionally the board's professionals have identified an additional varant variance required for parking where eight parking spaces including one electric vehicle space is provided but 14 Spa 14 spaces are required the record will show that the property is particularly suited to the proposed use satisfying the positive criteria furthermore The Proposal satisfies the negative criteria as it will not cause substantial detriment to the public good or substantially impair the master plan or his own plan the record will show that the area is uniquely suited to the small professional off um business office proposed by the applicant the property is located on a County Road and will generate only nominal amounts of traffic its location near the Jackson Liberty High School and the developments in the neighborhood since the existing residence was constructed make it uniquely suited for the proposed use because an office which is occupied primarily during daylight hours is less susceptible to disturbances caused by after school noise and traffic than the residents would be and we'll have our Witnesses testify to that in Greater detail uh further uh in support of The Proposal the applicant will rely on the direct testimony of gram McFarland our professional engineer and planner nef toly good applic our architect and Scott Kennel our traffic consultant uh we're also in receipt of uh reports prepared by the Township's professionals uh the planning report dated February 15 2024 and the engineering report also dated February 15 2024 I don't believe there are any other reports but but you can certainly correct me if I'm wrong uh so I think what we'd like to begin with is uh so Mr McFarland is both our engineer and our planner I think what would make the most senses for him to begin with his engineering testimony and then and then uh we'll Circle to our architect traffic uh consultant and then we can come back to Mr McFarland for his planning testimony that's okay with the board I for the board's I have no objection to that if if that's how the applicant wish to proceed for the record I'm going to swear Graham in once I won't swear him in again all right thank you for raising 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 I do please State your names uh provide your affiliation and your credentials sure Graham McFarland professional engineer professional planner principal of professional Design Services uh previously qualified and testified before this board on many many occasions Mr McFarland is board accepts your credentials thank you very much uh you can see we have A1 up on the up on the screen which is an arial map that shows the location of this of the subject property uh outlined in green the property is known as 167 North Hope Chapel Road uh you can see that the property is located in close proximity to uh to Jackson Liberty High School Jackson Liberty High School is it see there it is the Jackson Liberty High School which sits right behind the property um North Hope Chapel is here and new Central lab is just to the north of the of the subject property the uh the existing lot has an area of 0.92 Acres where one acre is the Zone standard uh that is an existing non-conformance that were're you know of course asking for that that variance for on a hardship that that's the existing um geometry of the lot the lot also does have an existing non-conformance of a lot width of 138.5 Ft where the the Zone requirement is 150 ft and same thing that's a hardship condition where the the adjoining lots are developed and that's an existing non-conformance that the applicant cannot cannot Rectify uh the application tonight is to repurpose the existing single family house into an office building it is proposed to convert the uh the first floor of the existing home to a uh to a business office just as a matter of housekeeping I think our our plan may have called it a professional office but your ordinance is very very particular between professional office and and business office and we are seeking approval for the business office not not just a professional office a professional office is really limited to licensed Professionals in the state and we are seeking for a little more flexibility of a business office um which our our client uh does have does have a need for again our proposal is to repurpose the existing building into this business office on the first floor it's about 1530 Square F feet based on ordinance requirements that 1530 square fet of office would require eight parking spaces Anthony you can go to go to A2 for me please a A2 is a site plan that was submitted in support of the application and maybe zoom in a little bit for us and the board can see the nature of the application is simply to uh to take the take the existing home convert that to an office construct a new driveway and a new parking area with the parking spaces located in the rear of the building we're also proposing buffers along both uh both side yards along uh the South side and and the north side to help minimize any impact to adjoining properties uh you can see the new driveway is proposed intersection to North Hope Chapel uh you can also see that we do have site triangles proposed in accordance with County requirements there the existing driveway that serves the home right now is located on the north side of the lot so that would be that would be removed uh and then a new driveway located more on the southerly side of the existing lot again with the parking space is located in the rear um in a rear portion of of the of the property the uh the house does have a finished basement right now but we are not proposing to utilize the basement for any uh for any tenants or for any really for any business purpose at all it just may be utilized for storage and and for Mechanicals uh we do understand that technically uh your ordinance I believe would consider that space as gross floor area in the computation for the required parking demand but our testimony is that that basement will not be utilized for office space leas to anybody at all uh we certainly understand that the board would would certainly be proper to impose a restriction on that use if the if they look favorably on on the application um I think i' I'd rather just go right into to the planning testimony at this point since since I'm here if Council doesn't okay you want to bring Scott first before we Circle back to that that's fine I apologize uh before we move on to the testimony of uh the other professionals uh I would just if if Mr McFarland could run through some of the the planning the points raised in the engineering report excuse me that's uh prepared by uh Mr Hill uh and is uh dated February 15 2024 correct so we are in in receipt of the review letter from Mr Hill and Mr Hill of course summarizes the uh summarizes the context of the application he does provide some technical comments uh related to you know adding a Stop Bar and and some detailing uh he of course discusses the need to to obtain approval from from Ocean County uh since we do have Frontage on a County uh on a count County roadway uh also points out just for the board's information and I did discuss it briefly but we are proposing a fence on the on the um south side of the property along the along the property line with the adjoining lot owner uh with the adjoining lot one we are we are proposing a fence and some Landscaping um Anthony go to A3 for me so a three is our landscape plan that was again that again was submitted in support of the application and you zoom in perfect and you can see in order to minimize any impact to the adjoining property owner to the South we are proposing a fence along the property line and then we are proposing Landscaping uh buffering along that property line again to to minimize any impact to that uh to that adjacent property owner uh Mr Hill points out that even though this application does not meet the definition of major development for storm water management in order to minimize any impacts and and reduce any negative impact we have proo have proposed storm water management system on site consisting of an underground recharge system so that will reduce the runoff from the site uh in the post-develop condition compar compared to the pre-developed condition again not required by uh by by the current statute what we are proposing that as a measure to mitigate any any uh potential impact of storm water run off um Mr Hill points out Anthony if you could go to A5 for me real quick A5 is the lighting plan that has been prepared for the project uh when our plan was submitted unfortunately the photometrics were not shown on the plan that was submitted to the board and I I learned that last week so I did get that information uh compiled and did I did frankly I did email this plan to Evan to take a a quick look at but I also brought it here tonight for the board to see that our proposal for lighting is to provide three lights three pole mounted lights one two and three uh 14 fet in height located along that South property line you know with with the the light um you know being shown towards the towards the building uh they will have house shields on them to minimize any impact to the adjoining property so every effort has been made again to to minimize any impact to adjoining properties uh and then Mr Hill just points out uh a a comment about the existing uh septic system uh the the house is served by an existing septic system you can see the location is in the front yard uh we have done calculations that confirm that uh this application the conversion of the property from a single family house to an office actually results in a a lower uh lower volume of of uh of daily sewage being discharged to the system uh of course if we need to obtain any approval from the county health department we we we will but we don't anticipate any modifications being required and again the discharge will be reduced uh for this office as compared to a single family home so that really summarizes the um the engineering comments from from Mr Hill and I think it addresses everything that was that was identified in his letter uh so at this point I don't think we have any more engineering testimony we will come back to Mr Graham uh Mr mcfarling Excuse me for uh his planning testimony but I don't know if the board wants to do questions now on what he said so far I think our engineer has some questions or comments yeah so I want to um thank the applicant for going through the letter um there really wasn't a lot of testimony put on the record but I guess your testimony is based off of just my comments for the engineering items yes all right um comment on the lighting plant um are you proposing any timers or any photo sens uh sensors we are certainly not uh not opposed to that if uh if the board thinks that's that's important we'll agree to a condition I think we're going to have to hear something about hours of operation right so if if if the hours of operation are until 6: PM then what I don't know if since you're since the adjacent property as a residence then maybe it's most appropriate to turn the lights off at 610 right so I think we'll have to worry we'll have to think yeah we have no objection to having the lights on on a timer okay um the so this this this site even though they're proposing impervious cover it does not meet the definition of a major development and the a major development is what triggers the state's storm water management regulations where we have to collect convey manage uh stormwater runoff to its pre-development to a percentage of its pre-development U runoff rates however in this case the applicant is being proactive by installing some storm water management facilities because there is there is a slight increase in runoff so but then they are they are installing it even though they're not required to by state or Township ordinances uh they're proposing an infiltration system they've they've completed uh two test pits out there in the field that that indicate that the soils uh can accommodate them um you know that there were some I want say discrepancies there were inconsistencies in the in the permeability testing results between the two test pits so we did ask for some additional information and clarification on on the permeability rates that were tested versus those that were uh used in the calculations for the report that might make the system a little larger than it's currently designed but I think it's still feasible that that they can they they can accomplish the storm water the infiltration of storm water on site and then um regarding the septic system uh I I I take no exception to the applicant's testimony where the change of use from office to residential would ultimately uh result in a smaller septic system being required however um you know that's assuming that the existing septic system is is satisfactory and that's working um but also that the uh SE the health department will require because it's a change in use it's just a letter that's typically written to the health department that lays out what the exist what the system was designed for versus uh what the proposed flows are and they'll usually write a letter of approval for the change of use so that should be a condition of any U any board action taken tonight the applicant is installing Curbing and sidewalk as part of the application and also performing some limited um roadway improvements along the county road County engineer I'm sorry County planning board approval is going to be required have you had any discussions with them at this yes we we did submit the application to to the county and we did um get some comments back from the county all right has there been any consideration to restricting that driveway entrance at all to from Full turning movements to just a right in right out no based upon the low volume of traffic they did not impose any restrictions that's not really a low volume area but okay well I mean low Vol low volume of the proposed intersection of the proposed intersection but the traffic yeah but the road the road has quite right right all right so okay so the County's not requiring any turning restrictions on the driveway so that's all I had it's a pretty straightforward application from an engineering perspective limited site improvements limited grow grading they're not altering the surface grades that's going to have any detrimental impact on the adjacent properties they're managing storm order where they're technically aren't required to so that's a that's a benefit um the sight lighting as long as we can get some testimony on the hours of operations and some restrictions on when that sight lighting will be operational uh to be a little more cons cognizant of the residential use and the sight lights will have house shields on them which should Shield any light spillage onto that property as well oh and the the fence along the the fence within the front yard area that will require a variance correct any additional questions from the engineering perspective for Mr McFarland before he moves on Mr Harley Mr McFarland you did mention something about a tenant occupying the uh the premises uh and I'm looking at your plan it looks like you have five offices in there is this going to be a single tenant yes but I I think I I think I was discussing the uh the basement just putting on the record that the basement would not be leased to any tenants or occupied by you know by by anybody uh my understanding is that the applicant M Mr tesser and he he's here to testify for himself is that he has multiple businesses and has a need for this additional space So the plan is for for him to occupy this building uh you know utilize all the offices for the the various businesses that he is involved in so it's really a single business it's multiple you know separate businesses but it's it's one owner who when he can explain better than I can but it's one owner who is involved in all of those businesses is my understanding okay thank you any other questions regarding engineering go ahead sir did we get planning testimony from Mr migf we're to you you're going to go to traffic and then come back to planning okay thank you 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 if you would please state your name uh provide your affiliation and credentials yes Scott Kennel k n NE L with MCD and Ray Associates located at 1431 Lakewood Road uh manisan I'm a principal with McDon and Ray Associates with over 35 years of traffic and transportation planning experience I've testified before this board on many occasions as well as the planning board and it's probably uh close to 2,000 site plan applications I've testified on Mr kennel this board accepts your credentials thank you yes my office prepared a traffic report dated September 18 2023 that was submitted and basically the the traffic report um details an inventory of existing conditions adjacent to the site traffic projections and then a discussion on the site plan uh as was indicated this site is located on North hul Chapel Road it is a under the jurisdiction of Ocean County it's classified as a minor arterial roadway uh has a posted speed limit of 45 miles hour along the site Frontage and based on review of historical traffic data the traffic counts along the site Frontage are approximately 1,000 Vehicles two-way during the morning and afternoon peak hours uh we also have adjacent to this site to the to the north there's a traffic signal at new Central Avenue and then there's a traffic signal as everyone knows at South Cooks Bridge Road and those traffic signals also provide gaps or platoons of traffic along the site front as far as the proposed office use uh Consulting The Institute Transportation Engineers trip generation manual we've estimated that during the morning and afternoon peak hours the site would generate four trips during the peak hours again it's basically given by by the fact that this is a smaller office building and was indicated that there are five offices within the building itself uh we would expect based on the area roadway traffic P patterns roadway Network that site traffic would be assigned to the area roadway system 50% to and from the north and 50% to and from the south uh for the board's benefit I did do a level of service analysis even though it wasn't submitted to the board and determined that based on the traffic projections in the base traffic volumes along Ong South Hope Chapel Road the site driver would experience delays of anywhere approximately 20 seconds per vehicle so it'll be a level service C which is well within acceptable range by Ocean County uh the also the other important thing is when we look at the site driveway we're we're shifting at approximately 50 ft South further away from New Central Avenue we also have sight distance along the uh sou North Hope Chapel Road that exceed 500 ft in both directions that meet and exceed the recommended standards and then as Graham testified we're proposing a single point of access that'll be a two-way driveway providing access to uh eight parking spaces and based on the uh State statue as as it relates to electric vehicles it then where we get the two for one technically based on the State statue we basis um So based on the review of this site plan application it is my testimony that uh it would be a low traffic generator that it can operate safely and efficiently as a full movement driveway where left turns are permitted in and out and that we have adequate parking to support the uh support the use can you just briefly talk about the evolution of traffic volume and compare the traffic volume on North Hope Chapel Road today and any projections in the future to the traffic volume over the past two or three decades well as everybody knows there's been significant growth in area so the traffic volumes that have um that I reviewed were from September of 2021 but when I provided or conducted the analysis that I uh testified on earlier I basically used a 15% growth rate because traffic is is growing at um a pretty good Pace in this area and again North Hope Chapel Road is a minor arterial arterial roadway that provides uh uh a travel route between other County roadways so it is and you typically have commercial uses along County arterial roadways so again in my opinion this site can as I st earlier can operate safely and efficiently uh even with the continued traffic growth in the area and if you could just briefly discuss on-site circulation and uh access for emergency vehicles well as the uh site plan has been designed to provide access to the eight parking spaces towards the back of the site we have a two-way 24t wide driveway that is um been designed to accommodate uh emergency vehicles should they have to uh come on site so I have no further questions for Mr kennel so I just um want to put on the record I know that they're building a new development currently across the road correct on the other side of North Chapel uh vicinity of new Central vicinity of new Central correct yes no you don't feel that'll be a conflict or anything I understand you're saying minor but we all know the traffic on North so I just want to again when I utilize the growth rate that I utilize that more than accommodate and also the traffic speeds along this section of North Hope Chapel in my opinion will be uh slower because the county has designed I can't tell you when they're put it out the bid but they're doing a roundabout at new Central so with the elimination of the traffic signal and the installation of the roundabout it will am I opinion positively affect the traffic flow along this section of uh roadway thank excuse me thank you through the chair Mr book yes Mr kenel we've heard that Mr tesser has multiple businesses that he's going to operate at intend to operate out of this location do you know what the multiple businesses are do you know the nature of those businesses do you know how much traffic each one of those businesses will uh will generate and have you taken any of that into consideration well I did have conversation Mr tesser and he'd be better to explain it but he has professional type businesses and that he also has other office space in the area and this will be basically used by the executives that are part of his other businesses so again this is as I understand it is going to be a supplemental or support for the other office space spaces he has in the area so this is not um his Prim Ary employment area it's basically for like better return corporate or Executives that are part of his businesses that he that he has a interest in so if Mr tesser comes up and he explains in his testimony that no one of the businesses is going to require constant traffic in and out because people are going to come be coming in picking up going out almost a retail type business would that change your opinion it would raise the the traffic generation but my based on my conversation with him that was not the case that that would this building would not be used for that type of office use higher turnover it's more or less geared towards uh the executives that are part of the businesses that he's involved in thank you through the chair yes Mr kennel I'm a little confused as to when the traffic flow studies were done it was 2021 typically for a project of this size we don't do traffic counts but I thought for the board's benefit I would provide in our traffic study which I did is data that was collected in the area uh and the traffic counts were conducted at Miller to the north approximately a half mile to the north and that was basically provided for the board's benefit as far as um the magnitude of traffic on North Hope Chapel and that was Prior before the light at new Central had been installed correct that's my inter standing I don't recall exactly when that was installed but um uh my office was involved in a project by Miller where there where the county is also installing a traffic signal at that location uh should be in short time frame but um I just use that as a resource again to provide an order of magnitude of traffic volumes adjacent to the site yeah my my concern is that between South Lake Drive North Lake Drive Miller Road there's three traffic lights or will be soon coming back to New there's another light then you have the light at South cooksbridge I seriously think the applicant should entertain the idea of right in right out because if they put that roundabout in and the light's gone I think it's going to be an absolute Zoo the buses that go through there at in the morning hours anybody who drives it is in fear the lighting the rather the the road traffic trying to bypass South C South c s yeah excuse me the traffic making left onto South cooksbridge Bridge Road comes around the shoulder there at 50 60 M hour and they're right on top of the schools I I seriously think that that's a consideration to be had I understand your concern and as I testified we have sight distance that meet and exceed the recommended standards and the traffic volumes being generated by this site are are is such that it can in my opinion operate safely and efficiently if the county and usually that's under the county jurisdiction and if the county determines that left turn should be prohibited then we'd have to comply But ultimately the access design and uh the traffic move movements permitted is subject to the county for the chair even with the unknown change due to the roundabout being installed well it's my opinion with the roundabout it's going to help slow traffic down at least in the southerly direction because of our proximity to it uh but as far as actual traffic volume I don't see where that's going to have a an impact on the volumes that I've reviewed and that would be in the future to be determined to to Mr uh Stafford Smith's point my suggestion to the board would be they have to go through the County planning board approval process for this for this project um during those discussions what I would recommend is the applicant should bring up whether or not a right turn right right in right out is appropriate and if the county says no we won't allow that then then fine but I'd like I'd like I I think U I think I think the applicant could take the proactive approach to see if it's if it's a possibility because I don't disagree with you I think it's a good idea and then but ultimately the county it's the County's jurisdiction um the county has a lot of improvements uh planned for that area so um they would be the entity that's most appropriate to make that judgment to make that decision I have no problem conveying that message and have that discussion I meet with the county on a regular basis so um we can have a discussion with the county on this matter should the board act favorably on the application thank you have one more question for Mr kennel um can you just uh briefly discuss the amount of traffic that's generated by this use compared to the existing uh residential use and then also compared to other uses that are permitted in the zone well I can speak to the single family uh single family on a daily basis would be approximately 10 trips or during the peak hours it could be one to two trips so it's um again we're not going to talk magnitude of percentages I mentioned earlier I was talking four trips for the peak hours but I understand child care centers are permitted on this property that would generate significantly greater traffic in the range of anywhere from 30 to 35 hour trips uh house of worship would generate definitely significant more traffic than the proposed office use uh and I guess there's other Home professional office use but again those two uses Child Care Centers and house of worship would generate significantly more traffic than the application before you I have no more questions for Mr kennel thanks any additional questions Mr kennel you can call your next witness sir thank you thank you um I'm going to call the applicant next uh I think it the board might benefit from his testimony as far as what exactly is going to be going on here just for a record I not I noted this before but I'll note it again I uh the applicant's already been sworn yes just uh for the purpos of the record I'm going to reflect the fact that a court reporter is now here on behalf of the applicant U Hudson reporting Services I I presume what's your name AR Anthony Armstrong of Hudson reporting Services uh is here on behalf of the applicant uh and we'll be making a record of this uh proceeding going forward all right so uh can you first discuss exactly what kind of business operation is going to be operating out of the site sure so I own a um Food Service Company it's called crisp culinary um the kitchen is in Lakewood on um R University Boulevard um that's where the kitchen is and there's a small office there but we have the back end of the office um that we want to put over there we do um you know menus and things like that and Counting stuff like that so we want to have it over there now the purpose of having the office in Jackson near my I live in Jackson and as everyone knows the traffic getting into Lakewood is heavy so so I'd rather have something nearby where it's closer and a lot of some of my employees live in Jackson or nearby in that area to them was attractive um I also have a tele medicine company I just started um tele medicine company um that I just started um so what I plan to have there is also little bit of accounting there and you know some dispatching that people call in who want to be seen um secretary over there as well um I am a volunteer paramedic um for at Sola and I work for Rob Johnson as well um I felt the area there also can use a paramedic in the area during the day which would help the people the communities um which was also a benefit why I wanted to put an office in that area as opposed to somewhere else um I thought that was going to be a benefit um the plan is not to have um people walking in that don't work there really unless we have a meeting for something but generally it's going to be low volume um that really was the intention and uh I have no problem with right turns I have uh whatever you guys want me to do have no issues on the contrary I'm a safety guy so um I'm with you uh can you just uh discuss the hours of operation the time of day you expect to have people uh working at the property so I'm I'm the currently I'm the only male that works in the office so most of the people that are working in the office are uh like 9:30 to 3: um I can i' like to consider myself a hardworking fellow so sometimes I'll be the only one left in the office after that um if you know of any uh full-timers I'm looking um but the matter the fact of the matter is that most of the office leaves it between like 3:30 latest 4 um but I would say sometimes I'm there I work I got to provide food for my family so I'll be there till 5 six seven sometimes myself but generally regarding the lights I know you said to shut it off if it's going to be 6:00 the only thing I would ask for is that some lights could stay on it's just it's really dark there at night just for safety wasse but uh and how many employees do you anticipate having at the property so there would be five offices I don't anticipate more than that right now I say there's five Offices please say it again yes I said we have five offices five rooms that we're looking to put in there I don't anticipate much more than that so again it's not a big building it's the whole thing is that how many is it one person is it one person per office correct as of right now that's what I have um if the board would allow me a little bit of flexibility there you know just in case you know I would want to get somebody would want to get a uh an assistant or want to put one person in another office you know just to have two people um but it's not going to be a high volume office it's not yes I I didn't say it's room I would say that if the opportunity arises that that somebody needs help help you know possibly but again it's we're talking about a relatively very small space and I don't not a fan of putting people in like stuffing them in so like I said we have other office also so I don't intend to use the basement um for office there's no just ventilation wise or anything like that it's just not something it's low ceilings it's not like ideal for space somebody sit there all day so for the chair I think it's important though be for for to put to put some um because you are asking for a use Vari variance we have to put a little we have to know how many employees maximum you are seeking you're going to have with your operation so you've indicated that there's yourself and four others currently or that's what you're anticipating yeah okay so that's five you have eight parking spaces so is six maximum employees with that is that something you would commit to as part of this as part of your testimony um I'm fine if that's what I'm asking you I mean that's it's it's your it's your application we should have a limit we should something bigger then we'll look at other options somewhere else or you just come back and amend your variants and add two more parking spaces right so that that's why you maybe put a little thought into it but if you have eight parking spaces I would think that can easily accommodate six employees and that gives you two Reserve place two Reserve spaces for um for visitors okay I mean if I could get up to eight that would be great eight okay well it's your testimony I'm we're trying I'm trying to work through this with you I'm not dict yeah yeah no I know I don't I'm not sure like he's I don't know what the future is bringing that's what I'm saying but I know that I'm not a fan of putting in it's five like smaller offices so I'm not a fan of like I we also don't know the future of what it will bring that's why we're asking yeah fores look at Park spaces so we don't want to go ahead and say you're going to have 15 employees when we're only approving if if the varing is Grant we only be for eight parking spaces so we just want to be clear and get all on the record so you would agree to as Evan tried to point out you would agree to no more than eight employees and if there should come a time you need more than eight Mr tesser you would come back before and ask put yeah correct and just just Also to clarify the variance approval isn't just specific to you it runs with the land so if you decide to sell then those restrictions would continue on with the proposed with whoever else purchases the home or purchases the office building so that's why it's important to nail this number down so if you can if if you're agreeable to a maximum of eight because that's how many parking spaces then that's perfect you know and if we would do more parking spaces would that be something to consider to do more I mean I'm asking like what how how does it work I don't know well if you if you if you exceed the if you exceed any of the conditions of an approval I think I'm F I'm fine with it I don't have any okay any plans of bringing more than that okay men I'm sorry you can go Mr tesser um do do you ever have any guests come to the site or clients or customers or providers so I would have possibly like one if I would meet a like let's say the head of us a school that we service or you know a doctor wants to meet us they would come to meet us conference room or something like that yeah okay but I don't I have like lots of people coming I too am concerned about the number of people that may be present in the number of parking spaces I notice on your site plan for example you have a number of offices but you also have a conference room and that conference table has eight seats around it to start with I think that's you know so where are we going here how many people are we thinking about I said I have right now I have five that's where I'm at then why would you have eight seats at a conference table it's your site plan it it it so there is a possibility of me meeting with somebody else that could come in for a meeting but uh again you know where are they going to park so there's eight spots up to eight spots you you have you're testifying that you have five offices so you're G to have five people that are in those offices and taking up five spaces now you have visitors come in you're all sitting around a conference table where are they going to park where are your visitors going to park so there would still be three spots or four spots I have a a car that needs to be plugged in so now if a um a UPS truck or a FedEx truck comes in to make a delivery which we all get uh how is that vehicle going to turn around and get back out because there's no way it's going to back out onto that uh is the street okay I think there's a turnaround spot there and I'm I'm not opposed to making it wider there's more space in the back there we could make the parking lot bigger maybe the U parking guy can go over how they're going to get out for the chair and the board uh what I'm going to suggest is this if if the applicant is asking for a maximum maximum occupancy of for eight employees knowing that on and at in certain instances you might have a visitor or two what I would recommend is that they they update they revise their parking layout to show that they can Greenbank maybe and add two more spaces in the future if and if and when needed right so if they ever do reach that eight employee capacity they would then that would then trigger them having to construct an additional two parking spaces on the site which it can accommodate easily so um we've done this in the past it's not uncommon to do this where they would just demonstrate that they can build it whether or not they actually have to in the future that's going to be up to their business right but it would be nice to lock them in on the plan to say okay yes we can build these here they are the infrastructure is there or can be designed um or can be built so you said you're a volunteer paramedic yeah do you have an ambulance on site no so you go in your own car to respond yeah if need be I'll will respond to a truck okay so you have a vehicle that's always going to be parked there I have my own car okay just for the just for everyone's uh understanding I'm not I don't want to hire people and then they don't have a place to park like I I don't understand what that means so if uh you know the people are going to be there they're going to want to part they going new part all right so we had a just a brief discussion I think we're hearing the board's concerns and I think uh we'd accept a condition where no more than six employees could be on the property or work on the property excuse me would you take into consideration what Mr Hill stated about you know planning for the future if I mean listen we hope your business grows obviously would you take into consideration Mr Hill's recommendation that you revise the parking layout just in case you do need additional spots I see Mr McFarland shaking his head yeah it definitely would okay do you understand why he's asking again you have to remember North H Chapel's very busy obviously nobody's parking on North Hope Chapel we just want to make sure it's safe you heard the concerns about in andout we want to make sure it's safe we want to make sure that everyone has a place I'm with you put more parking put more parking and I have a question for Evan is there enough turning radius for a delivery vehicle to no no I'm sorry no uh they're going to have to either they're going to have to pull in and back out at the way it's currently designed there's no way they're backing out onto that busy well I'm saying but the the with the I'm not disagreeing I'm not disagreeing with you I mean one of the options could be you put in a k turn um or a hammerhead K turn gram um for them to be able to do that you could probably do that in the uh yeah in the front yard area either between the septic and the house or I'm sorry the building or the septic and the roadway just put in a little backup K turn area Graham yes we can provide a small a small loading area let's call it y uh in front of the building between the building and the septic system for a delivery truck to turn around the chair yes just want to make sure that that will not be used as a parking spot correct it would be stri thank you and sign and the applicant would agree that his employees are not allowed to park there or anybody's nobody's allowed to park there uh I have no more questions uh for Mr tesser just ask answer Mr Smith's concern I have no problem doing right turns only and right turn in right turnout as well but we will certainly address that with the county I think that was a good recommendation thank you we're going to bring in our architect next thank you for raising your right hand you Solly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments they about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth or nothing but the truth yes I do thank you if you would please state your name um provide your affiliation and your credentials my my name is naali gut NF t o Li g t I'm a licensed architect New Jersey multiple other states I am the principal of gut van LLC it's a liquid based architectural firm I ear my masters in architecture from NJIT I've testified before this board and the planning board and other municipalities Mr gut this board accepts your credentials thank you thank you these drawings were prepared by my office under my supervision this property currently contains the single family house with three bedrooms it's a one-story dwelling with a basement requests the change of use as stated before a nonprofessional office to be utilized only by Mr tesser for his personal uses the exterior improvements to the house consist of just replacing the vinyl siding some of the windows and will maintain the same residential appearance the interior improvements consist of five offices a lounge conference room break area and restrooms um the nature of the applicant's business is back office and nature is has been discussed I I do want to add to the previous conversation that these offices are very small and I can't see besides one of them they're all less than 100 square ft which wouldn't wouldn't really fit fit more than one person per room just to alleviate some of that concern of this office growing too big the there is no modifications being proposed for the existing basement and shall remain at storage only and building codwise also that wouldn't be able to be used as office as currently not sprinkler and not proposing a sprinkler system the square footage of the first floor is, 1530 Square ft which includes the converted garage the ceiling height is standard 8 feet and most of the most of the first floor the mean roof height is 15 feet 42 Ines 14 ft I'm sorry 2 in exit signs and emergency lights will be provided as well as accessible bathrooms egis and accessible Roots there is no signage being proposed if you could just briefly discuss the uh exterior of the property how it'll uh compare to how it looks now so currently it's regular siding and um Mr Tess are just going to have the siding replaced in kind um I was just advised that we are are changing the the vinyl signing in the front that was done already EXC said that was done already oh okay stco on the front and S siding on on the sides and the rear will it the appearance be consistent with any the residential character of some of the surrounding properties yes correct it's regular Windows no storefront windows just regular size windows matching what's there now with an improved facade with nice what is it white stock nice white light light light stock up uh I have no more questions for Mr gut do you have any questions for the applicant Mr Hudak signage no no signage the client does not want no signage at all on this I imagine there's no there's no Standalone signage I imagine it's just going to be something on the door so we're we're not proposing any signage I think maybe just the like a the street address the the number that would be on the front of the building so people but but it wouldn't be um you know you wouldn't have a business sign was advertised on on the property okay any other questions for the applicant call uh we're going to bring Mr McFarland back for the purpose of the record Mr McFarland was already sworn in and he remains under oath so if you could if you oh sorry uh if you could just discuss uh the variances uh that we've uh we need and then if you could uh walk through first the positive criteria sure um obviously the board has heard the the discussion we've had so far that's that's focused on the uh the nature of the application the conversion of the of the existing uh residents to a uh to a very low intensity business office uh obviously some discussion about the the parking spaces uh and just so the board understands we did um consider how many spaces to provide with this application and what kind of development application we wanted to present and Mr tesser uh and I decided that he wanted to to try to prevent or present an application that had very low intensity um use which I think we we have presented here tonight and that's why uh we chose to only provide the eight parking spaces credited for nine with with the EV where more spaces certainly could have could be accommodated by the site as to the merits of the of the application I believe Mr kennel did testify that this R1 Zone does allow other uses as well in addition to single family homes such as child care centers houses of worship uh Community shelters and Community residences for development disabled people also are permitted so this Zone this Zone although it is a an R1 single family Zone does allow for some other uh commercial or non-residential uses uh this use and and repurposing of the property to a small professional or or business office I believe is is um not contrary to what the Zone plan allows and what the intent of the of the master plan is in uh here here in Jackson Township uh in order to consider this variant request the board must make a finding that the approval can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and that it will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zone plan it's important to uh to keep perspective that that statute uh of course uses that word sub substantial twice uh this application by its nature is is very minor and very low impact and to me it it does not meet the the threshold of of providing either substantial detriment or substantial impairment uh to the uh to the Zone plan I believe there are really three prongs that must be satisfied for this application to be considered by the uh by this board for the grant of the use variant the first one we did have some some brief discussion is suitability I believe the the applicant has a burden to show that uh this project has to meet the test for suitability uh that will also serve to uh address negative criteria and this site is suitable for several reasons one is that it has direct access to a County Highway uh for a commercial use two the desirability of this lot for single family use has been reduced uh over the years by incre inre traffic and congestion in the area over the last several years noise and traffic generated by the high school makes a lot much less desirable for residential use and more suitable for commercial use than it may have been in the past uh this site is developed and repurposing this existing building into a business office will satisfy the test of preservation of resources and also this site is of adequate size and configuration for the repurposing as proposed without the grant of any additional bulk variances as to uh the second prong of of the test is satisfying the the special reasons outlined by the municipal land use law the grant of the variance must show special reasons interpreted to mean advancing the purposes of zoning and again having no significant negative impact and again there's that same that same phrase either significant or substantial being used in context uh I believe this application satisfies a couple couple of those prongs firstus contributes to the well-being of per of persons by repurposing the existing development that serves the needs of a growing community in a way that minimizes overall impact again the uh this application includes uh very small amount of site development uh We've provided uh fencing and buffering and Landscaping and we've provided a storm water management all serve to minimize any any impacts uh the the land use law also also also Pro offers one to provide sufficient space for variety of uses uh as to residential recreational commercial industrial by repurposing the existing home to a commercial use where the local master plan confirms a need for increased commercial uses the third is to prevent urban sprawl by repurposing uh the the use to commercial uh that reduces the demand to develop raw land with the intended use uh and again serves the needs of a of a growing Community the third prong of the test is to address a negative impact uh and and again the impacts of this development are minimized by the following uh that this development is proposed in accordance with bulk and local development standards with no other variances required to support this application other than a a variant request for a fence in her front yard that serves to provide buffering and again minimizes impact to any adjoining neighbor uh we have located parking area in the rear of the lot to minimize visual impact and try to uh try to retain at least a residential scale and character of the application so again reducing visual impact buffering is proposed along both side property lines that ad join residential uses and zones again to reduce any potential negative impact the proposed uh new driveway is located as far as possible from the intersection with new Central Avenue uh to provide and and satisfy Public Safety again we provide the storm water man agement system to reduce runoff from the uh site even though it's below the threshold of major development again that that serves to reduce any potential negative impact and I I discussed previously that this change to commercial use will also lessen Demand on the public water system and reduce the volume of sewage discharge to groundwater as the office use will uh demand less water and result in lower volume of uh of sewage being being discharged as to compliance with uh with two particular goals and objectives of the master plan uh it's it's discussed in at least two spaces in master plan think I died right uh the master plan discussed in two particular sections discusses that uh commercial and Industrial Development needs to be expanded to meet local needs within Jackson Township of course satisfies that particular test and uh the 2023 master plan Amendment provides discussion about uh integrating residential communities and viable commercial and services uses together and I think the repurposing of this existing residential use into a very low intensity commercial use is consistent with that particular objective so in summary in in my opinion repurposing this site with a commercial use of very low intensity is compliant with the goals and objectives of the master plan uh the site is particularly suited to the to the specific use proposed and the grant of this variance would not have any significant negative impact or any substantial impairment to the Zone plan or to any surrounding Properties or to the community so for all of those reasons the board would be justified in granting this variance um I just want to go Circle back briefly to the uses permitted in the zone and how this use Compares in intensity and the nature of the use as well if we could just highlight that one more time sure there are several others but I think the the two that are most relevant and would certainly be more significant generators of traffic um and have more impact upon any surrounding properties would be a child care center and a house of worship U Mr kennel did touch on those points as well uh certainly Childcare Center in a house of worship on a property of this size would produce much higher traffic demand have uh longer hours of operation and produce more impact than this application would and then we also have the planning review letter if you could address some of the um uh points raised there and especially with respect to some of the design waivers that were addressed in the letter yes we have a letter from Mr Peters dated February 15th and of course Mr Peter summarizes all of the documents that were submitted in support of the application he uh identifies the two variances that are required for the existing non-conformances which we previously testified to lot area and lot width uh he points out the variance required for the uh for the parking which we've had significant discussion on uh and then he goes into some uh some site plan issues and a series of uh of comments I believe that I've I've addressed pretty much all of his um particular comments in my in my testimony of course his his comments talk a lot about the uh the character of the neighborhood the the adjoining properties and the impact that this application may have which are certainly important uh tests that this application that this application must must satisfy uh Mr Peters points out the the hours of operation that we provided in the statement of operations I think Mr tesser actually testified that their day-to-day hours are even slightly you know slightly less than than those hours but I think a a good standard from 8:00 until 5:00 pm is appropriate for this particular application for the uh for the office use uh Mr Peters of course uh questions or ask the applicant to uh to clarify the um whether the spaces are going to be leased to multiple tenants or whether it's going to be one occupant uh and if the the basement is going to be utilized and we've already discussed those particular issues uh Mr Peters asked about exterior modifications and Mr gut just testified to those uh Mr Peters also commented on the need for an EV space which we which which we will provide Mr Peters points out uh comments or fire safety issues and for the record we do have a letter from the Bureau of fire prevention dat is September 12th 20 23 uh which says that the plan is acceptable with uh three comments that all are all related to either uh numbering of the building uh signs to on on a building or fire lane markings so nothing of any great significance here which we will agree to comply with and then Mr Peters just comments on the uh the lighting which we've already discussed uh the landscaping and buffering which we've already addressed and he points out out the uh the the U vinyl fence that is proposed and then he has some other uh technical comments which we are agreeing to uh to comply with um and the final point that Mr Peters points out is um Solid Waste and Recycling storage and we are not proposing a uh a dumpster or Refuge enclosure on this application uh because of its low intensity and and very low use it will just be curbside uh curbside pickup garbage cans or recycling cans would be kept in the uh would be kept in the backyard so they would not be visible from the uh from the street and then Mr Peters pointed out one last thing which is uh there is an existing shed on the premises and uh he asked whether what what the um disposition of that shed is going to be and I am going to defer that back to my client as a final final point and that summarizes my response with the shed it came with the property I don't need it I don't see why it's a minus well do you I mean I'd probably put some shovels in there and some other things if the board would allow me to keep it why not but if it's if it's a problem then I'll take it I think Mr tesser said he would like to keep the shed unless there's any objections to it he may need to keep some uh some equipment in it for for property maintenance uh I have no more questions uh if the board would or the Mr Peters would like to ask him certainly would tender the witness you have any questions comments thank you madam chair um Mr McFarland did discuss some of the use comments in our report um but unless my hearing is going I'm not sure we talked about what the surrounding land uses were in relation to the property um I don't think we discussed the possibility of acquiring additional land to get rid of the variances um and I don't think we discussed what the impact of a non-residential use may have on the surrounding uses once we determine what the surrounding uses are so the board should consider that when they go through the testimony I'm sorry if Ernie's done I'll address if he's still pondering I'll I'll wait a minute as it relates to the Landscaping there were a number of comments in our report um that dealt with design waivers that I don't think were addressed um while I recognize that this may appear to be a straightforward reuse of the property um for site planning purposes there are design standards um either we're going to comply with them or we're not going to and whether it's a low intensity repurposing of the project or not um there are standards that we have in town if you want to build a site plan so we just need to get on the record what is or isn't going to be done and then should the board act in in the affirmative I think there's probably a need for a comment about not putting a dumpster on the site um it's almost everyone's um experience at some point in time an office use puts garbage outside someone decides it's not their job to take the garbage out next thing you know we've got garbage cans or dumpsters so we're not going to have it we should put a resolution that's all I have with regards to Mr McFarland's direct testimony Anthony if you can put A1 up for me so uh again going back to A1 A1 is the is the aerial that shows the subject property in green uh again you can see the property Froning on North North Hope Chapel and new Central Avenue near nearby uh as to surrounding luses right NE right behind the properties Jackson Liberty High School occupies um 100 plus acres obviously a very very intense uh High School use uh two properties that adjoin to the north and to and to the South uh both of those I believe are are one acre in size uh so the the question of trying to bring this lot into uh into conformance with the lot size or the or lot area or the lot with requirements uh is frankly a hardship because both those lots are already developed with with single family homes and there's nothing that could be done to uh to make this law conform and also keep those other Lots conform so a hardship exists in my in my opinion for those existing non-conformances to be uh I guess you you know confirmed as uh as variances that cannot cannot be rectified and are beyond the control of of the applicant and Mr Peters asked about um a couple comments about landcaping and design waivers and I look in looking through his report and I see uh I think there's two or three particular ones that we should just just put on the record uh one is the requirement to provide uh shade tree and utility easement uh and and in connection with that shade trees along the front of the of the property uh we have no objection to providing the shat Tre and utility easen if the town thinks it's necessary but this is is a County Road and we don't typically provide them on on County Roads it's usually a shering CH easement to the to the township but if the board fills fill this warranted will provide that but the second is a requirement to provide shade trees we are requesting that waiver the entire site is pretty much occupied by by site triangle easement so we can't provide the shade trees in the location that it's required by uh by ordinance our landscape plan does show the Landscaping that is proposed in uh in support of the application uh and there is significant Landscaping along the side Lot line and then there is some Landscaping in the front yard where we can provide it that again is is outside of uh the sight triangle easements or consistent with requirements within a site triangle and also not impacting the septic system so we have limited opportunity for landscaping in a front in the front of the site uh Mr Peters also identified a um comment about the the fence whether that's a variance or a waiver we requested as the board as board interprets and I think that addressed addressed his comments what's that for we'll do that that that will the other items that he pointed out we will will agree to comply with I just have a couple I just have a couple of questions about the statement of operations um I know that Mr tesser said the primarily the other people in the offic are there from 9:30 to 4:00 he's usually there a little later a little earlyer and a little later um Monday through Saturday Monday through Friday Monday through Saturday so I don't uh work on Saturday and um Friday we usually end the earlier I'm just asking that's what the statement says so I just want to make sure we get on the record that's why I'm asking yeah Monday through Friday and okay maybe yeah and then also it goes on to say Final hours will be determined based on the specific tenants and business types Mr Tess's testimony was that it was basically going to be his businesses tenant right yes and Madam chair we we typically include that language in case Mr teser wants to work till 7 o'clock one night he's not going to get a a phone call or or knock on his door from zoning officer telling me he's got to go home no trust me I'm that person you find in the office at 7 o'cl I get it thank you any other questions I have one question Graham um what size height fence are we talking about I don't recall hearing that six feet high solid six feet high vinyl fence we're proposing yes thank you again just to provide buffering we felt that was appropriate to buffer the commercial and residential use Mr Hurley Mr McFarland you mentioned a number of uses that would be permitted on this site you mentioned Child Care Center house of worship uh is a child care center and house of worship permitted principal uses no I think they're um conditional uses permitted conditional uses and could those would those two uses that you Rec that you said could be uh utilized on this site would they compl app with the conditions or would they need a a variance here um we're trying to confirm that for you do you have do you have it here and this is a little uh a little bit tricky uh because as I'm sure the board I'm sure the board is aware we also have new ordinances in effect that have changed the requirements specifically for uh places of worship schools and and other facilities and you know without getting I I apologize I just have to jump in I I think it's important whether Ryan does it or I do it the new ordinances the governing body adopted a weren't in effect when this application was made so I'm not sure of the time of decision we I'll leave that to the attorneys and B I'm not sure they're effective yet so I just I appreciate Mr mcf's testimony um I think it's certainly the basis for a discussion but I'm not sure it's the law yet Ernie I I just you understand I agree entirely and that's where I was going to go um I was going to advise the board that this application it should be reviewed in context of what was in effect when the application was made but just as a matter of discussion I was just you know advising the board of that but yes Mr Hurley um the uh child care center and the uh place of worship or conditional or permitted conditional uses the child care center specified provided the lot shall adhere to the following statement uh so Child Care Center requires one acre minimum lot area church and place of worship requires two acres of a minimum lot area so both of the either of those would require variants uh for for for development okay you also testified as to the positive criteria you indicated that there would be an integration of services which is a benefit can you explain that to me a little further well again the uh the just to go back to back to that the the master plan provides an objective to integrate residential communities and viable commercial and services uses so to me that means that part of that objective is marrying uh commercial uses in residential uses allowing them to coexist and work together uh I didn't write the language and I'm you know we we look at these particular um you know standards or objectives like that and of course we tried to dive into you know what what what are the thoughts behind it and why is it being uh why is it being added to the master plan or being discussed and when I look at language like that it means to me that that that master plan is in support of commercial uses again it it previously discussed the the uh the needs to expand commercial uses in the municipality and I think that language to me means that developing a site with commercial uses that work in harmony with a residential use is something that the master plan Amendment supports okay one of the problems I always have is we we have the professional planners come in and testify with all the respect that Master Plan provides for this and this this site is consistent with that Master Plan but then my question is did the governing body the township Council amend the ordinance consistent with the master plan did it not not to my knowledge to my knowledge you know we're we're here uh this property is in the R1 Zone and we're Bound by the the uh ordinances that are in effect at the time this application was made which you know did not allow this use that's why we're here seeking for the use variant okay lastly um you're familiar with Michi relative to the support of the negative criteria the enhanced quality of proof is that's required here I haven't heard any do you want to talk about that well we did we did address negative criteria um I I did address the three prongs that I believe are required in support of this application for the variants uh one of which is the negative criteria so uh in my opinion this application satisfies the test again the to me the the most important criteria is you know in three particular in three particular uh places either the word substantial or significant uh detriment impairment and impact are the terms that that are used and this application in my opinion as as repurposing of an existing building with what I consider to be a handful of parking spaces to accommodate six employees does not ride rise to the level of being significant or substantial uh to any of those terms well I heard heard that testimony and I understand the negative criteria aspect of your of your testimony but I'm talking about the enhanced quality of proof under under medich uh the concept is and I've said this a number of times whenever we have a d variance it's not easy to get a d variance there are a number of proofs that are that are required the positive criteria and negative criteria will Al always required even before medich and the Supreme Court said that there is in addition to support the negative Criterion enhance quality of proof and and basically it says how do you reconcile the proposed use that is the use variance that's requested here how do you reconcile that with the the township council's omission of that use from the Zone well I I can't comment to the actions of the township Council uh how how they come about crafting and what their schedule is to adopt ordinances all I can comment on is the ordinances that are in effect and my understanding as to what the requirements are for this board to consider an application of this nature and I believe I've provided that testimony well I I understand you can't tell me what the township council is thinking sometimes nobody can do that but the question here is on on the reconciling the the variance with the omission and the the medich court gave examples one of which was for example there's a uh a changing of the character of the neighborhood which may justify a use that is inconsistent with with the zoning wens do we have anything like that here well again my my answer to that question really circles back to the three points I've been talking about which to me the most most uh important aspects of this case have to do with substantial and significant again that term is used in three separate prongs of the tests that we're asked to satisfy and again this application repurposing an existing building with a very small number of parking spaces with very uh limited intensity satisfies the test okay um lastly is there any new development residential development in the area I'm not sure how to answer that question I'm sorry I'm not sure how to answer that question okay another point of interest that I I found interesting because I've had experiences to the contrary you indicated that you testifying that the proximity of the high school is a is a is a detriment to residential development every house I've ever sold the people coming in to to look at the houses where's the nearest school and that seems to be a a benefit to me where did you get your proof on that well I believe as we we're having this discussion back and forth it's obvious that these cases are subjective there's a lot of factors that that the board has to weigh and and a lot of things to uh to take into into account uh a high school use I mean Liberty High School is a youth high school with I don't know the exact enrollment but it's probably close to uh it's probably close to 2,000 students or 1500 students uh generates a significant amount of traffic uh has a significant amount of sports activities and extracurriculars going on all the time during during the school year and even during the summer I'm sure uh so a use like that uh you know some people may think it's desirable some people may not think it's desirable again we're hitting that subjective Point well your testimony was it would not be desirable that was your testim that was my that was my testimony that's correct and I was just wondering do you have any factual basis for that well that's my that's my opinion and that's my testimony as a professional planner that uh that a a single family residential of this size uh you know being next to a uh significant uh High School one of the largest in in in the county uh that can be looked at negatively in several ways okay thank you so to answer the question about residential development we discussed earlier there's a new development going in on the corner of new Central and Hope Chapel well yeah I can answer the question I mean you can see it on on the aerial there's a there's a where are we there's a residential development actually we did that job Isaac Court under construction off of off a new Central Avenue as to the other context of of Mr Hurley's question I'm not I wasn't quite sure what he was trying to trying to get at and then also if I'm not mistaken if we're going let me get my directions right here first so you don't laugh at me if we're going north on Hope Chapel back towards county line on the left there used to be a restaurant it's now an ambulance place now correct so I know that there are some other use I just trying to point out I know that there's some other uses in the area further up past Liberty there's also a home I believe there's a home business a seamstress if I'm not I'm trying to see that sign on that house on the left hand side past Liberty so I do know there's some other uses in the area um and like I said just to answer Mr hurly's question I do know that one new development that's being built right there I can't imagine what that's going to look like with a roundabout though any other questions or comments I have one question actually I have five employees written down I just want to make sure are we at five employees or six employees I think we settled on six okay we did okay maximum six okay winess I do not uh if I could have a minute to kind of sure go ahead yes we have no more witnesses have anying comment like to make sir I think I think we're going to stand on the testimony of our experts and professionals who addressed especially with the respect to the planning addressed the positive and negative criteria um I think uh uh I I don't have anything to add on top of that I think we're going to stand on what was said all right I'm G I'm going to open to the public at this time anyone wishing to come forward and make any comments please do so seeing no one come forward I'm going to go ahead and close public public session being that the attorney has no closing comments board it's up to us questions comments the chair Mr book um Madam chair in considering the application one of the major questions that always pops up and sticks out in my head when we're dealing with d1s is is the use that they're proposing and I believe that that the applicant has to convince us that this use as proposed promotes to general welfare and they've got to they've got to tell us why there's there's a because requirement in here and is it because this proposed site is particularly suitable for the proposed use so I start thinking about the site is it what's so special about that site does it promote the general welfare because that site is particularly suitable to that proposed use well we've heard the testimony it's desirable for Mr tesser but I don't think that cuts the mustard it's convenient for Mr tesser and as and his multiple businesses but I don't think that cuts the mustard either it's very specific to him not hearing anything real specific about the multiple businesses that Mr Tess is involved in and how that affects the general welfare now he's got them all over the place are there other places where these multiple businesses any one or a combination of them can be someplace else I suspect yes but I really haven't heard testimony about that then I look at the location at this at is A1 you know there's residences all around them now if I'm a neighbor one side to the other do I now want to have a driveway there next to me do I want to have traffic coming in and even though they say it's low intensity I'm not convinced it's low intensity it's too um it's too wishy-washy in terms of what's going to actually go on there he's talking about two service companies that he has he's got tele medicine accounting Secretarial a paramedic component that he's involved in you know we're kind of all over the place and so I'm really concerned that if I'm an EXO neighbor even with all of the buffering now that's that's not that's not helping me and it's severely impacting me as a neighbor which which is an impact on the ordinance which is an impact upon the master plan and the master plan the attempt to the attempt to pull this into the master plan well it's kind of half farted having a having this this intended use within this residential component is not putting a business in harmony with the residence in my opinion it's gutting the ordinance doesn't belong there there's other places for it um and everything that Mr Hurley had asked before of Mr McFarland in terms of enhanced quality of food I I agree with those concerns as well so I have I'm good thank you so yes I've heard everything that Mr book said and I agree wholeheartedly I think there is a lacking here in the in the proofs relative to the positive criteria Mr Mr book had uh expressed it uh very well uh the site suitability I was not satisfied with either the testimony in that regard because of the uh the the benefit to the general welfare and I agree with is the book that it it appears that the benefit is not to the general welfare but to the owner Mr tesser he testified in fact that uh he has offices in Lakewood and he has traffic problems in Lakewood so he wanted to move to Jackson and it becomes a convenience situation which is not a basis for granting a d variance the only thing I would I could add to what Mr book had stated is what I had questioned Mr McFarland about and that is the enhanced quality of proof that is required there is something called an enhanced quality of proof it's language that comes right out of the Supreme Court in the medich case in which the Supreme Court specifically said that it's not easy to get a d variance you really have to prove the positive and negative criteria and I agree with Mr McFarland that the positive criteria is required the positive and negative criteria was required even before medich came into existence the medich case made it even harder to get a de variance by saying there has to be an enhanced quality of proof the applicant has to reconcile the grant of the of the proposed use variants with the township council's omission of that use from the or from the uh ordinance itself and they gave an example and I I mentioned the example one of the examples given by the Supreme Court was look if there's a change in the character of the neighborhood then it might be a basis for for understanding why the township Council has not yet changed the ordinance and you can consider that for purposes of a variance well there is no change in a character of neighborhood that I can see here it seems like the car the character of the neighborhood is the same and expanding as the same I think even Mr kennel testified that U the community is growing well it is and that's the point of the character of the neighborhood so I have you know my my position here in this case is I think the applicant did a relatively good job in addressing the issues involving the the site plan application but he failed in meeting its burden for the use variants for the D1 variants so if I can just jump in here I mean you're hearing the comments of the board um well I'm going to add I I mean I I wanted to see if he had an application if he had an application I didn't know if he was going to want to carry or not I didn't know if he was going to want to carry or not based upon the comments of the board see why he's completed his application we we've given our comments I understand that but he time for a vote isn't it if that's the board's prerogative but I was going to give them if they so chose I was going to give them the opportunity to tighten this up but that's I agree with you I mean to a certain exent my my only problem my only problem with that procedure is that the applicant has a burden to establish its proof I agree with you and if it fails to do that and we tell them why then they get a chance to fix it I don't disagree with that's you're say either yeah I just have one thought on this um I don't want to see increase of traffic on this road it you know I think everybody agrees that that would be a big detriment I don't really know how to reconcile the traffic testimony with if it will have a big negative impact I thought you know 10 trips of in a as a residential use was a stretch um I do agree with the applicant's testimony of keeping uh local residents of Jackson working in Jackson and as a way to address some of the you know bottlenecks going into neighboring towns um but that said that doesn't have to be this site I think it's a good you know a good practice for people to stay within the township and not you know everybody or a large number of people um at at peak hours all converging on the same you know smaller roads but again I don't know that that addresses the suitability for this site the one thing that I I don't agree with Mr Hurley on and I it's sort of the the big positive or I guess particular suitability of this site is everybody wants to live near a school but nobody wants a school in their backyard at least that's I wouldn't want a school in my backyard it is a main road um but again you know the governing body didn't say well this is the main road and now you know with the increase in traffic let's rezone it so while I think uh I think it's classified as a minor arterial I wouldn't you know choose to live on that kind of a road but I sort of struggle with you know is that a reason to to Grant a variance there are a lot of residences on the on the on the road and all their surrounding properties are still residential but to me contending with the adjacent property line to the rear being a high school and a and a busy one like that's that carries weight I I think there's something to be said for that I don't know um you know I'm trying to do the balancing uh does it you know does it does it make this site particularly suitable and you know does does that sort of tip the scale um but I I don't think it should be discounted at least in my opinion that's a pretty significant uh positive or uh you know reason why this this would be a a good application I think you know they've done a good job putting the H having a somewhat more commercial use um in a in a in a property that isn't super desirable for residential at this point considering what's going on around it and you know really not not uh impacting the the character the parking is in the rear you know if there was a big parking lot in the front or they were proposing to change the the the the architectural design to make it look like a professional office um you know I think those would be negatives they haven't done that they've really kept it very minor kept it um looking residential and and and so I think they've G done a good job with that and and considering the the school in the backyard and you know what that means about the property I I just don't think that should be discounted Madam chairman if I may um in order to avoid having to hear these applications over and over again um I'm going to I'm going to offer a motion so we can we can a vote on it to decide how it's going to go I'll move that the application be denied second we have a motion and a second roll call please Mr Hurley I'm sorry please I'm sorry so to be clear for everybody on the board a yes is a vote to deny that's correct if I I think we did want to carry I understand what the board's Mo I'm there's a motion on the Flor for the record I just wanted to I vote I vote Yes to deny Mr Stafford Smith no Mr book yes Mr Hudak yes Miss Parnes no Mr Harman no Miss FR yes Miss Bradley yes 43 52 52 52 okay thank you thank you thank you motion to adjourn all in favor I