for and call this meeting to order please stand for the 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 good evening ladies and gentlemen soon to njsa 10 col 4 the open public meetings act notice of this duly and regularly scheduled meeting of the Jackson Township Zoning Board of adjustment has been published and posted in all appropriate locations roll call please Mr Hurley Mr Stafford Smith here miss frit Mr book here Mr Hudak here Mr ricardi is absent Miss Parnes Mr hman here miss Bradley here do we have any resolutions this evening yes we have two the first one 2024 d05 resolution number 2024-25 24 rejecting applications received for certain professional contracts holding over all professionals and directing requests for new proposal for said positions approved chair make a motion approve Mr Hurley yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss frit yes Mr book yes Mr Hudak Miss Parnes yes Miss Bradley yes we also have resolution number 202 24-6 that's the resolution amending resolution 20242 previously approved based upon changes to the designations of the subject partial on the tax map of the township of Jackson during the applications pendency for property located at Freehold road block one4 I'm sorry 10004 lot 81 eligible to vote um are Mr book Miss frit Mr Hurley Mr Hudak Mr Stafford Smith and Miss Bradley you need a motion on a second please motion Mr Hurley yes yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss frit yes Mr book yes Mr Hudak yes Miss Parnes yes is not eligible to vote Miss Bradley yes yes minutes from Fran debella December 20 2023 that's motion second Mr Hurley yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss frit yes Mr book yes Mr Hudak yes Miss [Music] parz Miss Bradley move to approve Mr Hurley yes Mr Stafford Smith Miss frit yes Mr book Mr Hudak Miss Parnes Miss Bradley announcements yes we have one announcement this evening thank you madam chair application number two which is Rosen Bloom variance 3464 that's for Block 13301 Lot 19 that application is being carried to the March 6th 2024 meeting of the Jackson in Township Zoning Board of adjustment no further notice is required by the applicant and the applicant has waved time thank you gentlemen thank you for raising your right hand and do you solemly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments that you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth yes yes thank you if you each state your name and your positions with the board Evan Hill Board engineer Ernie Peters board planner Jeffrey paoro zoning officer thank you that's correct Madam chair Madam chair if I may articulate a resolution for executive session 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 col 4-12 provides that an executive session not open to the public may be held for certain specified purposes when authorized by resolution and whereas it is necessary for the Zoning Board of the township of Jackson to discuss in a session not open to the public matters relating to the item or items authorized by njsa 10 412b the matter in question this evening being specifically enumerated as litigation and now therefore be it resolved by the town uh by the zoning by the Zoning Board of the township of Jackson to enter executive session for discussion of litigation is 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 Madam Sheriff I may have a member make a motion to adopt this resolution make the motion Mr Hurley yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss frit Mr book Mr Hudak Miss Parnes yes Mr Harmon Mr Miss Bradley move to Come Out Mr Hurley yes Mr Stafford Smith yes M Rich yes Mr book yes Mr Hudak M Parnes Mr Heyman Miss Bradley no Madam chair I think your mic's off no you don't have to stand up that was probably not the right gesture sorry about that okay how's this much better thank you uh good evening Madam chair board members board professionals my name is Jared Pape I'm an attorney with the law firm of hurn Pape our office represents the applicant kebler Family Trust uh this is a um an application for bulk variance relief for a proposed single family house uh this application was um it's a continued presentation we started this presentation in October of 2023 um and although it's a continued presentation there was a request that we Ren notice uh we did ren notice specifically to uh include a request to amend a resolution amend a condition of a prior resolution um to permit a basement so before we proceed I would like to request confirmation that the notices that we uh provided were found to be satisfactory so confirmed thank you um at the October meeting we had received a number of comments and suggestions for uh how to revise the plan tonight's presentation we intend to show how we um Incorporated those suggestions into the plan that was resubmitted to the board um and I'd like to note that we had sent Buy sell letters to the adjoining property owners so the these are the letters where we are um writing to the adjoining property owners inquiring whether they have an interest in selling all or a part of their land to our client or um purchase our client's property uh we sent those letters once in August of 2023 and again in November of 2023 and we have not received a response to those letters so just one minute Jared yes if you mind uh just so the board is clear the this is an undersized lot case the do Meer case requires the applicant to send those Buy sell letters once um I had made a specific request to the applicant based upon representations made on the record at the last hearing um that there was some uh interest in uh buying and or selling that uh portion of property um and Mr Pape uh and the applicant did in fact comply with that request they resent these Buy sell letters and as I understand it there again has been no response to Mr Pap's office is that correct that's correct thank you thanks we have two witnesses this evening laurelai Totton is the applicant's professional engineer Miss Totton testified at the meeting in October um I've asked her to address four main topics which will be summary of changes to the plan um storm water management suitability for a basement and tree removal these were all topics that were discussed at the last meeting and that's how we intend to proceed this evening and second uh James Higgins is the applicant's professional planner so unless there's any questions or comments at this time we'd ask to move to um Miss totton's testimony and as I mentioned she was she testified at the last hearing does she need to be sworn it's the regular practice of the support to rewear Witnesses so I'm going to ask you to raise your right hand thank you very much good evening good evening Miss Toton uh do you somly 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 thank you very much if you would please state your name uh provide your affiliation and credentials Laura Toton Crest engineering associate zc 100 Reich Drive milstone Township New Jersey I uh received a bachelor of U civil engineering from Lehi University in 1977 I passed my professional engineering license in 1983 and obtained my planning license in 1986 and both are still in good standing I've appeared before this board as well as numerous other boards in to we this board accept your credentials thank you thank you thanks um I'd like to begin by marking or identifying the exhibits that we are relying upon this evening um which I see are up on the screen in fact I'd actually ask if you could scroll down I think the um second sheet is what we Mark so if could you identify this uh exhibit Miss Totton yes this is the variant sketch that was previously submitted which we revised in accordance with a TRC meeting with your professionals uh the revision date on it is uh 12723 and we had prepared um two exhibits um get into it in Miss totton's testimony there was discussion as to um a front yard setback variance and the ability to potentially remove that variance so up on page one if you could please scroll back to page one um just for purposes of identifying the exhibit this is an alternative um sketch everything is the same except for um the the front yard uh front yard setback variance is removed from this version you could just read this one into the record M yes the name of this is variant sketch alt-a and it's dated 127 uh 23 um thank you if you could scroll back to the um the second page Miss Tod if you could please just walk the board through the the changes that have been made to this plan yes we um we added approximate locations of the existing homes on the adjacent Lots they're shown in dash lines on either side of the proposed lot as requested we moved the driveway from from the left side to the right side as was suggested um we put a double row of Evergreens along the property line adjacent to Lot 19 as was suggested we also added grading um and showed that the water follows the current drainage patterns with a high point a little ways off the front of the property and flows to the rear um and Corner grades on the home and the garage so that you can see that it will fit properly just make sure I got them all oh we also uh conducted uh tree survey a tree inventory in two locations within the development portion of the site resulting in uh 10 in one of the locations and 11 and the other now these were trees that meet the ordinance requirements of those that need to be located 6 in and greater um and the types of trees are listed on the plan I don't think you need me to read them off to you unless you would like me to um I in case you didn't mention it the did you mention the rotation of the footprint and most importantly saving the best for last one of the items that the board members suggested was was to rotate the house 90° so the narrower side was uh to the front of the bill front of the lot uh increasing each of the sidey yards by 10 feet from 20 feet to 30 feet on each side thank you um it's a summary of the changes to the plan uh in response to the comments we received at the last hearing um moving to uh storm order management um we had previously discussed that it's the applicant's intention to um ultimately not build the proposed house themselves they intend to sell the lot and we agreed that as a condition of resolution compliance either plot plan level or engineer design drawings would be um would need to be approved by the board's professionals this includes storm water management but miss Toton could you just speak to what your office did to investigate or study the proper proper to determine what the um appropriate storm water management system would be here so we conducted a test pit um that is actually located at the back of this the house box that we show on the plan so it's between the house and the garage and the results of that test pit were uh reasonably good for purposes of providing both a septic system and dryw Wells because they both need soil that the water can percolate down into so we feel pretty comfortable that a drywell system could be designed capturing the runoff from the roofs uh we show two dry Wells one on each side assuming that the peak would probably run down the length of the house collect the gutters uh the run off from the gutters and allow it to percolate into the ground um and then of course larger storms will flow on towards the back of the property as they do now thanks and with regard to the basement um the basement is proposed what steps has your office taken to confirm that the proposed house could include a a dry basement um additionally we that soils test fit that we conducted we obtained a seasonal high water table based upon modeling which is the worst case of modeling it's uh either equal to or usually greater than where water is actually coming into the test pit so the way we've graded the house the basement is uh one foot above the uh water table so that it's my opinion that the uh house can be built with a basement that shouldn't get wet thank you um and at the last hearing we were asked to clarify the number of trees that would be removed in connection with the proposed house would you please explain what your office did to quantify the number of trees that would be removed based on the square footage of the 250X 5050 spaces and a number of trees in there came up with an area a tree per square foot that would be removed uh we multiplied that by assuming everything from the right of away to the rear uh clearing limit would be removed and we came up for this plan the Varian sketch 84 trees great uh 6 in and greater that would be removed to construct this uh house do I have a point I do I don't know if it works we [Music] could so see I don't want to get anybody in the eye with this all right so what was I oh so we have two uh Square areas where we conduct inventories we just assume that the entire area back to here would be cleared totally of trees which might not be the case but probably would be um and multiplied that ratio we obtained and we came up with 84 trees uh 6 inches and greater that would be removed thank you um I have nothing further of Miss Totten unless there's any questions or comments from the board or board professionals through the chair M Totton perhaps I I didn't hear you correctly um one I thought that there was a a stipulation that may have been placed upon the record that there would be a stipulation to no basements on this laot um is that stipulation still holding that there would be no basement or are we now seeking approval for the basement so there the prior subdivision resolution from 1987 that's the one I'm looking at include includes a condition that that there shall be no basements and not to cut you off but the paragraph two there they had a board engineer advised the subject site is located in an area where there is a seasonal high water table engineer recommended that no basement be constructed uh and that no no basement be constructed on a subject property the other one that I would like you to reconcile for me is also under Sub sub paragraph B uh again kind of says the same thing no basement shall be constructed on the subject site any home constructed on the site shall not be constructed in the manner so it's to be built on a large amount of fill creating a Ming effect um I guess one thing I'm curious about is the water table is ship in the water table issue changed from 1986 till now I mean can you reconcile that to me and also the issue of the basement thank you speak to the with regard to the water table there is a soil log uh the results of our test pit is on the plans and so we just re reading it actually I we found models at 80 in and we found no water encountered in the test pit excuse me you're pointing to the me and you're standing right right in front I can't read this I I apologize I can't read this one up here um so this is the test pit uh results the soil log so if you look at this part of it you'll see that it says the estimated seasonal high water table is 80 in and up in around this one it it'll say models at 80 in so that's what we based the water table on so models are staining of the soil where the water has risen up and has Stained the soil a different color and then gone back down so no matter what time of year you do your test pit you see that modeling of the soil or the staining of the soil and you know that that is where the water table is is that responsive to the question that's correct we are seeking permission for a basement well since we're on it we'll I'll try to address it now um the fact that they performed a test pit a recent test pit and they identified a seasonal high water table based on modeling of the soils uh recently seasonal high water table does fluctuate throughout the year and it fluctuates because of higher levels of precipitation throughout the year in fact we're entering the period of time now between January and March the seasonal high water table tends to be at its shallowest from the surface the the the surf the groundwater doesn't stay in the soils as it moves it CH it Alters the ph and chemistry of the soils as it gets saturated and then unsaturated so it's slight changes in PH cause the the mo the soils to become discolored and and and the applicant engineer is correct that that's how we identify a seasonal high water table U furthermore they extended the test pit I'm sorry how deep did the test pit go so season High 144 in okay so seasonal high was at 80 but they continued the test pit beyond that and and did not see any indications of groundwater SE or groundwater so what that tells me is it's more of a u it's more of a um trapped condition where it occurs during certain times of the year it gets trapped at that level but but it's not the actual groundwater raising up 3 and 1/2 4 ft that generally doesn't occur a blanket statement back in 1986 that the soils may not be conducive to ACC to accommodated basement that's just it's just that it's a blanket statement I I don't believe it was based on any uh any testing on this on this lot and in this portion of the lot specifically it was likely performed at other areas of the subdivision which could have been subject to shallower seasonal high water table and groundwater elevations so what the applicant's engineer is has presented us is standard practice for today um if we were looking at this lot without knowing that there was a condition imposed in 1986 I would take no exception to this lot being able to accommodate a basement as long as there's a separation distance between the basement floor and the seasonal high of a minimum of 2 feet if it's less than than 2 feet then they have to put in a foundation drain to make sure that if it gets within that one foot range that it adequately drains uh adequately drains the the groundwater any additional questions for this witness Mr Hurley just one from Mr Hill uh is there any impact on the adjoining properties relative to the the basement the the water he things of that nature no like to move to our next witness James Higgins the applicant's professional planner Mr Higgins has not yet testified we'll ask he be sworn and we'll ask that he provide his credentials AB good evening good evening Mr Higgins if you would please raise your right hand do you solemnly swear affirm the testimony information questions or comments that you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you very much if you would please state your name provide your affiliation your credentials please yeah James Higgins I'm a licensed professional planner in the state I've been licensed for approximately 45 years uh I have testified before before this board as an expert in the field of planning I've testified before numerous communities throughout the state as an expert I've represented certain planning boards a number of planning boards and zoning boards as and municipalities as an expert in the field of planning testified before various Superior Courts as an expert in the field of planning and been recognized by the Supreme Court also AST inter you this board accept your credentials sir thank you Mr Higgins um could you please identify the variance relief that's being requested and walk the board through your um testimony justifying that variance yeah surely there are several variances being requested two of them are existing conditions which cannot be rectified and that's the minimum lot area the ordinance requires 130,000 Square ft the site is 63,000 square ft² in area the ordinance requires a minimum lot width of 200 ft and the property has a width of 100 ft those are existing conditions there is no available land surrounding the the site that could be acquired reasonably be acquired to eliminate or reduce those conditions without creating more variances on the adjacent Lots both of which are non-conforming in addition you have a variance that's being requested uh for minimum front yard yard setback as proposed the applicants proposing a setback of 65 ft the ordinance requires 80 ft and the alternative the applicant can move the building back 16 ft and have a 81 foot uh FR 80 I'm sorry me 17 ft have an 82 foot front yard setback and that would eliminate the variant request it's the applicant's request to be able to set the building back 65 ft and I'll go into those reasons once I get to the analysis of the variances in addition there's a sidey yard setback requirement of 50 ft in the zone for both the principal and accessory structures the principal building is being set back 30 feet on each side and the garage is being set back 30 feet on one side and approximately 40 feet on the other side I didn't see the plan Dimension but that's about what it is I think there are positive reasons for the granting of variances first of all with regard to the existing conditions as I said they're existing the site was actually created by subdivision in 1987 and at the time was fully conforming so it's not a situation where there's a hardship that was self-created it was actually a fully conforming lot that was made non-conforming by subsequent zoning changes and there is really no way to reasonably acquire additional land to eliminate those two variance conditions as far as the lot area and the minimum lot width U consequently I think there are positive reasons for the granting of those variances and I think as I will get into it the subdivision or the development that's being proposed I think does not provide any substantial detriment to the surrounding area so I think they can be granted uh with regard to the setback sidey setback the ordinance again requires a 50 foot side yard setback and if you do the math if you have a 50ft side yard setback on each side and you have 100 foot wide lot you can't even put a a wall in the middle so there's clearly a hardship there uh it's important to understand when you look at this not not only is there a hardship but I think what the applicant's proposing is a little bit better than what actually is required by the ordinance and the reason I say that is that at the at the board's request it was a very good request the applicant flipped the house provided 30ft setbacks on each side so that a total of 60% of the width of the lot is is open doesn't have a building on it with the ordinance If This Were a fully conforming lot the applicant could have only 50% of the width of the lot uh that would be open because you would have 50 feet on each side and then 100 foot wide you could have 100 foot wide residence in the middle so that I think what's being proposed here not only is there a hard ship but what's being proposed is actually a benef benefit and it's set provides more light air and open space in terms of the percentage of the width of the lot that's being left open then what would happen if this could happen if this lot were a fully conforming 200 foot wide lot so I think in that instance the sidey setback variances can be granted and should be granted I don't think there's a substantial detriment uh with regard to the front yard setback the there are a substantial number of buildings on the same side of the street and on the other side of the street that are setbacks that are similar to or less than what's being proposed and I think the applicant is trying to provide something that is consistent with the character of the area and will provide the minimal disturbance to the site as as is possible and the reason I say that is that he could move the building back to 80 ft or 81 or 82 ft 15 to 177 ft of disturbance of the wooded area that wouldn't be disturbed if the if the uh alternate if the uh variance plan that the applicant is proposing with the proposed setback is provided therefore I think it's it's a better planning alternative to have a building that's more consistent with the existing setbacks along the road than than having the building set back further and actually provides for Less sight to servant uh consequently I I think that there are benefits to the granting of that V variance and there aren't any substantial detriments if anything I think it's even a better solution than moving the building back to be 80 ft uh I think also with regard to the C2 criteria I think there's uh definitely benefits to the granting of this application as proposed that substantially outly any detriments and the reason I say that is that while you have sidey setback variances which are absolutely necessary because you can't build a building without a sidey setback variance you have a number of other conditions requirements of the ordinance that the application actually does not come close to meeting come close to exceeding for example the minimum lot coverage in the zone is 15% this plan is proposing a building coverage of 5% which is onethird of the permitted building coverage I think that's substantial as I said I think that the amount of open space on either side of the building is like is 60% of the lot width as opposed to 50% which the ordinance anticipates and the rear yard setback is required is 50 feet and the proposed rear yard setback is over 400 feet so in terms of light Air at open space very clearly this application does does advance that purpose of the municipal land use law uh to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses including residential uses again this is a permitted use in the zone so it's an appropriate use for the site and as proposed it's going to be a development that is much less intensive than it could be if it were a fully conforming lot and the setback again is consistent with many of the uh Parcels many of the houses along the street so I think it's consistent with the character of the area so I does think it does provide sufficient space and appropriate location for a number of for a permitted use and finally to encourage the coordination of various public and private procedures and activities shaping Land Development with a view of lessening the cost of such development and the more efficient use of the land and here clearly to have a building on a vacant site as a much more efficient use of the land than to have a uh to leave that site vacant so I think it and answers that purpose of the municipal land use law also uh when I look at all of these things I think there are positive reasons for the granting of the variances I don't see any substantial negative impact you've heard testimony that the drainage is going to work and while there's going to be tree removal any development on the site would result in tree removal and the applicant is try to minimize that to the extent possible so I don't see any substantial negative impact that would occur and I think definitely the positive the benefits of this application do outweigh those negative impacts and the fact that there is a substantial hardship also I think outweighs the negative impacts thank you Mr Higgins Madam chair that is the applicants direct presentation the applicants professionals remain available if there's any further comments or questions any questions for this witness to the chair Mr book uh M Mr Higgins as I'm looking at the plan that's up on the board the property to the left of it uh was great they sketched it out they call it an existing dwelling it's about 105 ft away from the property line of this project and I believe it shows that it's about 59 or yeah 59 feet back uh and then there's another building to the right existing dwelling that's about 25 ft from the sideline and it's 12 feedback so I'm a little confused in terms of how do you reconcile those two from what might fit in the community the majority of the buildings along that street are set back closer to the street than what the applicant is proposing you do have two to the immediate if you're facing the building to the immediate right those buildings are set back farther but then the buildings as you go to the further to the right the two buildings there are set back much closer to the street if you go to the left as you're facing the site the building directly adjacent on the light directly adjacent to the site is closer than what the applicant's proposing and the next three to four Lots I think it's the next four Lots all of those houses again are about set about the same setback as that building to the immediate uh left of of the site so the majority of the buildings on that side of the street are set back as close or closer to the street than the applicant's proposing you have the two immediately adjacent that are setb and the applicant is willing to do the 80 foot setback and the reason he he's proposing the Lesser setback is because there's less impact on the property in terms of tree removal there would be another anywhere from 15 to 17 feet of trees removed and he's trying to reduce the impact as much as possible thank you [Music] any additional questions for this witness Mr Pap do you have any additional comments before I open it to the public no further comments um I'm going to open this to the public um if anyone wishes to make a comment regarding this application please come forward good evening if you would please raise your right hand sorry do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments that you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do if you would please state your name spell your last and provide your address please sure it's William scosi 84 East Pleasant Grove it's SKR o CZ KY uh with a property to the right thank you very much sure right good evening uh my name is William scosi as I just said uh we own 84 East Fant Grove which is a property to the east side which is that's us over here okay when we were looking to buy a house we intentionally shop for a home that was not in development because we enjoy privacy we bought a house that had additional land and ordinance to keep our neighbors at at a good distance uh ke seeking to build using an R1 District standard rather than the R3 District standard that we're in however the R3 Zone and the requirements should be held accordingly in addition the current R1 District requires 150 feet uh Frontage and uh so Cuba still doesn't even have enough requirements for the smaller R1 Zone so in essence he needs a variance on a variance to get this built in our last meeting the board one of the board members said that owners are entitled to use their properties when they can otherwise we have the problem of properties being condemned that's why we generally have the we have to allow these de developments on these undersized Lots now this shouldn't apply when it comes to the detriment of surrounding properties now the original subdivision was made in 1987 that's 16 years before the 3 acres zoning so keer had an opportunity to sell or developed a lot all that time but he chose not to keer owned the property for an additional 18 years after the R3 zoning enactment but he chose not to again because he lived in the house um right uh to the left of the land and it would impede on his own privacy and that's why he didn't uh the variance application has been going on for just about two years now this is the fifth time we've been here and over the time we've seen many cases where VAR es were denied for multiple reasons sometimes as much as a few feet out of regulation in this case the property is less than half the required acreage less than half the required area half the required width almost half the required left side setback and almost half the required right side setback it roughly meets about 40% of the current requirements the fact that the design needed to be turned on its side in order to squeeze it into the lot and then still needs a side yard variance of 20 ft means that you should vote no to this variance the fact that the design had to have a detached garage in order to fit on the lot says that you should vote no to this variance the fact that the average size of a house on this block is 2,800 square fet but this this house is proposed to be up to 4,800 Square F feet and is on an undersized lot says that you should vote no to this variance the fact that the average footprint of a house on this block is 1700 sare ft what this this design design proposes a 2400 ft undersized lot says that you should vote no to this variance the fact that R3 zones were established to prevent overdevelopment one of the adverse side effects of overdevelopment is flooding and we have a serious flooding problem in this neighborhood and more specifically on my property which is slightly downhill from the lot and we receive the runoff uh can you please bring up uh scy one okay now this is the end of my driveway that's about 8T of water going from my driveway out into the middle of the street now this didn't exist about 10 years ago but there was a house built to our right and afterwards this flooding began uh can you bring up scy the next one okay yeah okay so that is um just one second sir what's the proper marking on these I'm going to jump in with this um I have a list of the exhibits that were uh submitted previously Mr scr's first um of those who submitted exhibits so I'm going to go with um 03 scosi with today's D the whole thumb drive okay and that would be every all the photographs as as03 I think so yes very good thank you Jee okay so this is the end of my driveway uh facing toward the property that's looking to be developed so it's slightly downhill and it pretty much levels off right on my property uh can you go to the next one this is my front lawn which is again right slightly downhill of of the property that's looking to be developed uh this water is nowhere to go uh next please same thing uh it's getting closer to the property yeah and that's just showing that it's coming downhill and leveling on my property uh next please yeah and that is uh the front probably five or six feet of their property going from the street okay uh let me get back here okay so the fact that the okay the fact that it caused flooding means that it should you should vote no to this variance the kebler uh the keer provided proposal has them clearing a 100 by 200 area of trees that means they'll clear the entire are boarding my front yard backyard side yard and leaving my home virtually with no buffer between the properties eliminating any front yard or backyard deck or deck privacy and also it'll degrade the value of my home and yes we consulted a realtor who agree that the house this close would have a direct impact on the value and the marketability of our own home for this reason you should vote no to this variant the fact that my living room has three exceptionally large Windows facing the lot at 160 to 180 ft back which is directly lined up with a parking and turnaround proposal uh that there is our living room here and all three of those windows are facing the lot uh next please that is our living room there which the size and the shape of our house is not accurately reflected on their schematic that that living room actually is not on there during uh next please okay that is generally where their house is going to be um and that's what they're going to see right into our Windows next please okay that is one of the windows just facing right where their house should be and as you can see there's no uh there's really no trees there next please same thing there that's just next the next window and one more please yes right there again um this is right where their house would be and there's no exist existing buffer right now and they're clearing whatever trees are there okay and this is basically it's can you go to their schematic is that possible rightor okay so basically there's our house here our living room is back here now their cars will come basically down the driveway and turn right and those lights would shine right into my living room right into those three big Windows there anytime they pull a car in and you want to make a k turn those lights are going to go right into my window uh now they're proposing putting up a couple Evergreens I mean who's going to police that who's going to make sure that the evergreens are upkept and and uh they're just not a permanent structure I don't think it's a it's a solid solution so this will leave virtually no buffer between our properties and uh and and shrubs are temporary and who's going to police this part of the variance after it's approved or a year from now who's going to measure and force it the translucency of a hedro it's it's just not going to happen with today's high in intensity LED headlights it's fair to say that this would be considered a hardship and should also considerably degrade our quality of life I would hope that the board would choose to protect us and vote no to this Varian the fact that the proposal submitted has several inaccuracies like the shape and dimensions of my home and the distances from the street means that you should vote no to this variance now we do sympathize with the situation that keer is in he's got a plate land that he can't build in but in reality how does it differ from the additional unused acreage that I have all back here that I can't build on or that Phil can't build on behind his house or Joe behind his house and all the other neighbors in in the neighborhood who have an acre or an acre plus that they can't build on so they're in in no different situation that we're in and we're still we're paying taxes on this unbuildable land so um you know how does it differ and in the end is it really that bad for the township or the state or even the planet to have an undeveloped 1.44 acres just do the right thing for the for the neighbors and the neighborhood and and vote no to this application and questions sure do the chair sir did you receive the byy letter I did thank you I don't have the plan in front of me um what what is this structure right there that's their garage that's the garage so the access is along this side here into the garage the other side the other side right here right all right sir you you you mentioned some concern about the headlights sure and I think that was one or or several of the board members initially had brought up that as a concern and the applicant has is putting this this Row in here now I know you're not excited about that but sure um if if the flow and I think we we had talked about the flow around here about putting your driveway this way has less of an impact on you your property Mr Hurley we had actually s the board had actually suggested during the last hearing the driveway was actually on the other side of the property and and the and the board had asked the applicant to consider moving it to the to the side that it's currently shown on right that's my point the point is that the applicant has in fact made an adjustment taking into consideration this piece of property and added this line of of vegetation here uh to to correct any problem with any turning in in this area here I'm concerned that if we if there's a suggestion of moving this back you have a tree line here what kind of trees are they do you know I mean is is it a is it a thick type of of tree area is it is it light they're they're pretty well spaced out I'm sorry they're pretty well spaced out uh there's like Oaks Oaks Maples some Evergreens but they're spaced out pretty well the problem that I have here is if if we're required if we're requesting that the building moved be moved back to protect your let's say your your site from from where your living area is now we have the same problem with your neighbor here where all of the area behind this house it looks like he has a larger area available for recreation whatever it may be we would be negatively impacting on that so it's the problem that I have here it's a give and take you know if paying Peter to to to pay Paul so I don't know what your recommend do you have a recommendation here uh yeah just decline the variance well I think I I think it was I think it was me who said that if we declin the variance then the township would have to end up buying the property I know but there's you know that means your taxes are going to go pay and your neighbors are going to go pay for this property that's a problem if this were your lot that was undersized and we told you you can't develop it how would you feel I'd probably go with the with the current I said I'd go with the current ordinance and say you know that's the law and that's how I abide okay thank you Mr Hurley along along your comments uh can I make a suggestion if if the applicant does depict a double row of evergreen trees along your common property line um and you made a fair statement that you know until those trees are very mature they may not provide 100% blockage U the question I would have for the applicant is um actually yeah the question I have for the applicant is would you be willing to put up a a portion of six foot high fence behind that buffer on the property line uh not not the entire side but just to complement just in the location of the Evergreen buffer a six foot tall wood fence if that's the request of the board yes okay so a lot of times buffers like that are are created to provide both more both an aesthetic and a functional purpose and a solid fence would provide the functional purpose sure right so it's just a matter of which side would you want that fence on would you want to see the Evergreens on your side of the fence on that side or would you want to see the fence on the property line no I'd rather see the Evergreens on my side of course okay so the fence would be moved in a little bit from the property line so you you understand Mr yeah okay right so that I think that could help um also to Mr Hurley's comment if you were to move the house back I think the applicant testified if they uh if they moved it back another 16 feet they wouldn't require the front yard setback and 16 feet of additional tree coverage would result in if you look at the percentage probably an extra 15 to 20 trees being cleared it's not a very dense thick area but it would move that whole garage turnaround area Beyond The Neighbors um addition a living room if those trees were removed would have any impact on drainage no through the chair uh Evan you have me a little confused at least part of the conversation did in terms of the setback I believe the plan that's on that board right now reflects their alternate a setback of 81 ft which satisfies the ordinance no this plan is not alternate a this is the this is just labeled variant sketch alternate a Anthony if you could go to the next page uh alternate is that the the original puts them at 65 they give us an alternate a of 80 of 81 and the drawing that I'm looking at shows the 81 but I'm trying to line up where the cars would come in on the driveway where the lights would be Etc I just want to make sure we're looking at the same thing so that that plan shows 81.5 it looks like yeah that's alternate a I believe yep altern it a all right thank you Adam sherle just one other question we were talking about consistency of the neighborhood relative to the setback things of that nature how about the height of the building considering that there is a basement being installed does anyone know that answer maybe the engineer I guess the question is will will the height impact the consistency of the neighborhood relative to the the size of the buildings the height of the building would exceed what's allowed in the zone I did not examine the heights of the adjacent buildings um but it will not exceed the height of theability because if it did would the applicant would have to come back for a height variance so it will be constructed in accordance with the required that's not my question my question is not whether or not it violates the the the height regulations the question is the height that's proposed is it consistent with the adjoining properties I did not look at that in particular because they were all single family homes I know there's some newer ones on the other side as well I did not measure or compare the heights of the surrounding houses okay thank you you're welcome the chair sir can you tell me for the pictures you showed with the water that collected on the Frontage how much precipitation was received and over what period of time that generated that I couldn't tell you exactly uh it was a few months ago you know the date the pictures were taken I don't it's this was been post postponed so many times that we've been holding on to those pictures for about three months so I'm GNA jump in here because I'm gon to caution the board on something the any any um if there are drainage issues along this gentleman's property or within the roadway in general um it's a Township Road it's the Township's responsibility if they choose to fix ultimately design a solution to fix it it's our responsibility here as a board to make sure that this applicant is not going to do anything to exasperate any existing drainage issues that may or may not be occurring the road I live on has puddles and large puddles similar to that too it they drain they Tim drain that ultimately goes away and that's a county road so um I think we're all used to seeing these again our responsibility here is to make sure that the applicant's design does not further exasperate or cause any negative impacts to the drainage system whatever may or may not be occurring out in the roadway drainage wise that's not really the purview of this board but just the fact that it's being built is is going to cause flooding the applicant is the applicant has provided a plan that meets or exceeds the ordinance requirements for storm water storm water runoff as a result of their development from the house they're not responsible for correcting any issues off of their property or on yours so if you live on a in a low spot um obviously you could you could take it upon yourself to obtain an engineered solution to correct that or you can start talking to the to to see what they can do to correct that but Our obligation here is to make sure that any development that occurs on that lot next to you doesn't further exasperate that issue and they've submitted a plan that that shows that they can do that but when when it was rezoned to R3 wasn't that addressed stop overbuilding so the flooding would be reduced the R3 Zone was created for a multitude of reasons not necessarily for storm water overb building would be one of them I would say though Madam chle Mr Hill there was some testimony about the dryw can you educate me a little bit on on yep a how does a dry well work do it store water does it discharge into into the ground level how does it work so it's not a specific requirement in town but we ask applicants on undersized lots to help to further mitigate the runoff from the roof the structures so the roofs and what they do is um and most of us have uh gutters down spouts that discharge to grade the grade sloped away from the house and it runs over the lawn a drywell system uh incorporates that but it takes it a step further instead of the discharging onto the ground at a down spout it actually enters an underground pipe that goes to in some cases a plastic structure or in some cases a concrete structure that's perforated and and it allows the water to infiltrate into the soils because we have an 80in separation between the Surface and seasonal high water table it's very easy to to design and install a dryw um and it infiltrates into the ground so it bypasses it bypasses running over the surface and goes directly into the ground via structure where it's where the dry well is proposed here it doesn't impact the adjoining properties no there's actually uh I look on the plan there's four three or four dry Wells proposed two in the rear between the house and the garage and one off looks like I'm sorry there's two in the rear uh the ones in the front are the sep it's the septic tanks so they're collecting the gutters on the left side of the house discharging to the rear by the back uh by the detached garage and on the right side also by the detached garage so I guess my concern here is if we had a a storm and It produced so much water by having these dry Wells the water essentially gets stored and dissipates over time which means the the the absorption into the soil is not after the storm but it's after a period of time when the storm is stucked uh it depends on the infiltration yes yes and no so it depends on the infiltration rate of the soils and it depends on the intensity of the rain so if the intensity of the rain event exceeds that of which the INF the permeability of the soils then yes you'll start getting a a stage a staged occurrence in there that allows the water to fill up it's just like a just like your bath uh just like your bathtub drain if if it's only open a little bit it's going to start backing up right if you only if the uh with with a full spet open but if the sp's not fully open but your drain's fully open uh it'll drain freely so the same thing happens under the ground in these types of systems as well well I guess that's my concern my concern is with a storm the water flows and you know the only thing I know about storms is the water flows downhill unless you pump it uphill obviously so it flows now you have a situation where it's not flowing that it's being it's being held and it it goes into the soil over a number of weeks or days whatever it may so the dry Wells are the dry Wells are only infiltrating or we'll call managing the runoff from the building's roofs not the ground so between the roof and the dryw it never hits the ground but the roofs water would have gone onto the ground would have gone onto the ground previously and then it would have flowed down someplace and stopped and then goes away correct this now it's not going using a drywell system is more appropriate it's actually a best management practice with the D stor M regulations um for these types of things so is Overland grass flow but you need much longer much much longer and vast lengths of grass to cleanse the water as as opposed to a dryw okay so it's the this is the preferred method for treating roof run off by far all right thank you any additional questions thank you for coming forward sir all right thank you anyone else wishing to come forward and make comment good evening good evening if you would please raise your right hand do you saw me swear affirm the testimony information questions or comments that you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do if you would please state your name spell your last and provide your address Joseph R de proo d p r o SS i m o 68 East Pleasant Grove Road Jackson New Jersey okay just like Mr Mr scy said and Mr dvaro said at the end of the last meeting this is the fifth meeting on this it's almost been 50 hours collectively of all the neighbors that have come we've never deferred the meetings we've been here every time this has happened and what the only thing that keeps changing is the applicant they keep changing their plans they keep they delaying all I ask and you don't have to give me an answers rhetorical is that tonight is Make It or Break It because at after the fifth meeting it's it's just getting wearisome um so again the proposal keeps changing I've heard the testimony some of you remember a normal house would be facing the street like all the other houses on that street but they had to go with go For Broke shoot for The Moon 48 800 square ft so monstrous that it's got to be turned sideways in addition it has an its own two-car garage giant driveway and God knows what else now now a basement um you guys have been and ladies have been very gracious I remember Mr Murphy two meetings ago and I quote you said to them that they needed to work on their proposal because if you took the vote tonight you don't think that they would be happy with it and I'm quoting you Mr Hill has given many opportun ities to them and you've been gracious to help them to get their variance but this isn't uh this isn't a young couple whose aging disabled parents need a variance for for an addition right a hardship this is we don't have a buyer this is the applicant trying to get shoot for the moon to get as much money as they can for this property um so as you can tell I'm a little passionate but I'm going to try to Tamp it down if I can at this time time like what we're asking for when I was in law enforcement I had vulnerable people ask me protect me protect me and I took that oath very seriously I'm retired now from that job I'm asking you I have no Authority here we're asking you to protect us so what's happening is what's not being addressed is is the flooding issue and I'm hearing things that are untrue Mr Scrat came up and testified that some of those drawings don't represent the truth of History property I can tell you when it rains and you can come here you can come to the house you can come check it out when it rains especially when it rains hard from the kebler property it goes in two directions I showed you pictures of my street 60% of the street is covered with water when it rains and I'm two houses down scoty to the right Bavaro to the left when it rains for whatever reason on that property it goes in two different directions there may be a Crest there may be other factors I don't know but I'm just telling you that I'm hearing things that are not accurate if you come to the property you will see and we we already had a freezing condition and we have ice on our street and our property and you know what we we'll eat that because we bought the house and we did our due diligence this is going to change all that um just collect my thoughts here for a minute I do want to refer to the proposals there's the Press engineering drawings which are up there and the Remington and Vern Engineers um they which they submitted to you as well it says okay Crest engineering there I actually had to go to CVS and get myself a magnifying glass so I could read the fine print so under but I do this this is what I did for a living on Article 19 on this drawing which you can't read because it's tiny it talks about the roof runoff directed to dry Wells which is what we're talking about but if you do the measurements you find that they're just about 200 feet into the property and again it does nothing for the first 50 feet is where we're getting all the water is we're getting the flooding from the first 50 fet um under RVE this proposal and again this is not this is not on their own proposal on page three it's right here this is a six variance variance with two pbds and they can Shuffle it around do what they want with it but this is not a variance this is multiple variance variance okay it's right here in their own paperwork um on so here's the issue with with the drawings is is that when you look at the proposed septic area so we know I've I called Ocean County Department of Health they deal with Wells and septics so when you look at the the area there's a mounding effect so it's bad enough the way it is so now we're going to Mound the leech field we're going to yank all these trees out of here so we do have an exasperation and an exacerbation of the problem because you're raising it and you're removing the things that are sucking up the water so we are going to have more water and once the trees are cut down and the mound effect happens it becomes our problem now what do we do can't put those trees back in I I get I get it you got to build houses you got to cut trees down no problem but this proposal is just for the applicant who lives in Florida it is not for the neighborhood um I want to read page five of RVE and this is their proposal page five section o it says this the applicant shall provide copies of approvals from all other agencies having jurisdiction over the project the applicant is requesting a waiver from providing Outside Agency approvals testimony shall be provided so that would include because I call it the D as well that would include State waivers and County waivers when it comes to septics so these pictures are all well and good sir just just one minute I just want to clarify the Remington Vernick letter that you're reading from that's the report of the board's planner it's report of the board board's planner Mr Peters Okay so then who is requesting that the um Outside Agency approvals that there there doesn't need to be approval from from State when it comes to well and septic I I can I can I can clarify that for you and I'm the board's engineer I'm not we're we're over here we're not affiliated with the applicant at all we review development applications on behalf of the board um to hopefully make things better um an applicant has the right to request not subm submitting Outside Agency responses as part of this portion of the process it doesn't mean that they never have to so when they go to actually if if they were to get approved tonight if they were then they have they have to re they have to obtain all necessary Outside Agency approvals prior to a zoning permit and construction permits being issued that is just the waiver request is only purely for this portion of the application it doesn't absolve them of their responsibility they have to get Ocean County Health Department approval for a septic system they have to get Ocean County Health Department approval for a well they would have to get any in all de approvals if there are any Environ any environmental constraints that are regulated on their property they have to get fire they have to get um traffic they have to get all of those just not prior to proceeding ceeding to this meeting okay right fair enough fair enough if uh the gentleman back there can show my Google Earth picture of the keer property just for the purposes of the record Jeff did we want to we're going to call it 04 de proo de proo with today's date thank you Jeff 04 some marked and Evan while it's being brought up sorry I just want to ask a question of the professionals what would be the purpose of not getting those approvals now as I understand that they'll have to get them what would be the purpose of delaying that because they're not uh the applicant's here for a variance only the applicant's not here with a development plan right the applicant is here to obtain the variance and if they do obtain the variance they've already acknowledged that they would submit a fully engineered plan as part of resolution compliance as part of that as part of resolution compliance we also make sure they have any all Outside Agency approvals as well Madam chair lady May yes Mr Hill one one other question is there a change in elevation in the front yard there um I'd have to look at the plan so at the front of the applicant's property is elevation 120 and then it grades back into the property as it exists or as it's proposed as it currently exists we don't have proposed grades on here at this point um is with with an we have a top of bed elevation of 121 which would be about six in above existing grade um nothing significant it's not going to be a mounded set septic system here because the seasonal high water table is greater than 80 in or is 80 in you don't Mound systems out of the out of the ground septic systems out of the ground unless it's 60 inches or less so it's not a mounted septic system the based on what I'm seeing on their drawing that the property is going to continue to grade towards the rear of the property it will just be the first several feet maybe the first 30 feet that would grade towards the road from concerned the gentleman mentioned something about the uh the front yard and if there's going to be a change in grade in the front yard a lot of a flooding seems to occur in that direction if there's going to be a change in grade would it deflect the flow to the left or to the right affecting the joining properties I don't have topography on the on the adjacent properties that's not something that an applicant is necessarily an applicant doesn't survey topography on existing well I understand that the adjacent Lots but isn't it important to know what the Topography is going to be in the front yard if there's going to be a change in elevation we do have and well let me finish and does it change the direction of flow so we do have some limited existing and proposed topography here it it does have to be further engineered in more detail but we have enough information to look at it and say that they're not significantly altering the surface grades in this area therefore they're not significantly altering the flow of water they're not at they're not adding any flow onto the adjacent properties as a result of this construction that's so that's the easiest that's the only way I can answer that question but do we know that without knowing the grade change yes I we can tell we have enough information to be able to where I can make that statement yes thank you can can you just U bring it so that the street is dropped down and I could almost see the back of the the properties when I when I sent that yeah that that in that direction a little bit more stop thank you okay it it might be just out of you but uh Mr Bavaro is this is this your property wait a minute it's hard with these glasses where is it didn't it didn't look like this when I sent it in I'm trying to find where the I think Keebler's here is that right oh that's right because that's when they did it when when when you had to take the pool down before you before you bought the house just the record this is Bavaro this is scy does that sound right okay so this is kebler right here this is kebler all the way up here goes across here and down here this is kebler it's entirely wooded those are are only the canopy trees that you're seeing there's three levels of trees there's intermediate trees there's saplings and uh actually right here if if you drop it down you can probably see it is the people behind us okay and what I'm there it is okay if we could just put it back the way it was so what I'm trying to show is that it's it might be a mood point because we got to move further but um scrat's well head is 40 ft from the kebler property so Accord according to Ocean County Department of Health you have to draw a radius line from scrat's well head into the keer property to get yourself 100 feet and then you take a a compass and you draw a circumferential Arc in both directions and that's the no-o zone for the septic so what I'm trying to show here before you jump in is that this is hypothetic but what has to eventually happen is is all four of the wellheads CU she's very close to the kebler property Wellhead Wellhead Wellhead he's only 40 feet from the kebler property and the proposed kebler well you you know this if you you know Ocean County and I think all the counties run the same way there has to be circles drawn four circles and there is be because this is an Acer and a half and because it's so skinny there's going to be a problem these these drawings not hold up and it's something that Mr Murphy actually said to me which makes a lot of sense so I'm just putting that in there um so U go ahead so again I'm not I'm not discounting what you're saying but you are and and and it's honorable that you're doing the research like this however you're taking bits and pieces of regulations the regulations also allow a reduction to 50 ft if the well if the well is cased to a depth of greater than 100 so if it's if it's 125 to 100 to a 250t well or Beyond then it does there is no 100 foot separation okay I I my guess out here is your well is likely deeper than 100 feet and it's also closer than 100 feet to your septic well mine mine had to be 100 feet from my septic leech field had to be 100 feet from my neighbor's wellhe from your neighbor's well correct but if if you're that's not the case if the wells are deeper than 100 than 100 ft CED deeper than 100 feet they could end up 50 but I'm not AR I'm not I'm not here to argue that point with you I'm just saying you're taking bits and pieces of the RS and not the regs is a totalitar totally with either way either way an application to the Ocean County Health Department has to conform to those standards they'll pick up on it we here wouldn't issue any further approvals if the board were to approve this until they get those approvals all of that there are there are other people who are putting eyes on this yet after tonight to make sure that it conforms to all of these agency requirements this isn't the end this isn't the last stop well it even if it was 50 and I'd have to ask Mr scoty it's going in either 10 it's either going in 10 feet because it's it's 40 feet from the the line or it's going in another 60 feet depending on his depth also depending on the depth of the major of the uh the neighbor to the North or actually to would be to the yes to the north uh so those two might end up doing that okay I see what you're saying I'll move on um tree removal so RV's let's just back up for a second when we look at the the crest report under article number 17 if we go back to their report it states that only 84 trees will be removed in roughly a 20,000 foot area so if you extrapolate 20,000 square fet up to 63,000 square fet um you're getting so they're basically saying that their tree study maybe said it was only 265 trees on the entire property however Mr Bavaro and I counted actually several months ago and we were up into the mid to high 400s so I do understand and we're talking about some of these uh companies that you hire will not will discount saplings will discount some trees that are have a smaller diameter however those saplings still suck up water so I guess what I'm trying to say is when you look at Google Earth okay and you look at all those trees I don't think it's 84 trees and I I don't know there was another thing in here about possibly waving the tree removal permit um you know if you're going to I mean from my calculations based on maybe a third right so 20,000 they're talking about that's about a third of that 63,000 square feet um if if our counting is right because we haven't discounted the saplings you you're really looking at close to 200 or greater so you know trees absorb water they just do and that's another problem with this just about done I do like that the ml njsa 40 colon 55 d-2 was quoted because under B it says to secure safety from fire flood panic and other Natural end man-made disasters the thing is if these calculations aren't done properly the neighbors are going to suffer and when I talk to the D I do have a case number uh they did say that there are supposed to be calculations done and again this might be at a further date uh there's calculations that need to be done to show that there should not be any net increase in water going in either direction so again it might be a moood point but you know I'm just bringing this up and I'm also asking you to look out for us as the neighbors because there's too many question marks in this there's too many variances there's too many possibilities there's been too many changes in these proposals over over the last five meetings and uh maybe I'm a little bit upset but you know it affects me and my family and when when it rains and the water comes my way and it freezes as it does with Phil and uh Jack's property it becomes an ice skating rink and my house is only 43 feet I don't know when it was built I bought it four and a half years ago it's only 43 feet from from the road and there's already an icing condition my son's bedroom is in the front I got don't know if I got to put ballards up there if this becomes worse but you know this really needs to be thoroughly vetted before uh we go further that's just my personal opinion I'm not telling telling anybody what to do but you know what I live there and I'm hearing a lot of things that just aren't true and they can say what they want to say with in the theoretical world but when you come to our street you can actually see these things happening so I apologize if my tone is a little excitable but again that's my home and that's my family Phil's got little kids Jack's got kids and grandkids and we're just looking out for our families and that's all I have to say good evening thank you for raising your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony information questions or comments that you're about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth of nothing but the truth I do thank you very much if you would please state your name spell your last and provide your address Philip B a v a r o Bavaro I live at 74 East Pleasant Grove Road I live um right next door to this property property on the left hand side I have a couple of concerns about this okay so apparently on my side I'm going to get the driveway is that correct to the left of this kebler property so my concern is how close is that going to be to my property line my children my two little boys play football soccer baseball in my backyard and my front yard right next to this property not far from where the driveway is allegedly going to be also my dog plays with them you know sounds silly but worried about someone's going to pull in or Amazon UPS if it's too close to my property and run them over this property is non-conforming in five different ways which you guys know that um and it's they I've noticed that they said that nobody had called them to ask to buy that property when they reached out to me with a letter that's not true I made three phone calls to the attorney's office okay I don't remember exactly who I spoke to when I got the first letter back in August of 2023 I made a call immediately and I offered to buy this property and I was told the second time I called that the only way that this property would be sold to me is that if it was sold with the variance that a home could be built there I had bought my property from the kebler people the kebler family who owns this property who set up this division this way until they owned my home when I bought it from them three years ago and when I bought it from them my real estate agent told me that they own the property next to it they don't want to development they don't want to develop it they want to keep it private it was Private all this time they live in Florida and now they want to develop this property you know it's it's going to affect my life and my children's life they want to build a tremendous home there my home is 2,800 sare ft I have a basement and yes my basement does flood my house was built in 1988 and my house does not sit 57 feet from the road it sits more like 70 ft from the road and there is a massive flooding problem there's water on the front lawn of my house on Jack's house jack actually has to park on the street when he has guests they have to park on the street they can't even pull into his driveway there's also plenty of water that's situated and stuck constantly like like a swampy area on that kbla property it's it's less than it's about maybe 100 101 ft Frontage I have 180 ft Frontage I mean you know it's going to affect my life when you pull in the driveway I'm I'm I'm I'm going to see the lights now right cuz it's going to go my son's bedroom I have I sent in a uh a picture I don't know if you guys could find it of my son's bedroom and it's when they night pull up you going to the lights are going to be right there when I turn around into my son's bedroom I don't you know how are they going to turn around on that property without Jack getting the lights on me and then am I going to get the water on my side of the property when they start to build how who's going to guarantee me that I'm not going to get all that water run off now on my property that's all I'm asking you guys as as board I appreciate you guys being here to just do your job you know and protect me as well as you're trying to protect Mr kebler I understand that but he he doesn't have a hardship because again he wanted the property left this way so he could deal and have the most property that he can have when he had my lot he owned Mr de pral lot as well he had all these things subdivided years ago now he just wants to sell it for as much as he can are you offered to buy it for him he won't sell it to me again unless I bought it with a variant send a plan to it so what they said is not accurate that's all I have to say thank you very much for your time thank you for coming forward we appreciate it thank you for raising your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony information questions or comments are you about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you very much if you would please if first of all can you lower the microphone a little bit thank you and if you would please state your name spell your last and provide your address my name is Mrs Janine spary scosi SP e d a l i e r e last name is s r o c as in zaz and zebra KY I live in 84 East Pleasant Grove Road so I do live in the house that's going to be adjacent to the bushes now you had asked my husband a couple of questions and I think my husband was very nervous and wasn't able to answer some of the questions you asked that puddle that you inquired about was actually taken about probably about four or five weeks ago because if you had looked at the picture you would have seen there was a gingerbread at the end of my driveway so that was Christmas time and as far as what it takes to make that puddle it only takes maybe about I'd say 18 to 24 hours worth of rain to do that and when my children were growing up yes we did have that puddle but my children could walk across the front lawn and in that same picture you saw a car that was my car that I parked out on the street I had to walk all the way around toward my neighbor my new neighbor's property who lives in 94 East Pleasant Brook road so that I could get back into my home and I still walked through a mud puddle even after I walked around um and there was one other question you had asked my husband and you had asked if we were the owners of that property what would we have done in that instance we would have been honest in the fact that we owned that property we probably also would have included that in the sale of the home as opposed to stating that it was buildable lot and the keer kebler I should say the Mrs Jennifer keer Barnes and her husband Van Barnes they did own 74 East Pleasant Grove Road they did own Joe's property now from what my understanding is and it is hearsay Joe did offer to buy that property so we multiple people have offered to buy that property prior to them selling because van still lived in that house when Joe had bought that property and one last final thing I have always taught my children I raised four children and I taught them that we have rules for a reason and when we make the rules we are supposed to follow the rules not bend the rules so my husband is correct when we moved in in 1999 will'll be Ja Jackson residents for 25 years come August it was an R1 Zone and it could have been sold at that time and he also is correct in the fact that it was turned into a three acre zone so I do feel that not for my privacy but just for the sake of the rules that the rules should be followed and quite honestly I really would like to be able to keep my windows open since you did all see that I have very large windows they're probably about 5 feet by five feet so there's really no way of me not seeing this home and I'm not going to go to the expense and make smaller windows in my octagon family room so as everybody asked we would like you to look out for us we've lived especially myself I've lived here for 25 years and I would like to remain a Jackson resident and leave when I am ready to leave because if my home is infringed upon and as my husband said we did consult a realtor the marketability of my home will be affected because if people are looking for a home that has a buffer they're not going to want to buy my home because quite honestly they're trying to say that it fits with the aesthetic of the neighborhood it absolutely does not we do not have homes sandwiched in between each other that house is going to be sandwiched in in a development like situation and as my husband said if we wanted to live in a development well then we would have stayed in Atlantic Highlands where we moved from where houses are right one on top of one another so I hope that you will make the right decision as you make this decision think about if it was you and it was your home and you were living there and how you would want to live in your neighborhood and I thank you for your time correct we sent the Buell Buy sell letters twice once in September of last year and once in November I'm sorry once in August of last year and once in November of last year we have not received any response written emails letters phone calls whatsoever um nor has our client informed us that he's been contacted with any offers um we have have no knowledge of any response and our office certainly did not receive any anything sorry Mr bavar I want to make sure the right last name Mr Bavaro so is this gentleman calling me a liar because I called multiple times and I was told and I quote the property will not be sold unless it gets a variance first time second time I was told the same thing the third time his father told me that the only reason why they sent the letter out is because by law they had to that's all I can say and I'm not a liar thank you excuse me thank you for coming forward Madam chair lady question yes mrle Mr Pape when you sent out the letters uh to the to the adjoining property owners the two on one on each side who were they to respond to I signed the letters they were to respond to to me and our our office I I provided my um office phone number email address and office um mailing address who to whom did you respond I called the gentleman's office in August and I don't remember if it was I spoke to a secretary or someone in the office and I said that I wanted to buy the property and I was told and I was instructed that the only way the property will be sold is if the variance was granted and then I called back again later on the same thing I was told by his dad I believe was also an attorney he said that the the letters legally had to be sent out for whatever legal Mumble jumbo there is and that's I just raised my hand I offered to buy the property and like I said I bought the house 74 East Pleasant Grove Road from Mr William Barnes and he told me and I quote that that's private that's why we kept it that way and we're not we're not looking to sell it it's private Mrs prosimo he offered to buy it before I even moved there he was told no so this is why to what's your name sir I'm sorry I can't see Hurley Mr Hurley no disrespect you sir but when you said that people have the right to sell their property and build on it if they want to and I respect that you are absolutely right but this is a money grab here this is not like Mr dpro said it's not like somebody wants to build a home on it for their family we don't know who what size home is going to go there we've heard your argument my question is are you willing to purchase that property I was I am willing to purchase that property as it stands now I cannot afford to buy the property as the variance is granted because it's going to drastically increase the price which is the point well okay if you understand what I'm trying to say oh I fully understand it the problem is that that's all I meant by that no disrespect to anyone on the board if we let me let me say one thing and and yes the attorney to and any attorney here Mr Pape included correct me if I'm wrong but if we Deni this application it's it's considered something like a constructive uh condemnation okay what that means is that in order to purchase the property or if if if the town was to buy it or it would have to be valued at the market value which includes assuming a variance was granted so it sounds to me when you said you call the office it sounds to me like you did get a legal response from the office so you must have contacted the office now Mr Pape has indicated that they didn't get any response so we have a bit of a problem here it does sound as if you got a legal response well to all due respect I'm not an attorney I don't know what a legal response is I had no idea as far as I know is to me it looked like an unbuildable lot what I mean is you got a response from from a lawyer you got a response from a lawyer and the reason office anyway right I offered to buy it because I didn't want this to be developed you know I just hold it and keep it and then maintain the property that's all so so just from a a legal perspective um Mr early is correct uh if the board were to deny the request to build on the undersized lot it would essentially be inverse condemnation um which means that there would potentially be a cause of action against the township for condemnation of a property through other means than uh eminent domain which you know creates a a problem for the township these undersized law cases are difficult um because again if these variances AR granted it essentially essentially the property becomes useless um and so so that's something that case law directs us to avoid um what I can say is that um from a a purchasing perspective it would need to be at the fair market value rate presuming that a variance were granted on this property right I just found I found it and I took it CU I didn't know of the legal aspect of it understood so when I was told that I took it as it was a money grant as you could obviously understand I'm a Laman I'm not an attorney of course I'm an old concrete worker you know what I mean that's all I'm trying I'm just trying to explain thank you for explaining that to me I'm not trying to yeah but when I heard that I kind of got angry I was hurt because I felt like it was like I said a money grab right and he owned Mr the proimos property he owned my property he owned that piece of land and developed it that way so he would have his privacy and now he's gone and now he doesn't want me to have privacy good because he wants the money nothing further I'm sorry one further qu sir who owned the property yeah was just the keepo trust which is who owned my house 74 East Pleasant Grove who owned Mr deo's house he owned all those three lots his Family Trust owned half of the neighborhood they owned a general store down the block from what I understand that history goes deep into the town I even think their name was on this building if I'm not if I'm not mistaken just for clarification this was as a result of a subdivision correct yes yes thank you thank you sir thank you very much Bo I can just make one statement sounds like there was a phone call made to our office back in August after we sent those letters I was not aware of that phone call perhaps it was um responded to by someone else in our office at the last Hearing in October there was a statement made that um a member of the public had reached out to our office in response to those letters and and had not received a response from our office for that reason we resent the letters in November I included my my personal email our office phone number and address was on there and to my knowledge um no one in our office and I certainly have not received any response to the letters that were sent in November sounds like you spoke I mean again it sounds like Mr Bardo just testified he spoke to your father yeah so so someone's not telling the truth to here and I know it's not me so he's testifying the fact that no one contacted them so he's calling me a liar and I take offense to that again I I don't know that he's calling I'm not come on let's be hon let's go Spade to Spade here come on I don't know this m Dr I think I think the streets you know what I'm saying I think right some I'm I'm gonna chalk it up to miscommunication here I'm chalk it up to no disrespect but all attorneys are lies I'm sorry just you know no offense taken good evening Sean Kelly 115 East fish Road I I just need 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 I do and just for our um Record Keeper could you just repeat your name spell your last and provide your address uh Sean Kelly k l y uh 115 East fish Road Jackson I'm the adjacent lot to the backside of the property that property my property has a lake on it from those properties forever that that that property is just water soluble there's water on it right now I got pictures of it on my phone but I didn't print them out when I built my house uh 95 uh I did a perk test one foot down you hit water so I don't know I don't know how to get 80 in if I'm the adjacent prop property and um I put my house right on top of the ground cuz I couldn't dig down and um that if you take out the trees the water there is going to be even worse of course and you drive by my house right now the snow doesn't doesn't even keep up with the with the water it's like uh and then four variances I could see one variant two four vires and and this guy doesn't even he's not even building a house for himself he's just shoving it you know for everybody else but that's all I got to say yes we we think that the plan that's presented before you this evening is is a reasonable plan and what I mean by that is this lot is it's impossible to develop this lot and over the course of the past two years we've worked with your professionals and the and and the board members um to take in all the feedback we received and incorporate all that feedback into the plan that's presented here this evening and I'll reiterate that the applicant has committed to providing fully engineered drawings as part of resolution compliance um which will address the concerns that you heard about drainage and a and a proper storm water management system and and addressing all of the necessary Outside Agency approvals um so with all that we would ask the board to to vote favorably this evening Mr that um in your professional opinion okay we we're presented with a um substantial building that's going in on this piece of property that's over 4,000 square feet in your opinion is there any way a home could be built on this property of course it would be substantially smaller but it would probably fit more into the um the neighboring homes so is it possible so the setback requirements for the R3 Zone do leave a just about zero opportunity for a building within that width right so nothing conforming to the R3 standards can be built on this lot that's why they're here for because of the lot width could they build a smaller home sure it'd be in it'd still be non-conforming the footprint is only 2400 foot not 4,000 the footprint is 2400 it's 40 by 60 40 feet wide 60 deep the applicant is not requ requesting we when and I I think a lot of the board members have heard me say this uh some of the newer ones have not our ordinance does not have anything in the residential Zone any of the residential zon that limits the size or or living area of a home we don't that's called the floor area ratio many ordinances throughout other towns and throughout the state they have those requirements they say um if you're on an undersized lot or if you're on a lot in a Zone the floor area ratio should be 10% no more than 10% of the lot area we don't have anything like that here so we have to make subjective calls or you have to make subjective determinations based on the what's nearby and what has been built U what we do have in our ordinance though is an impervious cover requirement they can't exceed x amount or X percentage of impervious cover based on a lot area they're not asking for a variance from that they're under the imperious cover requirement we also have a building coverage requirement that says can't be any any more than I'm going to throw a number out there 25% of the lot area well they don't exceed that in this case they're not asking for a variant those are the two those are the only two lot usage int lot lot usage intensity type requirements we have in our ordinance um I can't as an engineer tell you I don't have an opinion on whether or not the house is too big for the neighborhood I can tell you from an engineering perspective persective the drywell system can be designed accordingly to accommodate the roof runoff the um the the grading of the lot can be can be completed in a way that does not adversely impact the adjacent neighbors or or or exasperate any drainage conditions that may or may not exist out in the road right so those typically don't have much to do with the size of the dwelling overall size this is a 2400 foot footprint with a detached garage right okay thank you Madame chair yes if I might I just I feel compelled to follow up on Mr hudak's um question the applicants requested four variances and a plan that I think only requires three variances the first two Varian are for lot area and lot width those are existing non-conforming they asked people around them if they wanted to sell property no one wants to sell them property um they've offered to sell this lot to other people and we've had the conversation about what the fair market value is but the minimum lot area and minimum lot width are existing conditions they have two ways of changing it asking people to sell them land or physically getting rid of the property neither of those is available so I think the board um has to see that those variances as pre-existing conditions are reasonable as it relates to the um the minimum side yard setback of 50 feet Pro property is 100 foot wide one 50ft setback a second 50ft setback there's no building envelope so unless we want to buy the property or or or create an inutility of the property the side yard setback variant seems reasonable then we get into how big the house is within that setback the fourth variance was for the front yard setback one plan requests um 60 or 65 ft where 80 is required and the other one is conforming that straightforward C variant testimony improvs as it relates to the size of the building there is actually in the R3 Zone require R3 Zone standards for principal buildings a maximum building coverage which includes all the principal and accessory buildings and that's 15% of the lot they're at 5% so I wanted to make sure at least the record was clear of what's what's physically in our report the testimony that Mr Higgins gave and sort of a summary of where I think we are with the first three variances the first three variances if they weren't granted would put the property into inutility the fourth variance about the setback you have some discretion over um as it relates to the variant for the side yard setback that goes to your point Mr Hudak of how wide the building should be or how big the building should be so I wanted to make sure that I was just we were clear on those parameters for the four variances that were being requested this evening thank you but it's it's my understanding that this Keebler Family Trust they owned all of these properties and years ago they applied for um they divided up this property into all of these slices and they're the ones that created this issue with a no I'm not sure I will not testify for the applicant okay will offer you what I think I heard the applicant say in 1987 when this property was subdivided it was conforming after 1987 and I think it was probably around 2005 or six the municipality rezoned the property and made these Lots non-conforming so I do not believe it was an action of the applic of the owner that created the non-conformity it was an action of the governing body that created the nonconformity at that time I understand that the rules changed and it got um the owner of the property had from 1987 until the property was rezoned to have it as a conforming law yes but in 1987 or prior to 1987 this person divided up this property to maximize their profits at that time it's only that after words the township reson that area to three acres and here we are there we have a non-conforming laot correct just for the purpos of the record there's nothing that prevents a an application for a subdivision on property that's commonly owned and if the subdivision is granted we're stuck with what the subdivision has been what what has been subdivided is how I'll put it and I like just just for the records so the record's clear on this on this point this was a planning board application so it was a fully conforming subdivision at that time right the applicant wasn't asking for any relief from the subdivision standards or zoning standards at that time so they did everything that the law allowed them to do it's it's up to you determine if the hardship was that you know uh 15 years later or so the governing body changed the zone to create the hardship it's a chocolate mess any of us in this room have created by the way but it's one that you have to uh deliberate on through the chair a couple of thoughts Madam chair lady so the one of the rubrics that that runs through our evaluation process is can a variance be granted with without substantial detriment to the public good so right now that's the one that's in my head the most on top of the fact what was just placed on a record about it of U being zoned not by the zoning being changed by the township what has the applicant done he's turned the house I I I think that's a step in the right direction he's put the driveway in a left-and side I think that's a step in the right direction um in terms of trying to amarate the the lights going into his neighbor to the right uh they they proposed two rows of Staggering evergreen trees I believe in Evan chatting with them he's willing to put up a fence I forgot exactly where but someplace that would prevent the light from coming through and Shining into the neighbor's house uh a question arose as to whether or not the uh the the first application which would put that front set back at 65t as opposed to the alternate a which would put it at 81 ft would be better or worse at least it appears to me that alternate a would be the better choice because it pushes the house back farther uh at 65 the house would be up too close those lights would have more of a direct line into the existing dwelling immediately to the right so it seems to me that alternate a is better and it also then makes that minimum front yard setback conforming at 81 feet so they have they have done things to ameliorate the concept of substantial damage to the public good and I am focusing right now on their neighbors uh the other the other issue in ter in terms of the neighborhood I you have a little bit of a mix in terms of where the house should be placed off the roadway uh the property to the left is about 59 the property to the right is about 123 feet back um again I I think there's enough uh to uh to compel alternate a as being the better choice of placement of the property all right now what am I having a problem with I'm having a problem with the flooding now unfortunately I haven't heard any evidence that would indicate that this property is the cause of the flood if it was maybe there's something that we could have a conversation about I haven't heard any evidence that all the flooding along that road and I drove the road too and we've had a wet we've had some wet months and it's it's wet out there it's W along that road uh I don't know if if that's a problem that we can make the applicants that is a part of me that wants to make that their problem how can perhaps we can make a condition to this approval that they have all of that appropriate evaluated have the engineering done have drains put in but I don't know if we're if we are permitted I'm going to need Council to weigh in on this I'll need our our professionals to weigh in on this to make that a condition of approval I I have a recollection someplace that imposing offsite offsite conditions is an approval of of an application a problem but I'll need some further feedback on that so I really don't know how to treat the flooding as much as I would like to make that their problem those are my thoughts otherwise I think um you got to approve the application for the reasons that have already stated for the record those are my thoughts Madam chair lady may I I've I've listened to the um analysis by by Mr book and I agree with it 100% that does not mean that we haven't heard the problems of the property owners there is obviously a a a flooding problem there the the the approach that this board has to take is not to fix the the the flooding problem the board the board's obligation is to make sure that this devel velopment doesn't increase that type of condition one of the um let me go back a step Mr Higgins testified as to what the what the burden of proof is on an applicant and this is a this is a c variance or a bulk type variance bulk variances relate to the front yard setbacks the side yard setbacks the lot area and that's exactly what we're talking about here it is a situation that at least it's clear to me that because of the existing size of this lot which this board had had nothing to do with it may have been the the original owner who got the subdivision but it was permitted at the time it got the subdivision that it conformed at the time it got the subdivision and now it does not conform and what I indicated earlier is that if we Deni this application for an undersized lot where a denial means you can't build anything there based on the width of that lot and the sidey requirements I think Mr uh Higgin said you can't even put a tennis ball on there excuse me so it it creates a problem for this board we have to look at it two ways number one are they entitled to the variance based on a hardship or number two are they entitled to a of variance because the benefit of the application exceeds any detriment to the application now Mr Mr Higgins testified that a the benefit to to be derived here exceeds any any detriment any detriment would not be substantial which is required under the law if I don't accept that testimony I still have to look at whether or not based on Mr higgins's testimony that this is a hardship and it is clearly a hardship one of the gentlemen came over who started talking about the purposes of zoning and mentioned to us you know one of the purposes of zoning is to avoid flooding that's true the problem here is that when the board looks at the the purposes of zoning the obligation of the applicant is to show one is satisfied not that one is not satisfied they only have to show one is satisfying I think Mr Higgins testimony indicated that I also indicated earlier that if we denied an application of this nature where it it results in a piece of property that is inutility you can't build on it it would be considered a condemnation by the municipality's action we are part of this municipality and you would have to determine the value based on the fair market value as if the variance had been granted and that's a problem because one of the people who came in who talked about buying the property says well the variance enhances the value of the property well yeah it does but we can't do anything about that so that's a that's a problem I I I hear the the complaints about the the flooding all we can do the very best we can do is rely on our engineer to tell us that what is being proposed doesn't make the the storm water situation any worse that it's being controlled because of at least from this development of this piece of property which apparently it is I was concerned about the the the the um the grades that are proposed in the front yard I'm satisfied that our engineer can look at that and make a determination we're not Engineers here you know we rely on our experts he can make a determination that uh the Great AIDs that are being proposed are not going to have a negative impact on the adjoining properties that's what I wanted to hear that's what I want our engineer to determine So based on all of that I don't think we really have any choice here we can't fix the we can't fix the flooding problem that's not anything that we're authorized to do we can't do it so based on the comments that that Mr book had mentioned I agree wholeheartedly I think at least the C1 variance which is a hardship variance has been has been demon strated and the applicant is entitled to it to its um variance what I conceive may have happened in the past is all of these Lots were created the seller or the owner of the time may have joined some of these Lots together to make them a little bigger that doesn't require a subdivision to my understanding and they can do that consensually so long as they comply so whatever they did they did uh we and what we're left with is this one narrow lot and as indic ated to one of the people who discussed it how would you feel if this was your lot and it was narrow and we told you you can't build on it you can't do anything you know it it's a that's the situation we're confronted with so I would have to agree with Mr book that I think at least in a C1 approach that the varant says the applicant has met its burden just yeah just to um address the uh the condition proposed by Mr book I don't believe the board has the jurisdiction to require the applicant to investigate the cause of the flooding or to to to um to to necessarily allev necessarily alleviate the cause of the flooding specifically of the Lots not the cause what what uh what has been already agreed to by the applicant is that fully engineered plans will be submitted as a condition of the approval of the application um and those fully engineered plans should conform with all applicable ordinances and state laws regarding storm water management uh and and as Mr uh Hill has previously indicated the applicant has an a duty under the law uh to ensure that the uh flooding and and and those conditions are not exacerbated in any form um but I don't believe that this board can condition the investigation of the ca of the flooding on this applicant uh yeah I mean I I agree with Ryan just said U we we'll make we will make sure through Sound Engineering that they don't exasperate any storm water runoff into the road Beyond which already exists in fact in MO it's my opinion that they'll be able to reduce the storm waterer runoff that goes into the road with this development because of the use of the dry Wells um but it's and we'll also make sure that any storm water runoff from the road that enters this property will continue to allow to enter the property so therefore they're not going to Dam it off and let it go and and let the problem go further on down the road right so we've seen that situation in in a couple other instances of isolated Lots where we wanted that storm water runoff that float onto that property to continue to flow and let them manage that aspect of it on their own that's their responsibility so um now this there's nothing unique here that we haven't seen before and you know we can we can make sure during a fully engineered Planet resolution compliance um that all of your concerns are addressed um I also agree with Mr book as far as the variant sketch alternate a I do think that we need to uh go with that one in regard in comparison to the other um Mr Peters made a great Point these these non-conformities were existing in no at no fault of the property owner I sympathize with the neighbors um Mr scy you ask what would how would I feel if that was my property I sympathize with all of you I it's a tough situation okay but I understand that but ma'am excuse me excuse me I understand what you're saying however it really is not their fault in 1987 when the property was subdivided it was a 1 acre minimum and they met that requirement this was not excuse me this is not we have to be realistic here this is not their fault the original situation in 1987 when they did this they met the requirements 16 years later if I'm not mistaken Mr Pape said 16 years later the town changed the zoning right so I understand what you're saying but we we have to look at the facts as they are Mr Peters made a great Point these non-conformities are not the fault of the property owner that being said like I said I do think we go with we if we are to approve this I think that any um any it should include variant sketch alternate a um and that again minimizes the number of variances that are needed I would like to also discuss Mr Bavaro mentioned about his young children we discussed on the young the other side of the property Mr peep about the trees and the fence right and the the neighbor to that side said that he wanted the trees outside of the fence is a fence on the other side something that that can be considered given the situation here with the property is is that something that you guys would be willing to consider that's my one question um and then uh again we cannot hold this property as responsible for the flooding it is a very tough situation I've been in Jackson for many many years I've been out on that road plenty of times I do agree there's definitely an issue there but we can't prove that it's this lot that has caused this problem no no we can observe it but we can't prove that Madam chair I there will be no more Outburst from the public none zero you've had the opportunity to speak the board is delber deliberating testimony is closed it it's this is a public government meeting it's disrespectful please don't do it again so again back to what Mr book said I'd have to agree we can't prove that this lot is what is causing the problems and this is where we again have to rely on our experts and Mr Hill I have to take your testimony at its face value that as the town engineer you're stating that whatever the issues are this will not exacerbate the problem it may not fix the problem but it will not exacerbate the problem and that's what's required by by the muul I did just want to address for the concerns regarding the Outside Agency approvals I want to make it clear that every single resolution that this board uh adopts conditions each and every approval on the receipt of all necessary Outside Agency approvals so all of those approvals that were waved to come before the board which is not uncommon usually this board is the first stop not the last stop um those those can those approvals must be received in order to proceed and if they can't be if they cannot be uh uh obtained then this that the approvals essentially null and void if there's nothing further from the board I'll make a motion to approve the application based upon the com PL placed upon the record of C1 hardship variance with alternate plan a in accordance with their 12723 U uh engineering drawing and with all stipulations and representations that have been placed upon a record by the applicate hold on one second there's a motion on the floor but uh Miss Bradley uh chairwoman Bradley had asked the applicant about the fence on the left side of the property uh I'd I think we should get a response from Mr Pape about that the applicant would be agreeable to offense for for buff buffering purposes I mean the lot is some 600t deep so I anticipate that any buffer would just be for the purpose of creating a buffer between the two limited to the gr buff between the two proper so just for clar just for clarification anything forward of the house would have to be 4 foot high open fence anything beyond or behind the front of the house can then be six foot high solid or 4 foot solid but anything forward of the house 4 foot open that's it that's all that's allowed understood applicants willing to install a fence that that complies with the ordinance thank you thank you it's okay just I made the motion again only this time with your offense as being part of the overall motion roll call please Mr Hurley yes Mr Stafford Smith no Miss frit yes Mr book yes Mr Hudak I'd love to vote with my heart but I can't I have to go with the law so I have to vote Yes Miss Parnes yes Miss Bradley yes you're you're thank you madam chair good night our next applicant is crown castle we're going to take a 10minute break and we'll be back exactly agre thank you for allowing us our re uh recess we're going to call the meeting back to order Mr Murphy Madam chair we're going to uh due to the hour um we are going to carry application number four Mr alfery if you want to put your appearance on the record good evening Madam chair members of board salvator alfery on behalf of the applicant we're uh The Adventure Crossing application which we're not going to reach tonight we're going to request be carried I think to March 6th and we would if if an extensions required we certainly Grant the board the extension thank you and we' request if possible we we can get the beginning of the agenda rather the end um if possible thank you I do have the March 6 everything else is a first listing aside from Rosen Blom which we carried earlier this evening um you don't have to promise me tonight that's okay I will give you number two on the March 6th agenda Fair fine thank you application number four Cardinale and Jackson Crossing 2 Adventure Crossing block 30001 Lot 2 three and four amended final site plan 776-6210 Board of adjustment AS application number two um no further notice will be required and pursuing to the representation on the record the applicant is wave time through that date thank you good night thank you Mr alair take care we're going to move on to applicant number three crown castle fiber LLC this is preliminary and final site plan 867 with use variants 3485 Mr parchment Madam chair B part from Norris mland on behalf of crown cast fiber I would first like to start and confir confirm that the board has jurisdiction proof of notice was filed with the board secretary and satisfactory okay um yeah today we're seeking the huse variance preliminary and final major s plan um consisting of installation of telecommunication telecommunication distributed attendance system consist of 18 NOS within the Six Flag Square Adventure Property today I have three Witnesses here for you today on behalf of this application I'll first like to start with Peter ludus I will ask that the the board qualify and swearing the witness thank you for raising your right hand do you solemnly swear affirm 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 thank you if you would please State your names uh provide your affiliation and your credentials please yes my name is Peter ludus with nbnc I'm a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey uh earned my Bachelor's of science from Duke University 2008 been a professional license engineer uh since 2014 I've been practicing professional engineering in the telecommunication industry for the last 8.75 years and I've testified at uh Boards of this nature in the state of New Jersey uh dozens of times so we accept this board accept your credentials thank you thank you um first P Mr ludus was this were the plant submitted to the board prepared by your firm yes they were using the plans and based upon your expertise please describe the project from your civil civil engineering Viewpoint including design waivers being sought yes ground Castle is proposing to install 18 polls uh supporting telecommunications equipment uh in the Six Flags park property uh in Jackson Township uh those 18 poles are proposed to be 32 foot approximately tall I believe 32 uh 32 36 I'm sorry 36 fo2 and a half inches tall total above ground um they will support telecommunications equipment uh distributed throughout the park to improve cell service for the park goers uh as part of the project as well crown castle is proposing to install fiber in either proposed conduit or existing conduit to serve as back hall to the existing node or the proposed node locations as well as provid provide Power from adjacent uh locations to the proposed pole locations I do have a couple of exhibits here um I believe there were multiple sets of plans provided to the board uh this exhibit is sheet three of 40 of the fiber utility plan entitled keymap it shows a an overview of the park map and all the different node locations that are proposed throughout the uh Park property uh the RF Eng from crown castle can speak to the RF design um but that shows the physical layout of the 18 node locations as well as uh the fiber Pathways uh as I mentioned there'll be some new conduit proposed in trench and then backfilled and restored to existing conditions as well as uh pulling fiber through existing conduit that the park facility had installed previously um and that is the overall nature of the project um are you familiar with the Township's planners report of January 9th 2024 yes I review the planner report are there any issues raised in the review letter which you would like to address yes there were a few design items that were raised in the planners report um number one uh the fall zone requirement um the proposed full locations are uh all exceeding that required setback of one and half times the proposed structure height from any property lines um number two the fence requirements for these Telecom installations um you know my interpretation and my experience on these types of designs uh would lead me to the conclusion that the zoning ordinance was drafted with uh more of a macro Tower uh in mind as opposed to uh the proposed small cell facilities um typically for a small cell pole structure uh deployed in this nature uh a fence Andor landscape buffers would not really comport with the proposed installation the Aesthetics of the installation um and would just really from a design perspective seem a little bit out of place in the context of a freestanding pole that is more like a light standard as opposed to a telecommunications Tower monopole or structure of that nature um I believe those are the main points that were raised in the planner report but I am certainly able to speak to any other questions or comments that may pertain as well are you familiar with the engineers report of January 12 2024 yes I am familiar with the engineers report as well um there are a couple of comments there um a couple of plan revisions that can certainly be uh addressed um there was question about environmental permitting for which the proposed trenching proposed utility conduit will be installed uh trenches backfilled and restored to previous condition all plan updates and notes uh required there can be added um I cannot really speak to uh the timing of other tenants being added to these polls but that can be addressed by others on this on this team I believe yes um and again if there are any other specific concerns that need to be raised here happy to address as well um I would like to the board I have no further questions for this witness does the board have any questions we have any questions for this witness Mr Hill soor I Just Want to clarify that uh based on our comments and there's not many of them to be honest with you in our letter you don't take exception to any of those no okay I did I want to I I did want a little bit of testimony on the record as far as um how you're going to segregate the construction activities from the general public um yeah uh are you proposing a construction lay down yard that's fenced and secured and isolated from the general public as you're constructing these improvements is it segregated at all or or or secured from the general public so if you can provide some testimony along those lines that would be helpful sure um a project of this nature is fairly sprawling um the timing and staging and and phasing of all of this build will certainly be uh contingent on construction Management's plan um and how how they would approach that um from an engineering standpoint we will support any and all uh efforts that are required to uh either design or help uh lay that out in terms of a site plan phasing staging whatever may be required uh up until now I do not believe to my knowledge at least that those discussions have been had in detail um but certainly something that we will support with the construction team throughout I yeah I think from a from an overall like if you are approved and we go through the resolution compliance phase not necessarily A phasing plan but just showing like an equipment laid down a storage yard a Contractor Yard and maybe some typical details on how you anticipate segregating the construction activities from the general public when the Park is open so sure if you're going to use temporary construction fence and that kind of stuff right uh to follow that up also have um one of my clients from Crown cast from the construction I can speak today okay today as well I don't know I mean if the board wants more details on that they can ask but from my perspective if we just show some basic information on the site plans for when you resubmit them that that would satisfy me understood Mr Peters you have any questions or comments you want to make at this time thank you you can call your next witness sir thank you so much can I now call Mr pant Patel can I excuse me can I get a quick question in forgive me I'm sorry go ahead Mr can you tell this system it's 18 polls it's a distributed antenna system this is not what are you serving here um the RF engineer will be better equipped to explain that um from a civil engineering perspective the poles will be located strategically in the park to provide service to the people that are at the park I also notice in our planner's report that it appears that there is a Verizon shelter that you're locating a shelter adjacent to it yeah there's an existing uh monopole 150 foot macro monopole on site and uh the crown castle Hub is what it is referred to is to be placed adjacent to that site you can't utilize the Verizon pole uh there's nothing that's proposed up on the poll itself it's really it's just ground equipment for this the purposes of this project for crown castle to serve the uh the the odas network that is proposed okay so you have another expert that's going to discuss that yeah the RF engineer will discuss the RF uh components yeah thank you um I would ask the board to qualify and swear this witness who's actually the r engineer Mr Pat thank you for raising your right hand do you solemnly swear 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 would please state your name uh provide your affiliation and uh credentials uh my name's Prashant Patel I got my masters in telecommunications management from Stevens Institute in 2011 and I've been working for crown castle since 2014 as an AR engineer thank you Mr Patel based on your expertise familiarity with the development application and the results of your EMF analysis would you give your opinion to the to the board as to the implications of this proposal um I don't see any implications from EMF studies that were performed by a third party vendor the stand up distance at a ground level are zero feet so anybody can stand below the site and they won't have EMF issues based on the FCC guidelines can you speak to the general aspects of the Telecommunications on a property yeah so this network has been developed for all the carriers and one particular carrier in mind so T-Mobile requested that they have so Six Flags get a huge number of crowds on a daily basis because of the park GRS and due due to that they were having capacity issues which means that the number of users were more than what a site could handle so they asked ground Castle to excuse me sir sir sir sir I know it's late but I'm losing you a little bit can you keep that mic up a little closer yeah fre to yes okay okay sounds good so uh better T-Mobile was asked to develop the odas network for crown castle um was sorry I just broke my thoughts so T-Mobile asked crown castle to develop Odes Network in the park to handle the capacity issue and that's when we came up with based on the existing coverage the number of users and the requirements from T-Mobile we came up with the ODS Network for 18 sites to provide adequate capacity at the water park and the main park at Six Flags are you familiar with the township plan report of January 9th 2024 yes I am can you please give um testimony attend the issues raised in review letter um I didn't see any obvious issues pertaining to RF or the design so how many cares would there will be able to accommodate on these polls so the polls were designed for multiple carriers a minimum of three a maximum of four I have no further questions for this witness I allow the witness up for question from the board um thank you Mr Patel you're employed by crown castle correct yes and you you're a radio frequency engineer that is correct okay so is crown castle providing the wireless telecommunication facilities are you providing the polls to a wireless telecommunication provider we are providing the polls and an infrastructure for the wireless uh carriers to connect their equipment so that they can provide the services so I guess a question either to you your attorney or our attorney so the folks who end up putting the equipment up on the polls do we have that information will it be provided this evening yes we do have that information what equipment would be deployed at each location thank you and just just for the board's background knowledge we we've we've we've heard telecommunication Wireless Telecom facility applications before we're all familiar with the monopole right which Ser which you know could be 100 feet high with the antenna on it the purpose of a distributed antenna system or a Das system is to provide additional capacity mostly it's a data issue it's not it's not you can't get cell phone coverage it's it's data providing data coverage internet service texting that kind of stuff it's the data service in large crowds we see these types of systems in stadiums indoor stadiums outdoor stadiums where you have large amounts of people congregating and they're all on their phone at some point looking at something and you need that data so they'll use the existing infrastructure there as the backbone that's the existing Tower and they distribute the data signals or the the distribute the antennas throughout of a large area of congest of congested people so they all can grab some of that data and they don't have to be right at that pole that's the purpose of these systems U if it's it's very similar to you know it's just I'm sure they'll get into it but safety of the general public and those kind of things too it's so um that's what a a Das system is it's a distributed antenna system M Charlie I guess I'm still confused um with the distributed antenna system that we're talking about here and I'm I I read our planers report um and it said something about optic fiber or Fiber Optic whatever it may be that's on the ground correct yes okay so this is not like a line of sight type of of tower is that correct um yes and no yes and no so this site since they are so much smaller in height uh 36 ft only they only have a limited coverage radius so they only go 800 to 1,000 ft far away from the pole and that's why we need so many because there's usually a huge Congregation of um Park goers in a particular spot and that that's why these locations have been selected based on that so have you done some kind of a survey that shows that there is a lack of service in the area yes we have done Benchmark testing before designing this project so your testimony is there is a lack of service and this is going to satisfy that lack of service there's not a lack of service a lack of service in the sense that there are too many users for a given site so just to give you an example in a Wi-Fi situation if there are 10 users you would get more down link speeds or Uplink speeds but if you have 100 users your speeds are going to get divided within the same thing or on a four-lane highway if there's four cars all the lanes are full if there's one car you have three lanes which are empty so it's how many users are using that network is what's causing the problem that's part of my question is is uh are the 18 polls that you propose here is that to serve the motoring public outside excuse me outside of the park no this would only service all the people inside the park in the park yes is there an FCC license required here uh each of the wireless service carriers have their own FCC license and Spectrum license ground Castle is only providing them a space and a pole and a system that they can deploy their service so there may be used users other than Verizon yes why couldn't they use Verizon's poll uh which Verizon the existing one I'm sorry the question is Verizon has a poll I don't know how high it is but they're over 100 feet I think right uh can these potential users utilize that pole and satisfy the same need so they have been using the that poll to provide coverage up till now and moving forward for couple days but the problem is the number of users are more than what the site can handle which is a capacity issue that you discussed yeah that's a capacity issue can they increase anything on the existing Pole to satisfy that capacity not without adding more sites without adding what sites more sites yeah so they would need other polls someplace yes okay and that's why this network has been designed could they increase the height of the existing pole and satisfy that no that wouldn't help either why not because increasing the height you're still having the same coverage um from the same site it's um so you got the coverage but not the capacity that is correct thank you thank you Mr P I would like to call my planner Mr Tim CR I ask that the boor swear ad minut qualifying thank you for raising your right hand do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony information questions and comments that you're about to present before the board be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do thank you very much please state your name uh provide your affiliation and your credentials hello there we go uh my name's uh Timothy M cron KR o n k um business address PO Box 465 mendum New Jersey TK Design Associates I have Bachelor of Science from the University of Massachusetts I have 33 years of land use experience predominantly New Jersey I am a New Jersey licensed professional planner and an aicp certified planner and I have been accepted by this board but I haven't been here in seven or eight years at least thank you Mr crunk are you familiar with the development application before the board and the relief being requested yes I have reviewed the application and all of the plans as part of this um my review are you familiar with the land use the township land use ordinance and the master plan yes I have reviewed the ordinance uh with specific attention to the wireless telecommunications sections as well as the uh as the master plan plan and the uh professional uh reviews basically your expertise as a professional plan your familiarity with the development application and the application provisions of the township Landing ordinance and M plans have you formed an opinion as to the merits of the relief being requested by the applicant yes I have would you please give the board your opinion certainly uh subject application by crown castle is for 18 uh Das nodes in the uh Six Flags uh Great Adventure Park um the portions of the park that the subject uh installations are proposed in are the cr1 commercial recreation 1 commercial recreation 2 and Highway commercial zones uh this property is 98.1 acres and no portion of this application is located in the Pinelands um the municipality has adopted actually I do if I want to actually there were some questions about the visibility this I'd like to present this exhibit now if I could we have what exhibit are we on A1 we will be on B1 the first one you pen not sorry I do have a photo simulation um that I'd like to get the past around to the board um just so the board has a better understanding of the visibility um in the context of the park itself um this is marked exhibit A1 it is an exhibit board that has two photographs um photo on the left is an existing conditions photo and on the right it's a computer simulation where um you have inserted the proposed Tower at the size uh and location and height of what all the 18- nodes are proposed to look like so photo on the left is the existing conditions photo photo on the right is where the one of the D nodes has been inserted in there I just want to give the board a better feel for what the structure looked like and how it fits in uh to the context of the park itself uh based upon the um Township's uh Wireless telecommunications ordinance uh the subject application will require relief in the nature of a D3 uh deviation variance uh that's for a conditional use where not all the conditional use standards are met um as the board is aware this is a fourth priority application uh first priority would be existing Towers second priority is new towers on um municipal or agency owned commercial properties third is existing buildings and commercial zones and the fourth is new towers on lands not owned by the municipality or the MUA so we do not meet the um the ownership criteria since the uh Six Flags uh property is located by a private entity also based upon uh the application and the testimony of the uh uh civil engineer uh we are uh looking to eliminate the landscape buffer requirement um which also would be a conditional use deviation as the engineer testified to uh your Ence does have a requirement for a 10-ft buffer 8 ft high and when you look at that photo simulation you will see that that type of buffer is a buffer that's really geared more towards the tall monopole structures 150 ft that have the big fenced in compound and have multiple little shelters and Equipment cabinets um for multiple carriers in there perfect you know type of buffering for that situation but as you can see oh thanks for putting that up I didn't even see it um it's actually the next one that's the existing conditions the next one is the one that's the photo simulation the 5B um certainly as you see this type of structure that is something that is not needed for this type of installation these poles are you know in paved areas they're on on the edge of paved areas uh and some of them are in the uh you know the utility and maintenance yards as well so really none of those locations are locations uh that would require a heavy uh vegetated buffer at the base of the tower you know 10 feet wide in every direction there's no equipment on the ground so there's really nothing to hide it's just that that nice lamp hole type structure uh that will house the antennas of the FCC license uh carriers that uh will locate on this um on this property um as I mentioned we do have the relief for the D3 deviation under the standards of Coventry Square versus Westwood a strict application of the ordinance requirements would prevent this installation uh from being installed yes it would because um this property is not owned by the municipalities or agencies if we were forced into complying with the ordinance we couldn't because it's privately held property um these these installations are located in the center of the Six Flag property and there's no way that they could be placed outside the park uh on a property uh that would meet the ordinance requirements uh also the standard Coventry square is the fact that we do not meet a DV um conditional use standard does the particular uh property remain suited in this case I certainly believe the site remains particularly suited for the wireless telecommunications use because the ownership of the land underneath really does not affect this application uh at all I do believe the bore can grant this variance that a substantial detriment to the public good quite the opposite this is a a use that um does promote the general welfare all of the carriers who locate on the structure will be FCC licens providers of Wireless telecommunications certainly in the park most of the people are going to be you know doing selfies and uh you know texting with their friends but there is still the public safety benefit welfare for um you know police fire emergency uh any type of events that would uh uh take place in a park setting uh we have a benign commercial use it has none of the traditional negative impacts associated with Land Development there is no noise no glare no odor no vibration no no just characteristics really the only negative impact associated with this use comes down to the visibility and once again if we look at exhibit A1 on the board uh actually there's 5B on the board I see why you said B um so the uh the exhibit uh that's what the uh visibility would be associated with each one of these 18 structures and certainly I do not believe that that visibility would rise to the level of a substantial detriment I do believe board can grant this variance without a substantial impairment to the Zone plan or zoning ordinance you do have a wireless telecommunications ordinance in the township it is really geared towards tall monopole structures and not this type of Das structure but uh under the purposes and intents of the ordinance number four strongly encourage the joint use of new and existing tower sites as a primary option rather than the construction of single-use towers the these are small Towers they're not single-use towers as the radio frequency engineer mentioned there could be three to four carriers located on these so it's a different type of installation than it's contemplated by your ordinance but certainly the the same premise uh applies in this application under purpose number seven ensure that all telecommunication facilities including Towers antennas and ancillary facilities are located and designed to minimize the visual impact on the immediate surroundings and throughout the community well when you look at that type of structure that we're proposing number one they're centrally located in the park there is no impact on the community nobody's going to see it from their house nobody's going to drive past it the only people that are going to see that these structures are the people who pay to go in the in the park and and they'll walk past them so we certainly are not having a um a visual impact on the community uh and the rest of number seven is um to configure the antennas in a way that minimizes the adverse in visual impact of the towers and antennas through careful design sighting landscape screening and Innovative camouflaging techniques uh I certainly do believe that the structures that are proposed here would fall under the Innovative camouflaging techniques um this type of Dash system allows three or four carriers to go in that one structure if you had three or four carriers you know either doing individual Towers or locating an as other places in the Parks you know on rooftops or other types of poles we certainly would have a lot more impact um I almost want to say clutter because it wouldn't be all um grouped together and concealed in one structure like we have here so for those reasons I do believe we meet the uh purposes and intent of the ordinance even though we do have our uh D3 deviation so for those reasons I do believe the site remains particularly suited for telecommunications facility and the board can grant the D3 DV viation uh for the ownership of the property and the landscape buffers that are are contemplated by your ordinance thank you I have no further questions for this witness um does the board have any questions chair is there any increased exposure to RF energy generated by such an amount of or increasing antennas to the public at large I believe the radio frequency engineer who spoke before me said that they had analyzed these and they were all in compliance thank you I'm not able to answer that I know each you I do work for the carriers and I do know that the carriers uh under their FCC license are obligated to remain within compliance at all times I don't I don't know that they are test Mr Patel can you answer that question so the studies were done with maximum power um so it cannot go about this limit because you cannot done the the studies were done at max power you cannot go more than that so Madam chair again I I don't mean to keep bringing this point up but I think as a reasonable condition should the board Grant the relief it should be a condition that the ultimate user because remember crown castle isn't providing the service so while I appreciate Mr Patel being up here I I I need to draw that fine line they're building sites they're building polles that anyone who owns a telecommunication can put something up there so it's not him who's going to make sure it's okay it's the carrier that needs to make sure it's okay these get up um so every time crown castle collocates a carrier on a site we do a new EMF study with that new carrier in mind so right now the studies are done with T-Mobile as a carrier with maximum power whenever Verizon and AT&T joints we would do the same study with two carrier maximum power and three carrier maximum power to make sure that they are in compliance sorry that's okay U want to go first can we have the uh frequency engineer come up again please how can we be assured that the poll will look like that so let me try to explain why I'm thinking about that every time I see a poll go up for telecommunications whatever it may be um you have different antennas popping up yeah different locations this looks like you know a Corin on a cob is that what it's always going to look like and how do you guarantee that um yes I I think there should be an exhibit with the pole design uh shown so if we can bring that up I can go over the pole design but the pole was designed with three to four carriers in mind and that shows what equipment goes where in a particular slot is is that the one that looks like a tree or something so that's the same thing oh yeah sorry so it's a little difficult to see in photos and pictures and sketches and whatnot but the idea is this is this pole has been designed there's a concrete foundation a steel shaft and then a rayome concealment which is a housing for all of the antenna units so what you will see is the circular radome concealment approximately 36 in in diameter which is a smooth profile that goes from approximately 22 feet above grade to the top 36 ft above grade so all of the equipment that would typically be visible on a monopole structure per se is inside that Rome and invisible to the viewer so that Dome cannot exceed 36 feet 36 inches you was it inches in diameter correct unless that in the future were modified to expand larger but that would not be part of this proposal so we can make that as a condition yes you can that photo that photo was done based upon the dimensions on the engineering drawings so to answer your question before whether there's one carrier two carriers three carriers or four from the outside you won't be able to tell because all the equipment will be concealed so the the visibility associated with will not change okay my other question is concerning safety uh the picture that you had shown us before um that one that picture that we're looking at on the screen I've never seen as many times as I've been to to the park that few kids what's the topping distance on these things I mean it looks like you got them close to areas where kids are going to be in I mean I see tables there things of that nature what's the topping dist well it's 36 they're 36 feet high so you got to at least have a a toling distance of 36 ft could be more than that obviously yes I can speak to that um my company also did the structural design and Analysis of the poll itself um it is designed in accordance with all applicable codes and standards in this case it would be IBC and the Tia 222 uh requirements um structurally speaking the governing rating of the poll is governed by the foundation at 85% capacity uh that would be uh governed by the soil Foundation interaction so geotechnical capacity of the structure um the actual structural steel uh is rated at approximately 75% of the code allowable limits um so what I'm getting at is structurally you have a 25% Reserve capacity Plus the code required factors of sa do we know what the the wind resistance is how yeah we analyze that for a design wind speed I would have to double check the report I believe it's an ultimate wind speed of5 miles per hour but I may be off more more than hurricane speed uh it's it's effectively it's a 1% chance of occurring in a given year uh for that wind speed okay and one other question if I may to the planner this is a D3 variant correct all right in spite of the the conditions that are not met can you give me an opinion supported by fact as to why these locations are appropriate in spite of the variations well doesn't this board have to look on a on a conditional use that the use that's being proposed that violates some of the let me change that that doesn't comply with some of the conditions that the site is still appropriate for the use as it is a conditionally permitted location uh the deviations we have here are related to the ownership of the property we are a fourth priority um we are not uh the municipality or an agency of the municipality that's one of our deviations so I don't believe the fact that this is a private entity that owns the property um does change the suitability of the location the other deviation is related to the required landscape buffer that as I stated those buffers really are not designed for these type of small Towers your ordinance is based upon a macro Tower situation um where once again I stated that normally you have a compound at the bottom 50 by 50 100 by 100 you have three or four carriers with equipment located inside the compound and then have the fence and you put a heavy landscape buffer around it so in those inst in those type of installations the landscape buffer is appropriate these locations inside the park with a 30 foot uh tall or 36t tall tower you really don't need that type of buffer at the base of the tower because there's no equipment on the ground there's no fence there's just the base of the tower that you see in the photo so though for those reasons I don't think either one of those deviations impact this application and that's why I believe the site does remain particularly suited uh under the D3 analysis would you agree with me that since the service that's being provided is for the park itself that in quotes that these towers not inherently beneficial uh the service is not for the park itself this uh crown castle is a thirdparty infrastructure contractor they are developing this for FCC licensed providers of Wireless telecommunication nobody else is going to be able to use the frequencies on these towers besides the FCC license carriers in this area I thought the testimony and correct me if I'm wrong I thought the testimony was in the area of it's not a a it's not for the general public let me change that it's not for the not for the roadway system but it's it's it's necessary for the users in the park in a capacity issue that's correct the users but you when you were saying Park I thought you meant the ownership of the park I'm talking about the the geographical area of the park yes these these 18 locations are in the center of the park they are providing capacity um to the users in the park the users in the park are ones that have phones from all the FCC license carriers there is no coverage from these 18 to the outside the park property but there's still the public benefit associated with um having phone service based from an FCC license carrier well that that public benefit initially was for the traveling public now we're talking about data are we talking about internet access all the services the carriers provide yes I I right out front said most people using their phones inside this park they're not working they're they're not they're taking selfies they're texting but there's still the carriers still have FCC license to provide coverage to this a to this park this area there can be emergencies there could be Health emergencies there could be police situations fire any of those things where you still want to have um phone service available and as the radio frequency engineer testified to the existing Tower there all the carriers have coverage if you go there when the Park closed your phone's going to work fine but on the days that the Park's full and there's capacity issues that's when your phone could not work in those type of situations so so there's coverage everywhere the gaps are based upon the capacity issues at the park when the park is full and as the engineer stated perfectly at the beginning this is the the optimum type of installation to have an in outdoor situation where you have large crowds of people this is the best way to to provide it otherwise you would be building Tower big towers all around the property when you don't need them because there's coverage already there you have to address the capacity issues that's why these towers aren't placed on a grid through the park they're strategically located um on the areas where large you know large groups of people would gather and create capacity issues okay thank you do we know of any of these types of towers located elsewhere in Jackson um no I am not familiar with any what's the you know if if we Grant this type of application are we establishing a precedent for other carriers that come in and say you know you granted this poll can we have one of these uh distributed type polls located you know 50 ft away from our pole well crown castle is building this for all the carriers so another carrier doesn't have to come in and say I want to build it you'll say hey wait we just approved 18 nodes for for Crown go talk to them well my my concern is outside of the park outside of the park I I mean I don't know if you have another uh location in the municipality where you have you know an outdoor thing where you have large crowds gather like that problem that's the problem we don't know all of a sudden here they go all right thank you you know I don't think we can use this application in set a precedent for another application each application has to be looked at separately the documentation may be slightly unclear with the respect to 21 ft the steel shaft is 21 ft tall and then the radome comes to a total height of 36' 2 A2 so there I think the engineers letter maybe referenced that shorter height if I'm not [Music] mistaken that's likely a typo or some sort of misrepresentation but I can testify to the fact that the proposed pole is 36 foot 2 and2 in plus or minus so you can claim that the overall height of the antenna system is a maximum of 36t 2 and2 in correct thank you and that's what the photo simulation was based upon I use the engineering drawings at 36t 2 and 12 in I do Mr Peters I have a question for you I didn't testify huh I didn't testify I would I would very much love that um I have reviewed your report um and I noticed that there seems to be some sort of discrepancy within our ordinances regarding wireless communication Towers um or facilities is how I'll put it the applicants requested a D3 variance which is a conditional use variance but I note that um pursuing to 244 231a Wireless telecommunication facilities are permitted condition are permitted conditional uses on lands owned by the township the Township municipal uh Utilities Authority or any other public entity within the township and then we have a discrepancy because section 2 44 230g says that all telecommun telecommunications facilities in the township of Jackson shall be conditional uses in accordance with njsa 40 colon 55 [Music] d-67 clearly Six Flags is not Township owned property um nor is it owned by any uh other public entity my question to you is is a D3 variance the appropriate variance or would it be a D1 variance I believe it's D3 variants um the this ordinance goes back to the the original adoption of the telecommunication ordinance for the township goes back to December of 2000 um if you think about that cell phones and cell towers became a planning issue in the 90s so at the end of the90s the municipality decided to put a prioritization or a sighting set of standards together and that's what we have I'm not sure that this type of Technology existed 24 years ago I won't testify for the applicant but I can tell you I've sat through dozens of cell tower applications in from 2000 to 2015 there were all poles monopoles lattice Towers those sorts that we were worried about um the power output we were worried if you could get communication on a highway in your car from pole to pole um that's not what this um distributed antenna system really is however that's the ordinance that we have in place so in December of 2024 in our year end report we're going to write to the governing body that we have distributed antenna systems which are basically little like we used to call them burst cell towers like you'd see in an inner city um we don't have a great set of standards for that however because that is what Evan had made a point to me off the Record that if this was um like a police or Radio band this is a Wi-Fi syst they wouldn't even be here it's a telecommunication system so they fall under the telecommunication ordinance I don't take any exception to Mr K's testimony it's responsive to how our ordinance which was adopted in December of 2000 reads it is clearly apparent that the town determined that cell towers were conditional use within the town and the purpose in the purpose and intent statement says that the purpose of this article is to establish guidelines for the sighting of Wireless telecommunication towers and antennas along with ancillary facilities and then the goals were as Mr konit indicated um the sighting standards so it's apparent to me and it has been I've had the opportunity to represent either of the planning or zoning board for most of the last 24 years that these were intended to be conditional uses and respectfully um the sighting issue was if we have to have those 150 foot Towers the municipality or the taxpayers of Jackson should be getting some of that rent money so that's the reason for the sighting on municipally owned lands on mua owned lands that money should get back into rate payer taxpayers pockets as opposed to the last thing would be to put it on a private site where someone else would generate the revenue from it um so again getting back to Mr Cron's testimony I do believe it's a D3 conditional use variance application I think he's gone through the priority standards um I believe he's gone through the goals that are in the outline or in the intent and purpose section of the ordinance and I don't take any exception to the testimonies Prov provided so far so it would be fair to say that perhaps maybe I'm shortening this and and if if I'm incorrect you know I want the board to understand this would it be fair to say that one of the conditions that the applicant is deviating from is the condition that the land where these towers are placed is owned by the township or or another public entity would that be a fair representation obviously the site isn't it's great adventure well that's what I'm saying so that would be one of the reasons for the D3 conditional variance correct yes thank you I have no other witness that will conclude our presentation um no I don't have any remarks to make um I would just like to say um I believe we've PR presented a case for why our application should be granted and I look forward to hear with the board's decision thank you very much for your time Madam chair yes it's late I'm [Laughter] tired yes briefly um our Mr Peters doesn't take any objection to Mr CL planning testimony the site seems appropriate it's located inside they establish the maximum height it makes sense to me the testimony that they don't need the landscape Offroad given the nature the way the poll is is set up for the way on that seems reasonable and I'd make a motion to approve second oh Mr Hurley Madam chairman the only concern I have with this application is the number of of of polls um I've always been concerned about these these monopoles it doesn't end up looking like Oklahoma in the early 1900s where we had the you know these oil Wells all over the place and it just gets crazy the interesting thing about this application I think is that uh this type of poll is probably not been contemplated by the governing body when the ordinance had had been adopted I understand the testimony from the radio frequency engineer that there is a need uh for these polls throughout the park because of a capacity issue um that the number of people utilizing this facility by virtue of of the mass number creates a problem for capacity in the specific location I think this application it's a conditional use application I think the locations that have been indicated by the applicant are appropriate to the specific areas and use of the the park itself that any approval if if granted by this board make it clear that the reason for the approval is that because of the property's use which is recreational entertainment high volume users things of that nature so that Verizon doesn't come in you know in seven months and say you know I want to use one of these low poles I'm having some capacity uh problem for this given area but I'll need three or four polls to satisfy that um I think this is unique because of the the specific use of the property itself as being recreational as I said entertainment things of that nature but in addition to that the high volume of users of the park itself and based on that condition I would be inclined to to Grant the variance I think the um conditions that are imposed that they not exceed the 36 feet two and a was it two and a half Ines in height that the diameter of the antenna area where they are being contained does not exceed 36 in in diameter um that the users of the property must have an FCC license for that purpose we don't know that yet what we're told is that the user will have an FCC license I think we should make that as a condition uh of of use because the FCC FCC license presupposes a general benefit to the general public and we haven't heard any any proof as to who the users are but as a condition of approval that the uh users must must obtain an FCC license um any other conditions i' I'd be willing to listen to but based on that I I I think it's appropriate to give it a D3 I think the uses the locations of these poles the the need for the poles because of the area and use of the property uh is satisfied and that the locations of the poles are in fact appropriate for the area being used satisfy as a D3 we have an we have a motion in a second do you want to add those things to your would you like to amend your Mo motion to include those absolutely and I'll second that R call please Mr Hurley yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss frit yes Mr book yes Mr Hudak yes Miss Parnes yes Miss Bradley yes your variance has been granted Mr parchment thank you motion to adj second I