##VIDEO ID:EosmXqybq0o## e e e e e e e e e e e e e flag United States of America to the for it stands Nation indivisible and justice for all all right everybody Welcome to the November 18th Jackson Township planning board meeting uh this meeting has been appropriately noticed and placed in all the forums pursuant to the open public meetings act and therefore May allowed to proceed off to you madam chairwoman roll call please Mr brei here Mr Bernstein here here Mr Maro here Mr heler here Mr rker here Miss Rose Mr Tremor here Mr weart here Mr wall here Mr Sullivan here Dr Campbell here of a motion for payment of voucher for recording secretary please so moved Sullivan roll call please Mr Brey yes Mr Bernstein yes Mr marzo yes Mr heler yes Mr Riker yes M Rose yes Mr Tremor yes Mr weart Mr wall yes Mr Sullivan yes Dr Campbell yes uh before I move on I want to make one uh housekeeping announcement please use your microphones on the de and uh on the uh floor because I've been getting a concerned mention from the uh public that they cannot hear us and we have quite a sizable number of people watching on zoom and the secretary is having difficulty with the minutes because she can't hear the testimony so please be cautious using your microphones approval of minutes for October 28th regular meeting uh a motion please so move Sullivan second hel roll call please Mr brei yes Mr marzo yes yes Mr heler yes Mr rker yes Miss Rose yes Mr Sullivan yes Dr Campbell yes minutes from November 4th regular meeting roll a motion please motion Sullivan second heler Mr brei yes Mr heler yes M uh Mr rer yes Miss Rose yes Mr treemmer yes Mr weard Mr wall yes Mr Sullivan yes Dr Kim yes and we have one resolution tonight yes Okay resolution 2024-the Board of the township of Jackson County of ocean state of New Jersey granting preliminary and final major site plan approval with design waivers for an office retail building for cville office Plaza block 1160 2 Lots 20 and 21 eligible to vote are Mr brzy Mr Bernstein Mr heler Mr rker Miss Rose and Mr Sullivan take a motion please motion oh sorry motion rker to approve second Sullivan roll call please Mr Brey yes Mr Bernstein yes Mr heler yes Mr raker yes M Rose yes Mr Sullivan yes yes um Miss de Maro would you give a uh master plan report please yes good evening the master plan subcommittee has reviewed and edited the entire master plan which includes demographic information we anticipate providing a further update very soon thank you thank you and uh Mr Shay we have an ordinance to discuss yes we do we have a consistency review on for tonight um so just to because I think we've only' done this once or twice in the past uh what we're doing right now is we are the board is going to have to determine uh whether or not the recommendation presented by uh by our professional planner is consistent or inconsistent with the master plan uh so we're going to hear the testimony presented uh by Mr Peters and then the board can render determination as to uh what they believe um one more thing before Mr Peters speaks that the this board um asked for a very formal um review of this by Mr Peters which he he did and it was a Yan's task though thank you in advance go ahead thank you madam chair our office prepared a memo to the board dated November 13 2024 I'll take just a few minutes to read it into the record and if board members have any questions please feel free we'll have have a discussion about it our November 13 2024 report is regarding the master plan consistency review of ordinance number 3324 so in accordance with the municipal land use law under njsa 40 colon 55 d64 the township Council of the Jackson Township has referred ordinance number 33-24 to this board for review the prop proposed ordinance is entitled an ordinance of the township of Jackson County of ocean state of New Jersey amending and supplementing the municipal code of the township of Jackson so as to amend chapter 244 entitled land use development regulations this seeks to revise the residential density standards in the highway commercial mixed juice or HCM Zone pursuant to njsa colon 40 colon 55 d26a board required to review the proposed ordinance and transmit a report to the governing body indicated whether the provisions of the ordinance are consistent with the Township's master plan the board may also provide recommendations regarding any inconsistencies or other relevant matters now the current Jackson Township master plan was adopted in 2009 covering a broad range of planning elements including the required elements such as the land use and housing and other elements such as conservation open space and Recreation circulation utility service Community facilities storm water management Farmland preservation goals and objectives and a buildout analysis this 2009 master plan was most currently reexamined in 2019 2019 master plan reexamination report recommended the rezoning of several properties generally located on the south side of County Route 537 between interstate 195 and the Hurricane Harbor water park as a result the township adopted the HCM or Highway commercial mixed juice Zone and new zoning standards were created to accommodate both residential and mixed use developments in line with the reexamination reports recommendations however the 2019 reexamination report does not explicitly address or provide specific guidance on residential density within those rezoned areas the current proposed ordinance here in amends the residential density standard but does not alter the permitted use of residential development within the HCM U Zone therefore the proposed ordinance remains consistent with the master plan's recommendation to allow residential uses within this area and that the change in the density standard does not conflict with this recommendation nor with the overall goals or objectives of the master plan that's my finding reviewing the ordinances before us and the current master plan re-exam now if I ran through it if I ran over it please let me know I'm happy to explain any portion of it that someone might not understand any questions from the board any recommendation therefore of finding the um that ordinance 3324 is not inconsistent with the current master plan of Jackson Township therefore it is consistent with I think the finding is that it's not inconsistent right there's a there's a whole Theory why we use certain words but the correct interpretation would be that ordinance 3324 is not inconsistent with the current master plan reexamination so Madam chair I have a question this really for the attorney um from my experience in planning boards in different municipalities over the years it's either consistent which is it's consistent or this kind of circumlocution language of not inconsistent yeah I think we need to have Clarity but it's not because the non consistent the language is I've always interpreted as it's inconsistent but it's the the simplest yeah the simplest way to do it is is consistent or inconsistent the only reason why Mr Peters is doing that is because the statute itself expressly states that um it must not be deemed inconsistent so it it's just he's reading the language from the statute just using Mr Wall's Theory it's consistent it's consistent it's it's the same same thing it's just um one is a ver be of the statute the other one is just common sense layman's terms you know um but that that's probably why you've had experience in the pass for that and so the master plan is being reviewed as it is currently it is currently being reviewed correct so I'm just trying to understand the sequen of this process when we're looking at the master plan in December so so the sequencing is is that we are tomorrow is the pursuant to statute we have 30 5 days to render an opinion once an ordinance is officially transmitted to our board um tomorrow is the last day of that 35 days so what happens is that if if we do not render an opinion on this tonight um what happens that we blow past the 35 day statute it goes back to the um it goes back to the council for the second reading and um basically it's just you know they they have a they're they're able to make the vote BAS on a majority vote as opposed to a super majority so um what happens is that if we deem it inconsistent tonight it requires a super majority at the uh Council level if we deem it consistent tonight it requires a majority level if we if we don't make any finding effect whatsoever and we go past the 35 day time frame then it just it it just reverts back to majority so it it it's just kind of a procedural function so because it got uh formally sent to us we had to act within the 35 days today is day 34 I believe um tomorrow it would we just go beyond the 35 days so the not inconsistent remark would mean there's a super majority of the council level is that correct no no so if it's not inconsistent that means we're we're voting that it's consistent and it's just a majority at the council and what is the legal or planning term for if it were inconsistent not consistent what is the planning term if it were not consistent with the master plan what's the legal what's the planning terminology it would be inconsistent inconsistent just straight inconsistent correct and you haven't made that finding no okay and the reason is then the reason's Fairly straightforward the 2019 master plan reexamination made recommendations to Zone this area for residential and other uses the current ordinance 3324 doesn't take away the residential component 2019 master plan recommendation didn't set forth an ordinance that's the job of the governing body planning board said in the re-exam we recommend that you put residential and other uses here subsequent to that the governing body created ordinance standards which defined the residential intensity of use on on the land this particular ordinance 3324 from the governing body seeks to limit the intensity of that residential use but does not limit residential use so in 2019 we said we recommended that residential be permitted on this property this ordinance still permits residential on the property in a different form however that's not the board's responsibility board's responsibility is to compare this ordinance from the governing body to the 2019 master plan 2019 master plan clearly states residential should be considered on the property which subsequently it was by the Govern government Gover body adopting the HCM Zone ordinance 3324 from the governing body also permits residential in a different form and Mr wall I have absolutely understand your concerned because we are heavy into our new master plan and yet it has not been passed yet it hasn't been seen or voted on yet so we must base this opinion on on the 2009 and 2019 what's written and approved that's right so we can't we can't say well can't we wait a month and and just do it a new we we must because of the statuary time uh of 35 days vote on it tonight and with the just one more clarification are you able to recommend to the governing body to wait until the new master plan is um adjudicate it or address it is that part of a re what is the format of a recommendation is can you make it can you make uh can you um make suggestions as it relates to the timing of the master plan and whether or not the sequencing would be more efficient if the master plan that's being brought up I think in December were uh addressed first and then the underlying zoning that underpins the the master plan process I got you may may we ask Mr Peters if that's a possibility yes we in the second paragraph of our our report we indicate the board may also provide recommendations regarding any inconsistencies or other relevant matters so to the extent it's not a secret that the planning board's working on a master plan however there's an ordinance it from a timely perspective this board has to make a determination at tonight's meeting or we don't get our voice heard Madam chair yes sir Mr rker so in taking a look at this from my perspective and I will stand to be corrected by Mr wall Mr Peters and the other professionals it seems to me that Council has birthed us a baby and we have to name it here whether we like to name it or not before this date we're we're we're mandated whether we want to we're not Jud we're not judging the ordinance our responsibility is to determine whether or not the ordinance on its face we have to deal with the situation is consistent with our previous master plan our previous master plan recommended residential didn't recommend intensity location it said we recommended residential this ordinance ordinance 3324 still allows for residential in a different manner so quite frankly the concerns about what the existing zoning is and what the new zoning is proposed really isn't a discussion I think subject to coun here I think it's a governing body issue it's a public hearing issue here we're simply asked to see is it consistent with 2019 master plan and since the 2019 master plan recommended residential we believe that it is I I agree with you on that the point that I was trying to make is they set the time constraint they delivered it to us we have 35 days to deal with it and today is the day so we're we're forced to make this decision yeah so so so what happens that so so we have to make the decision tonight um I have to forward this report to council I guess I forward to the clerk or you know whoever is responsible for that yeah uh Mary so um pursuant to statute that's Our obligation um if we choose not to make a decision as a board then what happens it it ends up um defaulting to as if we made a determination that it's consistent so it's so that's the reason why the 35 day um time period is statutorily in place to kind of force a planning board once the official action takes place um for the board to actually render a determination so so we are time constrain because that 35 days ends tomorrow I mean that's it's the 19th so um so I'm going to leave to the board and determine what you guys want to do but it's either tonight or no night and of course then we'll be continuing with the master plan project correct and we will address things as needed and then the council can again review the council is always reviewing an ordinance situation so this is not written in stone it's written on paper and things can always change so uh any other discussion on this Mr Marza Mr Peters could you just explain a little bit more about the the 2019 master plan reexamination what what does that really mean because we're going through the master plan right now and we're doing it comprehensive what what is what's a re-examination I'm not sure I understand your question but I'll I'll try to answer it in 2019 the planning board undertook a general reexamination of the master plan okay every 10 years it should be done the last one was in 2009 I think it's different from the scope with which the board is currently working although I don't have all of the details but I I suspect the one that's being worked on now is much more comprehensive so in 2009 a comprehensive one was done in 2019 10 years later a more statutory or simplified version of a reexamination report was done and in that report there were some findings that included consideration being given to either creating a new Zone District which adds additional uses including but not limited to residential and mixed use to those already permitted in the cr1 and HC zones along the west side of Interstate 195 and that appropriate uses in the cr1 zone to consider should include but not limited to residential and mixed use so at some point after this board adopted this reexamination report the governing body created the actual ordinance for the highway commercial mixed use HCM Zone we're not here tonight to compare ordinance 3324 to that ordinance we're here to compare ordinance 3324 to the 2019 master plan re-exam that's what we're statutorily required to do when the governing body sends something down to the planning board and so again the reason that we find that ordinance 3324 is is not inconsistent parentheses consistent with the 2019 master plan re-exam is because ordinance 3324 does not proposed to remove residential it appears to have attempt to reduce or restrict but it doesn't take residential out so we recommended residential in 19 this ordinance also talks about residential so from that perspective I think the planning board as master plan stewards would find that this ordinance is consistent with 2019 someone doesn't like two ordinances I think that's the public hearing at the governing body that's really what the question you were asking me was any other questions sorry the followup question to that within the consistency determination are there any suggestions that the board could or should consider as far as a recommendation to the governing body to amend the ordinance in any way to make it to have it uh perhaps in in in deeper alignment with the the current master plan which is part of the regulation as well we've made made no recommendations if the board members want to make recommendations that's fine I think the the standard is is it consistent or inconsistent and that's what our report deals with if the board in the real world understands that the this current planning board is working on a master plan of its own and you want to include that in your recommendations that's fair enough like I said I don't think it's a secret I don't think it's a secret at the governing body level as well um but that's up to the board from my perspective my report was meant to determine from a planning perspective is ordinance 20 3324 consistent or inconsistent with the most recent master plan reexamination in 2019 thank you madam chair that's where I was driving it sounds like there's two parts one is simply concurring with the planner recommendations we're not planners so we're we're essentially kind of assenting to what is put forth by the Planner on that but on the other piece and I from different folks have talked about even on this board the master plan that you're spending countless hours on countless hours on and uh I appreciate being an observer to that not a participant in that so to clear that it strikes me as reasonable to make a recommendation that the council could or or reject to allow the master plan to complete its work which is imminent um before the ordinance is finally ratified as a recommendation that struck me as reasonable for the board to consider so so what what we can do is that the if anybody if any of the board members have recommendations that they want me to pass forward to council regarding um regarding their decision tonight or any recommendations they have regarding the report regarding their decision tonight I I can very easily put that in in a memo to the township council is that what you're recommending uh Mr yes it sounds like the first part is we're concurring with the planner's recommendation he's professional and additionally just out of respect for all the work that the board has done which is imminently to be addressed and and and and perhaps uh approved right to uh pend the ordinance approval uh until such time which is happening quickly as I understand it uh that the full master plan is going to be realized and approved and then and then address the ordinances that would would tie to the master plan and have the sequencing the the sequencing correct as far as the time frame that's my suggestion to the board uh and as part of this document to go forward and I agree heartily with you um Mr wall of course we know that any recom recommendation we make to the council would not be binding on our part or their part of course yeah just so that that's clear thank you okay all right then I'll seek a motion I'll make a motion Mr pet I think you did an excellent report I do have memory of the 20091 master plan I have 2019 relook and why many changed on the relook the master plan from 2009 and 10 was meeting the goals and objectives of it that's why there wasn't that many changes at that time um that area you're talking of now was always meant to be sowh commercial and residential and I think this ordinance helps it keep that to tr and control how much density you can have there and I find you're saying is in your words is totally consistent well not inconsistent and that I make a motion to approve it look for a second don't all trip over yourselves come up with a second or we'll be here till tomorrow and then we'll be too late asking once asking for a second twice I don't think I can uh you you cannot second your yeah I can step from the chair which I will and pass the chair over to Mr Sullivan and I'll make a second only to um make this process uh palatable I am deeply concerned with the work the hundreds of hours we are spending on this master plan and I had hoped that we could move this along without concern but I would like us to make a recommendation that there be some type of understanding by the Council that we are on the edge of making our recommendation for our new master plan the 2024 master plan and that we should uh be able to continue on with that and you and certainly we will be highly deeply concerned about this particular area so I give my second um since I have to take the chair on this vote and this vote alone uh can we please have a roll call discussion please or discussion yes yeah I just like to hear the text of the resolution so we know what we're voting on uh meaning yeah what because there's different variations of what we're talking about are we asking for a hold on the ordinance until the master plan process is complete and if so what just what's the the res the motion is what we're voting on the on the on whether the motion is consistent with the master plan and our um advice from our professional is that it is consistent with it yes that piece I understand it's a second piece that I'd like to hear the text of the resolution yeah so so Mr Mr wall um well procedurally let me this the only thing the the planning board has the authority power to do the consistency review is determine determine whether it's consistent or inconsistent with the 2009 master plan or 2019 master plan Amendment uh with that being said we have the ability of individually um sending recommendations to the council in the memo that I can provide I'm going to have to forward this to council anyway and and in that memo to council with Mr Peter's report pursuing the statute we can put um you know our our own recom kind of non-binding non-binding recommendations as to um you know what we believe or anything to that extent um yeah just reading from some text here it's we're able to make pertinent recommendations to approve the ordinance or its implementation so I just want to have Clarity are we also recommending that the implementation period is subsequent to subsequent to the adoption of the new master plan if the board agrees with that I I mean I would certainly approve it otherwise I'm just not I don't I don't have clarity as to whether we're making a recommendation or suggestion and who's word smithing okay so if we're going to go back to that uh m Mr Bry you made the motion what is what is your I'm making the motion on what we're supposed to be doing onight ask consist master plan I think that's key editing that we're voting on tonight we have to be working on a master plan so voted on tonight accepted if it's voted on tonight and accepted then the master plan would still be looking at it for any recommendations or changes they want to make to it with the new master plan but the master plan that's in place now now it is consistent and our professionals has deemed it's consistent and that's why I made the motion and the master plan committee is fortunate it's going now that they could look at it again and change or make recommendations and I still stick with my motion and I guess I just make the request if you consider amending the motion This is 40 col 55 d26 we're allowed to make any recommendation if we make the recommendation that the ordinance is pended subsequent to the adoption of the master plan so it's simple yes or no if the board is amendable that's what I that's why I'm asking to amend the motion and if not then we can carry on I don't want to be labor all right why don't we why don't we have a a board vote on that recommendation all right so so that everybody's clear as to what what we want to do Mr wall your recommendation I'm just yeah I'm recommending that consistent with 40 col 55 d-26 and and whatever other statute or regulations this applies to I'm not a planner attorney that we're we're concurring with the Planner on its consistency recommendation and further suggesting non-binding suggestion that the that the uh Council penned the adoption of the ordinance uh to time frame that's in sequence with the adoption of the master plan that's all the new master plan I should say that you've all been spending countless hours on I could amend my motion to include that all right thank you given that motion given that motion I'll take back my share position given that motion can I get a second was good good job Jo yes second dearo demarzo second uh roll call please Mr Brey yes Mr marzo yes Mr heler yes Mr rker yes Miss Rose yes Mr chmer yes Mr weard yes Mr wall yes thank you Mr Sullivan yes Dr Kim yes thank you God all right so uh and we now task um our attorney to get that paperwork to the um Township Clerk tomorrow so that we're in compliance and if anybody if any of the board members want to shoot me any recommendations uh just shoot me an email spelling it out and I'll I'll see if I can include it in the memo I have to provide to the township thank you very much all right now we'll proceed with our regular agenda thank you for your patience Madam chair I'm going to excuse myself uh due to a conflict that I have with M Jennings thank you Mr rker is absenting himself good night all good night thank you Miss Jennings thank you good evening for the record I'm Donna Jennings from the law firm of Len Schulman and Spitzer as the board is aware at its meeting of August 19th 2024 the board denied the application without prejudice because the applicant had not satisfied what the board determined to be a condition precedent that the applicant obtained prior approval from the Township's mayor and Council to accept the dedication of the previously proposed public roadway the applicant is seeking reconsideration of that decision because it has modified the application in part to admit the proposal to dedicate the roadway to the township as will be more thoroughly discussed by the applicant site engineer that roadway is now a private driveway that will be incorporated into the proposed Lot C which is one of the three proposed Lots this modific apption also realigns the subdivision lot lines provides for cross access easements to be granted to propos Lots A and B and revises lat's private driveway to provide a perpendicular intersection with the existing Chandler Road for additional traffic safety and efficiency at the entrance to the property pursuant to mackler versus Camen Board of Education 16 NJ 362 this board has the power to reconsider rehear and revise determinations specifically a rehearing may occur for the purpose of taking new evidence thus the board's jurisdiction to reconsider this application is proper as the board will recall the applicant is seeking preliminary and final major subdivision and preliminary and final major site plan approval to construct four private religious schools a wastewater treatment plant and related improvements on property located at 390 and 394 Chandler Road identified as block 801 Lots 62 and 63 on on the Township's tax maps the app also seeking to subdivide the Lots 62 and 63 into the three proposed Lots which are labeled as a b and c hearings on this matter have taken place November 6th 2023 November 20th 203 February 26 2024 June 17th 2024 and August 19th 2024 due to the reconfiguration of the three lots and removal of the request to construct a public roadway the gap now is also seeking bulk variance relief and a planning variance from ordinance section 244-5518 the applicant is also seeking nine design waivers as has been previously discussed by the applicant site engineer in addition the applicant notes that if it is deemed necessary the applicant will also seek bulk varing release from ordinance section negative criteria set forth pursuant to section 7 of the ML and the criteria set forth in section 36 of the ml with respect to the planning variants uh seated to my left is Mr Henry who testified previously he's going to be recalled again to describe the changes to the plan presuming the board first votes on whether or not they'll reconsider this application and I guess it's just as a matter of recordkeeping we are in receipt of three additional reports the tree specialist review letter number five dated November 133 202 24 the board planner review letter number five dated November 13th 2024 and the board Engineers review letter number four dated November 14 2024 Mr Shake uh Mr Riley is uh there you go my name is Bernard Riley I'm from The Firm of gazari in Halo I know Mr gazari was here at a couple of previous meetings uh he couldn't make it tonight so I'm appearing in his stad uh uh I have a few comments and objections to um the applicant's request again it's I'm not saying you can't start over again on a new application but to call this a reconsideration and somehow uh sort of meld or tried to meld all the previous uh testimony into this proceeding is not the appropriate thing to do um the matter can be it was a dismissal without prejudice so that means that the applicant could come back with a different plan and they have come back with a different plan but it is a different plan so to somehow try to say well I can take my testimony from the first plan and we just put it into the second plan I think is improper uh this is a different application it does have a number of differences which she enumerated Miss Jennings just enumerated uh I have certain other objections one of which is uh and really the main one on a technical basis is that because the road the uh the road is on Lot C and it is a road that provides access to Lots A and B uh I would submit and again I think your attorney is probably familiar with the case law on this that under the Nicholls versus little furdu knuckle I'm sorry I stand corrected thank you knuckle versus little leg little furry planning board case which is the Supreme Court decision uh if you have a a drive or a road that's on a different lot from the lot that it Services it requires a d variance that um should go to the zoning board not the planning board uh so that's a uh a reason why this really doesn't belong as a reconsideration before this board uh it really should be a new application before the zoning board um the um as indicated there were a number of other um changes uh all of which uh basically denote it's not the same application and it should be referred to the planing board now to the zoning board uh on the basis that I just enumerated so with that I would defer to councel then he can advise the board as to his opinion thank you Mr sir I would actually just if I could briefly respond so there is a case called knuckle versus Little Ferry which is a Supreme Court decision but it is factually distinguishable in that case a hotel sought an approval and the only means of access to the hotel was through a driveway on the adjoining gas station order repair lot the function of that driveway was for the sole purpose of the hotel not at all had to do with the auto body shop that Township's ordinance also prohibited two principal uses on a lot so the court deemed the driveway itself because it only served the hotel to be a principal use and because their ordinance prohibited two principal uses you needed a d variance the difference here is it's not a road for one it's a driveway for Lot C and your ordinance even if we want and so it's a accessory it's accessory on the lot for Lot C to service their building they are allowed to Grant somebody an access across their driveway to get to their properties that's why the state statute recognizes under Section 35 that you are allowed to have lots that are landlocked some way to get to them and it doesn't trigger a d variance and then more significantly your ordinance allows multiple principal uses on a lot in a commercial Zone and so even if the driveway was considered a different use a second principal use it's allowed because you're allowed to have two principal uses on the lot so it's completely factual distinguish from the knuckle case and I would we were very careful so if you remember we went back and forth about this we called it a public road you guys preferred it to be a private road when we made it a private road Mr Peters and I think he correctly concluded triggered a need for a Dev variance when he thought about it because it created a separate and distinct lot and driveways are not allowed as a principal use under your ordinance and so therefore it was not a permitted use so after the August 19th meeting we put our heads together again and said okay you know what the only way around this is to take that road make it a driveway on Lot C and give cross access easements to Lots A and B but it triggers the need for a variance from your ordinance because you have to have Road Frontage for really safety purposes you need to be able to get emergency vehicle uh back to those lots and so you have to demonstrate under section 36 of the ml that you have appropriate and sufficient access and of course it's a huge driveway it really is supposed to be a road but for all intense purposes we're calling it a driveway with cross access easements to avoid the need to get a devarian from the Zoning Board of adjustment so that we can stay before this board because we have had five hearings about this particular application now with respect to whether or not the board has a right to rehear reconsider this particular application the law is very clear there's been no resolution that's been adopted um so and you denied it without prejudice not with prejudice a big difference if there had been a resolution adopted uh Mr gazar rowski had written a letter to the board and he had said I think they need to go to the law Division if there had been a resolution adopted I would agree with Mr gazer rowski the board no longer had jurisdiction and only a law division judge could remand us back to the board or we could have a settlement and a whispering was hearing but that didn't happen we had some Communications and we agreed to come back making a change a significant change in my opinion to the plan only as it relates to the road all other aspects of this application are exactly identical it is the same exact four buildings that you have seen now for five public hearings it's the same layout it is changes that we have made to address concerns brought by not just the board members but by the board Consultants with the application so really it's an imaginary line has shifted and just made lot see bigger other than that and a tweak to the entrance of the driveway to address another concern raised in when board Consultants review letters about the site distances on Chandler we made it perpendicular to alleviate any concerns at that access drive so I would implore the board to respectfully reopen the application grant us the motion for reconsideration let us put on some testimony by Mr Henry our case is then done and the objectors can put on whatever case that they deem necessary yeah all right so now I'll address the uh the board as to those two issues first um I agree with uh Miss Jennings uh inter M Jennings interpretation of Knuckles case additionally I believe that Mr garski way back in the past uh challenged this issue um with the zoning officer zoning officer and I believe the zoning board attorney ruled that he was out of time on that issue um I maybe maybe kind of uh parsing words on that but I think that was a gist of what the conclusion was um so I think we can put that issue to bed um second issue is the reconsideration we denied this application without prejudice due to the fact that they wouldn't give us additional time to uh at least some have some kind of recourse or or input from the township Council as to um the dedication of of the road roadway that issue is now moot because the applicant decided to uh basically reinvent the driveway situation uh deem it a private driveway and then seek the necessary hardship variances that are required for um for I believe the frontage so as of right now the the reasons why we denied it are now moot uh the applicant is now before us and we have to make a uh a determination as to the reopening of this application so they can put limited testimony on as to the changes that they made and any con consequences uh there from and then allow the uh interest party to put on um or cross-examine put on any testimony that they they would like to as well so we can conclude this thing um but but we have to make it's two-step process first we have to um render determination we have to make a motion uh to reopen for reconsideration um and then we move on to the proceed all right we'll seek a motion please to reopen I'd like to make a motion to reopen Sullivan second I'll second the motion bressie we'll have a roll call vote please everyone vote on the reconsideration or just those that are eligible to vote on the application everyone every yes everyone can vote on the reconsideration Mr Brey yes Mr Bernstein yes Mr Mr Maro yes Mr heler yes M Rose yes Mr Tremor yes Mr weart yes Mr wall sorry I want to clarify that one more time I was not at the last meeting so I just want to be clear whether or not I can vote you're not eligible to vote on the on on the reconsideration that that's fine he can well no no that's what I that's why I asked he's not eligible to vote on the he he stain on the reconsideration but he can vote on the um on the on the application did did you I have there are five members who were not eligible to vote on this application I just want to maintain the Integrity of the application because they didn't hear all of the previous testimony can they vote okay if if they if they certify as to whether or not they've watched the they didn't watch it so they have not heard all the testimony that's why I asked if I should call on them to vote they okay Laur I did advise you that I watched all the uh yeah I have you as eligible okay thank you okay I have not eligible to vote on on on this application Mr Bernstein Miss Rose Mr weart and Mr wall okay but that leaves us with a majority correct yeah then that's that's fine I just I just just wanted to know if they could vote on the reconsideration please I think to keep the record clean I would not have them vote on the motion for reconsideration yeah that's that's fine okay just want to start again so so so Ju Just just who we have eligible okay to vote on the application let's have vote for the reconsideration okay Mr brei yes Mr marzo Mr heler yes yes Mr Tremor yes Mr Sullivan yes Dr Campbell yes okay all right so we're able to go forward now and we'll go to our professionals yeah you can thank you man thank you madam chair um Miss Jennings um I think summarize the application excuse me sir we're going to hear from our professionals first then we'll hear from you okay thank you um excuse me we have some housekeeping going on up here anyone who will not be voting on this particular application uh may want to consider saying in case we can move on to another application tonight however given the fact that this may take a couple hours uh I'm going to leave it up to the individual board members all right so if if we need you we'll call you but we can probably model on enjoy your evening well excuse me sir but they're they're not going to be considering this application so there's no need for you to speak at this time all right go ahead yeah one is as I understand based on your vote the previous testimony in these various hearings the five U that's going to be part of the record yes that correct so it's correct it's all part of the record this is just a reopening of well given the fact that we didn't even know if this application was going to proceed tonight we don't have any experts that are here tonight I was going to re I didn't I'm requesting that we be allowed if you want to go forward with her testimony they're obious going to present some more testimony that's fine but I would like to uh be allowed to bring experts at the next meeting so that the record is not closed that we would sir this you have known for weeks that we were moving forward tonight well weeks no you just took a vote how we didn't know you were going to move forward Sor I thought there was a mo we're going to go forward with this Mr Mr gazari was on notice for weeks a very long time as to um with with with that being said let's see how far we get and then we'll leave it up to the board as to how we're going to proceed at that point well all right that's my request out there that's fine thank you sirk all right right Mr Cay thank you I think we were in the middle of your comments um thank you madam chair um the the application at the time of denial I think um um failed um because um the applicant wasn't willing to let the board resolve the question of you know public or private would the town take it or not um I think if it was Private at that time that vote would have continued and the matter would have been resolved one way or another um the applicant has come back now it's a a private and for all intents and purposes I'm sorry Mr CLE can you just call it a driveway not a Road thank you called your Miss Miss semantics it's all semantics but for all intents and purposes the application from an engineering perspective is identical to what we what we saw um I do have some questions and just a few as far as um the modifications from private um from public to private how how that play in plays in um the applicant Al have to address the new variance relief which is requested um it would be my recommendation um just based on the the private nature of the of the road driveway now um that you know I think it supports the the variant relief that's that's requested um just the questions I have which the applicant would address is what exactly the Chandler Road improvements are um is there security and access restrictions proposed um and is there going to be a limitation of on street parking both on the new driveway and Chandler um one last one um relates to the pavement width of the road it just 50 ft seems excessive to me when it was a public road it was a 70 foot right away it just seemed way out of line and and it's still it's no longer a RightWay but it's still 50 foot a p pavement and I still find that excessive didn't we discuss the fact that we wanted that excessive with for the sake of emergency vehicles um it's yes you're correct I seem to remember that having done five of these foggy and visual wise it actually looks a lot a lot better it's there's Islands there's an island in the middle emergency access has been provided so I believe that we wanted that with in order to accommodate Mr uh Tremor is not true that is correct okay so and I believe believe you are correct but that concept of um The Divided with the island in the middle that wasn't on the table when it was a private roadway originally submitted public roadway sorry correct all right thank you thank you all right Mr Peters Madam chair our office has a report dated November 13 2024 for this reconsideration application um two sets of variances one's a lot with variance for Lot C the second is what we referred to as a planning variance um for the other two lots for not fronting on an improved Road otherwise everything else is the same Mr CLE handled the engineering and traffic circulation respects of that very good all right where are we all right now we move on WE off to the sure um just because I'm testimony words that were given today I just want to make sure I heard right according to Mr CLE and Mr Peters you guys said that everything is consistently before the no major changes to the footprints or anything like that absolutely I just want to make sure because you hear that everything's changed and you hear that it's consistent was before I just want to have my mind is it consistent or not it's not not inconsistent okay thank you um at this time I'm going to call up Mr Henry who has testified before but I don't know if you want him reworn or just remind him oh we rewear everybody you like to swear at everybody okay do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do all right please state your name spell your last with the record James Henry hen r y all right and the board accepts his credentials and we accept your credentials welcome back thank you madam chair okay if you could Mr Henry um just for State for the record or confirm for the record that your office has prepared the revised subdivision and site plans yes correct and if you could just describe the basic changes uh to the subdivision and how that might impact the site plan hang on one second I testifying as an engineer and a planner or correct yeah we did both time yes uh previously uh qualified as engineer and planner by this board yep um if we could bring up just so can we bring up a30 on the so a30 is the uh overall site plan rendering dated uh today uh November 18th 2024 I'm going to reference this for for majority of my summary as far as the changes that took place uh as was previously mentioned by our attorney there really were not very significant changes made to the the overall site plan uh there were some minor changes made in order to address a number of different comments that we did receive in the interm um the main one being uh the public road that we had previously proposed is now a shared private driveway uh and that will be located on Lot C uh lot A and B which are on the top of the the plan as you see the exhibit um on the uh easterly along the easterly side of the the plan we have lot a which has the two schools Lot B which is one school and then Lot C which has is on the Westerly property line um and if you could just confirm the record all those buildings and the parking lots and everything on those lots remain in the same exact location the same size there were no changes uh except for Lot C obviously where where there were a couple of changes regarding the drainage and and that sort of thing so um the other thing is we're now proposing an access easement for the proposed driveway that's a new change um but not not substantially different than what was previously existing um the uses just kind of reiterate what was discussed earlier this is a proposed driveway uh it's really an accessory use to the primary use which is a school uh and that is permitted use uh by zoning um now there are the modified the modified inclusion of the private driveway does change some of the bulk requirements the bulk requirements are shown on the site plan uh really the the sub there were no really substantial changes which which created variances other than um in two instances uh one being the lot went from being a corner lot C went from being a corner lot um and I did review Mr Peter's review letter where he is of the opinion that it goes from being a corner lot to an interior lot and um you know we we can agree with that uh being that the corner lot didn't have a variance previously and now that it's considered an interior lot uh we can we can agree with his determination where there is a lot with variance could you just clarify for the record though why is it it considered an interior lot so it's an interior lot because because previously the private driveway was a public street so obviously you have you have an intersection of of two public roadways at Chandler Road if you read the definition of a corner lot you know this lot no longer meets that definition so it could either be a through lot where it could be considered an interior lot and based on Mr Peter's determination in his uh review letter I believe he took the stance that this would be considered uh an interior lot uh I could I could see it being considered an a through lot just because there is a Truman Street but you know it's it's kind of awkward it's also a paper street so we'll agree with his determination that it's that it's an interior lot uh in this instance uh which changes the way the lot width is calculated whereas previously it was not a variance and now because it's an interior lot it's now a variance so um and we had previously given testimony I believe Mr Peters had previously agreed with my calculation that this was not a variance under the uh the last time I testified so now lot width will be a variance which will be 170 ft approximately uh which is an existing condition which will be maintained under the proposed conditions and just so the record's clear what is the requirements for lot within the Zone lot withd in the zone is 200 ft okay and that the 170 and changes at Chandler correct um there is also um as far as justification for this variance uh you know obviously we reviewed the the site plan wanted to make sure there is proper access to the site um you know the emergency vehicles we did receive a review letter uh from the fire department we did go over and we did make some changes from striping on the plan uh which was not previously shown where we do show fire lane striping all throughout the private driveway and we also indicate on the private driveway that there is no parking along the private driveway and that there is going to be no parking fire lane uh you can see in yellow on the exhibit before you uh in a number of different instances we show you know this is a fire lane and that there should not be parking and there it should not be you know cars parked in this driveway so um we did accept all the changes recommended by the fire department and do our best to uh really make sure that there isn't going to be an issue um from an emergency vehicle standpoint um and the last change we made if you can skip over to 838 so a38 is an exhibit that our office prepared uh it's entitled second sorry lot C1 rev 3 rev 4 overlay exhibit uh dated November 15th uh and this exhibit basically shows the old driveway configuration in red and the new driveway configuration shown on site plan in black um there is a minor uh modification to the driveway as it intersects with Chandler Road really the Chandler inter the Chandler Road and private driveway intersection is more perpendicular under the proposed conditions while we thought that the driveway intersection we had previously proposed was acceptable and was safe as test ifed by our traffic engineer we think this is an improvement over the proposed conditions it's even better than it was uh so by reconfiguring this it gives you a better sight sight triangle uh it also kind of reconfigures it so you have a 90° intersection which we think is an improvement over what we had previously proposed there also is a minor alteration to the drainage basin on the on the um Westerly side of the driveway you can see we slightly sorry my uh it's not working it's coming in out uh you can see there's a minor modification to the drainage plan uh we did submit a revised strange report again we oversize this Basin slightly in case something like this happens where where um you know that monitor modification to the bason really had no impact but you can see under the proposed condition the the driveway comes down just as it did before and then you know potentially you know two 300 ft from the actual intersection with Chandler Road it kind of makes a left-and turn and intersects per intersects perpendicularly with Chandler Road um the striping that was previously proposed on Chandler Road that our traffic engineer testified to that all Remains the Same it just shifted down so all that testimony was previously given to the board and no modification to any of that striping that occurred in Chandler Road really is uh has change so um overall there really were not very substantial changes to the plans it really was just kind of a uh addressing a couple of comments that were issued by the board's professionals as well as the fire department um and then also updating the bulk chart based on the fact that the public road is now a private driveway and um and we reconfigured our site plan to accommodate that um one other thing to note as far as the reconfiguration so we have two variances we do require one variance we went over in detail was regarding the lot Frontage the second variance is regarding the fact that the Lots A and B do have roadway Frontage uh to the easterly east of the S east of those sites however those roads are unimproved so per year ordinance there is a variance required for those two roads you know as we've gone over in pretty good detail here access is going to be provided through Lot C so they're not going to be provided by the public by the public right away that are unapproved they're going be provided through Lot C and there'll be a cross access easement to Lots A and B one other thing to note is uh two of the waivers which we had previously requested are no longer required multiple access points on any street that is no longer required and then parking within the front yard setback on Lots A and C is no longer required uh since um the private driveway is no longer a public road so just going into the planning so that that's my engineering testimony I'm not sure if we want to handle that and then I can go into planning let's let's see if the board has any questions Mr Maro where is the um the access easement sure so the access easement if you go back to exhibit exhibit a30 please we have we have reduced copies of this as well if you if you would like them um there's a striped uh area which kind of goes from a a 45 degree angle across the exhibit from the Northerly property line which is the Chandler Road intersection uh 45 degree down at an angle and then curves over to where the caac uh is proposed um I just see some people in the crowd raising their hands everybody is going to have a chance to cross-examine ask any questions that they want uh of any of these experts again so don't worry about that uh we just have to go through the procedure and the routine in a specific way So eventually in a little while you'll have an opportunity to ask these guys whatever you want and that that whole paved area just kind of just to make sure we're clear is a private driveway it goes from the intersection of Chandler Road uh and then extends all the way out to the CAC and it's in a striped area uh and that is the easan area and then the paved area is the private driveway thank you anyone else from the board have any questions Mr Clay just just quickly um there's no um parking on the driveway or Chandler correct uh Chandler I'm not um we're not we're not really changing anything that's on Chandler so I don't know I don't know about Chandler but our we the fire department had asked that we provide striping along the curbing along the private driveway and also add no parking fire lane and we propose that along the whole uh extent of the private driveway but there's no parking proposed for Chandler correct no yes um and any proposals for Access restrictions Gates or anything like that no and you'll comply with um all the prior comments if they always already haven't been addressed yes and you'll get all the permits yes that's all thank you have speaking of gates we've been down this excuse the expression road before and we did encourage uh another school of this type to consider gates to keep uh it from being an attractive nuisance when no one is on the premises so and for the safety of your um environment so you might think about that while we're sitting here thinking that it it might be an a safety feature to have a a gate system nothing elaborate but keep that in mind for safety sake thank you we'll discuss that with our client Mr trema I want to thank you for the access around the buildings I know we debated a little bit before no problem um is it going to be marked fire department access or any type of curb cut for those areas there is a yes it's a depressed it's actually a depressed curb right in that area so the trucks can access it yes great good job thank you thank you thank you anything else all right your your next hat I just real quick the um the maintenance for the road is that going to be done by HOA what are you how are you going to um is it going to be a joint fund as to maintenance of the road I don't think we've gotten that far but it's going to be on lot SE property and I imagine there'll be some kind of an agreement in the cross access these means okay all right I'll quickly get into my planning testimony uh i' previously given quite a bit of planning testimony and the only real new uh changes to it is that now we're calling out basically two variances uh one is for the front edge on improved Street which is 244 155a and the second one is for 244 46d which is minimum lot withd whereas 200 is required and we're proposing 170.56 applicant uh the application specifically relates to a piece specific piece of property it's very unique and the purposes of the municipal land use law would be Advanced uh by the deviation from the zoning or requirement uh so we've gone over in detail the uniess of this property you know it's very U narrow as you go towards Chandler Road in fact it requires a lot with variance and then as you extend to the South you know it opens up and is a lot wider um so there's very uniqu there's very very unique there's a very unique situation also obviously that now that we have a private driveway that goes through um it's also unique that the private driveway will be uh shared with lots A and B as far as the goals um that will be U Advanced as part of this approval uh goal a which is to encourage Municipal application or Municipal action uh to guide the appropriate use of development for all lands in the state in a manner which will promote the public health safety and morals and general welfare goal G which is for sufficient space and appropriate locations a variety of local residential recreational commercial and Industrial uses uh by both public and private entities um goal M uh goal I goal H um obviously we've gone over in detail why you know there's robust Landscaping proposed uh and really will be create a a nice visual environment uh for the overall uh campus um there's really no detriment to the public good as a deviation will maintain much of the heavily wooded area around the perimeter of the site as much as possible and also provide additional buffering around the perimeter of the schools uh to the maximum of ability uh of the applicant and provide screening for the neighborhood properties um as far as the waivers the waiver the waivers were previously testified to uh nothing really changes for the waivers the same waivers are requested other than the two waivers that I said were not not no longer required uh and then as far as the negative criteria no variance can be granted uh if it will present substantial detriment to Public public good or if it will impair the intent and purposes of the Zone plan or zoning ordinance uh the first prong of that is substantial detriment the variance uh can be granted without subal can the can the variance be granted without substantial detriment to the public good I think these are really technical variances obviously one of them is regarding lot WID lot with already exists out there today we're not changing it it's really a continuation of the existing uh situation it's just a subdivision uh that does occur and the other one is more of a more of a technical because you know while we do front AJ we are we do front upon uh unimproved roadways our access is given through the adjacent Road Lot C so obviously the reason this ordinance exist is so that you know a property can have access to their prop to to the site uh in this situation we are not accessing the property through public RightWay we're accessing it through a private RightWay and a permanent easement that will be proposed on Lot C so it's obviously a unique situation uh for this property and the second prong is impairment to Zone uh the zoning plan um this definitely furthers the townships Municipal goals um and encourages uh the use of planning techniques that will be effective to integrate desirable residential communities and viable commercial and service uses uh resource protection and open space areas um so I think we we've shown that this property is very uniquely suited for this use uh and also for for the variances that we're we're proposing today so in closing I think overall this is a permitted use uh that requires two variances which are only required because of the private driveway conversion that we we agreed to do and that if we did not have a private driveway we would be a variance free application um and then we by doing the private driveway we were able to eliminate two additional design waivers uh which were previously requested I think overall I think the application really does a good job of proposing adequate parking and really proposing uh significant amount of landscaping around the overall site as well as the perimeter of the site uh to help buffer this use from the adjacent residential neighborhoods the only thing I needed you to touch on was even though the ordinance specifically addresses the two lots that don't have access to a public roow there also the state statute section 35 which also prohibits a lot from not having uh Frontage on a public road and it has its own standard for relief which basically indicates that you can grant it if uh there's adequate access for firefighting equipment ambulances and other emergency vehicles necessary for the protection of health and safety um based on your testimony um and the width of the private driveway do you believe that we're able able to accommodate that yes and we provided circulation plans to indicate that uh and we provided that to the the township thank you thank you Mr Peters anything thank you madam chair I don't take any exception to the testimony nor the arguments that were made in support of the application I think the applicants done a Yen's job of approving the C variance requirements from a Global Perspective I want the board members to remember this private s now has a private driveway it will be serviced maintained owned operated by a private entity not the township of Jackson thank you thank you that was the entire Point you're deeming this is C1 hardship variance right or C2 C2 I would actually say the lot with is a C1 because it's an existing condition right all right now um I think just to make it uh easier for the uh public we'll open the public uh comment section that would just be about um this gentleman's testimony if somebody has a question about the testimony that was just given not General testimony not any other kind of testimony any questions just questions for this gentle man's testimony please come forward yes sir again uh Bernard Riley U appearing for the objector the Chandler U Avenue um cand Road uh protective Association um and I have a few questions of the well do you want to cross-examine uh before or after the public what do you it's entirely up to you well I typically find most boards say you should do it before but that's up to you I'm not gonna I thought it would give you an opportunity to hear what the rest of the public had to say I'll defer to whatever whichever way you want it thank you I just ask one question is there another traffic witness only uh that's the only witness we're going to present we had a traffic engineer already testify thank you sir all right now hi all right please raise your right hand you swear or affirm that tell the truth the hold truth nothing but the truth I do all right please state your name and spell your last of the record Joseph londel l m n d l l a all right and your address 23 Hardwick Court Jackson New Jersey and you're not represented by either Mr gazer rowski or Mr Riley correct no okay um actually I'm kind of of looking for clarification personally um the public D questions for that gentleman yeah let let me just set the let me just set the groundwork so so this is cross-examination this this part um what this means is that you guys get to ask the expert that just presented testimony any question you want um relative to the plan and the testimony he just presented um so so my question is to them not to you so so directed towards the expert correct okay yeah um I'm confused about I know that she said it's semantics but it seems like it's more than semantics the use of the term public dri uh private driveway versus Private Road um I'm confused I'm confused as to why there has to be such a distinction are there different requirements for a private road that don't exist on a private driveway and are those requirements uh more stringent for a particular reason that's provides more protction more access to the public I'm conf I think that's actually a legal question that this uh witness is not qualified to answer that that is a question you can ask at a general question time that's not has nothing to do with the planner or the engineer th those are not questions for him I thought I thought it was directly du to what he said sorry the you're asking for a question about a legal term what what this gentleman is able to answer questions on are engineering and planning terms what his testimony so from an engineering point of view if what is what would be the extra requirements for a private road what would that provide there are different requirements between driveways and private roads within the municipal ordinance and it's located within the municipal ordinance as far as the the requirements for a roadway versus a driveway all right I I guess I'm done I'm still confused but I'm done thank you sir yes yes ma'am yes all right please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm they tell the truth the hold truth nothing about the truth I do right please state your name and spell your last of the record Linda moscowitz M o k w i TZ ma'am you can put that that microphone down to your voice that would be a big help thank thank you uh do I need to repeat anything no you're good address ma'am please okay for Hardwick Court Jackson New Jersey all right um definitely some legal things I don't understand you said that you had a report from the tree Specialists are we allow' this is question weow only for the planner only for the planner okay thank you you can get to the you can ask that question later we have been down this road before driveway Road whatever on Harmony Road between Jackson Mills and County Line Road a large development is going in they have a resident driveway access and they have an emergency vehicle driveway access access your plan does not have I don't care if the fire department agrees with you or not I know I followed your yellow rides around and all the rest it is a trap for 2500 children is there a question have to ask a question okay let me get to the question why is there no emergency road to protect the children and the staff for this campus the traffic engineer already testified to that and that was discussed at length later ma'am there was a traffic engineer I I remember you were at the meeting with the traffic engineer and that was the time to ask that question but we didn't have time to ask the questions if I recall the last meeting was abruptly adjourned oh there was a traffic engineer he spoke before that ma'am there was a meeting before that we've had many meetings I know we five of them yes ma'am this is my question is still about the safety of the students and staff on this campus and I don't see any change except that you have finally agreed that that paved area is now a private driveway thank you thank you ma'am oh you got a race Roberta Ellen L hang on do you swear orir to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth of course all right and please state your name play your last for the record eth call is Drive Jackson New Jersey uh my question if you would move that microphone down closer to your face we could the people at home can hear you um just state your name and spell your last for the record Roberta Ellen e l l n 8 callil Drive Jackson New Jersey uh I I see that the um Access Road onto Chandler Road has been expanded but when the buses leave are they going to require to make a right turn because if they start making a left turn and you you have cars coming in from the left it's going to be a traffic nightmare um if if the engineer can answer that question uh there was a traffic engineer that already testified um we did provide a site plan showing circuit adequate circulation that the board engineer reviewed so so they'll so the the buses coming out these big buses coming out are going to be able to make a left turn onto Chandler while we have cars coming in and down the street great is that what you're saying that's my understanding but that's you know that's really a traffic question I think the traffic engineer should be fired thank you question for Victoria Regan r g hang on do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the hold truth nothing but the truth yes all right spell your state your name spell your last of the record Victoria r e g ma'am you're going to have to speak just get a little closer r e g a n thank you ma'am you're welcome and your address oh 44 Chester Field Drive Jackson um there was there was talk of a a traffic light going to be on Chandler Road so is that still in effect ma this is a portion where you're asking questions of the planner engineer I'm ask that type of question can be asked when we have our next shortly open public question this portion is only for this gentleman's testimony tonight his testimony is talking about the driveway that comes to chanler roads so doesn't he know whether there's a light on it or not I mean I was here for almost every meeting except for the one I had surgery and I I missed the good one the last one but I think that somebody should be able to answer if traffic isn't here who's going to answer that question unless it's going to be postponed again I would imagine the uh attorney can answer that question at the ne at when we open it to public comment is this going to be decided tonight is that the intention there's we we don't make these decisions in advance of thinking about it we're here thinking about it with you I understand just trying to get an idea if I could we're trying to listen to everything everyone's saying all right so the Public's biggest concern and I mean to speak out of turn but I know is is regarding traffic so if that can't be answered then we have had traffic engineer testimony I've been here we were all here could answer a lot of questions that was the problem yeah well maybe the client knows but the client doesn't come and then the engineer comes the traffic guy is not here and then the question is always it never gets answer this portion we are we are limited to questions about the planning and Engineering testimony given by this gentleman that's that's the extent at this time and it doesn't include a traffic late no ma'am okay that's it are there any other questions seeing no one else come forward I move to close the public cross-examination oh wait oh oh wait yep Hang on we're going to have we have uh Mr Riley have Mr Riley in this section thank you all right Mr Henry um could we just briefly U enumerate again all please use the microphone thank you can we just briefly again enumerate all the changes between the plan that was there the previous plan and the one now I believe and if I miss one because you went over them quickly uh there was a change in the road it's now a uh private driveway as opposed to a public driveway is that correct it was a public road and now it's a private Trav okay did the width of that road change from the previous plan uh it was reconfigured reconfigured well explain the reconfiguration there were modifications to the widths in certain areas so I don't want to say yes or no because there were some changes there was an island added so there were changes that occur could you describe the changes to the width of the road and where that was and for what extent that was was uh it depends on where you're talking about but there was an island if you're talking about the very beginning of the application we worked with the board who had a lot of comments regarding the overall driveway configuration we added a landscape island in the center along with several brakes for emergency vehicles as requested by the um fire department and emergency access uh provided along the whole driveway um and then there were also uh a reconfiguration of the intersection of Chandler and the private driveway all right so you're saying there was a island and does that go all the way down the center of the road or the driveway no it doesn't how far down does it go are you asking how wide it is or how long it is there's multiple islands and are you referencing which island how long each island is or the total I understand there are breaks in the island we can ask we can get to that my first question is how far down does that Island go from Chandler just give me one second I'm just need to log into my computer here sorry I'm just have to reset my computer I don't have the uh measure I think the islands are on 34 on my plans right they're on the exhibit um they're they're on the plans that were uh provided I could scale them off well approximate can you approximate it Anthony if you can go to page 34 of that um a PDF if possible is is there does that have a page 34 we we didn't change the Island length so I'm not sure if this really relates to you know what what we did here so we should just be focusing on the changes from the last plan to now not reiterating the entire plan so there's no changes to the island is that correct correct there was no change from the earlier plan to this with this plan just re angling just re angling right pardon me just re angling of the of the driveway and and slightly the island towards as as the driveway turns okay the location of the brakes in in the island change no did the width of the island change no now you did indicate you reconfigured or did some changes at the entrance to Chandler is that correct that's correct right could you describe those briefly uh it was just reang roughly 10 or 15 feet shifted to the uh Northwest shifted to the Northwest approximately half far 10 or 15 feet approximately I could I could measure that once my computer starts now is there um any kind of turning Lanes at that intersection as it's now s if you could use the microphone we're recording thank you are there um Miss Morris can you give him um the um yeah Mr Riley if you could use the microphone that would be a are there um uh turning Lanes in that uh uh reconfigured entrance exit yes and are they they new or were they there before they were there before and were they did they change in size or anything like that no they so they were just relocated yes now the you indicated that um that the drive is a permitted accessory use for Lot C is that correct as you understand the ordinance that's correct is the use of that drive as the exit or entrance to Lots A and B is that also a permitted accessory use in the ordinance for lot C pardon me yes no I didn't I I said it no I said if if you can just rephrase just rephrase a question well it's a very specific question she she's my question is is a driveway for a different use on a different lot a permitted accessory use of Lot C on Lot C and if it is if you say it is I have to ordinance with accessory uses I'd like you to point out where it is in that ordinance you understand my question I didn't ask if you understood my question I asked if he understood my question so if you please don't interrupt if you want to coach him whisper in his ear do you understand my question no well I'll I'll show you the accessory permitted accessory uses for R3 that's on this page of the ordinance and I would ask you to point out on that where it says that a driveway for a different lot and a different use is a permitted accessory use for Lot C well I think it's really a legal question and when you look at permitted accessor uses b11 says any customary accessor uses buildings or structures which are clearly incidental to the principal use and building and we told you that the private driveway on Lot C is accessory to the principal use the building on Lot C so that is a customary accessory use on lot SE Miss Miss Jennings let's let the engineer has an answer good if he doesn't then we can address that so just was mentioned earlier where's accessory us isn't even here okay a customary there we go number 11 on the sheet provided it says other customary accessory uses building structures that are clearly incidental to the principal use and building well you indicated in your testimony just a few moments ago that this was a unique quote unquote situation unique doesn't fit into customary if it was customary it wouldn't be unique so it's not customary to have driveways or accessways to other uses on other Lots on an on Lot C is it I've done hundreds of site plan applications hundreds on almost every one of my applications there are uses that connect to other uses through other driveways like every almost every single site plan I do there is a shared driveway between uses between site plans between Lots I I would say that's customary and it's consistent with almost every approval I've done so your opinion it's customary to have multiple access waves on the individual lot yes the um you indicated there was a uh change to the private drainage way or the private drainage um Basin up near the uh top Chandler Avenue area yes all right could you describe a bit more detailed what the change is you indicated it was minor but you didn't really describe it uh it it was slightly reduced at the North easterly corner of the Basin when you say slightly reduced can you give me some more specifically I don't have the square footage off the top my head you know what the square well what do you have a percentage of what it was the reduction was I don't did you do any drainage calculations to show that was not a problem yes but you can't tell us how big it is or what the what the I don't have the square footage reduction now now the driveway or accessway is that um designed to meet Municipal standards as far as pavement uh you know the pavement the foundations of the pavement Etc the foundation of the pavement well I meant the under under obviously the road is paved on top there's under under uh Paving and so forth U is this designed and construct or intended to be constructed to Municipal standards for a public road not for a public for a public road it's it's it's not a public road it's it's I understand it's not a it's a private way of some sort my question is is is it designed to Municipal standards for a for drive for a driveway it's designed it's designed for a driveway okay so it's not designed to Municipal standards for what would be a public road correct it's designed as a driveway okay what's the difference if what what are the the U things that were not done that would have been required for a public Road a Municipal Road I'm assuming Municipal the Municipal Road has uh actually I'm not assuming I know there are are specific ordinance requirements in the ordinance as far as what needs to happen for for a Municipal Road whereas there's separate driveway requirements um that are broken out for driveway okay so so are you telling me that this is designed and to be constructed the same as the driveway to my house or any house in uh Jackson Township same same type of construction same degree of Paving depth and so forth is that what you're telling me no all right well tell me what what's the differences between I mean is it going to get use uh intensive use is it not there going to be hundreds of cars going on this we we provide a detail on our site plans that I understand that but would you consider that to be use similar to a public road no we already went over the fact that it's different than a public road all right my question is what's the difference in construction standards what are you doing differently than you would do if it was a public road I I haven't really outlined what the public road requirements are I'm assuming it's outlined the ordinance and maybe the municipal engineer can answer that you designed this did you engineer did you engineer this road are you going let me finish you're going to cut me off one at a time one at a time go ahead finish there's Municipal requirements in the order orance and there's also driveway requirements in the ordinance and we meet the driveway requirements in the ordinance and then as far as the depth of payment there is a detail on our site plan that shows the depth of pavement okay and does that meet the standards for a municipal road I don't know because I didn't look at the Municipal Road requirements well wait a minute you originally designed it the first go round to be a Municipal Road did you not right and we provided details to that effect but I did not go through the ordinance line by line to confirm that this revised plan meets the the Municipal Road requirements so I designed it to meet the driveway requirements the municipal engineer the board engineer is over there who reviewed our plans and issued comments in his review letter regarding our design and as far as I'm aware we're meeting most of the requirements and if we didn't meet the requirements the the the board engineer outlined any changes we need to make okay so you're telling me and correct me if I'm wrong that you only engineered this to meet the standards of one for a driveway which would be similar to the standers of a driveway going to a house is that what you're telling me I would not say it's similar to the driveway of a house I'm going to say asked in the answered on this one Mr Riley I think he if you want to get into the specific of the construction that would be okay well I'm trying to get him to enumerate what the difference was then why don't we askf question it seems to me if he designed the first Road and he designed this road he could tell me what the difference is but as to the comparison between the the public and private I think I think that's as an answered but if you wanted to get into the specifics answered of the he's been evading the answer what he's been doing he he answered it a couple times but if you want to get into the specifics of the of the roadway construction I would say go for it you know now did you attempt to engineer and Alternate access instead second a second emergency access did you attempt to engineer one are you talking about at a a certain point when we first looked at the site yes um we looked at all any ways to access the site sure and were you able to to uh find a second way in and out for emergency vehicles once we designed the site and knew the site constraints we were unable to do that now I take it you're indicating that the the width of the road was was widened so to speak and that provides sufficient emergency vehicle access is that your engineering testimony that can you repeat the question originally the road was not this wide correct when it was going to be a public road the pavement the pavement WID my understanding is that the width hasn't changed the width has not changed correct so the original what what is the pavement width of this road um where because it VAR it changes depending on where you're looking at well could you tell me where changes and and what the changes are approximately there's an island in the middle of the road we were supposed to be focusing only on what he testified to this evening not going back to stuff he testified before well there's no changes to the width of the road there hasn't been changes we're only talking about changes so any anything regarding the changes that we made one of the changes that were made were was the road so if I would say that that would be at least within a reasonable extent fair game is to cross-examination um he testified he didn't change the width of the road it's been the same right and so if that's his answer that's his answer well we said that already like three times I asked him what the with was and he said well it varies in different it didn't change what me that's my answer it didn't change that's my answer all right what's the with it didn't change I understand you're saying it didn't change I'm asking you what it is the Mr Ry microphone up to your man we just ch I I you said that three times my question is what is the width of the road you've told me it didn't change what's the width now you indicated unless unless the board engineer said unless the board attorney tells me that I have to answer that question I testified that tonight I don't know okay all right so so you're is he refusing to answer the question about what's well it's because we asked we did all this testimony at previous hearings we didn't testify about the road wi tonight ttif so hang on hang on hang on hang on all right so uh Mr Henry if you want to go through the width of the road and just put on the record what the width of it is if if there's any certain areas that are static uh with for I mean it looks pretty much static for the most part um 70t is it 70 feet uh roughly about 50 feet at the widest part okay and the RightWay is approximately 60 or 70 ft approximately approximately there's there's no right away there's an easement all right I'm sorry the easement that's going to be and by the way you haven't prepared any documents or seen any documents about how that easement is going to be memorialized have you but that's a legal issue and that would be a condition of the approval well again when you say condition of approval I've respectfully submit that's something that should be presented now so that I and all the people who are to live with this have a right to look at it I mean for all I know it could be it could be it could have say anything it may not provide for proper maintenance there could be all kinds of defects in the easement I've never and the easement would be a private agreement between the three lots that are going to be subject to the easement to which nobody really has jurisdiction over other than the private parties right so because of the fact that these are private individuals the easement would be a private agreement between the individuals but that would be something that would be addressed in resolution compliance as long as the applicant agrees to the condition of the approval I I all honestly I've never seen an applicant submit an an an easement for board consideration prior to um approval I'm just being blunt with you Mr Riley so that's fine bent is fine I can say I have because it it frankly is issue about funding who's going to be able to do it or there going to be money or there going to be arguments how would arguments be settled there's all kinds of issues that can AR again would be private Mr Riley we we've discussed this at many meetings we have discussed the easement situation at at least three meetings so we have been over this groundwork many times in the last five meetings you haven't had the privilege of being here but we have discussed these things at every meeting well I understand it's been discussed so what why don't we do this so if you have any questions relating to the easement that you want to ask uh the the witness if he has any um any personal experience with it he can answer um you know if not you can reserve your objection for the record all right I'll just reserve my objection for the record um okay I I have no other questions thank you okay thank you sir I make a motion to close the cross examination excuse me ma'am you have a question for this man yes I do okay all right please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the hold truth nothing about the truth yes I do all right please state your name and spell your last of the record an tarof t a r n FF 27 carile drive all right and uh you're not represented by either Mr Riley or Mr gazari correct okay and and your address to the record just want to make sure that board okay she's got it I just have a question I'm not clear about the width of the driveway and emergency vehicles entering and exiting at all because the withd has changed in certain no May that changed but it's not the same in all areas could two fire trucks emergency vehicles get in at the same time uh sure that that was previously testified to um I apologize if it's a repeat but there is uh approximately a 50w 50ft wide paved area uh with mountable curb Islands so a a typical Lane on a road is about 10 or 12 feet okay so it's two emergency vehicles could get in even though one is it's very much in excess of of of what you would need for one because I've spoken before my only concern is the safe of the students and I know you've said you believe it's safe would you be comfortable with your own children being with 2500 students 500 adults in this insane world I taught with a go bag in my classroom after 911 I worry would you be comfortable or are you not comfortable answering that question I have three kids I would be comfortable okay I wouldn't be but thank you all right I make a motion to close the public cross examination second all in favor I opposed carried any other uh Witnesses Mr Jennings uh no that's the testimony we're done okay any comments from our professionals um just quickly on the um or clarification on the roadway const construction at the time the last application was designed the road was constructed um as a um public divided roadway um there were standards for that I can't site them off the top of my head um as the application is now submitted as a private roadway I can't confirm it but the driveway driveway the driveway um has a um red reduced cross-section um because it's not a municipal roadway anymore it's not a driveway to a home but it's a driveway that would serve a a commercial project so um I can't say that the the SE section has been um reduced from what would be required for a public roadway but the applicant would be entitled to go down to that standard thank you thank you Mr Peters anything nothing Madam chair thank you m Mr CLE just to go off that it would be a commercial standard correct yeah okay all right so the same thing as a shopping mall or any right different than a right and and it would uh certainly being at that commercial standard would take care of all that bus traffic that's the concern I think that people would have and of course this is not a public thoroughfare the public is not welcome to drive down this road it's a private road it will not be Public Access that's important to be understood it's a driveway it's it's driveway private all right any questions from board members Mr Moro I just have one more question um the our Engineers uh CM talked about the um some of the trees and it looks like there is a 35 foot residential buffer area and you're requesting a waiver from that is that correct yes we talked about that at prior hearing and what is that um is there going to be any buffer I I apologize I yeah that's okay Jim can you come back up and talk about the buffer yes yes there's going to there there is a buffer as shown on the exhibit before you um you can see there's a number of trees provided specifically anywhere near um the adjacent residential um I believe the reason that we don't comply is that they're uh are a number of facilities that are not permitted within the buffer area um and then there's so that's why we don't comply but we landscape that area very heavily thank [Music] you uh we want to uh open you know what um before we before we even go down that route um here's where we're at right so we're at the point uh where the board has to determine whether we're going to vote on this tonight or whether or not we're going to uh have another hearing um and allow for the experts for Mr gazari all right um just as way of background Mr karowski was put on notice um back in I believe it was early September by me as to this date and then additional um additional notices through uh through Miss Jennings and um myself as well um I believe that uh Mr gazari has a uh traffic engineer uh by the way of Lee kleene um um retained uh I have yet I I don't have the retainer I've never seen the retainer uh with that being said I've talked Mr Klein um so I I I do have verbal confirmation him from him that he was retained for this um as to a planner or engineer I don't have any confirmation for Mr maybe Mr Riley can uh give me more details but as a a planner and engineer I don't have any confirmation from Mr gazari as to whether or not he he has one or or he's even retained one um so I think kind of the threshold issue that we have right now is the board's got to make it determination as to whether or not we want to um is to deem this basically completed um for failure of of the interested parties experts to appear based upon reasonable notice or um push it off to one more night and and allow them to um present whatever witnesses that they have um within a reasonable time right and and we can get into that if need be but but the the case laww on this is based upon a reasonable notice uh to the interested party so um my my determination on this would be I mean over two months ago I I put Mr gazowsky on notice that this was going to be the date uh we didn't hear from him as to the experts being unavailable um until I I believe it was 10 days ago something something to that effect I forget the exact date um but for the for during that period of time we're under the belief that tonight would be the conclusion and we pretty much devoted the entirety of of tonight's board meeting um to this one application so um I'll I'll let Mr Riley be heard on this but the board has got to make a decision as to what we want to do I'll be brief we have two experts Mr Klein is a traffic engineer and Mr Clint is a traffic engineer correct and um Mr Gemma Gordon Gemma is our proposed planner and neither actually Mr Gemma is in Europe today couldn't have come uh no matter what uh Mr Klein has a another engagement tonight um be that as it may I would say yes there was an indication some time ago to Mr gazari that this was going to be under consideration for purposes of deciding whether you were going to allow a reconsideration that was what was that was the issue I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna I I put Mr gazari on notice that tonight would be the reconsideration as well as if the rec reconsideration was passed a continuation of the hearing if if the consideration passed whether or not it was going to pass is an open question I would note secondly that the board engineer and planner both of them just submitted their review letters of this new plan a few days ago I believe one came in Friday to us and the other came in Wednesday that's a fair week that's a fair point it's a very fair point there was no review letter so we were under the impression that there would be a consider whether you're going to go forward out a reconsideration or not that's not a definite it's like Bing Bang Boom you you were going to reconsider it so yeah we didn't have the experts we couldn't get them so yes there's a question of reasonableness this thing as I understand has been going on a pretty long period of time not because of the objectors or because we were delaying it because the applicant of their position and storming out of the hearing so to now at this point say okay you don't have your expert sh because I can't show up and we're going to cut you off you can do it but I I would I've been doing this a while I would dare say it'll be back to you well that's why I'm raising you I I want want to make sure the board is aware that you know we just you to have an appealable issue in our hands that's why I'm I'm addressing it in the manner that Mr Riley I want to ask you yes you you were not um here at our other five meetings no uh Mr gazer rowski has a firm uh I am going to assume that the other gentlemen who could not be here tonight have far terms they could have sent someone else we have been doing this for months you had notice months ago we have schedules we have excuse me ma'am I am speaking you have an opportunity to speak when I am finished well if I may wait I'm speaking okay fine we cannot continue to hold on to these applications month after month after year after year this is where we are now now we expect we come here prepared I come here with my paperwork I've spent hours reading this stuff in my volunteer position you are a professional you should come prepared and your firm should have people here who are prepared this is unreasonable to keep this going on and on without your professionals coming here speaking before us we're here to listen your professionals are not here that is a concern for us I can understand it's concern but I'm as I said the reason they're not here is because they had other commitments one being in Europe they have firms they Mr gazar rowski sent you corre they send someone else there are no professionals that don't have backup professionals we have been doing this a long time I I I understand that and the point that Council said is my estimation that you have to be reasonable we haven't delayed the thing it's been delayed by for other reasons other than us our side and to say when it wasn't even determined until an hour or two ago that this was going to be reconsidered at all to say that you should spend x amount of money and get people to come back from Europe on the chance that it was going to be pushed through tonight I would respect asked for anyone to come back from Europe okay I said somebody from his firm should represent him just like you are here representing Mr gazer rowski we all have backups when you're a professional I understand that if you if you're not here someone else would be here from that firm that's why you have a firm I don't disagree with you on that but it was not even certain until you took the vote you were noticed Mr gazari was noticed that this would be determined and heard and it could have been determined that you were not going to reconsider and if we didn't then we would have all gone home correct but it was going to be determined and if we determined it would be heard and we're hearing it and we're we don't have now the people you think need to tell us what we need to hear well it's just not reasonable I'll just wind up at the point this is an important application to the applicant and to the public and uh there is another point of view as to a number of issues on this application that I submit you should hear if you don't want to do that because of your stance that's your call I would respectfully submit that's not going to hold up in court and I think you're making a mistake but be that as a May it's your call um you have the discretion I would respectfully submit and you can if you want to start taking so you're not wasting any time start taking some of the public to speak that's fine I have no problem with that but be that as it may I would respectfully submit any delay in this application was really I would say the fault of the applicant it's not our fault not anybody's fault I'm not even saying it's not your fault but but because now you want to you want to be done with it there's another point of view that the the whole purpose of having these hearings is so that the public and objectors can State their peace and I would respect and we have heard from the public at every meeting and we will hear from the public again tonight and then we will decide what we will do fine all right I've made my point you can do as you see fit thank you Mr pres yeah I I'm a a little perplexed if we had an applicant that was on the agenda for months ahead of time and walking here without the professional said well we can't move because our professionals aren't here the are they would be just really put off for a long time or denied they we' expect them to be here with their professionals just like you sir and as far as holding up the meetings The public's had a lot of time in it time ran out and also I don't know the amount of stipulations that we have set on this application that the applicants committed to and all that took time for redoing the plan of stuff from requests from the public and this board so I'm not blaming any one person for taking it this long when you start saying that you've been noticed this long and our attorney claims you were noticed that long and told that it may be carried through and final tonight I think it's be missing you and not having your professionals here thank you let's open the public I would like to concur with Mr brei um your firm has been on this case for quite a long time and were noticed sufficiently this is not not an issue thank you let's reopen the public I'd like to give it an opportunity for the public to say what they have to say it's important for us to hear it and then after we hear what you all have to say then we will make a determination on what we're about to do all right who's first you swearing again again yes I am all right all right you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes all right please state your name and spell your last of the record Linda MTZ m o k w i TZ for Hardwick Court Jackson New Jersey all right and you're not represented by Mr garasi or Mr uh Riley correct correct all right with all due respect to the amount of time that this application has taken we're frustrated also but the previous meeting that was abruptly adjourned Mr gazari was here and our traffic expert was here we had no opportunity because of the abrupt adjournment to have our traffic person present and for Mr gazar I as he had planned to cross-examine The llc's Experts we also were here many many months ago on your list and you adjourned the meeting after we spent hours listening to the proposals for a girl school on basso road we were ever heard again Mr gazer rowski was here our traffic expert was here and I'm not sure if we didn't have our engineer also now this is money that the preservation Association has spent needlessly professionals get paid whether they do their job or not they did their job by coming there was no reason to expect that there would be a final consideration of this proposal and I know you allowed some of the board members to leave but as our elected officials I understand they can't always be at a meeting but they had to have at least educated themselves at what happened at the previous meetings so that they could stay here and vote them leaving was an unacceptable ma'am there there are requirements that we as board members some of us have been on this board uh 10 years some of us have been on this board less than a year that in order for them to have listened if they were on this board for less than a year to have listened to the testimony that may have taken six five hours uh over were five meetings that's 25 hours of testimony it it's almost not doable remember we're all volunteers up here we're not elected we we volunteer our time and we appreciate that fact we really do and we thank you for your service and we're residents just like you are all right um Miss Jennings since we're here um is your client here it's not really relevant it's time for the public to ask questions well no so I don't get ask questions I'm not under oath so it's it's so this is um public comment public comment is basically like how you feel about something uh your position on something your belief your it's not this this is not a cross-examination um part of the procedure well I I did have questions for Miss Jennings through her client but obviously they're not going to be answer the CL the the um the applicant never it was never presented for better or worse it is what it is but there was no uh there's no obligation for an applicant to speak on behalf of their um on behalf of their project if they're hired by an attorney so um simply due to the fact that the applicant didn't show up and and present testimony himself isn't a procedural uh defect unfortunately it's just the way the municipal land use law operates well can Miss Jennings answer any of the questions that we would not during General comment it's not a question and answer uh period it's General comments about how you guys feel about something your position on it your belief system um as as it as it relates to the application okay well to Miss Jennings and how we feel about some things may want to plug your ears are you a resident of Jackson Township again ma'am Miss Jennings is not here to answer questions I'm sorry she's just it's not her position you may ask us questions or you may make your comments to us I will make my comments thank you ma'am um I have been to many of these as you know and Miss Jennings has very well represented her client I will say that however at our previous meeting that was was abruptly abjured when the planning board decided to push this as a threshold issue up to the council uh about the driveway Miss Jennings created the adjournment where our experts were sitting here and getting paid by ranting threatening the board demeaning the residents in the room and even going back to basso Road her demeaning of a resident who was speaking to save her property and her neighborhood was objectionable the rant that Miss Jennings put on at this previous meeting about the Chandler Road schools was unprofessional highly my kids are all attorneys they were appalled because we can all watch what went on it's there an attorney should not be threatening the board demeaning residents and in this particular case Miss Jennings is a guest of the board and of Jackson Township and she should at least behave professionally and as a guest [Applause] please raise your right hand you swear or affirm to tell the truth to hold truth nothing but the truth I certainly do all right please state your name and spell the last for the record Heath gerner last name g r t n e r all right and your address uh 4B Prim Rose Lane all right and you're not uh represented by I only rep myself you're only representing yourself okay gotcha um first question is just not even what my original question was going to be but uh I don't know if he's a lawyer or whatever he was um I agree with you guys he should have been prepared but he said that he only received some kind of document on Friday is that correct that would be the um I believe the planner's report correct isn't just had of curiosity legally aren't there usually we all got it on Friday it was the same day yeah no I know but is there usually like a time frame for some stuff like you get like eight days to look at something or nope no sir all right that wasn't really my my main point and everything I just was that was more of a curiosity my main issue is this um my understanding is and I'm upset that traffic guy isn't here because I really wanted to talk to him but my understanding is he was saying that I I guess the percentage of kids driven to school was going to be somewhere between 5 and 10% is that correct or I don't know is is that correct I seem to remember hearing that I understand but this I understand the time for questions is over but without having that exact number and it wasn't relevant to what the other person what what happened was that the the traffic engineering I guess a little confusing when you have like multiple meetings like this back to back to back I think I think this is our sixth meeting on this um what happened was that the the traffic engineer testified to the prior hearing um traffic engineer was cross-examined I I Believe by Mr G I think no yeah I understand yeah for for a while but what happens is that once once the um once the traffic engineer testifies there's no obligation to bring him back and have another go at it it it that testimony then kind of gets cemented in time and and we have the minutes that reflect that um our our board secretary has put together the minutes that are published and anybody can go and take a look at them no that I understand and I have no issue I was just trying to figure out what the the correct number was because I'm which I've thought hopefully someone may have remembered but I guess not but the issue I have with that is I'm not sure if you guys are aware but there has never been a traffic study regarding the percentage of children that are driven to school public and private in the last 30 years that's under 45% of kids driven to school ever in the last 30 years so any anyone who comes up here and says that the number of kids percentage of children driven to school is only going to be five or 10% I really want to know where they're getting that number and I think because of that and you can Google it right now if you want because of that that's a large difference I mean if you're talking even if he said 20% if you're talking 45 to 50% some reports are 60% it's a huge difference and that in and of itself creates um probably about a 30% uh increase in traffic during school time right so if because you still have to run the buses so if you're running buses and you're having private people driving you're just adding to the amount of traffic so my feeling is as much as I agree with you that they probably should have been better prepared to have someone here because of the fact that literally no no study has has been done that has under 45% of kids public or private driven to school um that issue in and of itself I think really should be discussed thank you sir just thought can I just respond quickly you may you may so this is a permitted use so even if your studies were correct and I'm not saying they are I'm going to stick with my traffic engineer and I don't I think you're traffic engineer um there's a case called list listen one at a time one at a time you wanted to understand when you have a permitted use there's a case called Dunkin Donuts whiches prohibits the planning board from looking at the traffic on the streets so it's not an issue in this case as much as you want to make it an issue it simply is not an issue for this board to delve into so y the number of children driven to school the percentage that add is not an issue so so let me I I understand where Mr Jennings is coming from so let me let me explain to you what for whatever reason and I still can't really figure it out the the Supreme both the Appel Division and the Supreme Court got together one day and decided a couple days and decided that for whatever reason the the planning board can't take into consideration off-site traffic so so what that means is you can at the zoning board which is bizarre but you can't at the planning ort so what happens is that any all the traffic reports they're all pretty and they're all great except the the Supreme Court kind of neutered us when it comes down to being able to take a lot of that information into consideration so the second the way we have to look at it legally um the second that the cars leave a lot they literally go into a black hole and we can't take all that info into consideration we can take into consideration pric contributions in as to like you know if they're going to widen the road or if they're going to um uh do something to the Ingress and egress and the on-site circulation right so like how the circulation flows inside the site and then the safety and all that of the Ingress and egress to the site but the second goes off for whatever reason and I think one day it'll end up being appealed and and normality will go back to common sense but for whatever reason the case law dictates that we cannot take into consideration we we can't deny an application off for specific off-site reasons that that that's what that means so so I just want to make so I'm going to regurgitate it and you can tell me if I'm understanding this correctly how's that sound so even though all the studies show something and it could affect the roadway outside of the school which means it may have for safety reasons it may have to be widened or whatever the planning board can't take that into consideration dumb as that sounds that the zoning board could is that the zoning board can okay because the zoning board has the um has the ability of of looking at yeah they can literally look at traffic like five miles away and say yeah you know what it looks like it's going to you know build up at that traffic light five miles away and I wouldn't say it would hold up in court but at least they have the ability of of using that as a method to deny application the planning board doesn't even have that and that's that's because the Supreme Court essentially neutered us when it comes down to that issue so it's not that we don't hear you it's that we literally legally cannot take that into consideration um and then there's kind of some additional issues that come along with that but I I know that doesn't resolve your position on it but that's if you were sitting up here as a board member you have to abide by that as well so that's that's I hope that helps well it doesn't really help but so and I know this isn't a question and answer thing and I'm going to apologize because uh I'm late to the show will there be another Zone do you guys know if there'll be another zoning it's a different board well no I understand it's a different board but do you know if there's going to be another pass to that or not not not on this particular application at this time so so what happens that this applications for the planning board if if they were coming in with um a use that wasn't permitted in the zone like they want to hospital or or something up then that may be that may have triggered them to go before the zoning board which is a different board different body different people all right um that's that's why we're here okay and I I just want to make a comment to you because you didn't have to get snippy with me about your I don't I'm going to have I'm going to shut that down I'm shut that try let let's try to um in any event just so you guys are aware for future stuff then there has never been a study under 45% everever underst it thank you it's irrelevant to us sir but we understand any any even in the future unless the Law changes yes sir uh please raise your right hand you swear affirm to tell the truth the hold truth nothing but the truth I do all right please state your name and spell your last of the record Stuart Ley ell y living bound moral if you could spell your last name one more time or board secretary didn't get l v y l v v is in Victor y Mr Mr leevy if you would stand closer to the microphone it would be a big help thank you thank you sir all right and your address 11 balar Drive in Jackson I've been a resident in Jackson for 18 years uh my first car was bought from this area from Jim curly off of cross street I drove down cross street 18 years ago there were just a couple of schools there I cannot buy a car from Jim Curley anymore because I drive down cross street today and within 3/10 of a mile on both sides of that road there are 12 schools and what you're doing in my opinion is doing the same thing to Chandler Road you're starting out with four and in x amount of years from now there will be 8 and 12 going in on that road at 8:00 or 8:30 in the morning where people people are sending their kids off to school with the buses or minivans is a horror story so you know you also have three schools going on two miles from there on I think it's Fort Plains Road or uh Farmingdale Road and that's going to make it even worse because you got a development of 769 homes within a couple of miles of that Chandler Road is one of the access roads to get into Lakewood and to go shopping and it's going to be in my opinion a disaster uh on top of that I saw this article that was published by it's called the New Jersey education report is a trusted source for news and commentary about schools across the state it reads I'll just read one paragraph he said Lakewood Public Schools just relieved its draft budget for 2024 to 2025 it is bad in order to cover the cost for 5,000 in District students and over 42,000 who require transportation to private Jewish schools the district will have to take yet another loan from the state this time for 104 million this brings Lakewood State's debt to almost $280 million and what I'm asking you is don't turn Jackson into lakid phase 2 I hope that you understand ladies and gentlemen that we have to follow laws we set up here as residents and we have certain restrictions we can't consider traffic we have to consider the uses that are allowed if it's a permitted use we have no choice but to approve it the only thing we can do as a board is ameliorate the circumstances of the choices by doing things like making sure Jackson Township does not have a street that they have to plow and maintain those are the only things we can do you have to understand our limitations it's not our we feel like it choices it's the choices we make because of certain law laws ordinances codes and lawsuits that we have had to agree with so please understand that these are not whims up here that we are making we are making choices based on things that we are required to do sir and um one one comment also we can't take into consideration what other municipalities have done or have not done and it is inappropriate to bring up other municipalities think of when you come before these microphones that you are testifying and anything you say can and will be used against this Township depending on which way this decision goes and we have lost lawsuits in this Township because people have gotten up at microphones Madam chair and one other thing and they have mentioned how we can't count traffic off site and stuff there's one other entity involved in that also County Roads which we have no jurisdiction over no matter what and the applicant has to work with the county on that and we can't besides not the offsite traffic you got the county jurisdictions and so forth also when it comes down to um any of the religious comments what what happens is that there's there's a body of law it's called Rupa right the religious land use act and and what that means is that it's it holds a a planning board and Zoning Board um to make sure that they are viewing applications religiously agnostic so so they have to look at it purely as it as the use is it permitted is it not permitted just as to the setback requirements what is a distance I mean does it meet the setback requirements or does it not meet the setback requirements the the waivers that it's seeking are they reasonable the variances do they meet the legal standards that are required for each different type of variant so the board rhetoric is fine and and everybody's entitled to their own opinion but when it comes down to whether you know maybe one of you guys on one day sitting up here or or the individuals currently sitting in the board right now they have to view these things in a vacuum legally or else we get into some serious trouble um so that that's my little spiel about that but all right uh please raise your right hand do you swear firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes I do all right please state your name and spell your last of the record Robert Rosenberg RN B ER rg5 Exton Way Jackson New Jersey all right um and you're free to go okay I coming to these meetings for years on and off hav't attended this one uh as much as I would have liked to kind of feel it's already a Fed comp um you know and both sides have been heard however I don't think it's unreasonable as most of these people are saying to at least have one more opportunity to have their say I mean it's been going on for several years from the get-go when this first was looked into and I don't think it's being unfair or like I said unreasonable to have one more meeting before a final vote is taken I think sometimes there's a lot of animosity from one side to the other different people and that shouldn't uh have any relevance in this matter I think these people and myself as a resident of Jackson deserve at least one more shot at uh so this way whatever is decided at least everybody knows they been heard and I'm not familiar with all the people but just from my short view here listening to this meeting Miss Jennings you are rude you're just a rude person I'm GNA have to shut that down you can shut it down but I mean understand this is what I mean about fairness there's no reason for anybody to be disrespectful to anybody I understand I understand we got to shut that down um Mr Shay um just in general for the edification of the AUD microne um what would be a procedure for an individual who has an issue with an attorney where they feel they were inappropriate if they um if they they feel they were being inappropriate um there's um there there's methods by which that you can uh file a um an interpretation on something like that but that would not be the job of the that would not be the job of the board not this no corre no the the board the board does not do that all right anyone else like to come forward' okay all right please raise your right hand you swear affirm to tell truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes still Victoria Regan good yep as long as uh Miss Morrison con it we good I made some notes here um I understand you guys are all volunteer and we appreciate what you do um it's been a long road with this project and it's just as long for the public we're volunteers too nobody wants to be here I don't want to be here either but I I really I I have to really request that you guys hold this over in my opinion I don't know what happened with the attorney I mean I was at almost every meeting here and I don't I can't answer to that you know what you've sent them some of the things they didn't get to see I'm not going to argue that but traffic has never answered questions from the public the last guy that was here with the ponytail I asked the same questions that you told me I couldn't ask Kev that I should ask traffic and he didn't answer them and it didn't answer a lot of the public questions so it feels like every time I have a question for the one person that person isn't there and now we don't have um the the professionals on this side of it so really I would implore you to consider holding it over another time I mean I'd like it to be done too but at this point it doesn't it feels like it's going to go through and everybody's just tired and just says you know the heck with it I learned a lot from Mr Shay I didn't know about this uh traffic not being able to be looked at by this board I don't understand why it was this project wasn't triggered to the zoning board because the traffic is going to be a huge issue and that's really why we're here the the things that try that trigger something to go to the zoning board or to the planning board are quite different something that is being built that is um allowed in the area comes to this board right this project is permitted in in the zone it's permitted if something is not permitted as for instance let's say they wanted to build a hospital on this property or an office building on that property that's not permitted in the zone therefore it would go to the zoning board okay now let's say the traffic engineer comes back and let's say Mr gazowsky traffic engineer comes we can't listen we listen but we can't do anything about the traffic we can't vote about the traffic it's almost an exercise and futility every time I listen the traffic people from the applicant tells us everything's great and the traffic people from the other side say oh no it's going to be awful and we sit here and listen and we can't do a thing about it we cannot use it in our determination so to come back for for the traffic is that an exercise in fertility now we may feel that we have other things and Mr Riley may tell us there are other people that we he needs to hear then we can listen but do you understand my point about traffic it's almost why why I wish I would have known that a year ago and then I would have saved myself a lot of pain and frustration yes I know us too but it's it's it's very sad because as a resident of Jackson 16 years now you know looking at that project that other people people spoke to on Harmony Road and you've got you know all these Town Homes going up and now you've got this immense amount of traffic that's going to impact uh the senior developments in the area particularly where we are four seasons and now you've got we don't know because traffic never answered my question which way are the buses coming when they go to Chandler are they coming from Lakewood how what's the percentage of buses coming what's the percentage of traffic nobody wants to answer it doesn't matter but but that's the sad part of it like what are all we here exactly I've lived here since 1970 there was one light on tra on County Line Road one there were Farms all around me there were you know it it s I've watched the town change over 50 years now 54 years I've lived here however that's the way life goes and we can't be a community that said okay we've got our homes now nobody else can have anything else here well but that's extreme I mean nobody saying that's the philosophy of of land use and with land use we are doing our very best to make land use legal appropriate affordable and and make it as ameliorate it as much as possible make it as good as it can be working under the constraints that we are constantly working under but but somewhere in there is that it's supposed to benefit the majority of Jackson residents there having seven projects it doesn't yeah there there's one exception so what you can do so what happens because this of a County Road the the uh Ocean County freeholders have control over that so what you guys can do you can band together and be loud enough voice to have them come in and expand the road so what happens that the um the township doesn't have the ability of doing any expansions on on a on a County Road even if it's within their own Township so even if they set money aside in their own budget or or increase taxes or whatever they still can't touch that road so the county is the only one who has the ability of coming in and widening or condemning or you know doing whatever they got to do to expand it out you know make better turn Lanes um whatever they have to do so if you're a loud enough flying the wall maybe the county will come in and do what they got to do to to widen that road and and there are County meetings yeah public meetings where you can go and be heard I thought this was that Forum so I guess a lot of us didn't I don't think a lot of us knew that we there are hierarchies so you guys Bott of the pile here you you can go to the county and go to a county meeting and discuss your concerns that's your right and I Al the applicant has to go through the county regulations comply with their requirements SE from us have to do that I understand but I mean Miss Campbell you w the one that wanted the traffic light on chanandler road now I don't know if there's a traffic light because he won't answer that question we can't because it's a county road so really our hands are tied your hands are tied and well this kind of wasted a lot of time it's it's what I have learned by chairing this master plan project I I can't tell you hundreds of hours of research and reading we are hemmed in by county regulations there are many many county roads in Jackson Jackson Township has no control over those roads we can communicate and and I know that our governing body spends a great deal of time communicating with the county for for instance uh New Prospect just as being in the process of being of redeveloped and widened and better striping etc etc because of the work that the township has done with the county but we can we can ask could you possibly maybe look at doing something but they don't have to do it that the county doesn't have to do what Jackson wants they can do what they want with their roads H having as many County Roads as we have in Jackson and I would I would say it's it's pretty clear to say that Jackson has way above average number of County Roads as opposed to most municipalities it's a blessing and a curse it's a blessing because we don't have to maintain them as a municipality it's a curse because if we want them wi or if we want a stop light it has to go through the county they have to agree to it we can't force them so basically every project that comes before this board is going to go through is that well they always have to go through the county there there they have to go through the county they have to go through the state they have to go through the environmental commission they have we're we're just the beginning for an applicant they have a whole raft of other places they have to go after here and all these places approved this project so really we're here for no reason we don't yet they don't they're not we're the first place they get approved or disapproved here then they go on to the next so we can follow this case this proposal project in another exactly understud because listen at the end of the day if the if the county comes back and says no go then guess what now they got to come back and they got to redo um their entire plan and those meetings are held publicly here no they not here they're at the downtown Tom's River Tom's River yeah at the Freeholder building I learned a lot but I believe it's Jack Kelly is the Freeholder uh in charge of Roads so you may want to reach out to his Department uh the roads department and and you know just let them know Hey listen this Road's a problem we got to do something about it you know and and listen anybody in the crowd uh that may be an Avenue for your voice to be heard you know um we do have a lot of Township roads and but Jackson has a lot of County Roads and the only way that we can get the county to come in and and do the work that's required is if we're squeaky Wheels you know so everybody's got their own part to play I know my time is up so if this gets approved tonight by the board which I really again would implore you to go one more meeting just a first step first step and what comes next um next is is all the outside they're called Outside Agency approvals so D County planning board um environmental health whole nine yards so they have to they have go through Mr Clay what is it the 12 13 different outside agencies and yeah and even if one of them gets rejected they got to they got to amend the plan they may be coming back before us so so that's why it doesn't behoove an applicant to come in with crazy stuff that they really can't you know do realistically because if one of these outside agencies says uh yeah no no go then they have to come back and and it cost them a lot of money a lot of money to do to do that so it kind of behooves the applicant to be reasonable about what they do understood so I got an education anyway thank you you got it thank you and and thank everybody it's very important to have you come to these meetings it's very important for us to hear what you have to say so we're very happy to see you here please sir I swear do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do all right please state your name spell your last of the record Joseph londel l a m n d l l a 23 Hardwick Court Jackson New Jersey um just initial clarification based on my first time up here if this application were for a private road versus a private driveway would it have to go through the zoning board no no I don't believe so okay still be permitted so what happens with with the planning board for zoning board the triggering is um is the the use itself so is is the use permitted within that zone so going back to the hospital example I don't believe actually without the ordinance in front of me that hospital is a permitted use in the zone so if that was a case when they submitted the application they would put Hospital into use that would then be sent to the zoning officer zoning officer would have to render a determination his determination he would basically compare it up against the ordinances say yeah no and then send it to the zoning board so it's it's a um that happens before we even know what's going on okay um so it's it's a jurisdictional determination all right so it would still be permitted use it would still not have to go to the zoning board thank you yeah thank you sir it took you this long to get up [Laughter] here let everybody else have fun first H yeah all right I'll finish you swear or affirm to tell the truth the hold truth nothing but the truth I do all right please state your name spell your last of the record Jim Sakia s i l ECC hiia six harfield Drive in Jackson um I'm going to ask a question first because my thought is traffic but I'm not going outside the left turn we have to we can't hear you I'm sorry thank you the left turn into the application area is allowed to be looked at by this group the Ingress egress is is what isation where the buses with turn left you guys are okay yeah so here's my here's my point on that is during the discussions we heard that they had a site approved sight line sight lines approved but it was based on the driveway going out never heard is the sight line for cars driving along Chandler is it good enough to see a car left course we heard we heard both that it was the sight line coming out and I'm not sure and the sine true but from the roads okay I I think this as a matter of course of what they have to do they have to do something called a a triangle easement triangulation I just want to make sure that that is a a piece we can talk about right um again one of the things I looked I looked up to see what a planning board is allowed to do one of the things I saw and and I know they're all different they all have their idiosyncrasies but one of the things it talks about is you're allowed to consider the safety of the people so this project is where I get concerned is the safety of the people not only on the curve with the cars going back and forth because if a bus is making a left turn into that driveway and a car plows into it and someone's hurt guess who's getting sued Jackson Township so just be we have to think about what we're allowing the second thing is the safety of just one entrance in and out to a complex where there's 2500 kits those are things that really need to be considered now I'm going to change Tunes you guys later tonight have a decision that you're going to make as to whether the obor can bring additional people up and it was pretty clear that there's three of you here that are leaning I'm not saying you're gon to but you're leaning based on your comments to not allowing it all I'm going to say is you guys went out of your way you you at the last meeting you rejected it but you you did it without prejudice so they they could come back and ask for exactly what they did tonight tonight and you guys accepted now so what did you accept you accepted an attorney that basically said to the Jackson residents because I was here and I heard it as she was walking out the door wait till you see how much I get out of you this time so if you're going to allow her to have this opportunity I think you should also allow the objectors to have their opportunity even though he may have waited too you know too long to get his people here that's my only comments thank you thank you all right please raise your right hand you swear or affirm to tell the truth the hold truth nothing but the truth I do all right please state your name spell your last of the record uh Rich Martell m a r t l l 20 Chester Field Drive Jackson all right good Irish lad thanks yes um at one of the first meetings we had on this application uh someone on the planning board made the statement that you could approve the project because it a permitted use as long as it was variant free so I believe you have the power within the planning board to reject this uh because there are two variances required and I really think also that there's I think 27 or 25 design waivers and I couldn't find the definition of a design waiver any Administrative Code anywhere um what what varies it's it's in the land use code it's in the land use um 455d okay sir if you'll if you were here for all of the um meetings we uh very strongly did not want Jackson Township to be saddled with a another Street yes I know and I understand that and so be well when you when you think the only things we can do as a board is make things better sometimes when we try to make things better we have to give and take a little the only variances that this now requires have to do with that driveway that we now don't have Jackson Township does not have to plow maintain resurface and guard so we've taken that burden away from Jackson Township and in order to do that the deal we had to make was to have a few little variances that only have to do with that driveway it because when it was a road it didn't need variances now that it's a driveway it does need variances now I I understand that but I also say again that you know you made a deal where you really have the authority to reject this because of that and and if we do that they'll come back and say okay we're now going to make it a public road no variances now you have to approve it if the township Council approves it no it has nothing to do with the it's here we are the approving body we are the group that approves that the only thing we tried to do was push it off somewhere else but what we really wanted was we did not want Jackson to be we didn't want a precedent we didn't want a precedent for this type of lot this is not the only one of these kinds of lot and down we don't want 20 30 more streets that Jackson must maintain plow service resurface we we were trying to avoid that possibility in order to do that we may have to allow two small variances that mean nothing to the entire project if we don't do that if we don't make this arrange then we have to give it to them so you have to look at the position I understand that but I'm I'm not so ah so so what what what H what happens is at the variance is that they're they're legal test right and they're a multi-prong legal test with like three or four different layers to it and you have to prove each layer so um there's a bunch of case law on all the different concepts for each layer and there's some exemptions and exceptions to to each one a lot to go into in in minute detail but the bottom line is is that um if they meet those conditions then they're they're warranted the um the variances so so what happens is that even though you deem something a variance it doesn't necessarily mean that it's um by law a a a board can just blanketly deny ambig USIS of variance that if they if they meet the standards if they meet the tests then then you have to within reason you know look at it take into consideration and make a determination on it um you know so so so even let's say you have a a neighbor you don't like right and The Neighbor comes in and wants to expand his house and he's seeking variances just because you don't like the neighbor and the variances doesn't mean that the board has to deny it if if he meets the legal testing for the granting of the variances so um it's it's I wouldn't say it's a checks and balancing system on land use but it kind of is and it's there for I understand that I hear what you're saying I I understand you know your volunteers it's a a great position uh you have to do what you have to do but I'm just saying I think you have the authority because there was some of this other discussion about a c and a d variants um and some unique conditions that were interpreted to be that you still could make this a c type variant um C VAR not D variant yeah yeah uh I I think you have the authority I I just didn't my own edification I didn't hear the uh easement on that road that goes for lots of I think on C is that that whole 50 foot width of pavement or is it a smaller width easement how wide is that easement I'm not exactly uh it's the width of the road so it's whole 50 ft yes yeah okay all right thank you thank you sir seeing no one else come forward I oh hang on we got Mr Ry I just wait till everybody else um I'd like to call uh this is LAN sir's microphone M Mr Riley so just just to be clear if if you allow if your if your client is going to be testifying in the individual capacity Mrs Jennings would have the ability to cross-examine them okay as long as everybody's clear I don't know if M Jennings has any inkling on doing that but just so that everybody's clear um please use the microphone sir we have to do we have to be sworn in yeah well you going to swear in yeah yeah okay so do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the hold truth nothing but the truth yes all right and please state your name and spell your last of the record Laura l biano l o b i a n c five Irish Drive Jackson we're going to do this one at a time sir sir one at a time yes and and your yourid presently represented by Mr gazari and Mr gazari correct okay all right um how long have you lived in Jackson Town shipping can you tell us uh where you live and if you own property in the vicinity of this I've lived here since 1963 in Jackson Township and and I own a piece of property that is on janova Avenue right in my front yard can you speak a little louder please thank you sure yeah if you speak into the uh microphone is this better yeah okay what do I have to repeat the whole thing again did you hear any of it where you live I live on Irish Drive in Jackson I've lived here since 1963 in the same home and we own property on jover Avenue which is a dirt road which is this school would be in my front yard okay and about 400 ft away is that property uh do you plant the construct on that property and if so what stage is that in we have started building a house on that piece of property um it took us three years to get granted variances to build one single family home on four and a half acres and that you went to the zoning board I had to go to the zoning board and I wasn't granted any leniency or any exceptions I had to get variances and it was a uh you know it's a three acres Zone and I had four and a half acres okay is it your intention to uh move into that property when you when and if it's finished yes okay now you obviously um what's your position as to this application and could you tell us why you're opposed to it well we're very concerned of the time when we applied for variant we applied before we even even purchased the property and we asked what could be built in the area we wanted a piece of Jackson how Jackson used to be we wanted to live quiet because my husband's people owned property on cooksbridge road since 1952 when it was a dirt road and we wanted a piece of Jackson how Jackson used to be and we wanted to go live quiet in the woods and have like a little farm and we were told at that time that nothing could be built here except in that piece of property across the way which is the land that is uh Miss Jenning represents and we were told that they could only maybe build six maybe seven houses there I'm assuming that was I'm assuming that was a realtor excuse me I'm assuming it was a realtor that told you that no it was the zoning board officer who told us this he told us we could build a home there it would have to fit the rural character of the neighborhood MH he told us it could not be a our attorney at the time was John PA Doyle yeah I know I know Mr Doyle very well yeah all right now you're um what's your objection to this particular application and the use that's proposing well uh I've been talking with the neighbors and my husband and myself and we're just so distraught that there's a possibility that close to 3,000 people could be in our front yard we have well and septic we have no sewer we have no city water uh we've had problems with the road flooding down at the corner at the intersection of Jackson Mills and Chandler Road and they just did a bunch of work the county road people to fix the water problem it used to flood all the time and the guy told us that this road cannot handle any more water and they did a lot of work to fix that and we're so concerned that with all this impervious surface now with the road and the school and the pavement that the road is going to flood we're concerned that our wells are going to run dry you also said that they could widen Chandler Road to for the increased traffic my neighbors on the far side of Chandler Road they can't widen the road anymore it's been widened a couple of times all these people have their septic systems in their front yard and they're within a few feet of the road and they can't cut that road over anymore those are the concerns that we have I have a neighbor whose property AB buts right to this he's got a farm he has goats he's got chickens do he have anything else any other animal I think he's got sheep as well we have another neighbor who's up right his his house is going to be at the driveway to where the entrance to the school is he has a Vineyard he grows grapes and he makes his own wine um we're afraid it's of the impact of that it's just way too rural of a neighborhood for the size of this project when you say the Road Chandler has flooded on a number of occasions could you describe that in a little bit more detail when it used to flood a lot right at the corner of Chandler and uh Jackson Mills Road every time it rained or we had a lot of snow or whatever uh I don't know deep was the water what you say to close the road they used to close the road because you couldn't you couldn't pass it was impassible now uh you said there were some repairs done since then has it continued to flood it hasn't flooded anymore but the the person who was the um see it was one of the Ocean County Road supervisors he actually said that there's just way too much water in this area and this road cannot handle any more water and they were there for several months at my neighbors across the street and they actually cut through what did they make they put a road to get back there and they made some kind of drainage system and to fix it all so he led us to believe that if something else were to go on to cause any more construction or whatever that this road would flood again we're also worried oh the one guy across the street he actually gets watered 10 feet from his house so he's worried as well and how often does that kind of water situation up here well it used to all the time they've corrected it now but we don't know what's going to happen if they do something to make this project is built yeah and we're really worried because the this piece of land we've owned this land for a long time and I don't know if any of you guys know but the piece of property that we own used to belonged to Johnny irons so we own J Johnny irons old home so we bought the property from Roland irons his son I mean my property has like a lot of history here in the town it belonged to Johnny irons we bought it from Roland irons I went to school with Diane irons who's Johnny irons granddaughter and Roland irons daughter and it's we're way uphill we have the highest we have the highest piece of land of all of Ocean County I was told but this other land is right across from me it goes up and down the the what do you call the to area top the top the topographics of it vary greatly we're very concerned that they're going to do a lot of Excavating to take out this dirt and they're going to have to build big retaining walls like 16t high and and we don't know what's going to happen with like where's this all this all this runoff water is going to go to My Neighbor Next Door who's got the farm is he going to get flooded out what's going to happen with all this water and stuff it's a it's a big big concern for all of us now could you U obviously uh that exhibits up there could you tell us approximately where your property is located as best you can well it's not there by the road it's behind the schools so it's on the other side it's on in the back side of that uh yes it's it's on Jova Avenue okay but do it a butt this property does your property run up to this property it's 400 ft away I have a 50ft right away of the road of Genova Avenue in front of my house and then there's one other lot and then they're on the other side of that lot okay all right and um what's your experience with the traffic situation on chanler is it um uh we don't have very much traffic on Chandler Road at all right now currently um but we do worry that we think that a lot of these children are going to be dropped off by car and they're not going to come by bus we're worried about it because we know that there's boy schools and girl schools we know that the boys and the girls don't ride on the same bus together we know that they're coming from different townships and uh so if you know some are coming from how and some are coming from Jackson and some are coming from brick and some are coming from Lakewood or some are coming from Freehold and man alipin or Marboro that would be you know how many kids could ride on a bus and would they all ride the bus so just how traffic would would it create yes because right right there where you know when we come out of Jova Avenue now um there's there's a bend in the road there and when we're coming out you can't see what's coming from Jackson Mills Road at all so okay do you have any other concerns that the your support why you're opposed to this uh just that we don't understand why they don't have to go to zoning board like we do we had it was required three acres we had four and a half to build one single family home I I don't know what the specifics were with your application but this is a permitted use zoning officers looked at it our planners looked at it it's a permitted use within the Zone um that's why it's here I I I'm just going to have to jurisdictionally I got to make that call I I believe it's appropriate to be in front of the planet okay we don't even think that their buildings meet setback requirements from all the roads and all the property lines and from each building they have a variance uh that they're requesting for the one or two situations that they have as a result of the road um that's that's what that's what we got that's in front of us okay all right [Music] you oh and we did we had the ex my road guy come here twice already that we paid him for and he never got a chance to go up and speak because the meeting went so long and I know you said he should have his staff come but he's an independent Soul consultant he doesn't have anybody else is working for him and I believe he's out of the country right now which is Le Kine it's just him by himself will be back I don't know because we've been checking the agenda to see if this came back on or not and we haven't look I'm not a big computer expert so I asked my neighbors to help me out to look and I've been asking Mr gazari and we didn't see it on the agenda until just fairly recently and you know we feel that we should have him and Mr garasi that neither one of them were able to make it I don't think they had enough notice to know that we were actually coming back to the meeting again they had two months notice well two months yeah just to correct it was it's Mr Gemma that is out of the country Mr Klein is not correct yeah um just to correct that I wasn't sure which guy wasn't [Music] available uh as you don't have anything else to you want to say something sir anything sure all right he he basically Echoes his wife's position thank you very much he's a smart man smart man wise man he's a good husband I do all the talk and he says quiet all right I I have no further Witnesses other than my quiz thank you um M Jennings would you like to cross-examine for any reason no thank you thank you seeing no one else come forward I move to close the uh public portion of the testimony second second Rose all in favor I opposed motion passes all right all right have to decide so now the board has to decide what they want to do the to be fair the planning report wasn't produced I don't I don't believe until Thursday Friday I forget the exact day um Mr gazer rowski was put on notice back in September um with that being said one of his experts is out of the country um I I have confirmation of that um so I I do know that to be accurate um we have we have December 2nd open I'm not available December well then it'll bech be in Manchester you going to be in Manchester okay um you can you have member of your firm come on December 2nd no I'm not going to have somebody come here after all this no okay if if you're gonna speak Mr Riley just come up to the podium Echo I can't remember the gentleman's name but he made a really good point which I'm was a little apologetic that I didn't catch which is these reports for all the engineer report was three days ago and the planners report all these things you have have to be on file 10 days in advance no I respectfully disagree with you 10 days in advance they they do not have to be on file 10 days in advance number one number two they're our professionals so and we've heard the only thing that they addressed in these two letters were the minimal changes that were made just recently that's the only thing they addressed they didn't address the entire range of what we've been getting we we have had all their information for months and months and months and months and years so o the only thing that this their particular letters addressed was this driveway and the changes that this driveway necessitated that's all that changed that was the single only thing that changed so we didn't need that information we knew what that was going to be that was what we were hoping for that change we were hoping for to get that off the plate of the township that was the goal other than that it's all compliant I respect variance free I've said my piece so okay I I just respectfully request it be carried UND if I could just um State for the record uh Not only was Mr gazari verbally advised of this meeting back in September but he did confirm in an email October 7th that was 42 days ago by my calculations that that's when the hearing was he then wrote a flurry of letters between that date and uh last week and in two of them uh October 31st and November 4th he affirmed that he would be here for the meeting um on the nove he sent another letter on November 8th that's the first time he told us he said his experts are not going to be available but he said for the November 14th date so it's not even clear if they actually knew the meeting was tonight November 18th so the the fact that Mr Gemma is out of the country come on you don't plan a a vacation out of the country at the last minute he had that on his docket for weeks in order to be able to go and make sure his paperwork was in order so 42 days ago if Mr gazar rowski was calling Mr Gemma he should have known then that its planner wasn't going to be available the LA requires 10 days notice 10 days that's it we sent we sent Mr gazar rowski the plans and everything on November 1st so we had everything 18 days before the meeting we also only got the letters a couple days ago but there's not much of a change in the application as you can tell from the testimony that was here so there wasn't much preparation for them to do so I would respectfully request that the board move on this application this evening yay or nay thank you all right so legal standard is a reasonable opportunity to be heard um that's what that's the standard for for offering an objecting attorney insed party the ability to present um any any counter input uh counter arguments and make an appearance accordingly um I'm going to leave it up to the board I can't make this call for you this is got to be you guys let's let's have some discussion then ladies and Gentlemen Just what are your thoughts before we move on to a vote anything Mr traa um I'm kind of torn between both sides to be honest Miss Jennings had a hissy fit and tore out of here and created part part of the excuse me ladies and Gentlemen please actually the meeting was already you voted to send me to the governing body so the meeting was canceled by actually the board but you understand my point so I feel for the people and I think they should have a chance but on the same end Mr gazari should have done his due diligence too so it's it's a 50/50 for me it's a very tough call no matter what we do it's not going to be fair to somebody and I don't like it un unfortunately being on a planning board it's never going to be everybody's going to be happy I would be here if I didn't understand that Joe I know so the problem we have here is um Mr gazari knew well in advance that this meeting was coming and for whatever reason he decided to not tell us until the last minute so to speak that he wasn't going to bring his professionals well that's not something we have control over he had the opportunity he was given the time and he didn't take it for whatever reason and he was he's not even here himself so we have to we have to give an applicant a due process a time a time frame we can't keep delaying it because we want people to feel good about themselves and feel that they got every last word in that they wanted to get it has to be done legally and that's the problem we have here everything was done legally notices were given time frames were put out I know you me and everybody else in this board every time you get your agenda we have an agenda just like you pick up over there and there's a list of applications on the agenda and this application has been on on here for what two months uh about three months yeah three months three months we knew this day was coming and I feel for the applicant uh for the for the opposition in that they feel they didn't get everything they wanted to get accomplished but we we gave their attorney the time to do it and he didn't do it and that's the problem we Face Mr prie Mr chair I agree with you that there's no way to truly sit up here and please both sides all the time we just this doesn't happen there's times in a certain amount of years that I've served on luse boards that I've made votes that I hated but we also have a note that M of lus laws to comply with and in this case I almost feel as a slap in the face to the board and the public that hired them but they did not show up with their professionals today I really feel that was a due process he could he give us more time to change it on the agenda and work with the applicant to change the date I really feel that's their headache and the other part of that most of that was trans traffic as we've gone over quite essentially tonight is a lot of that we can't even really consider so I I think I'm not saying which way to vote up or down but I think it'd be appropriate with everything that happened to take the vote tonight one way or the other up or down thank you anyone else on the board comment yes Mr Bry you took the words right out of my mouth it's a Cav it's the next meeting or whenever it's going to be basically is mainly going to address traffic and we heard tonight how that doesn't have that much of an impact anyway so I agree concur with Mr Bry and Echo what Joe said as well thank you is R any thoughts I agree with the two gentlemen I think that they've had PL plenty of time and and I do feel badly for the people but um should have happened he should have been here Mr marzo anything yes it's um it's unfortunate that he wasn't here this evening um and I also concur with the traffic part isn't going to sway anything um I would like to have heard from their planning person just because of the flooding but he's not here and I don't know how much longer since we offered possibility of the second that doesn't work for Miss Jennings so I think um it's just really [Music] unfortunate all right we'll uh accept a motion one way or the other please oh my God I'll make a motion to approve based on the testimony we've heard I'll second that motion there's been a lot of meetings a lot of testimony some stuff under our preview that we can review and and work on and the other thing I'd like to mention I don't know the exact count Miss Jennings may have it Mr sh may have it the stipulations that we put on this application that they're not required to do that they agree to do and all this plays into the consideration why I'm seconding the motion to approve it roll call please Mr brzy yes Mr marzo yes Mr heler yes Mr chmer yes Mr Sullivan I just want to say one thing before I vote um we had obnoxious behavior from an attorney which made this a more difficult situation and then we had another attorney not come here prepared and ultimately these situations tie our hands because we have to follow the law above everything else we must follow the law and given that I vote Yes okay considering that uh and I would highly encourage people who are your residents who are concerned about this surrounding their properties you do have other options you can go to the county and express your displeasure to the county and explain the situation of about the county road to the county but we have done everything in our power on this board to make this application as palatable as possible and as good as POS as we could get for a an application that had literally no variances and we still got fire safety concerns taken care of many other safety concerns interiorly taken care of we got got a wider access to and from access and egress so that we have done our due diligence on this board and I vote Yes congratulations thank you very much it's too late it's 10 o' uh why don't we move them to the second yes can we move them to the yeah excuse me we we would appreciate it if you would leave this room quietly we have more business thank youing things but I don't know what else all right ladies and gentlemen please leave quietly you can chat in the hall we understand you have things to say but we have more business to conduct tonight we're going to take a 10-minute recess re e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e going forward tonight it's a bit too late so Mr feffer we can put you on for the second yes that looks good first please if possible pushy pushy if I don't ask you don't ask don't get if I don't ask I can't get it you've been hanging here long enough thank you we'll do our best and uh no additional notice and we'll G away no notice required yeah right and uh what else is it looking like uh Miss Morrison thank you very much thank you want to make a motion on it could we make a motion someone I'll make a motion and move it to the second I second that motion Sol all in favor I I thank you thank you what else now all right uh Miss Jennings to Miss Jennings to the 16th we'll do our best might oh good news very good news all right okay so uh uh we'll have a motion on moving that to the 16th so move Sol second prie all in favor I and then we were looking uh perhaps to pick up another one uh for uh moving to the second well we have to do that uh I I I have to talk to the attorneys to see if they can meet the notice right yeah I'll do that tomorrow it it might be close but thank you yeah okay thank you very much I take a motion to close motion so movees solivan second somebody is seconded second prie all in favor I have a good night you earned your salary tonight folks