please rise we're going to call this meeting to order Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all before we get started this evening I'd just like to say happy new year to all and Welcome to our um newest member Mr Moshi hman welcome aboard um it is our reorganization meeting so I will be reading the open statements meeting this evening pursuant to njsa 10 colum 4 the open public meetings Acts notice of this duly and regularly scheduled reorganization and regular meeting of the Jackson Township Zoning Board of adjustment has been published and posted in all appropriate locations Liz can we have roll call please Mr book here miss frit here Mr Hurley here Mr Hudak here Mr Stafford Smith here miss Parnes here Mr Heyman here Mr ricardi here miss Bradley here we are going to table um our resolutions until we have our professionals back in place as I said this is our reorganization meeting uh we're going to move forward do we have any minutes this evening Liz yes we do November 15 2023 December 6 2023 from Fran Della okay I need a motion in a second for the minutes please roll call please Mr book yes Miss frit yes Mr Hurley yes Mr Hudak yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss parnaz yes Mr ricardi yes Miss Bradley yes um I also have a voucher here from the township of Jackson for our recording secretary for this evening it's $150 I need a motion and a second to pay the invoice please roll call please Mr bck yes Miss frit yes Mr Hurley yes Mr Hudak yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss Parnes yes Mr ricardi yes Miss Bradley yes we are now I need a motion um I will now now articulate a resolution to enter into executive session I will need one member to vote to approve and adopt the resolution a second and a roll call whereas the Zoning Board of the township of Jackson is subject to certain requirements of the open public meetings Act njsa 10 colon 4 and whereas the open public meetings Act njsa 10 colon 4-12 provides that an executive session not open to the public may be held for certain specified purposes when authorized by resolution and whereas it is necessary for the Zoning Board of the township of Jackson to discuss an a session not open to the public matters relating to the item or items authorized by njsa 10 colon 4-12 B this evening those matters being Personnel specifically the board's Professionals in connection with our a reorganization meeting now therefore be it resolved by the Zoning Board of the township of Jackson to enter executive session for discussion of personnel and more specifically the board's professionals it's anticipated that the deliberations conducted in closed session may be disclosed to the public upon the determination that public interests will no longer be served by such confidentiality as requested may I have a motion to approve and adopt this resolution roll call please Mr Hurley yes Mr Hudak Mr Stafford Smith yes M Parnes Mr ardi yes Miss Bradley yes okay this I'm I'm not anticipating this should take more than 15 to 20 minutes and then we'll return thank you e Mr book yes Miss frit yes Mr Hurley yes Mr Hudak Mr Stafford Smith yes M Parnes yes Mr ricardi yes Miss Bradley yes okay Mr Murphy from gerner Murphy you've been reappointed as our Zoning Board of adjustment what motion oh I'm sorry um we need a motion and a second to reappoint uh Ryan Murphy from gerner Murphy second excuse me roll call please Mr Buck yes Miss fretch yes Mr Hurley yes Mr Mr Hudak yes Mr Stafford Smith yes M Parnes yes no Mr ricardi yes Miss Bradley yes excuse me okay okay now that we have our Council um back in place we're going to go back to the resolutions for this evening Mr Murphy I think the first three are going to be done by our recording secretary resolution no 20241 resolution of the Zoning Board of the township of Jackson County of ocean state of New Jersey granting plary and final site plan approval with use variants for modification of the previous approval for retail Center and existing gas station with convenience store for property located 330 Whitesville Road Block 22301 Lots 1 and two motion and R motion and a second please second Mr book yes Mr ardi yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss Bradley yes resolution no 2242 resolution of the Zoning Board of the township of Jackson County of ocean state of New Jersey Grant a variance to construct a new single family dwelling on an undersized lot for property located at Freehold road block 1 00001 lot 81 I need a motion and a second please make the motion Mr book everyone except Alternatives is eligible to vote we have a motion can I have a second please Mr book yes Miss frit yes Mr Hurley yes Mr Hudak yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Mr ricardi yes Miss Bradley yes resolution no 20243 resolution of the Zoning Board of the township of Jackson County of ocean state of New Jersey granting a motion for reconsideration and for use variance approval to operate a private school on property located at 950 Maple Hurst Avenue block 21501 lot 26 we need a motion in second please mot second Mr book oh is not eligible to vote Sorry Miss frit yes Mr Hurley yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss Parnes yes Mr ricardi yes Miss Bradley yes that concludes your three resolutions Mr Mur you have resolutions as well I have one resolution this evening uh this is an administrative resolution resolution number uh 20244 this is the resolution of the Zoning Board of the township of Jackson County of ocean state of New Jersey rejecting submitted applications for board engineer and requesting that the township requests new proposals for the position of board engineer eligible to vote on this resolution are Mr book Mr Hurley Mr Hudak Mr Stafford Smith Miss Parnes and Miss Bradley I'll make the motion Mr book yes Miss frit not eligible Mr Hurley yes Mr ardi not eligible not eligible listen that's okay Mr Hudak yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss Parnes yes Miss Bradley yes okay so that obviously we're not going to be appointing a board engineer those were rejected at the last meeting by way a motion made by um board member uh Greg Stafford Smith with that said uh I would ask that the board uh consider and make a motion to hold over over um Evan Hill of EDH Engineering Services as the board's engineer until such time um as the uh board engineer position is rebid by the township uh those rebids are considered by the board and the board selects an engineer so we would need a motion to that effect for the for the board engineer purpose I'll make the motion second the motion roll call please Mr bck yes Miss FR yes Mr Hurley yes Mr Hudak yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Mr ricardi yes Miss Bradley yes I understand the board also has a motion uh to a appoint a planner is that correct yes that is correct we'd like to make a motion I need a motion a second to um reappoint Ernie Peters from Remington and Vernick engineers make a motion to reappoint Mr Peters r CL please yes yes yes yes yes yes yes um we also have two additional appointments to consider this evening the first being our conflict engineer um and I understand that the board had discussions about that during executive session as I was not privy to those discussions this evening um I would ask if someone make the appropriate motion um to to address the uh conflict engineer position through the chair I'll make the motion to reject a bid for the conflict engineer and have a rebid we have a motion is there a second second roll call please Mr book yes Miss fretch yes Mr Hurley yes Mr Hudak yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Mr ricardi yes Miss Bradley yes yes and then the last position that was up this evening would be the traffic engineer position um and again I believe there were discussions about that during executive session again I was not privy to those discussions so I just asked that a motion be made reflecting those discussions during executive session make the motion to reject the RFP for the traffic engineer and have a rebid second V call please Mr book yes Miss frit yes Mr Hurley yes Mr Hudak yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Mr ardi yes Miss Bradley yes and I believe that concludes this evening's um reorganization portion of the meeting uh what will happen is I will uh advise the Township Clerk and Township purchasing of the fact that we have rejected the rfps for for they are aware we've rejected them for the engineer position uh that you've also re rejected them for the conflict engineer and traffic engineer position um and I will request that those be rebid um and we will have a resolution reflecting those motions uh separate resolutions but resolutions nonetheless uh for the next meeting okay um now we need to swear in our ref that's correct gentlemen you please raise your right hands thank you do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments that you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes if you would each please State your names uh and provide your affiliation with the board Evan Hill Board engineer Ernie Peters board planner Jeffrey Pororo zoning officer thank you Mr Murphy do we have any administrative approvals this evening no there are no announcements there are no other administrative approvals we can move directly to uh the first matter on our agenda this evening okay thank you all for your patience we appreciate it um we're going to move on to applicant number one Oscar Mauricio Vega Carvajal if I butchered your name I truly apologize um that's one Starling Court variance 3493 come forward sir good evening if you would please raise your right hand I'm going to swear you in do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments that you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth if you would please state your name spell your last name provide your address uh and your affiliation to this application yeah Oscar Vega V it's one starting court and you're the property owner yeah property owner very good thank Mr Vega two things the Acoustics in here stink so if you could uh pull a microphone a little closer just remember to speak into it for us all right um why don't you tell us a little bit about what you're seeking to do at the prop with the property yes H we just bought the the property so I just saw oh there it is so we are trying just to do the fence the ring fence sorry about my by the way H so yeah it's like the drwing the yellow line what we are trying to do H what we hear is like we have like two fronts of the house it's in a corner lot so we just trying to to cover the right side of the H the house if you see it from the front that's basically what we are trying to to do save the space from from the sidewalk obviously Mr Peters I'm I'm sorry I just called you Mr that's okay you you woke him up that's for sure no so the applicant has submitted an application for a six foot high fence in what's considered to be the front yard area the applicant is a corner lot so he has lot Frontage along both Goldfinch Road and also Sterling Court I'm sorry Starling Court uh the applicants seeking a variance for a 6- foot high fence within the front yard setback on Goldfinch Road only and then he does not need the variance for the 6 fo high fence for a portion along the rear yard where it joins the existing neighbors's fence there is a neighbor immediately to the uh East uh their driveway is approximately about 35 to 40 feet away uh I don't uh the applicant is proposing the fence 12 feet off the property line which exceeds the minimum requirements that we've that the board's historically imposed on on on folks similar to this U that being the case there are no line of sight issues with from adjacent properties driveways nor does the fence encroach within six feet of the property line the applicant's proposing 12 just one clarification for the applicant there are existing shade trees along the sidewalk you're proposing those to be on the outside of the fence yes sir okay that's my only that's the only question I had then just for the record just for the record Mr Vega why don't you tell us exactly what type of fence you want to put up is the white the regular fence the white vinyl fence solid white vinyl yeah exactly okay thank you any questions for this applicant how tall will the fence be it's like six six feet I just want just want to get that on the right thank you any questions for this applicant given that the board has no questions I'm going to open this for public session anyone wishing to come forward and make comment seeing no one come forward um board it's up to us to deliberate Madam chair lady yes Mr Hurley um this is typical of the type of cases that we get when we have Corner Lots I've always felt that the uh property owners in this type of situation don't have the same rights as their neighbors would because they because of the orientation of of the property itself being a corner lot they're stuck with two front yards which restricts what they can do on both sides of that property so I think it's clearly a hardship that relates to the property itself because of the the orientation or the location of the particular lot as it relates to the budding streets uh and I think um the applicant has met his burden in this case any other additional comments [Music] deliberations to the chair I concur with Mr Hill I'd like to make a motion to approve okay we we have a motion is there a second to approve the variance I'll second that okay roll call please L Mr book yes Miss FR yes Mr Hurley yes Mr Hudak yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss Parnes no she's an alternate it just Mr ricardi yes Miss Bradley yes Mr Victor farence has been granted for your six foot fence all right thank you thank you for everyone I'd just like to take a moment uh and thank the board I didn't get a chance to do that before um there was a lot going on uh for the reappointment of the uh of myself as attorney just as a matter of um order uh point of order it's been a long time since we've had a full board um and I'd like to thank Township counil for that um uh as well as uh all the board members who have been been patient as as well as all our attorneys and our public um it's it's it's very nice to see a full nine member board very excited um obviously we'd like to welcome our newest member um Mr Moshi Heyman he's our um he will be our our second alternate I just wanted to take a moment to do that um very happy to have him on board he was appointed yesterday evening at the council meeting uh sworn in this morning and and he's here here this evening so uh very excited about that um as a point of order just uh we have a new recording secretary as well um the when there is a full board uh it's the seven uh regular members who will vote on the applications uh Miss Parnes and Mr Heyman are alternates they typically will not vote unless the uh there are certain regular members not here um so just to keep that in mind um that would be the appropriate way to vote on these applications so with that said I'll turn it back over to you madam chair okay we're going to move forward to applicant number two the facility 2 LLC uh they are here for preliminary and final site plan 897 with previously approved use variants 3355 Mr alfiri good good evening happy New Year everyone salvator alfery clear Jobe alfery and Jacobs on behalf of the applicant we were last well first of all the board did already approve the site plans uh but since that time uh we applied for a modification of the approval we were last here on November 15 spent a lot of time discussing the condition of approval that we're seeking relief from I'm going to spend two minutes just summarizing where we left off so we don't relitigate that issue of course if you want to discuss it again we I'm here to do that there's a there's a condition of the approval that required that the lot currently owned with the house owned by Nick janusa be merged into the lot owned by the LLC which would have the ATV facility and the reasoning behind that condition was the board clearly wanted to connect Nick janusa to this project forever or um unfortunately the way the that condition exists it doesn't accomplish that Nick janusa and the janusa family can sell this project to anyone else there's no way to restrict it the way it's currently drafted the condition so we had offered and there's personal hardships that impact them and that's why we're here asking for the relief we had offered to provide to the board a declaration that would be recorded in the county clerk's office against each property that says that if Mr janusa either sells the house moves out of the house Andor sells the or stops operating the business that the approval would be void um the board members we did spend a lot of time debating it we think it gives you what you wanted um there's questionable legal understanding as to whether it's enforcable I thought about that again for the 50th time um and there's no case this is so unique there's no case law one thing we if we were ever in court God forbid to discuss this um if the argument could be made that there's a existing condition that the appeal period has expired on that is enforceable the applicant is coming forward asking for this new condition in in exchange for eliminating the enforceable condition and the court might enforce it I mean might um allow it to stand but we don't think it'll ever get to that point um the board several board members did ask to see what the plan would look like if we did not merge them we have submitted a revised plan Mr boron's here to show you what this would look like if they did operate separately and um I'm going to ask that we bring him up so you can see that and then we're here to answer any questions you have for the chair Mr alier before you bring Mr bordon up could you just refresh my recollection on who the owners of the LLC are the owners of the LLC are Nick janusa and his parents both of you both of them yes who all three of whom are here Madam chair just a question who who got the approval who was the applicant for the approval um the applicant itself was the LLC was the named applicant but both properties were the subject of the application but I I read your declaration and the LLC which was the applicant is only half owner of this property right the other the other half I'm say not not in is Nick but is is Nick janusa yeah they're both parties to the Declaration well I see that but both parties didn't Grant didn't get the approval we're not the applicant is what I'm saying umre you're right both parties were not the applicant but they were both the subject of the application um did that mean that Mr janusa I mean wasn't that the reason for consolidating the two lots the reason that the board required the consolidation was to make sure Nick jusa stayed as the operator of this business that was the reason okay my my last comment not to ruin the rest of your year but there is a case on point and I forget the name I think it's was beninger bar bener something like that yeah I I read all the cases I didn't see that as being on point but again whether we last C last time we were here we debated the issue of assuming that the court overturned the Declaration that we're proposing you're in the exact same position you are today you have an an you have a a condition of an approval that doesn't prevent Mr janusa from selling the business or the house but the problem that you have that that involves the town is that for this to occur either I guess Nick would have to enter into to a contract with someone to purchase that house which would then affect the variance correct or or a contract to sell the business okay then we have a third party involved here so you know I'm just trying to avoid litigation you know what I'm hearing is that if it goes to court the probability is that nothing will happen I I don't know about that the the case that I'm referring to and I just what I remember vaguely about that case is it was a two family house and a single family house and what happened was there was a single family house that was allowed by the board of adjustment to continue as a two family house upon the condition that if the owner sells then the property reverts back to a single family house and that was held in that case went to the Supreme Court it was held in that case to be painly illegal yeah right now that may not be specifically OnPoint but it's pretty close right and the only distinction again I to make the only distinction between the facts of this case and the facts of that case is that we now have a condition that is enforcable that we are offering a different condition to for relief from the prior condition in that case that wasn't the case that was just a condition opposed by the board that wasn't enforcable but I thought you just said a few minutes ago that if if if Nick sells the house then that impacts the variance yeah well not today today it doesn't no not today but if he if he does sell the house it impacts the variance and seems to me that's that's correct paintly illegal well and well again I don't want this board to do anything illegal and set itself up for litigation I I understand your point um we think though that you're better shape doing this than not because Mr janusa tomorrow could sell his house sell the business and you're stuck with some stranger running that business and that was a big obviously that was the main reason for that imposition it was probably the key factor in getting the variance relief frankly um so without that condition we wouldn't have gotten the variant and we're giving and and therefore you don't have what you bargain for and we're trying to give you what you bargain for well I sympathize with his situation with prob not the problem not being able to get a mortgage and I think the suggestion that was made is separate the two which is what you're what you're suggesting but bring back the facility operation as an independent commercial operation and maybe just get a variance for that and bring back with you know an application for the variance for that alone and bring in a concept plan yeah we're that we're not going to if if this request is denied they're going to live up to whatever the original approval was and they're going to they're going to run the business as approved that's fine thank you we don't want to go through the whole application process again so we're going to need to swear Mr bordon then Mr bordon thank you for raising your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony inform questions or comments that you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you if you would please state your name spell your last provide your affiliation and credentials sure Ian bordon uh president of professional Design Services in Airport Road in Lakewood New Jersey I'm a professional planner in the state of New Jersey graduate of rugid University 40 years ago and been practicing and testifying for more than I care to remember thank you Mr bordon this this board accepts your credentials thank you thank you and Mr bordon we're here your purpose here tonight is since this already approved both use variant and site plan we're not here to relitigate the whole application correct we're here simply to show the board what changes would be made so that the the the business can operate independent of the house other than the easement to get into the property okay so can you show the board understood uh exhibit A1 is just the site plan that we had submitted to the board we had resubmitted the site plan with uh some small Visions as Mr alfery mentions uh this that I'm pointing to is is Nick janus's lot and you had it zoomed in Anthony that was really good if you can go back right in that area and you can see here the uh trailer parking and the refu enclosure the dster and the port joh previously we just simply flipped them from the from the top of the lot to to the bottom of the lot line the lot line is where I'm describing you see the extension from the side side here and we simply moved them on to the same property where the uh ATV uh trails are that's all they just moved literally less than 40 ft from from nor uh north to south so essentially the the area Mark trailer parking and the Porton are just moved from Nick's house lot to and dumpster I should say move from Nick's house lot to the LLC lot correct that's it the drive access Drive everything else the access road drive the easement required the trails themselves nothing else has changed that's really all we have any questions for Mr bordon Madam Char yes Mr bordon just out of curiosity if if we were to agree to this and set this up as a single operation someone comes in to use the track is there an office here that they that they appear at to to talk to somebody somebody who controls that they're coming in I think that's more of an operational question my understanding is or not if I recall from the original testimony there's a gate recall up by hawen Road basically a key card gate where a member could could get access to the to the property there's not a uh there's not an office and man facility so there'll be no one on the site to control that no nick is on the site to control it well Nick is not part of this I thought that's why we're separating this no Nick will always be part of it in fact that's why we're that's the exact reason why we're offering what we're offering he if he's not involved then the variance goes away way well that's my understanding my understanding is the approval was granted because Nick was involved this is like a Consolidated operation no changes being made to them well everything you know he had a garage where where the the units were going to be kept no none of that was part of the application no the house and the garage on this property were never part of the application agree to disagree thank you okay any additional questions for Mr bordon having that concludes our presentation you you need to open it to the public of course and then we request that the board take action in whatever manner you see fit rard so so that was very nice but isn't there some type of some type of agreement that is we prepared when and provided it and it would be subject to If This Were approved it would still be subject to the board professionals approving a final document you just asked for a draft of what we suggest that you would consider but your professionals would have to review it and comment and and we'd have to agree as a some final document if it if it were approved and I'm assuming that if this were to be granted two separate operations for for the lack of a better that it would conform to any of the how about now yes better yes look at that I feel like Frank Sinatra um that if it if it were two separate operations that both I say two separate operations two separate properties both properties would conform to whatever the township regulations are to operate those things the house would still have to operate as a single family house as it was it wasn't approved by this board this was because it's a permitted use but the all the conditions of approval of the business if you will would remain in place we're not seeking to modify any of them other than the one that we're here for tonight so every other condition would remain thank you given that there are no additional questions from the board I'm going to open this to the public please come forward good evening how are you my name is uh Cynthia rosinski I live at 1110 lean Drive New EGP New Jersey um if you would just one second you got to swear me in I do but I also I'm gonna we'll go through it um please raise your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments that you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do thank you very much I know you just stated your name if you would please state your name again spell your last name and provide your address one more time all right Cynthia rosinski r o s i NSK ki10 Lee and Drive New Egypt New Jersey thank you very much um I just have a a question or a statement to make they said that the access road was on hawen road that's where his house is located to go through there to the back the other side of the road where I believe the access road was supposed to be is on 528 so I don't know if this means that he's still going to have people coming through his house area to go to the um actual ATV place or what but I know Hawking Road is actually where his house is the O the only access will be through the driveway on Hawking where his house is that's the only access that because I know there's a on 528 there's an access a little stub on 528 but that was we we agreed that that would not be used for this facility so that's not making it a separate thing he's still going to going to be using his house area as part of the business to go through and correct use as access the driveway would be the same right that's I don't know that's a whole different ball game right there but that's all that I have to say right now so anyone else from the public wish to come forward I have a question yes Mr alfair if in the event that that the board were to Grant this particular request I I presume that that would negate the obviously that would negate the requirement that the Lots be merged you would and again I I read the agreement but you would agree to a specific cross access easement we would have to have a cross access e thank you that's all I wanted to clarify if you would please raise your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm that testimony information questions or comments that you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you very much if You' please uh same state your um your name spell your last and provide your address please my name is Brandon zinc and last name is spelled z n k address is 261 hawen Road New Egypt and uh I'm here with my wife Katie and uh some neighbors we uh we purchased hawen 261 hawen 12 years ago and are raising our two sons there we own two acres that back up to Mr janus's property uh block 18201 Lot 29 we bought the Hawken property specifically for the large quiet wooded backyard and believed that it would be a great place to raise a family and it was until recently the noise level has increased in volume considerably since since Mr janusa acquired land behind our home it's impacted our quality of life daily and will inevitably impact the value of our property or potentially render it unsalable it's also on our understanding that this track is not fully operational yet which translates to the quality of life only deteriorating further down the road we certainly wouldn't buy a property that backs up to an ATV Motocross park most wouldn't and I used to ride I know many residents in the area feel the same and have expressed their opposition to this track from early on in its infancy and despite that opposition from numerous members of the community the site was still approved we admire Mr janus's accomplishments in profession of ATV and Motocross and his passion for the sport however we question whether he understands the impact his operations are having on the residential property surrounding the facility and will have down the road equally from the context of quality of life and the facil impact on the value and salability of the surrounding Residential Properties if property values go down property taxes go down and Township revenue and services decline we believe the junior track located in the southwest corner of the facility 2 property along with the perimeter trails are largely the cause of the increase in noise levels due to their close proximity to the surrounding residential lots and would require requ EST that the board re-evaluate its position with regard to ATVs being permitted to operate at such a close distance to homes the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has established sound level standards of 65 DB during the day that we believe are being violated when the ATVs operate within perimeter trails and on the southwest corner of the property I have measured decel levels over 95 from inside my home and I'll play that if I'm allowed it is for the these reasons that we oppose relief from consolidation of the Lots as was conditioned under the site approval or any further development or expansion we now have to live with the quality of life issues and financial impacts resulting from the approval of an ATV site and a residential area so we would ask that at a minimum Mr janusa retains skin in the game with the Consolidated Lots originally conditioned we feel that the track Lots being Consolidated with Mr janus's residential lot will promote responsible operation of the facility and a continued awareness of its impact on the surrounding Community would I be able to play some audio video I'm going to just request I'm going to object to it only because that part of the application is not before the board that's an Enforcement issue the approvals are already vested and in place so the sound is not relevant to this particular application correct I I I agree with Mr Alfy's objection let me just explain briefly before you I don't want you to feel in any way slighted or disrespected um and that's certainly not my intent um from a legal perspective um what has happened here is that the the approval for the use variants has already been granted the approval for the site plan um has already been granted the sole issue before the board this evening is the cons the consolidation of the Lots so we're not here arguing the merits of the application or anything of that nature we're just here talking about the consolidation uh Clause that's in the um resolution of approval for the use variants um so uh that wouldn't be relevant to tonight's hearing but again I thank you for your sure comments um I'd also like to express concern with um the proposed location of dumpsters and porta potties Mr janus's residential lot is two doors away on a hot summer day the smell of the dumpsters and the porta potties in our backyard uh I think could be a problem I also have a number of questions uh I don't know if I should submit those in writing or if I should ask them now um questions for whom uh I I guess it would pertain to both the board and Mr Jan you got something say this is this is the last time we're coming here I think so we should deal with them now how much further will the facility be permitted to expand the track Andor clear land in the southwest corner the the approval as granted is what the applicant is allowed to do there's no clearing proposed and if the applicant work to expand or try to clear he'd have to come back to this board for a revised approval correct how many riders are permitted on the junior track located within the I'm not sure if there's a specific limitation on [Music] the opponents but there's no more than 50 members um are permitted um and 15 on site at any one time was the limitation what protocols are in place to monitor adherence to the to the riter limits we're not going to get into operational testimony tonight because again it has nothing to do you know well I I'll save my comment till the end but I don't know if it's relevant to what we're asking for tonight that was all discussed in detail multiple multiple hearings at the zone at the use experience phase yeah the operations of this facility are not are not are not the subject of this evening's application and again I don't mean any disrespect but this this application so I I I took over when it was already in the appeal stage um and it was the approval of the use variance was upheld by the Superior Court in New Jersey um so I've been through this application many times but yes there there were many many hearings on these issues and and now is not the time to discuss the operational testimony okay well I received one letter in the spring okay and I was out of town for that hearing that was it and I've I've all pretty significant leway here so yeah yeah yeah would I be able to submit these questions just so they're on the record I I mean they're not I I don't know what the purpose would be if yeah I don't have any for and then lastly I just want to ask if there's anybody in the audience that would raise their hand that supports this facility in their backyard object to that um they could each get up and speak if they wanted to Mr zinc I will say this um as Mr Murphy pointed out we've had numerous so I came on the board in June of 2021 and this was of my first cases um you have readily ACC accessible on the Jackson website you can obtain the minutes from prior meetings and you'll be able to see the answers to some of your questions um if you have any specific questions you can contact the zoning office or the code enforcement as well okay and any enforcement issues I'm going to make this very clear any enforcement issues whether it we come to noise or or whatever the case might be operations that's something that you would want to contact code enforcement about that's not in the purview of this board all right can I say something to answer some of his questions um and also to ask Mr aliera I just want to clarify the portapotty that they're going to have it's going to be climate controlled correct yes it's not the standard you wanted that specific one that's used higher end yes that's what it would be Mr zinc the board insisted um that the juses put a a climate controlled portapotty unit on their property to avoid void anything like you discussed so there should be no issue with that okay um it's not going I know what you're thinking and it's not going to be anything like that we didn't want that they didn't want that so okay that's um not an issue and as far as um them operating Nick janusa it's his property he can ride when he wants as long as he's within the hours um of the noise you know restrictions for the town they came before this to turn it into a business so whether we granted the variance or not he would still be allowed to ride his you know dirt bike on his own property even think that the board did not take like any of residents into consideration we did there's nothing we could do he's allowed because it's his private property to ride and have friends over to ride with him he wanted to turn it into you know a legitimate business instead of having just people just coming and riding so you know he's allowed to do that yeah there the the writing has gone on for years and it's never really been an issue I think I think where it's becoming an issue is that uh there are riders that that just stay in that Southwestern area on the junior track and I think as long as they do it within that time constraint that the town has um you know they're they're okay that could be something up to the Town Council maybe changing those hours if that's a concern for you but as far as this board goes you know we don't have authority to understood thank you is there anyone else in the audience wishing to come forward and make comment all right seeing no one else come forward I'm going to go ahead and close public session you want to say something Mr jury do you have any closing comments uh only one that I have and then I just want to turn around and my client was about to tell me something was that I think the neighbors concerns support what we're asking for and not harm what we're asking for because this the board trusted Mr janusa and what we're offering you is to give you Mr janusa um you don't have that today so I think what we're offering they'll never be happy but we think they'll be less unhappy with Mr janusa operating the facility you could bring some he could sell to someone who doesn't respect and understand what he spent years trying to convince this board he was going to do there um and we're offering to give you exactly what he offered can I have just one minute because they were about to tell me something and I may I just one minute that's what we have Madam chair sorry board up T for deliberation any questions comments through the chair yes Madam chair first Mr alfier for the record uh although I wasn't at the last meeting I did listen so uh certification didn't cycle around but eventually I'm sure it will but I did listen to that last meeting and and my hat is off to you I mean the the the level of ingenious creativity that you have attempted to employ in order to satisfy your client's demand honestly as as an attorney to one attorney to another uh well well done but it sounds I was going to say it sounds like there's a butt coming there's a butt there's a butt um first Madam chair what I see is the driving force here really isn't so much to land use it's it's a personal and business issue that is focused primarily on how Mr janusa and yellow see have been structured and the difficulties or problems they're having in order to make Financial Arrangements the way they want I I I'm I've listened to the to prior to the to the prior comments made on the record uh in regards to potential litigation on what might be uh uh an improper and potentially illegal agreement that could ultimately cause more potential problems down the road um I see more potential problems if we approve this this request than there are if we just leave it as it is I we went through painful hours of testimony and we went through various permutations when Mr jusu was putting his application on a record and ultimately the board came to the conclusion that those lots needed to be Consolidated there was at least a belief that and an assurance that there would be less concern Less Problems if it was Consolidated and that house was inextricably intertwined with that application I remember those conversations and that testimony so um I I I've got a problem uh in in in granting the request those are my thoughts M chair any other questions or comments Mr Harley just at a record I want I want to make this clear every everyone knows I voted no for this application when when the time to vote and I thought it was an abomination of of zoning um no disrespect with the board members I I I understood exactly what their thoughts were I made a comment uh when I voted no that this was really a personal uh variance which is which is not authorized by this board and I said that because I noticed a lot of the people not a lot of the board members really liked Nick and they were trying to help Nick and uh Nick was a a a viable part of this entire operation which included the house but they're what we're being asked now is to amend the resolution that was granted which caused which required the consolidation of of the home and the operation as a single operation and now we're being asked to separate it and I'm looking at it and and I'm I'm I'm saying you know we're setting up two separate uses now the first use is a home which is a residence which is permitted the Second Use is a is a I won't call it a racetrack but a recreational operation uh which would if I mean did was final plan granted on this yes okay which to me which I think at the very least if if this board agreed uh to to the request that's being made that would require an amendment to the to the approved site plan and what you've got is a piece of ground with some tracks on it you know how do you control people coming into it uh you're separating the house I mean it's nice to say well Nick will be there but Nick was supposed to be there and that's why we granted the the consolid uh the the approval with the with the consolidation I lawyers disagree and I I I I know Mr Al alery for some time he's he's a very good if not I won't say great I don't think there's any great lawyers but he's a he's a very very good lawyer and as Mr book had indicated U very creative um but I think if if he had known from the very beginning what his client client's problem would be I think he probably would have addressed this differently but he was stuck with what he's got and he's did the best job he possibly can he got an approval from from the board we got sued it it went to court I always felt that uh you know all disrespect oh no disrespect intended for um Ocean County but Ocean County almost rightfully always goes along with the mun always goes along with the board whether it's the planning board or or the zoning board because there's a presumption that what we do is valid and we do it for good reasons but I think on this one it was a mistake and it was a mistake because it was done for personal reasons the personal reason being we really like Nick and we want to help him and now we're back to a situation where that we're being asked to Dison to deconsolidate the Lots and to amend our resolution the problem that I have with that is that there's no valid zoning basis for it it's personal it's because he can't get a mortgage it's nothing to do with zoning and it takes us far out of the Authority for which we've taken an oath to pursue and it's a problem I disagree with with uh Mr alfair there's no doubt in my mind that the condition of sale or the the impact of the variance upon sale is illegal and the problem that I have with that is that I'm trying to avoid the municipality get involved in any any litigation uh and the problem is that we would be confronted with a third party that we don't know not here it's that third party who would would purchase this property and if I was representing that third party I'd bring this board into that litigation I said look you know the board granted this they granted it illegally and now they're stuck and who's going to pay for that that's going to be a problem in the future and I don't want to I don't want to expose the board to any any litigation or the township any litigation that is unnecessary and this would be unnecessary I just uh you know again like I said I I I don't want people to say I'm I'm I'm arguing against this because I voted no I I respect the board's decision I I I agree what's been said by members of the board here that we've got what we've got and the property owners have got to live with with what we've approved and the neighbors have to live with what what we've approved but now we're being asked to amend the thing completely and I I just as I said I I have a major problem with just to summarize this application tonight has nothing to do with zoning this application is for a personal benefit um and that goes beyond and I just think the condition that's being imposed I'm concerned about this declaration that's been offered where it has Nick as one party and U the LLC is another party both owning the properties with the LLC having been the applicant I recognize the LLC could have been an applicant affecting both properties but I don't know if the ation from the from the beginning even contain a consent of Nick but that's an aside that's done it's gone I'm not worried about that um but I I can't I can't favorably vote for this application because I I just feels very strongly it's an an illegal act on the part of the authority on the part of the authority of the zoning board that we get in litigation five or six years my term expires probably to the satisfaction of a lot of a lot of attorneys my my term expires in June um so it will not be you know it'll be after June before you get any litigation of all this thing for sure it might be years and somebody's going to come back with the record and say Hey you know the board was told about this and they did it anyway and that's going to be a problem those are my thoughts those are my comments Madam chair if I just May uh provide a little bit of guidance to the board here um I have my own thoughts about the original um use variant granting but I'm not going to put those on the record that's not my job I I I I commend also uh I also commend Mr alery I think he did a wonderful job with what he had to work with here um but I caution the board that variances run with the land not with the person and that's really all that we need to know uh you know in terms of this type of application um personal personal variances are not not permitted under the laws of the state of New Jersey or anywhere else that I'm aware of um and so um that's the guidance I'll provide to the board on this particular application um I do have concerns about uh you know from a from a legal perspective I do havec concerns about entering into such an agreement um you know for the Township's you know purposes there is the right there is a right way to get this done it might be the longer and the more expensive way but in my opinion there is the right way to get this it can be done it's just going to require additional work um and time um but this again for the same reasons Express expressed by Mr Hurley on the record I I have grave concerns about the effect on the township down the road Road should we enter into some type of agreement that on its face is illegal um so that would be my guidance to the board on this application any other questions comments um for the record I too struggled um I read through the Declaration um and wondered where does that leave us as a Township how does that leave us open what are we doing if this was something we would Grant and I went back to something it was either Ernie or Evan said one of my first two meetings because this was one of my first hearings we're here to judge Things based on land use law but there's nothing here that we're judging on so I don't as and not just forget my role as a cheer person but as a member of the board I'm not judging a land use issue here so I've struggled with this since you know they came back for the reconsideration um those are just my thoughts um um so I am willing to put forth a motion to deny the um application to reconsider and to change the original approval um so just to clarify uh I know it's I know it's been a little bit of time this is actually a two-part application the application um was made uh to amend the use variants pursuant to uh the request that's been ongoing it was also um the second part of this application was actually the the approval of the the site plan that it was bifurcated at the time of site plan because we weren't sure what to do with this amended use variance issue and we wanted to give time time to to address that so we've already granted the um the site plan uh application uh preliminary final um so what we're really denying here is an amendment to the use variants okay so I just want to make that clear for the record I'll second the motion we have a motion and a second to like Mr Murphy explained we've already approved the site plan so what a yes vote would be to deny the change to the youth scenari a yes vote is to deny it correct thank you Mr Buck yes to deny Miss FR yes Mr Hurley yes Mr Hudak yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Mr ardi Miss Bradley yes thank you thank you I know you've all been patiently waiting for the next application if we could take a 10minute recess to use the ladies in the men's room I would appreciate it and we'll be back in 10 minutes number three ARA properties at primwood Estates LLC interpretation uh 3487 good evening Madame chair members of the board Vincent D Simone on behalf of the applicant Area Properties at Pinewood Estates LLC and uh this is an application appealing your zoning officer's determination with regard to a use on an adjacent property um I have with me tonight the applicant's professional planner and engineer who's going to give you a little bit of a background on the uh case the case is uh currently pending before your planning board um um and if you if you would allow I would call up Matthew Wilder the applicant's professional planner and engineer to have him sworn and to uh provide testimony just for just one moment just for the record for the record thank the the property that we are uh asking the zoning officer to uh give us an interpretation on the attorney for that property owner is also here and he would like to uh make it known good evening Adam fer ATT on behalf of the applicant Yos Rothenberg uh just so we're clear uh Mr on the property in question uh we've already received preliminary uh approval for the um for a Contractor's Warehouse that's that's already been approved the appeal period is way past uh we were going for the final approval uh and and the uh applicant I guess the the neighboring property owner has now sought an interpretation from your zoning officer and they're appealing your zoning officer's determination uh I still am not clear as to how if you were to rule over if you were to overturn Mr bora's uh in decision how that even affects the preliminary approval as that as the appeal period has has well passed I I believe Mr report was correct anyway and we'll get to I'll wait let them put their application on and then I have uh I'll respond um but this is a technical issue I'm not sure uh if that would even be valid as far as our existing approval I Mr feffer you have final approval or preliminary we have preliminary approval but not final not final so there's no final decision yet well our preliminary is has not been appeal the appeal period to to the time period to file an appeal of that preliminary approval okay we we disagree okay problem I have uh for the record I do have several procedural questions I think you've address some of them um perhaps it would be beneficial to go through a procedural is that the entire procedural history here I mean they can put their case on if I can go through the whole I mean it's there it's their their request I just ask for an opportunity to respond of course and you'll have that of course thank you I I'll address that briefly and then I'll let Matthew Wilder get into it a little bit more because he's been before the planning board my understanding is there is preliminary um major site plan approval on this this property they went for final major site plan approval Mr Wilder appeared with um another attorney on behalf of the same applicant and he'll speak to that because I wasn't at the hearing but the board um adjourned that evening and uh basically held any decision on Final um in AB bance subsequent to that Mr Wilder on behalf of the um applicant made a request to your zoning officer to have a determination made as to whether or not what was approved preliminarily at the planning board constitutes a Contractor's Warehouse versus a general warehouse so again I'll have Mr Wilder discuss it a little bit more um we're here tonight to ask that the board um examine that determination made by your zoning officer um and again i' leave it at that and ask Mr Wilder to so Ju Just Just for procedural purposes when was the zoning officer's determination made as to the as to the as to the um perit the permitted nature of the use as determined by Mr Boro when when was that decision made we made the request on September 15th and I believe the zoning officer that's September 15 2023 the zoning officer provided a response on October 12th 2023 to our request for a determination the appeal was subsequently filed on October 20th within the 20-day period that's my main concern here and the concern that I have and I'm sure Mr feffer is dying to elaborate the concern that I have is that the initial determination of the zoning officer regarding the nature of this application was probably made quite some time ago um considering the fact that you have preliminary copy of the zoning of of Mr Vapor's uh zoning permit which is dated April 13 2020 as well as his uh cover letter yeah April 13 2020 I mean how do you how do procedurally how do you get past that procedurally um the applicant at that time asked Mr propor if a Contractor's Warehouse was a permitted use in the zone to which he correctly responded Yes subsequently the preliminary site plan approval major site plan approval um the resolution for that approval nowhere states that it's a Contractor's Warehouse um in the resolution of approval it just refers to it as a warehouse um it refers to it as a warehouse with possibly three shifts throughout the day multiple tractor trailer loading docks nothing that would be consistent with a Contractor's Warehouse so we subsequently asked Mr propor for determination in conjunction with what was already preliminary approved um so Municipal land use law allows you 20 days to appeal a zoning officer's decision I concur with you when that initial decision was made my client as I understand it was a contract purchaser they did not own the property still the right they still have the rights as a contract purchaser to challenge they and there's no notice of a uh zoning determination okay um courts have held that the 20 days is significant however if the permit or if the approval that was Grant it within that zoning approval is not what you end up building or if it's misinterpreted by the developer um well then it's void abono it's void from the beginning um it's a jurisdictional question jurisdiction is always an issue if we provide a notice and the jurisdiction's not properly obtained we get an approval 45 days you know we still have a jurisdiction issue so I I believe that this is a jurisdictional issue um Mr Wilder will testify that this application as proposed currently before the planning board should properly be be before your board as a use varen I understand that's where you're I gather that's where you're going I understand logistically I understand that conversely there's some changes that they can make to their um planning board application that would make this a Contractor's Warehouse versus a general warehouse and I don't necessarily disagree with that representation either I'm not here though this evening to debate the merits of your application before the planning board I'm here to interp well you're terming it as an appeal your paperwork ter terms it as an interpretation as I understand it there's no time limit on interpretation and so that's I'm I'm I'm fine terming you know under under Section B I mean an interpretation would be appropriate my concern is you you keep referencing it as under Section a as an appeal and I I I I am from a legal perspective I'm having difficulty getting past the idea that that this decision was initially made by our zoning officer back in April of 2020 and that decision was made for a Contractor's Warehouse which is a permitt at use in the zone what they ultimately got approved was not a Contractor's Warehouse it's my client's position that it's a general warehouse which is not permitted in that zone Mr Boro did you have the plans at the time that you made the termination that that the this this particular use was permitted in the zone I'm sorry say that again please did you at back in April and again I I'm I'm I recognize that I'm I'm asking a lot of you to go back to April of 202 20 my question to you was did you have a copy of the plans at the time that you made a determination in April of 2020 that this was permitted in the zone uh I don't recall but I believe I had the cover letter from uh PDS Bill Stevens from PDS uh had given me a letter and um I uh looking for a determination okay Mr feffer you want to weigh in just F further on your your question to Mr roro the letter was written uh March 18 2020 uh from Mr Bill Stevens dear mror the applicant is the applicant in this matter is requesting a zoning certificate for this property specially specifically seeking to confirm the proposed concept multi-building multi-tenant office warehouse project is conforming use in the highway commercial Zone including he attached um copy of the plans uh and Mr vaporo responded per year letter per year letter dated March 18 2020 where the applicant uh is requesting a zoning certificate for the subject property please note that per reference the section of the Zone the contractor's office showroom garage warehouse and Shop uses permitted in the highway commercial Zone I trust this meets the intent of the applicant's request based upon that the same uh submission was made to the planning board uh for only permitted uses I I to a certain extent I have to agree with you I'm I'm I'm looking at a March 18 2020 letter to um Mr Boro I do see that there's a concept plan that's attached um I don't know how much again I'm not here to debate the merits of your application I really don't I'm not interested to say if even if there was a change made to that that then plan the final plan was then submitted to the planning board for review that went through I'm going to say it was approximately five different reviews because we had multiple hearings on this so there were some changes made throughout the time um I believe there were two or three engineering reports and now two or three planning reports um we only saw permitted uses we didn't seek anything that wasn't um the planning board can't Grant something that they don't have jurisdiction for we only sought contractor warehouse now I will admit nowhere where you won't you will not find the word contractor Warehouse in the resolution of approval uh we're not arguing that I have offered and I indicated without any issue in the final uh we have no problem you want to clarify that in the resolution when whever we finally get done we're fine with that but we only sought a permitted use the zoning officer signed off on it your engineer your not your the planning board's engineer the planning board um planner reviewed everything multiple hearings uh we only saw it um what was permitted Mr Murphy may I ask a question of course is this an application for under a as an appeal or is under B for an interpretation because the notice we got says an interpretation and that's what I'm trying to parse out okay because the applicant continues to use the term so there may be a time limit on the filing the for filing the appeal correct but not so one interpretation as I've indicated on the record there is no time limit on the interpretation so I'm trying to clarify that you're asking the board to accept jurisdiction to hear an interpretation not an appeal is that accurate we we would we would accept the board's interpretation um we we believe that an appeal is also um appropriate in this case um but we would accept the board's interpretation of your ordinance and whether or not what is being built there comports with let me just clar the board I I'd like to the board to make a determination as to whether or not they have jurisdiction you hear an appeal because you keep asking me to hear an appeal I've read the paperwork I saw the notice you've asked for an interpretation as far as I'm concerned not withstanding um interpretation and appeal are often times used interchangeably I happen to personally disagree with that because we have two separate distinct sections of njsa uh 40 col 55 d-7 uh we have a which is an appeal of a zoning officer's determination uh which is required to be filed within 20 days of the zoning officer's determination we then have option b uh section B of the statute which permits any anyone to come before the board uh requesting an interpretation of our our zoning ordinance ordinances and there's no particular time frame referenced in the statute as to those types of requests so the question becomes does does the board believe it has jurisdiction to to hear an appeal I can't make that determination for you um I've tried to elicit on the record enough information for you to make that determination for yourselves um you know and I think that theer if you're asking for an an an interpretation if you're asking strike that if you're asking for an appeal um and the board to consider an appeal I think based upon the facts that have been set forth the Board needs to make a determination as to whether or not they have jurisdiction for that appeal Mr Murphy we we've no no noticed for the um interpretation we made the application for the interpretation and we'd be satisfied with the board's interpretation so you'll withdraw your contention that this is an appeal I may have misspoke thank you very much very good my last question just to clarify so what what is being sought to be interpreted and that was my next question your ordinance with regard to uh general contract Ware contractor warehouses versus General warehouses in ter in in terms of the HC Zone correct okay then it's not my client's application that's being interpreted qu have a question Also may go ahead is is the application here for an interpretation from some language in our ordinance or whether the application right that's been presented to the planning board is a warehouse or a Contractor's Warehouse that's the question I mean Mr Hurley we're we're looking to this board to determine whether or not the planning board has jurisdiction obviously you're not hearing the planning board application we're going to go back to the planning board and tell them what the zoning board said with regard to the interpretation well we can't we look if I'm not mistaken we can't tell the planning board that they don't have jurisdiction understood but you can't you're the only board that can interpret your ordinance the planning board cannot so the question is whether or not this application that's being presented is either a general warehouse or a contractor warehous Contractor's Warehouse your ordinance if this board finds that it is a Contractor's Warehouse then the planning board has to decide whether or not what's being presented fits in with the definition of a Contractor's Warehouse is that fair that's fair on beh of the applicant we have only represented we are Contractor's Warehouse did not seek anything else I have significant significant concerns about this board stepping into and and and taking Juris essentially what you're asking this board to do is take jurisdiction over a planning board app application without us having the benefit of of any of the testimony any of the expert and I understand Mr Wilder this is no disrespect to you I respect you very much I'm not I'm not stating that you're not qualified to tell this board what you're asking us to do but I do have significant procedural jurisdictional concerns over over what you're asking us to do um if you're asking us to interpret an ordinance I'd be happy to have the board interpret the ordinance and I know that this Falls with with I'm very familiar with all of the paperwork um none of this was designed to trap you but only to get it on the record um I've been scratching my head out over this app I'll be quite Frank I'll be I've been scratching my head a little bit over this application um because because as far as I I can see it what it seems to me what you're really asking us to do is to step on uh you know to step on the toes of the planning board who who has taken who has who has been granted jurisdiction of this application through a decision of the zoning officer made back in 2020 um and who has acted on this application granted preliminary site plan approval um and now you want us to go back and and take a look at this and say whoa wait a minute whatever the whatever the planning board has determined is a Contractor's Warehouse or not what you know whatever determination has been made before the planning board you want us to go and somehow reverse that without going through the proper prerogative writ channels and appealing that decision you know procedurally I I know Mr D Simone again this is no disrespect to you I understand you just came into this application um and you know we had you know a very lovely conversation earlier today um I Mr Murphy if I if I may we would we would ask that the board this evening merely interpret your ordinance um and I think that would be sufficient for our purposes um to guide our client as to how they intend to proceed with the uh pending planning board application I have to that request I have I have uh no objection to note on the record um for the board's consideration um we are uh the proper board to interpret uh our ordinances when requested under um njsa 40 55 D- 70b um and as such we can move forward and and and and you know uh make the interpretation based upon the presentation of the applicant thank you with with that I uh would ask that the um applicant's professional planner Matthew Wilder be sworn in to uh provide you with that information again just one second I want to make sure that we're limiting the testimony of Mr Wilder to planning testimony I I don't think it would be beneficial to the board to hear any engineering testimony um again I you just introduced him as your planner and I respect that um and I know Mr Wilder has many credentials and I and I respect that I want to make sure that we're limiting the testimony to planning testimony related to the interpretation of our HC ordinance that's understood if for some reason we get off course steer us back on very good Mr Wilder if you would raise your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments that you about to present before this board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth yes I do if you would please state your name spell your last provide your affiliation in your credentials sure Matthew Wilder w lde r I'm the uh director of engineering services at Morgan engineering I a licensed professional engineer planner a certified flood plan manager and a certified Municipal engineer in the state of New Jersey I've appeared before both the Planning and Zoning Board in Jackson on numerous occasions uh as both an expert in planning and engineering and I will certainly keep my testimony focused on planning testimony as it relates to the HC Zone only thank you very much this board accepts your credentials thank you um so the only exhibit I have this evening um and I'll try to keep it as short as I can is the transcript from an application that this board heard several years ago known as County Line Holdings LLC where uh an application was before this board for a use variant for what was a warehouse so I do have a copy of that transcript that I'll hand out uh I did just want to note that the transcript is tabed and there's some highlighted sections that I'll sort of refer to as U as it relates to what we're here seeking this evening make one objection so I'm very familiar with the transcript they're going to be handing you I was the attorney of record uh on that case um I object this it it was a and of no problem we we'll read through it uh it was conversation back and forth between what was uh the difference between contractor warehousing and warehousing as the township does not have a clear definition of I your objection is noted I'm going to before the board reviews those transcripts please don't open those transcripts yet okay thank you for passing them out um your objection is noted uh and before I make a ruling on that I the reason why yeah go ahead the issue is that this says it was a conversation regarding one specific piece of property it was not an application for an interpretation before the board so if we're now going to start taking uh comments uh from any uh any random application and start saying that that's now what the rule is and by the way I don't even think it even hurts my application but it still should be objected to and it still I don't think should be entered into um or review for this application Mr D Simone if the uh if the objection holds I'd ask Mr Wilder to um paraphrase what's in that because I think it it'll it'll Enlighten this board as to so what the intent of the ordinance is so I I'll be very clear um and I I explain this to Mr D Simone and I'll explain to you Mr feffer I am intimately familiar with the county line Holdings application I am aware Mr feffer that you were the applicant in that matter I'm also aware of what that um application was for and uh as far as I recall you know without getting too far off the Record um I believe that at at the time of that hearing Mr feffer it was never disputed that you were requesting Flex warehouse space that application was a use variance before the zone for Flex warehouse space fullblown Warehouse application I think you turned it Flex Warehouse which respectfully corre that is different we can all agree that that's different than a Contractor's Warehouse okay you came before this board for a use variance for that purpose I agree with you I think it's a different application um now standing I think this is getting a little bit into the realm of what I didn't want to get into on the record um because again I think what what you're asking for is an interpretation not of whether as far as I'm I understand what you want this board to consider my concern is whether or not the board can consider it I still haven't heard good reason for the board to consider whether or not what is before the planning board is is either Contractor's Warehouse or Warehouse that's not a determination in my opinion that this board can make at this time we haven't had the benefit of that testimony we haven't had the benefit of the of seeing the plans or reviewing the plans our professionals haven't had the benefit of reviewing those plans we don't have our own guidance on that again this is a this isn't an application for an interpretation on an ordinance and whether or not it's it's contractor if you want to know whether or not contractor's warehouses are permitted in the zone or whether or not Warehouse spaces permitted in the zone I'm happy to have the board opine on that I mean you know the the ordinance is fairly clear um you know as to what is what is permitted and what is not permitted in the zone um not withstanding that Mr Murphy if I can have a I'll give you some leeway yeah your objection is noted and it's halfway sustained I'll give them Le way to proceed that's fine I just like to one more statement so this application which was for almost 4 approximately 440,000 Square fet use variants got denied at this board almost The Identical looking building went to the planning board for contractor warehousing and has been approved for 430 or so thousand square feet of contractor warehousing so it's all I mean this is this conversation semantics going back and forth we've indicated our application was for contractor warehousing they're going to bring in this application to talk about a conversation went back and forth you I just asked the board to keep everything you taking things out of out of context Mr feffer just just to make things a lot simpler would you would you concede would you concede that the HC ordinance permits Contractor's Warehouse but does not permit Warehouse correct it the or the ordinance reads how it read so the question again the question becomes what are we Ur with that understanding what are you requesting from this board so we're asking for clarity to distinguish between a contractor warehouse and a warehouse based upon the use there is no definition within Jackson Township landu ordinance that contract a warehouse or a warehouse I I I agree with you and that's the there's there in lies your problem because what you're asking for is not something that this board can opine on based upon what what we have in front of us what you're asking us to do is to place a definition into our ordinances which is well outside the scope and purview of this boort it's well outside the scope appropriate of this boort we have no jurisdiction whatsoever to to arbitrarily Define Contractor's Warehouse versus warehouse space when the council has seen fit not to place that into our ordinances I've reviewed ordinance section 244 -6a there is no definition for Contractor's Warehouse there is no Definition for warehouse I've reviewed the HC ordinance I reviewed the uh other ordinances where warehouses are permitted there's clearly uh there is clearly a defined I believe our ordinance in in and I forgive me I don't remember this the I can't site the section off the top of my head like I can with most of them but our ordinances where where warehouses are allowed they they specifically permit distribution centers warehouses and and including um product um assembly and things things of that nature in the highway commercial mixed use Zone um but that is not permitted in the HC Zone and there's no dispute that that's not permitted in the HC Zone again I don't believe that this board can opine in my opinion and again and I I I I the board is free to disagree with my advice okay I'm just their attorney I'm doing my best to protect This Record what what my concern is is that I don't know that the board has jurisdiction to opine on whether or not a pending application for a for a what whatever type of Warehouse you want want to term it as which is pending before the planning board of this Township I don't believe based upon the procedural history as well as the evidence that's before this particular board in relation to this application I don't believe the board has jurisdiction to give you what you want I don't think that we can make an i i my personal opinion is that this board cannot make a determination as to whether or not the application before the planning board represents warehouses or contractor's warehouses I I don't believe that we have that jurisdiction again I I there are two there there are two attorneys who sit up here uh as board members um I'm not asking them for their legal opinion um but you know they're in a position to either agree with me or disagree with me as are all the other board members um you know and that's what I'm trying to get at is I'm trying to protect the record but at the same time my opinion from as legal counsel um to this board is that there is no jurisdiction to determine whether not a planning board application is for a warehouse or a contract or Warehouse I don't think that that jurisdiction exists here if you want us to tell you what's permitted in the HC Zone and what's not permitted in the HC zone I'm this board would be happy to do that I believe we just conceded on the record that warehouse space is not permitted in the HC Zone and would require variant and um Contractor's Warehouse is expressly permitted in the HC Zone and would not require a use variant and Mr Murphy we would ask given the lack of a definition of Contractor's Warehouse that this board interpret their ordinance to make a determination as to what constitutes a Contractor's Warehouse I believe that's that's your jurisdiction under uh 40 55 D- 70b I and again Mr D Simone respectfully I I disagree I disagree because again my my job as attorney for the board is to guide this board this board's job is to interpret the ordinances as written by the governing body of this Township I don't believe that this board is in a position to add definitions to the ordinances which do not exist absolutely let me ask this question of the attorneys if an applicant comes to the township with a plan can the applicant not submit it for example to the zoning officer and say here's what we intend to do is this a Contractor's Warehouse or is this general warehouse and which board do I have to go to so I would think they would be able to do that correct my opinion is that that has already been done and it was done in 2020 that's where I that's that that's what we're here for well I didn't hear Mr puror say had any kind of a plan or anything he did according to the letter that was submitted by Bill Stevens back in March of 2020 there was a concept plan that was attached to the submission that was given to Mr Pororo I don't know what that con we of course I can't testify nor you know and again we'd be asking a lot of Mr Pororo to testify as to what was shown in that concept plan um especially since we're talking about something that was three and a half years ago at this point um it's a I understand your issue I do I and I I sympathize to a certain extent but my question Still Remains what jurisdiction does this board have over the planning board to tell them whether they're deciding an application Mr Murphy we we've conceded on that we would ask that you interpret the ordinance there's no definition of a contractor's ordinance a Contractor's Warehouse that presents a problem and that that's righte for interpretation by this board you're the only board with the jurisdiction to do that you're the only entity really with the jurisdiction to interpret the ordinance right but Mr the ordinance the ordance is lacking Mr book go ahead I'm just thinking about the interpretations that that we done in the past and what I remember is one it's a pretty significant call by the board because it will constitute precedential value moving forward if I gather with the app is asking us to do is really to make a policy decision based upon correct what's in that ordinance and we cannot usurp what is I believe the the council's obligation to do and what I feel he's asking us to do is to make an interpretation with virtually no information when interpretations have come before us in the past they come and there is considerable evidence placed upon the record as to exactly what the person plans to do and then they present the the ordinances presented and then if possible we can make an interpretation on the ordinance but we have done that very cautiously and very circumspectly because of the presidential value that it has and the potential for policy usurpation right now I'm very concerned that for us to just jump in would be premature at this point to to the state of M just my thought on interpretation I and that I I mean that's a concern that I've been and I appreciate your feedback Mr Bo because that's a concern that I've been expressing um I I you know again from a legal perspective it is not my purview to tell the board what to do okay that's a determination that you have to make as whether or not you have jurisdiction to do what this this particular um you know for for an applicant before us but an objector before the planning board um is asking us to do and and from my perspective as I read the statute and as I understand the municipal land use law what you're really asking us to do is to offer a definition that the governing body has not yet codified that's how I'll put it within our ordinances um without without the benefit of having any type of evidence whatsoever and again I I don't believe that's an interpretation issue Perhaps it is an appeal issue but again I the the jurisdiction over the appeal is questionable at best um not well it certainly doesn't exist at this point because your public notice says it's for an interpretation so as far as I'm concerned as of tonight based upon my review which I again I I didn't get that until early late later this afternoon based upon my review of of the public notice and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong we would not have jurisdiction to decide an appeal this evening anyway um but again I I I digress I I you know again and certainly you know it's not my intent here to make your life more more difficult my intent here is to protect the board and the record of this proceeding and also to you know protect the um the the purview of the planning board as well as the purview of the governing body of this Township sure I mean if I may and clearly if we don't have jurisdiction then our meeting is certainly over should we have Mr Wilder sworn before provides any uh he was sworn oh thank so uh we filed a request for his Don determination for the site plan which was pending before the planning board for final site plan approval um we did not make any reference to the preliminary site plan approval which was previously adjudicated by the planning board and approved we exper his own determination for the final site plan that was pending before the planning board we received Mr pororo's response which referenced a zoning determination from 2020 um so before I go any further I will just take notice that um the public notice that my office prepared said that we are are appealing the decision within the 20-day time frame from the zoning determination that was issued the property for which the appeal has been filed is in the HC Highway commercial zone so let me let me ask you a question Mr Wilder because you brought this out out and I'm I'm gonna I'm GNA ask it the way I want to ask it aren't you playing semantics a little bit because aren't you really appealing a determination made by the zoning officer that was made back in 2020 and you're guising it under the fact that you wrote a letter dated October or or September 15th of 2023 it's the same determination that was made by the zoning officer back in 2020 so if we wanted to play semantics I could indicate that the zoning request that was issued in 2020 professional Design Services submitted a letter saying is a warehouse permitted within the HC Zone the response was a contractor Warehouse is permitted in the HC zone corre so the request was not for contractor warehousing as being a permitted use in the HC zone so I don't believe I'm I'm speaking in semantics what I'm what we requested was a Aon determination for a pending final site plan application that was before the planning board we we got a determination that just so happens to reference a prior zoning determination which was made so we were filing an appeal to the final site plan zoning determination that we received um that is why why I believe we're before this board this evening if we can't ask the board to uh Define what a contractor Warehouse is if I can ask the board to look at the site plan for the application pending before the planning board then we have no application here this evening and and respectfully if that's the board's position we withdraw our application and and we can all go home but I do believe that within the confines of the law we requested legally a zoning determination received a response and appealed it I believe we have standing for an appeal we were not appealing or requesting a deter mination for the preliminary site plan approval we were seeking a determination for the application pending before the planning board for final site plan and for what it's worth the planning board attorney saw fit that there was enough questions there regarding jurisdiction that the application was carried not one not one yeah I I'm gonna I I can't speak to what Mr Shay did or didn't consider or didn't didn't you know what whatever the case might be um I wasn't asked to weigh in on it prior to the filing um uh you know and I I I wasn't asked my opinion um about the need for a stay um on the planning board application and perhaps if I was I would have made the same indication that I made multiple times um where I would have indicated that my reading of the of the ml would not indicate that a stay would would have been necessary but I was not given that opportunity I'm not going to go back and and do that now because I'm not in the POS it's not what I'm as that's not what I'm here for um I'm here to provide guidance to the board the the board and and you make up a compelling argument Mr wer I I don't I I understand what you're telling me um and I I hear what you're saying um you know but ultimately it's you know the the the zoning board has to decide you know whether or not they're going to hear you know whether or not they're let me put it this way this zoning board has to decide whether or not they're going to decide whether that application is for contractors warehouses or for warehouse space and I I I just I caution the board you know but but thank you so I I've listened for a little while here and I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but you're asking for an interpretation of an ordinance interpretation of an ordinance that does not define what a Contractor's Warehouse is correct I'm confused so how do you how do we interpret something that is not addressed in the ordance sorry and that well that was first of all first first of all iove excuse sir let mey num zoning did not app they not come before bar so we didn't approve it number one number two I say I I obviously understand all your confusion we're confused we don't have a clear definition so I that that's that's the issue Madam chair there's no clear definition so we're asking the board to interpret it and you can't interpret something that's not well obviously there's a difference though because your ordinance describes a warehouse and then it describes a Contractor's Warehouse so we're asking you in your pure view to interpret the difference we we can be here all night just talking about these issues quite frankly let's be practical here if this board makes no decision at all tonight U let's assume that the objector the planning board grants the final site plan approval the objective files a complaint in court prerogative RIT case and appeals decision on the basis that the use was not permitted now you got attorneys here who do land use work what do you think the judge is going to do the judge is going to look at it and say hey wait a minute there is no definition of what a Contractor's Warehouse is so is the judge going to make a decision as to what the Contractor's Warehouse is or if to do so he's going to have to hear all the testimony as to what's being proposed things of that nature read the transcripts what or is the judge going to say you know I'm not prepared to do that we all know planning boards make determinations all the time as to whether or not a use is permitted they don't have authority to do that but by virtue of what their Authority is to do certain things they have to they have to say you here it is okay so let's let's accept what's been said the applicant made an sent in a request to the to the zoning officer the officer says um contract warehouses are permitted use the applicant goes to not the applicant but property owner goes to the planning board based on a determination that contractors's warehouses are permitted and the planning board says okay the applicant says this is a um a contract as Warehouse where contract as warehouses are permitted we proceed okay there's nothing that the that the zoning officer did incre directly at all made a determination the applicant relied on that interpretation went to the planning board the planning board accepted that and proceeded with with the application now they file an appeal uh alleging that the the uses is not permitted judge is going to sit up there and try to make a determination as to whether or not the use is permitted not permitted because that's going to be the issue the issue is going to be jurisdiction did the planning board have jurisdiction over the application because the use is not permitted what's the judge going to do like I said there are two Alternatives the judge will make a determination as to whether or not the use is permitted or not permitted stating and knowing that planning boards traditionally make these kinds of decisions based on information before them but they don't have the authority to make that determination and and a judge would know that obviously right so the judge is either going to do one or two things he's going to make a have a hearing make a determination as to whether or not the uses a contractor's where a Contractor's Warehouse or general warehouse then trust me got a lot of stuff to do it doesn't need that extra work so what what could he do send it back to the board of adjustment for an interpretation I think Mr Mr feffer is if I were him I would say why don't you go through this determination as to whether or not it's contract's Warehouse or not because if it if it goes to court it's going to be five years before this thing gets resolved it's going to go to to to the to the trial level and presumably from The Trial level to the appell vision and God knows how long that's going to take I'll be long gone by the time that happens so it's you know it's it's it's just for practical purposes it seems to me that what we're being asked to do is somebody is going to come to us I would think and and show us what the what this application is about okay here are some details these buildings are are X number in area this is where they're located this is where all the uh the um the loading and unloading zone is and these are going to the trucks are going to park here and these are the types of uses one whole her one whole Warehouse may be you know 50,000 square feet and it's going to have one pennant okay um I can look at that and say well I I've read the ordinance too as to as to what what's permitted and what's not permitted and contractor's warehouses are permitted in the HC zone so the question is what is a Contractor's Warehouse and if you look through all the uses that are permitted the role a lot of the uses are are termed in spe specified in ter terms of shop or store so to me maybe a contract as Warehouse is something like and I'm not making any determination here folks you know from from my own point of view I'm just saying to me a Contractor's Warehouse may be a warehouse that has maybe Flex as far as areas where you might have an electrician you might have a plumber you may have a a contractor you may some kind of contractor uh you may have a uh um a unit that sells siding and they install siding um the ordinance says you you can't any any materials they all have to be stored inside so we're not talking about having storage containers coming in and parking outside that might be a general warehouse so what's being what's being presented here what are they offering we don't know that we don't know so the question is do we want to hear what what is proposed before the plany board we're not taking any anything away from the planning board um we don't have jurisdiction obviously but as I've indicated if there's an appeal a judge is absolutely going to say that planning boards do this all the time you know they they will accept an application based on a determination made by the uh zoning officer they make the determination based on the representation made by the applicant that this is a contra contractor Warehouse they have no definition of what a Contractor's Warehouse is there is no definition in in the in the ordinance so what are what are they going to do planning board could say uh we're going to carry the application and recommend that it goes to the Zoning Board of adjustment they can do that they would have the authority to do that uh if if it becomes a big issue um or we can just hear what the application is like and and see if it fits in what we think a a contract is where house is based on the uses that are permitted in the zone I mean a lot you know obviously there there are uses that you can't Define happens all the time we get we get it quite frequently where somebody says I don't know if this is permitted not permitted you know unfortunately the the governing body adopted its ordinance and it said it put a term in there Contractor's Warehouse didn't Define it okay but I find for example in new Ord you look at um storage facilities they talk about storage facilities and mini storage facilities many storage facilities are permitted uses full storage permits are maybe conditional uses are not permitted so you know to me if I'm making that interpretation I'm going to say to myself I think as far as warehouses are concerned we're talking about little ones we're not talking about you know huge type type operation but we don't know that either so I you know all I can say is that either we have a full-blown hearing on what's being presented or somebody and we can't do this we can't send it to the planning board and say send it back to us obviously U but you know the applicant here may want to go to the planning board and say there there are serious questions here um if you grant this and of course planning boards and zoning boards don't like to be threat threatened with a lawsuit but if you grant this we're going to file an appeal because we don't think the use of permitted use our recommendation is planning board you have the authority to send it to the to the zoning board and ask them to make it inter termination but and have a hearing so either that or we have a hearing but the hour is getting late anyway it's not that late it's not that it's not that late my concern Mr Hurley is simply procedural in nature and yes I I understand the logistics of the whole thing and I tend to agree with everything that literally everything that you just said my you know again my concern for the board is that a the planning board didn't send this here um and B um again the governing body and I understand that you're requesting the definition of Contractor's Warehouse again you know it's within the perview of the board to hear this application if you so choose we're stuck here on jurisdiction and and certainly you know based upon Mr Hurley's position um you know the board can can either choose to act or and hear this application or or not accept uh jurisdiction over the issue that's being presented um but it's not I've expressed my con concerns as had nauseum so I'm gonna I'm Gonna Leave it where I am um I don't necessarily disagree with Mr hurle either um you know there there is certainly some benefit to you know moving forward considering everybody's here but again I I question the procedural aspect of it to a certain extent so and with that said I you know I think the board should should make a determination as whether or not you're going to hear this Mr rudak I I don't often at quarter to 10 at night disagree with Giants fans um I'll start in in this fashion one I'm not an attorney two there's a bunch of laws three respectfully the applicant sort of doesn't know what they're asking for I think Matt knows what he wants to ask for but between the original submission by the first attorney and the attorney I don't know what we're asking for there are under the land use law and the Jackson Township codes different nuances to each and different responsibilities for the board so I'm happy to stay here because I get paid by the hour and go through all of those or perhaps what we need to do is to get a better understanding from both the applicant through their attorney and their witness as well as the board's Professionals of what we're trying to decide because then it's the argument that we have two permitted juices that neither of which are are defined in the ordinance but we want to figure out which is which land use law in the Jackson Township ordinance tell us what we can do you hear and decide an application you can decide you can't figure it out because there's not enough specific we simply haven't gotten to that point yet because we haven't figured out what we're talking about so I think there needs to be some more clarity for no other reason so that the board members and the public understand what it is we're trying to reconcile think we all know what we're trying to figure out whether or not one is good or one isn't we don't have the planning board record in front of us we have Mr pororo's record says was a Contractor's Warehouse it said it's going to be a Contractor's Warehouse people next door say it doesn't look like a duck or smell like a duck so it must not be a duck okay again I'm not an attorney so we're in that quandry here I I think it needs to be specific from both sides both the applicant sides and the board's professional sides what's being requested and what the rules are I don't I don't know that the and again I'm not an attorney I'll just I'll tell you that may not be the administrative remedy for the applicant administrative remedy for the applicant and I don't want to speak for them is we think there was an error so we'll ask Mr puror Mr puror said no we think this is correct they did or didn't do what they needed to do to get here and ask us a question I think that needs to be fleshed out preferably in writing from both sides at a later date then you then we make a determination whether or not you have enough information to make an informed decision I I don't want to get too far into what you're going to do because I'm not sure we figured out what we're doing so how you do it depends on what you're being asked to do because you have certain rights or powers under the land use law and the Jackson code to hear and decide appeals or interpretations and as you go through those it tells you what you can and can't do and they're a little different for each one so again while while I think in a an effort to get this to an open discussion both the applicant and the board sort of rushed into it to focus on I think we need to get the record straight What specifically is being requested and then I think we probably need to have the board's professionals respond to you in writing so that we can set up the framework for and again in no particular order and I'm not saying one's right or one's wrong do we have jurisdiction can we hear an appeal does it have to be a determination but they're two different things an appeal and a determinate two different things right under both our ordinance and the land use law so I think both sides owe the board members a better explanation how's that I Dam if you don't I'd like to add just a little bit of I guess my my engineering reasoning and and history so Ernie and I have been sitting in these seats for a very long time this is the first time in my recollection that we've had an objector on a on a pending application at another board come in front of this board for an interpretation of whether or not the zoning officer has had made a bad decision or not I've never seen that here before not to say they don't have the right to be here I've never seen that so again as as as a engineer a lot of things are black and white to me I and I try to be consistent that objectors and applicants have have legal rights if they don't if the objector doesn't like the outcome of the planning board hearing let them go through the process just like every other app objector file suit and if it ultimately comes back to the zoning board three five 10 years from now for an interpretation or a new application we'll deal with it then but I'm always cautious of muddling the waters whether intentionally or not intentionally on a pending application that's currently in front of another board I just don't I don't think that's I thought the attorneys stipulated this is this is not an appeal it's an interpretation and that's a difference there's a big difference there no no I'm saying let the objectors appeal any planning board decision oh yeah I guess my question you're you're the board's trying to get sucked into something here where I don't think it's in your best interest to get sucked into that's all I'm going to leave it that's that's the engineering way is saying things I I guess my question is can the zoning board make a determination as to what a Contractor's Warehouse is compared to a general warehouse based on the reading of the ordinance of uses that are permitted so what what I what I said before for example if you look at the ordinance and it speaks to and I don't know what the application before the planning board is but if the if the ordinance speaks to retail shops and stores things of that nature can we say can we interpret the the Contractor's Warehouse by saying it's little smaller types of warehouses for they're not offices they could be could be an office part of it but it's for a local type operation I shouldn't use the word local but for a smaller type operation like a um the what I mentioned before an electrician a plumber you know a general contractor a sighting guy girl whatever it may be um that's the type you're talking about you're not talking about big trucks coming in spending the spending a night or two you know un unloading on the site putting it into the warehouse for a couple of days and transfer transferring it's someplace else why can't we say something like that that's an interpretation and then they can take it back to to the planning board and the planning board looks at it and say well this is really based on what the zoning board interprets a a contract as warehouse and general warehouse this obviously looks like a general warehouse or the planning board can just grant the approval ignore our our determination let it go to court and some judge is going to say well wait a minute now they have some kind of an interpretation on them let he or she look at it and see whether or not the the issue of whether or not the planning board had jurisdiction as opposed to sending it back to us you know four or five years from now it's my only I guess my question is can we just look at the ordinance and make a determination what is the difference between a general warehouse and a Contractor's Warehouse yep Madam chair I never disagree Giants fans late at night and retired Superior Court judges but my concern is that an interpretation may have different legal weight or standing than an appeal of the zoning officer's determination this board has certain powers under the Jackson Township Code for appeals of the zoning officers decision interpretations again not as an attorney that's why I think both sides es owe the board a better scorecard or or checklist of if it's this this is what we do this is what they do this is what we can decide this is what we can or can't do if it's something else this is what the applicant presents this is what the board can do and this is what weight if any it may have so while some of us because we may have seen these before are familiar with the land juuse law or proceedings may have a better idea of where this may end up I'm still concerned that our our record's a little inconsistent what's being asked for and what are the rules so to speak of what the board should be doing and what the effect of what the board decides would be Mr Murphy if I may clarify Mr Peter's Point um the applicants submitted an appeal on I'm looking at the letter that was submitted with the applicant's um application it was an appeal of the zoning officer's determination so perhaps the cover sheet is incorrect yeah saw that okay um if you're telling us we don't have jurisdiction over that because we had to bring that appeal within 20 days of the 2020 determination well then we need an interpretation I think we do have jurisdiction because I think the determination that was made in 2020 was for a Contractor's Warehouse not to get into the planning board again I know it's getting late but the applicant then went ahead and got an approval for a warehouse nowhere in the resolution does it say Contractor's Warehouse in fact if what we would think a contractor would be maybe a landscaper if they pull up to the loading dock they need a ladder to get on it that's how high the loading dock is um but I just want to clear that up I didn't I didn't Aces that we didn't apply for the interpretation or the um or the appeal I just wanted to clear clear that up but I understand the board's position I appreciate all the uh good thoughts so I would say clearly we're not going to hear the application tonight I'm certainly respectful of of this board's time and I appreciate the feedback we've received the what was filed and what was submitted again there was a pending application before the for the planning board my client became a contract purchaser in 2021 this zoning determination was issued in 2020 um my ACT my client was actually not even a property owner so they didn't receive notice at the time of preliminary site plan approval that is neither here nor there but there was a pending application before the planning board that based on our understanding of the ordinance of of some past precedent that applications have been before the board what was proposed was was not a contract a warehouse but was rather a warehouse so we asked at that time the zoning officer to to do a to a determination as to is that application for a warehouse or a Contractor's Warehouse the response we got relied on a 2020 determination that included concept Plan G don't know what concept Plan G includes I agree with you there so and agreed correct so what we but but what we're what we're asking for is an appeal of that decision that relied on concept Plan G in 2020 with the site plan that is before the planning board now which Reed preliminary approval it doesn't matter what concept Plan G was back in 2020 that's not before the planning board what's before the planning board is a development that my firm's opinion the neighbors opinions are is a warehouse not a contracted Warehouse so we are appealing the decision that was issued in October of 20 November of 2023 we are appealing that decision we can go down the rabbit hole of an interpretation or an appeal I believe the appeal is appropriate considering the time frame and and what is pending before the board but here's my issue because you just said something that's incredibly important to the determination and what you said was you're appealing the the determination made regarding the preliminary site plan that was before the planning board that's what you just said we're not we're appealing the application that is before the planning board for final site plan approval perhaps you misspoke but if you go back on the if you go back on the record preliminary site plan I misspeak all the time and I apologize for for misspeaking there we are not looking to re we are not looking to readjudication in response to the or an appeal of the zoning determination that we received in regards to a specific development the issue we run into is if there is a zoning determination issued and no notice goes out regarding a zoning determination an applicant seeks a zoning determination from the zoning officer he gets a response back that zoning determination does not get sent out to neighbors within 200 feet so how any adjacent property owner would receive a copy of that zoning determination with adequate time to file an appeal is just a fallacy it's not possible the last thing a developer would do is provide a zoning determination to their neighbors and say hey if you want to appeal my this decision you got 20 days to do it so but there is a pending application which allows us to file a zoning determination we filed that zoning determination we disagree with the response we got we filed an appeal we are before this board and I believe rightfully so seeking to be heard on our appeal if the board disagrees that the appeal is inappropriate I don't believe we get where we want to get with an interpretation because you're absolutely correct the only person who can Define what a contractor Warehouse is versus a warehouse is the Town Council but I believe we are correctly here for an appeal um so with that I'm happy to receive feedback if the answer is no the the the zoning determination from 2020 that was only in the applicant's pockets we we're married to it I question what recourse any adjacent property owner would have to challenge any type of zoning determination um but I believe because there's a pending application that we filed the request foron determination that we then filed the request for an appeal I believe we're correctly before this board and you are able to hear this application please the uh appeal of the application so right now this is before the planning board correct that is correct so I think that you guys need to to lay your case with the planning board not us I I don't believe that you should be here and I don't believe we should be hearing this um your your appeal window closed long ago and but there is a pending application and as Mr Hurley had indicated I'm sorry could you repeat that there is a pending application they have preliminary site plan but not final site plan and as Mr Hurley indicated it is not the planning board's jurisdiction to establish use so the the planning board has a zoning determination that Mr Papo indicated contracted warehouses are permitted uses the planning board is bound to that the planning board doesn't have the ability to disagree with with that that that that's not the process the process to uh disagree with that is why we're here this it's the appeal process and again I'm not appealing the 2020 2021 determination there's a pending application before the board and we believe that it is not in it is not consistent with warehouses contractor warehouses what have you so we filed the zoning determination the only question would be is if if someone is going to tell me that it is it was inappropriate to request the determination I haven't had anybody tell me that and we received a response to our determination so I I struggle to understand where we would not be able to appeal the determination that we received I have a question um the request for a determination on in November of 23 could you clarify again so they got preliminary site plan approval correct and then can you just sure to give it a little bit of a timeline um so in 2021 the applicant or 2022 the resolution was actually resolution number 2022-23 they received preliminary site plan approval for what is they're being called a a contractor Warehouse you you're the applicant I'm this applicant the neighbor yes takes issue with that preliminary site plan approval as well but that's not the subject we're not even speaking to the preliminary site plan appr approval so my applicant they I just want to know what happened in November of 23 like what exactly was the request in response so just to clarify the record it was September of 2023 the initial determination so what ended up happening was again my my client was a contract purchaser when the initial hearings were going on so we never received notice one of the neighbors actually uh my client purchased an adjacent piece of property um and they're buil and they're currently constructing homes on the property the one of the neighbors who had been following this application for obvious reasons and and many of whom are here called my client and said just so you know there's an application going before the planning board for final site plan approval xyn that was when we were first made aware of the application so the app we were made aware roughly a couple of weeks before the site plan application was being heard before the planning board so my office had went with another attorney to object to the application and we had put forth some engineering related items some use related items and what have you uh the end result was the application got C carried um to the end of October with the requirement for Ren noticing so sorry just to clarify so that was during a planning board hearing yes like an objector you came as an objector with your concerns about the final site plan correct and the concerns weren't related just to the use the use was an element some concern but there were engineering related items as well the application was carried with the requirement of further notice typically final plan approval doesn't require notice um so the application was carried the applicant did not do that additional notice they are taking the position they don't need to file notice um so the application was not heard and it had been carried to an additional date at some point in 2024 I don't know when that date uh when that is scheduled for um but when the applicant uh when when it when we realize that the best Avenue for us to discuss our concerns are related to the use itself it wasn't a plan board question any longer we can go to the planning board and we can tell them all our concerns about the use and they're going to rely on Mr puror determination that it's a permitted use and Mr Poor's determination was that a Contractor's Warehouse is a permitted use or that this is a Contractor's Warehouse and therefore is a permitted use let's let's let's direct that question to Mr proro can you answer that ask it again please so was the your determination that like it's seems like originally in April of 2020 the determination was yes the Contractor's Warehouse is permitted in this Zone but the most recent determination was was that yes a Contractor's Warehouse is permitted in the zone or yes a Contractor's Warehouse is permitted own and this is a Contractor's Warehouse you I would say the latter is that what they submitted was a Contractor's Warehouse and so it so it was your determination that their application indeed would be defined as a Contractor's Warehouse it was defined as being permitted in the zone yes because it's a Contractor's Warehouse yes and then there I guess was that the response to the request for determination it was and then that's what we're appealing um and you're appealing that it's just not a contractor Warehouse so if I may just to clarify again um in November of 2023 a request was for the final site plan approval that was pending before the planning board and the request was to the zoning officer of whether this is classified or defined as a Contractor's Warehouse the determination was that yes it is and you're appealing that that is correct okay so I have a question yeah I have a question for Mr feffer okay Mr faffer what your the site plan resolution the I'm sorry strike that the preliminary site plan approval that you received was back in 2022 is that correct yeah I I have the resolution here I believe so okay my question to you Mr feffer is and is your professional here I have Mr bordon here uh if needed to give planning testimony I I have one I have one specific question perhaps it would be more appropriate for Mr bordon to answer um than you and I mean no disrespect um how much how much has the how much has the application that was approved by the planning board back in 2022 changed from preliminary to final site plan uh I have to check with Mr bordon but I I could tell you I don't believe a lot there were some comments the reason why we we sought originally preliminary and final um at the time of the original application uh the board had some concerns I believe it was had to do with the county offsite Road and some improvements I I believe that that was some of the stuff they wanted to see uh prior to so we decided at that point just to take preliminary um I think there was some tweaking we listen I Think We Shrunk some of the items I have to go back and look exactly what the changes let me let me rephrase the let me let me let me ask you a more direct question how much has the the proposed warehouse space changed from the time that preliminary was granted until final was granted it's a direct question I know yeah of course the better question might be how much it changed since the concept plan that Mr papora reviewed in 2020 well respectfully I disagree with you because a site plan resolution for preliminary was granted back in 2022 and respectfully your right to appeal that was 45 days from the time that that was published correct and if let let's be per let's be perfectly clear I I understand what Mr Wilder is testifying to and I understand what's been said on the record I my concern is that we're again and this is not in any way disrespect it's simply my concern that we're trying to circumnavigate the proper legal proceedings in order to get what we want and that's not how this board or this Township or uh does things and so my concern is that my concern is that the time to appeal the zoning officer determination whether right or wrong back in 2020 was is long gone there no there's no you can't disagree on that it is the time to file prerogative red action in response to the preliminary uh site plan approval is long gone so as a result you became allegedly became aware of this application in 2023 and then you filed your request for an interpretation something that Mr papor has apparently repeatedly addressed um starting in 2020 uh and now we're we're we're relying on a a letter that was sent to Mr roro that that said are you know is it still your position essentially and I'm paraphrasing so so don't take this the wrong way but essentially saying well well is this permitted in the zone right something that he's already opined on um and now we're using that new letter from 2023 after there's been preliminary site plan approval um after there's been a determination in 2020 that this was permitted in the zone and we're relying upon a letter that was sent to Mr Boro where he simply confirmed what he's already said in order to file an appeal before the zoning board and I understand what you're telling me and I understand the timeline but I have legitimate con concerns about that timeline because again there are proper legal appeal channels to challenge land use actions and my question to you is are we trying to circumnavigate those I can't really make that determination uh you know and and perhaps I'm speculating just a bit but again my question is is direct and it's being asked for a reason um and and the question is how much has this warehouse space changed since the time that preliminary was granted up until the application was filed for final and I think that's a legitimate valid question when we're considering what we're considering I just spoke with Mr bordon who indicated we only reduced the size of the buildings um and that was to increase the buffer that was one of the concerns of the board um at the time the board wanted additional buffering so when we came back when we submitted for final we listen to them and we reduce some of the the building footprint I have a question as well if you don't mind Mr Murphy Mr Wilder you said something twice that I wrote down you stated that your client was not the owner of the property then when was then and when did they actually become the owner of the property because I think that goes to what what Mr Murphy's saying well before you answer that question it's a good question but before you answer that question I want to make it clear that that Mr knows that I've learned this the hard way that a contract purchaser has the same rights as a property owner when it comes to land use applications but that's correct but the notice would have been required still to be sent to the owner and and we would have no way of knowing that they were there was a contract purchaser um so our notice was proper again it should be stated just because they're dancing around it they indicated their their client is building houses that property behind us is in the same Zone and got a use variance from this board to build residential houses so I just just so we're clear so it's all on the table um we're talking about a residential development that that's now concerned because they're behind uh a contractor Warehouse I feel the need that I have to put that on the recordr may I ask a question M pars brought up a a very essential point I thought it was not sure we got a an answer complete though excuse me Mr Boro when you got the request whatever it may have been was your determination that contractors warehouses were a permitted use or did you have a concept plan statement of operation and you your determination was based on what you're showing me now that's a Contractor's Warehouse based on what I got in 2020 I determined that that use contractor's office warehouse use was permitted in the highway commercial Zone as presented in the concept plan although previously I said I don't recall seeing the concept plan I responded in a way where the concept plan told me gave me enough information that the Contractor's Warehouse use was permitted in the zone okay that that's where I'm confused because what I'm hearing is the the answer was that contractor Warehouse uses were prived in that zone what I'm looking for was because they're talking about an appeal here or an interpretation what I'm looking for was there a decision made uh by your office that what I am looking at here is a contract's warehouse not whether or not contract's warehouses are permitt in the zone I stand behind my decision that when the application came in for the for this use in this Zone that it was directed to the proper board okay so essentially saying that this was a a Contractor's Warehouse correct okay good thank you I'm sorry Mr Walter can you go back and answer my question for me sure when when did they become contract purchaser because I think Mr fe's answer and your answer go back to what Mr Murphy said though so we if if we're if we're trying to circumvent because you weren't the owner at the time when did you become owner of the property because you mentioned that twice that your client was not the owner at the time when did they become the owner of the property in the middle of 2022 they were a contract purchaser in somewhat earlier of 2022 and uh we're not so I don't believe we're trying to circumvent the requirements I think we have the right to request a zoning determination for which we requested one we requested it in 2023 we received a response and we are appealing that response we are not you know attempting to readdress or discuss the 2020 um zoning determination that has issues of its own but I guess the question would be again once it zon to determination is is is issued and an application is before the planning board we we wouldn't be able to go before the planning board and argue use that's not a planning board question that is a a question that can only be answered by the zoning officer or by determination and appeal of a decision by the zoning board so the only recourse or or ability we have to challenge a use when there's a pending final site plan application is to requested determination and then if we believe it's inappropriate to appeal that determination so we're not arguing you know prior noticing being in incorrect the time to argue that has has has long since passed but there is a pending application we have the right to request a determination and Mr puror could have responded that I'm not going to respond to your determination but he didn't he gave us a a written deter determination that mimiced or mirrored his 2020 determination which again no adjacent property owner would ever be aware of his Z determination because why would a developer ever send it to somebody so we filed that determination we disagree with the findings and we filed an appeal um I'm certainly not not a lawyer I don't have any case law but if if the zoning if the request for a zoning determination was valid which I think it was valid and the appeal is valid I don't understand why this board would not have jurisdiction to hear our appeal you you said the word appeal about a dozen times in in your last statement and I thought you guys missed the boat with the appeal okay that you you were supposed to file it within a certain time that didn't happen and so I think you standing on that um the word appeal you shouldn't be you're you're what you're looking for is a determination not an appeal you and and I think um Mr Murphy you you said that that is not that can't be brought up so so so what what I'm what I so just to oversimplify this where Mr Wilder and I'm not saying I necessarily disagree or agree at this point um because I'm not really 100% sure what Mr Wilder is is indicating is that by requesting a determination from the zoning officer on the final site plan application as to the question of whether or not this is permitted in the HC Zone triggered a new appeal time frame for under the ml which is 20 days if that were the case if and that's where I'm I'm struggling a little bit if that were in fact the case then they did file the appeal within that 20-day period and accordingly I would opine that the board had jurisdiction to hear that appeal however my question and and what I can't determine off the the top of my head uh is whether or not that truly triggered an opportunity for a new appeal because again this has already been determined this was determined in 2020 it was also determined I'm sorry perhaps the specific question was not determined at the time that preliminary site plan approval was granted however preliminary site plan approval was granted and no prerogative R action was filed with the superior court of New Jersey in 2022 so now we're at final site plan approval um and and and a letter was written to Mr Pororo and he simply responded saying what he said all along my question is does that truly trigger a new opportunity to file an appeal under the municipal Landes law with the zoning board and I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head but my gut says no but if you'd like to I I would I would welcome written submissions from both of you to make a determination as to whether or not that's a triggering event because I don't know the answer to that I don't know that anybody sitting up here knows the answer to that can I also just clarify something besides for the original April 2020 um request of Mr bapor we indicated uh yes uh contractor warehouses are permitted use I believe in if you don't mind I like to ask Mr Boro a question I believe it's correct that when the actual application came in for preliminary it was preliminary and final at the time your officer you review it as well again before it gets sent out is that correct correct okay and so when now fast forward we have our preliminary we've now submitted for final that goes to your office again for review to make sure it's in line it does it's reviewed by the the uh planning board secretary and then comes to me and we send it off to the professionals thank you so my point in stating this everyone keeps going back oh this April is this a concept sketch yes just so be clear the client was very clear the engineering firm is very good they wanted to make sure what they were doing was correct was in line with the with the ordinance they submitted a concept sketch I could tell you without even looking at it I'm sure that concept sketch was substantially similar to whatever was finally submitted um for the preliminary um this has been reviewed several times by mror by the zoning officer they've then sent it out you know we've like I said there were five different professional reports on this we had multiple hearings we're this is just another bite at the Apple to just a delay tactic and that's really what it is um you know we rip the bandaid off and see what it is we could send here for another two hours we're just going in circles through the chair you chair um Mr Murphy since you're not really certain on a jurisdictional issue I sure would like to have you have the benefit of submissions from Council and so that you could do your own research to guide us on what the jurisdictional issue is before we make that decision I would very much appreciate that Mr sorry Al I I heard before from the applicant that they're not challenging the preliminary now they were just challenging the final I just want to make sure we're at because that's there's no let me be clear there's no basis to planning board application before this there's zero up any challenges I un that's understood but let's be clear you don't have this board has no jurisdiction to to to opine on the validity of the preliminary site plan approval correct you would you would agree to that you would stipulate that that approval is long since correct so this board we're not challenging that that's all I wanted on the that's all I was yep of course the first time hold on one second please sir so this is an interpretation application okay um under Municipal land use law typically interpretate interpretation applications are not opened to the public however you ask you ask very nicely and I am a big proponent of public input um so I will suggest to the board that we hear the public since they did sit here my question again no no hold on one moment please well I don't know can I I have a question for Mr propo before we open it to 100% hear me out here and I'm sure we all probably have the same question your determination that a a Contractor's Warehouse was permissible in the HC Zone but Mr feffer pointed out that this came back to you multiple times because it then went to the planning board for preliminary they got the preliminary now it's going back for final so went to secretary and back to you but how do we determine if how do you determine if that application is for a contractor Zone if we don't have a definition a Contractor's Warehouse if we don't have a definition thank you well that's a that is a very good question and that's what makes I guess this job um sorry no it's a difficult position to be in I make the call that's a determination that I make and we ideally move on if we if it if it's something that was determined that was either incorrect or um inaccurate then um you know this is the venue to iron it out but I made that call and I had to stand by it thank you madam chairl may I yes Mr puror I want to make sure that no one's painting you into a box here oh no no no that was not I'm sorry no no not you not you oh I don't I was just say that was not my intention I'm just asking yeah because I I I see the dilemma here so I'm just is asking to be clear you you based it on your Professional Knowledge this is what's Pro and what our ordinance says our ordinance says in the HC Zone a Contractor's Warehouse is permitted given all the questions I'm just asking since you don't have a definition how we determine that that's why I wasn't saying you were wrong in any way I understand no my my comment is based on Mr theer's question okay okay as to reviewing these applications periodically by the zoning officer and my question is what are you reviewing are you reviewing for bulk regulations or are you also uh finding out or getting information as to what the specific use is and continuing to make a determination as to what the that it's an appropriate use it comes down to the use and I rely on the board professionals to do their reviews based on um again bulk um uh storm water all the all the technical things that don't have to do with the use well that's my concern in other words M Mr feffer I got the impression from Mr fe's questions of you that you keep reviewing this periodically when when applications are being reviewed by the professionals and you make a determination that the use is permitted but I thought that your review is generally on bulk issues not specifically on the use again now it's primarily on the use and like I said the board profession I rely on the board professionals to offer its board the technical reviews based on the site itself but I definitely determine the use of the property and determine which board it should go to okay thank you any additional questions not seeing not now that there's no additional questions I'm going to open this to the public please keep in mind Mr Murphy's comments so he may limit the scope of your comments correct yeah just just uh just momentarily uh I'm going to start announcing this at the beginning of the meeting however I'd like to remind the public that any commentary on this application is limited to what was presented before the board this evening so recall the board has not yet accepted jurisdiction on this particular application we're trying to make that determination at this point point but again as I stated on the record normally uh you know we're not required to open um to the public on on interpretation applications however you have sat here all night um and out of respect for the public uh I I'm a proponent of public comment and I again I welcome the public to comment on what was presented this evening thank you for raising your right hand do you Solly swear or affirm that testimony information questions or comments that you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do if you would please state your name spell your last and provide your address James wrencher re n s c l e r three Berwin Lane Jackson New Jersey she did bring up what I was going to talk about the determination on how you determine whether it was a contractor Warehouse or regular Warehouse I'm sorry I don't can't see your name but you stated it should be electricians plumbers hours of operation and he took it upon himself to just assume that he was going to do that what to stop them which was made at the last meeting that it's going to be three shifts around the clock with multiple loading docks that doesn't sound like the determination that you read out of that one Statue well we haven't had a we haven't had a hearing on what the hours of operations are but he did bring up what a contract the warehouse is and he said just by looking at the buildings and how could he determine if he doesn't know what's going to be put there there's no definition he could build a warehouse as far as it's concerned he could build an Amazon warehouse there because you don't have a definition it's just him assuming that he's going to do what he read but everything in there is multiple loading docks three shifts it's all on the record three shifts and it's not plumbers and it's not electricians do the right thing thank you would anyone else like to come forward Cynthia wrencher re n s c h l e r my address is three Berwin Lane and Jackson thank you for raising I too do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments that you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth yes thank you the only thing I have to say is when all this started which was several years ago we were before the planning board and one of the issues that came up and it's still coming up tonight we're now in 2024 is what is the definition of a warehouse and I think I'm not pointing the finger at you but I think the board the governing everybody has to get together and figure out what's contractor Warehouse what's a regular warehouse and where they go because we have warehouses everywhere and half of them here in Jackson are empty so before we start approving a warehouse left and right let's figure out what is going there and what's the benefit to the town that's what it comes down to but this was several years ago EXC the first hearing for this these proposed warehouses which are in the middle of our development what is a warehouse and what is a contract to warehouse and I think that that would solve a lot of problems not only tonight but other issues in this town what are they and what's the purpose of them Adventure Crossing is two miles away and it's empty the warehouses are empty we need to figure out why we need all these warehouses and it's not just to bring business in town there's two strip malls across the the street from us that are empty because Mammoth County said no left turn out on 537 and that's the same issues with these warehouses so that's that's all I have to say on it tonight thank you thank you thank you so I I want to make something very clear this board has no Authority Andor jurisdiction to make any changes to any ordinances to definitions etc etc that that jurisdiction rests solely with the governing body so just just to be clear on that we don't we don't have the power to reone we don't have the power to do any of that Deion that that remains to be seen did Linda Thompson 50 RoR Ro Jackson New Jersey t h m PS o n please raise your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments are you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth I do thank you living in the development that is going to be impacted by this for 36 years very small area um 537 borderline Mammoth County um last time I was here the big my biggest complaint was the traffic study a 537 I I have I I know I know you I have I have to stop I know you have no jurisdiction over that first of all it wasn't this board no you weren't here no no no you're right okay secondly we haven't taken any testimony regarding what the application is about I I I I tend to allow leeway but I'm not getting into traffic issues I'm not getting into you know uh engineering I'm not getting into any of that tonight because that none of that was presented before the board at this time right can you just tell me where that is where am I to go with that at this point they're getting too close to doing this now what what how do we stop this from I I can't give ma'am I can't give you legal advice so you can't tell me where we can go from here whether it be the it's not the planning board it's not the uh the the application itself is before the planning board if you'd like to object to the application itself that would be at the planning board level okay however like I have said multiple times on the record and I requested written summations from both Council as to why the zoning board should hear this appeal the zoning board hasn't made any determination yet as whether or not we're even going to hear this appeal right so we may hear the appeal we may not hear the appeal the question becomes does the board even have this board have jurisdiction he this appeal these are legal issues right that are real and need to be considered in order for us to make the correct determination absolutely it has nothing to do with the public it has nothing to do with the application itself this is about protecting this board and not making the incorrect determination making sure that this board is doing the right thing for the township for the public for the applicants for the objectors for everybody that's what this board does absolutely right and so I'm not here to debate you know I need to make I need to make a legal determination and provide that guidance to the board before I can tell you whether or not we're even going to hear this application okay thank you all right seeing no one else come forward I'm going to go ahead and close public session through the chair the overwhelming theme that I've heard for the past 55 60 Minutes is caution I think it's absolutely overwhelmingly important for us to allow our legal council to fet this out and figure out where we stand as to whether or not we even have a position I'd like to table it done I'll make it a motion well I think you're conceding T you're ask us to submit briefs to jurisdiction that's correct yeah so and you're conceding to do that given the board's feedback I think that's appropriate I appreciate that okay so what we can do instead of making a motion table and I appreciate the motion because I I I agree I think it isn't imperative that we flesh this out because again it's only fair to both the objector and to the applicant that we make sure that we get this right and I want to make sure that I get that we get this right and that I give the board the proper guidance and and to be honest I don't know if that's a triggering event and I want to find out so I'm going to ask you guys to help me do that and I'll do my own independent research in the meantime um I think it would be appropriate though to select a new date for you to come back but my question to both of you is how long will you need I'm going to ask for two weeks whatever dat their their brief is in so I can respond to it of course their application so whatever they ask for I'm asking for two additional Mr D Simone I'll leave it to you how long do you want how often does the board meet every every well the first make my life really easy I'm here on February 7th a month from now let me rephrase that we meet the first and third Wednesday of every month so it's not technically every two weeks but the fir we meet twice a month so our next meeting would be January 17th Mr feffer just indicated he's here at the following meeting which is February 7th yeah if you did it and then the meeting really February 7th yeah I would just ask February 7 meeting just give me as long as I get a week and days to respond we have five applications listed for February 7th two of which are two of which are are major applications I can tell you I'm one well you have you're you're number one I would I would again and and this depends on whether or not this I have a conflict that evening well would it be sufficient time for you if we were to list this for February 21st your submission is due 7th and then Mr well no that would work the 21st we'll work out again I have 10 days I really like 10 days before the hearing to have both submissions so I can review them looking at the 2 21st so you want the submissions by by the 11th give does that give you enough that's fine my submission in February 1 Qui question what are they going to brief the jurisdiction on the whether or not they're out of time to file an appeal correct or do we have the jur jurisdiction to interpret an ordinance and make it well what that's I I think I think both issues need to be addressed so the first of all I think the main the main question is whether or not that new determination from the zoning officer was a triggering event that that permits a an appeal under an appeal based upon the procedural history in this particular case and then I think the second question becomes if not there's no question that they're entitled to file an interpretation but what is what are they asking the board to interpret and can can the board interpret whether or not it's a Contractor's Warehouse or a warehouse does that make sense not completely they're asking they're asking us to determinate to make a determination I'm sorry are they are they my impression is that we're being asked as to whe what is being presented is a Contractor's Warehouse or a general warehouse correct and this board has the authority to make a determination based on reviewing what's permitted in that zone if this is so closely intended that this is what a Contractor's Warehouse would be right right so we would need I mean they can brief all that all they like but the point is wouldn't we still need a presentation as to what is being pre you what's being presented I mean there there's no qu there's no question there has there's never been a question as to whether or not we need a presentation the question is whether or not it's going to be under an appeal or an interpretation if it's an interpretation I agree that we would need a present as to what we're interpreting okay so let's assume for the sake of discussion that they're out of time to appeal the uh decision of the zoning officer under subsection a correct but they we do have jurisdiction to make a determination under B correct so why are we asking them to give us briefs on it well I want I want to know if they're at of time for an appeal for a correct what about B well for B if they're going to come back for B I want to know again and I you know the question the question that they're asking us is very narrow I mean it's I understand what you're saying judge and my my question is more so geared toward the fact that you know we're not really they're asking us to make it determination as to definitions of of a warehouse versus a Contractor's Warehouse my concern with doing that W without the input of Town Council where that question really in my opinion belongs um is Town Council what's that the township Council you mean yeah that's what I said oh okay yeah my question the question is is do we have jurisdiction to really make that DET that determin is it the the real qu let's be very clear I'm going to simplify this to the extent that I'm able to the real question that's being asked here is is this application for a Contractor's Warehouse or for a warehouse a general warehouse that's the question that's the only question the my my if this is an appeal there's no question that we can in my opinion that we can make that determination if this is an interpretation I then have a question as to whether or not we can make that interpretation so 21st yes y so the brief will be regarding the the appeal right and you heard what's on the record correct make sense everybody I am I'm just looking for my agenda which I can't find here it is um application number three are your properties at Pinewood Estates LLC block 102 lot one uh that application will be carried to the February 21st 2024 zoning board meeting um no further notice shall be required um and I presume the applicant waves time at where applicable correct and that was February 21st correct that's correct thank you thank you motion to adjourn all in favor