{ "document_id": 11687, "filename": "_08172026-1321.pdf", "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "generated_at": "2026-10-29T10:28:05+00:00", "page_count": 25, "counts_by_type": { "figure": 1, "footer": 50, "heading": 5, "text": 97, "title": 1 }, "timings": { "total_ms": 3752, "structure_ms": 2779, "text_layer_ms": 9, "build_ms": 25 }, "pages": [ { "document_id": 11687, "page": 1, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 14, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "heading": 3, "text": 8, "title": 1 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p1.1", "order": 1, "type": "title", "bbox": { "l": 131.28, "t": 720.96, "r": 485.28, "b": 685.68 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING\nMonday, August 17, 2026", "attrs": { "block_label": "doc_title" }, "level": 2, "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p1.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 71.76, "t": 674.64, "r": 544.32, "b": 617.52 }, "text": "The August 17, 2026 regular meeting of the Jackson Township Planning Board was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Board Chair Dr. Campbell with a salute to the flag by all present. Mr. Shea read the Open Public Meetings Act Statement noting that adequate notice has been provided and advertised in the manner prescribed by law.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p1.3", "order": 3, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 72.24, "t": 605.76, "r": 296.16, "b": 507.84 }, "text": "Roll Call Mr. Bressi\nMs. DeMarzo\nMr. Heller\nMr. Parkes, Mayoral Designee\nMr. Rogers\nMr. Sullivan, Vice Chair\nDr. Campbell, Chair", "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p1.4", "order": 4, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 70.56, "t": 497.04, "r": 358.56, "b": 481.44 }, "text": "Absent: Mr. Tremer III, Environmental Commission", "reading_order": 3 }, { "id": "p1.5", "order": 5, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 69.36, "t": 469.92, "r": 472.32, "b": 396.96 }, "text": "Also Present: Anthony Jacob, Computer Technician\nDouglas F. Klee, P.E., P.P., C.M.E., Planning Board Engineer\nLaura Morrison, Planning Board Secretary and Recording Secretary\nErnest J. Peters, Jr., P.E., P.P., C.M.E., Planning Board Planner\nRobert C. Shea II, Esq., Planning Board Attorney", "reading_order": 4 }, { "id": "p1.6", "order": 6, "type": "heading", "bbox": { "l": 69.6, "t": 386.4, "r": 305.52, "b": 371.28 }, "text": "Payment of Voucher for Recording Secretary", "attrs": { "block_label": "paragraph_title" }, "level": 3, "reading_order": 5 }, { "id": "p1.7", "order": 7, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 68.64, "t": 359.28, "r": 534.48, "b": 315.36 }, "text": "Mr. Sullivan made a motion, seconded by Ms. DeMarzo, to approve the payment of the voucher for the Recording Secretary for August 17, 2026. Voted yes: Mr. Bressi, Ms. DeMarzo, Mr. Heller, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Sullivan and Dr. Campbell.", "reading_order": 6 }, { "id": "p1.8", "order": 8, "type": "heading", "bbox": { "l": 68.88, "t": 304.56, "r": 115.2, "b": 289.44 }, "text": "Minutes", "attrs": { "block_label": "paragraph_title" }, "level": 3, "reading_order": 7 }, { "id": "p1.9", "order": 9, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 67.44, "t": 276.48, "r": 520.08, "b": 233.76 }, "text": "Mr. Sullivan made a motion, seconded by Ms. DeMarzo, to approve the Minutes from the August 3, 2026 meeting. Voted yes: Mr. Bressi, Ms. DeMarzo, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Sullivan and Dr. Campbell.", "reading_order": 8 }, { "id": "p1.10", "order": 10, "type": "heading", "bbox": { "l": 67.92, "t": 222, "r": 131.04, "b": 206.88 }, "text": "Resolutions", "attrs": { "block_label": "paragraph_title" }, "level": 3, "reading_order": 9 }, { "id": "p1.11", "order": 11, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 66.24, "t": 194.16, "r": 545.04, "b": 122.88 }, "text": "Resolution 2026-23 of the Planning Board of the Township of Jackson, County of Ocean, State of New Jersey Granting Preliminary and Final Minor Subdivision Approval for Mark Properties, LLC, Block 23108, Lot 14. Mr. Sullivan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bressi, to approve Resolution 2026-23. Voted yes: Mr. Bressi, Ms. DeMarzo, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Sullivan and Dr. Campbell.", "reading_order": 10 }, { "id": "p1.12", "order": 12, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 65.28, "t": 112.08, "r": 544.8, "b": 81.6 }, "text": "Resolution 2026-24 of the Planning Board of the Township of Jackson, County of Ocean, State of New Jersey Granting a One Year Time Extension for Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan", "reading_order": 11 }, { "id": "p1.13", "order": 13, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 66.48, "t": 65.28, "r": 75.12, "b": 54.72 }, "text": "1", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 12 }, { "id": "p1.14", "order": 14, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 86.4, "t": 66, "r": 427.44, "b": 52.56 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 13 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 2, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 7, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "heading": 1, "text": 4 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p2.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 71.52, "t": 720.48, "r": 550.08, "b": 677.04 }, "text": "Approval for RAM Development, LLC, Block 22301, Lots 3.01, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24. Mr. Sullivan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bressi, to approve Resolution 2026-24. Voted yes: Mr. Bressi, Mr. Heller, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Sullivan and Dr. Campbell.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p2.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 70.56, "t": 665.28, "r": 550.8, "b": 595.2 }, "text": "Resolution 2026-25 of the Planning Board of the Township of Jackson, County of Ocean, State of New Jersey Granting Minor Subdivision Approval with Required Variances for a Lot Line Adjustment for Aaron Travitsky, Block 5101, Lots 20 and 31. Mr. Sullivan made a motion, seconded by Ms. DeMarzo, to approve Resolution 2026-25. Voted yes: Mr. Bressi, Ms. DeMarzo, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Sullivan and Dr. Campbell.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p2.3", "order": 3, "type": "heading", "bbox": { "l": 70.56, "t": 583.44, "r": 226.32, "b": 569.04 }, "text": "Board Matters for Discussion", "attrs": { "block_label": "paragraph_title" }, "level": 3, "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p2.4", "order": 4, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 68.4, "t": 556.08, "r": 541.92, "b": 264.96 }, "text": "Dr. Campbell commended those Board members who do not reply on social media. She knows it is tempting and hard not to respond on occasions when we are spoken of unkindly. The Board attorneys over the years have suggested we stay off social media and do not respond. However, last week the Board was criticized on social media for not requiring sidewalks between the Gardens and the new Wawa just off 195. This Board as an approval requirement insisted that the Wawa and Glory's provide sidewalks literally to nowhere. It is a corner. There is a long sidewalk but they go nowhere because there are no other buildings on any of the three corners. And there are vast empty lots lying between the Wawa and the Gardens apartments. But we realized on this Board that we need to prepare for the future of the Township. So we required sidewalks. This Board has no power to require owners of undeveloped land to install sidewalks. Again, this Board has no power to require owners of undeveloped land to install sidewalks. Further, every applicant before this Board must either include sidewalks or the applicant must pay into the Pedestrian Safety Fund for future sidewalks installation as determined for pedestrian safety. Dr. Campbell thinks it is important that we point these things out so that the people at home, when they look at property and they ask why the Board did not make them put a sidewalk there, we cannot. It is undeveloped property and we cannot force somebody to put sidewalks on undeveloped property. Mr. Bressi stated that the Pedestrian Safety Fund goes back many years. These funds get put aside so that as they are needed more importantly in other areas they can go in as needed. It has paid off in the long run. Rather than putting a sidewalk in the middle of a nowhere just for the sake of it, he would rather see the money come in and put towards the Pedestrian Safety Fund.", "reading_order": 3 }, { "id": "p2.5", "order": 5, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 65.28, "t": 253.2, "r": 538.32, "b": 86.4 }, "text": "Mr. Shea announced that the Board has to do a consistency review for pending Ordinance 2026-25 that is in front of the Council at this point. The standard that the Board would have to make a vote as to whether or not it is not inconsistent with the Master Plan. The language of the statute is tricky in the fact that it frames it as not inconsistent. It kind of sounds like a double negative, but that is the way that the statute uses the language, which is why we phrase the motions in that manner. Just be cognizant of that when whoever is making the vote that we just use the appropriate language while the vote is taking place. Dr. Campbell asked Mr. Peters how long he has served in Jackson on this Planning Board. He replied on and off for 24 years. Mr. Peters reminded the Board that the statute that Mr. Shea referred to is what we are here to talk about. The requirement when the governing body sends something down to the Planning Board is in the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law under 40:55D-62, which indicates that the governing body may adopt or amend a zoning ordinance relating to the nature and extent of the uses of land and", "reading_order": 4 }, { "id": "p2.6", "order": 6, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 66, "t": 65.52, "r": 75.12, "b": 54.96 }, "text": "2", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 5 }, { "id": "p2.7", "order": 7, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 85.92, "t": 65.76, "r": 427.44, "b": 53.52 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 6 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 3, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 4, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 2 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p3.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 70.08, "t": 719.28, "r": 542.64, "b": 345.84 }, "text": "of buildings and structures thereon. Such ordinance shall be adopted after the Planning Board has adopted the land use element and the housing plan element of the Master Plan, which the Board did in July of last year, and all of the provisions of such zoning ordinance or any amendment or revision thereto shall either be substantially consistent with the land use plan element of the Master Plan or designed to effectuate such plan element. So there has to be some connection between what the governing body did and what is in our ordinance. On page 20 of the 2025 Master Plan under goals and objectives for land use, the goal was to achieve a pattern and mix of land uses that achieves various community planning objectives including the provision of quality residential neighborhoods, the protection of natural resources, the economic development of the community and the creation of a livable and desirable community. The first objective listed under land use goals and objectives was to direct growth into areas suited for land development and away from areas appropriate for resource protection. The draft of Ordinance 2026-25 in the third and fourth paragraphs on page one indicates that the Town Council further recognizes that high intensity digital infrastructure uses such as data centers may be incompatible with the environmental protections, infrastructure limitations and land use objectives mandated within significant portions of the Township located in the Pinelands areas. And the Township Council further finds that due to these characteristics, data centers may not be appropriate within many areas of the Township, absent rigorous site specific review and demonstration of infrastructure capacity and compatibility. So, our goal is not necessarily to debate the pros and cons of the ordinance. That is something that happens at the governing body. If we want to spend some time talking about the pros and cons, that would be fine, but Mr. Peters stated that we are here to make sure that this ordinance is either substantially consistent with the land use element of the Master Plan or designed to effectuate such plan element. A number of the Board members were on the Master Plan Subcommittee. Mr. Peters did not know if the Board needed to talk about specific things because they might have already discussed the things you might build in a town. Does this match up with that? That is the discussion the Board should center on.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p3.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 66.24, "t": 334.56, "r": 540, "b": 98.88 }, "text": "Dr. Campbell sated that when the Planning Board Subcommittee began the Master Plan back in 2023 the present concern over an AI data center did not exist. She, Ms. DeMarzo and Mr. Heller spent almost two years on that working with professionals. In fact, the term data center up until lately simply defined a physical room, building or facility for storage, management and dissemination of information. In the past, it was the military and telephone companies that built them. Today, data centers serve a completely different function. Nowhere in the past or present Master Plan is the term data center mentioned. Nor is construction of an airport, a nuclear waste facility or a ten story building. If a function is not allowed, it is not mentioned. Dr. Campbell asked Mr. Peters, as a point of clarity, if she was correct in understanding that we are not voting tonight for or against the ordinance since that is not a Planning Board function. That is a Council function. Mr. Peters replied that the short answer is that is correct. The second answer is we are going to check with the attorney to make sure he agrees. The Board is not the governing body deciding whether or not this is an ordinance that should be enacted or not. The Board's sole responsibility is under 40:55D-62 which is to determine if the ordinance is substantially consistent with the land use plan element of the Master Plan or if the ordinance was designed to effectuate that plan element. And if you feel that it has, then you would find that it is not inconsistent. If you cannot make the connection, then it would be inconsistent.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p3.3", "order": 3, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 66.72, "t": 64.56, "r": 75.36, "b": 54 }, "text": "3", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p3.4", "order": 4, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 86.4, "t": 64.8, "r": 427.68, "b": 52.32 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 3 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 4, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 3, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 1 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p4.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 67.44, "t": 720, "r": 544.8, "b": 84.72 }, "text": "Mr. Bressi did vote on this at the Council and he voted no. He definitely understands the way to vote goes tonight. You are voting for consistent or not consistent. Mr. Peters described it perfectly. Mr. Bressi had some problems with the ordinance and he still does. In all purposes, the ordinance written as it stands now by the wisdom of the Master Plan Subcommittee and what they put together by leaving these different entities out is it is not a permitted use. That is where we are now. When you read the ordinance in section 2A, it states that a data center shall not be listed as a permitted or conditional use in any zoning district within the Township of Jackson. That brings us right back to where we are now. The problem he has is contradicting the Master Plan with an ordinance. We are protected by the Municipal Land Use Law on this where it is not a permitted use, they have to go in front of the Zoning Board. With the ordinance, they still get to go in front of the Zoning Board. They may have to say a little more to prove their case, but that is the only difference. They still have to go in front of the Zoning Board for a D1 variance. In his opinion, although that part matches the consistency, the ordinance does not because it puts buffers and speed bumps in where it helps the applicants and the attorneys to fight this. When you are in the right and you try to add too much right, you can hurt yourself. And that is what this does. The ordinance really attacks the credibility of the Master Plan and the people that put it together because it says clearly it is not a permitted use and the Master Plan Subcommittee and this Planning Board voted on that and the Council voted on it. So it was established that it is not a permitted use and the MLUL states it is not a permitted use. Now you see many cases where lawyers and applicants fight the ordinances. You do not see many cases where they fight the Municipal Land Use Law. If anything is on interpretation currently, they are not allowed in any zone at all. They are not permitted. One simple way to put it, if they go to the Zoning Board and they appeal it, they can appeal it and appeal the ordinance. Mr. Bressi stated that the Township Attorney told him that by pointing out a particular use to be banned by affirmative legislation, it permits a developer of the same to argue the Township itself and therefore the Zoning Board is also biased against their application. What that means when Mr. Bressi talked to the Township Attorney is couple of things. One, the Township Council appoints the Zoning Board. So now you are saying it is prohibited by the Council. You are telling the people you are appointing, the Zoning Board, they cannot vote for it. It is taking away the freedoms of the Zoning Board to do their job to hear the D1 variance clearly in their minds. That is why Mr. Bressi thinks this can help big applicants, big money applicants, big attorneys to turn stuff around to appeal something and take it to one judge to feel the way they feel. And in the ordinance, if you go through the whole thing, it takes you back to square one, exactly where we are today. They are not permitting any data center in any zone in the Township. You have that already, not protected by ordinance, but protected by the Municipal Land Use Law. And out of all the attorneys Mr. Bressi spoke to, they all said the ordinance cannot stop them from going to the Zoning Board. They are still entitled to that. It is still a D1 variance. They may have to put a little more emphasis on what they have to present as a good thing to have and all that. Good luck with them doing that with a data center. That is the only change. Other than that, you are contradicting the Master Plan because it is not a permitted use. When you do conditional uses, the applicant will find ways to meet a conditional use. So now when you have an ordinance like this, they have ways they can challenge the ordinance on its own in 45 days. Once it is adopted, they can challenge it anywhere when their application comes in. They can challenge the ordinance along with the decision of a Zoning Board. It gives them that many more bites of the apple and he really feels that it hurts the credibility of the Master Plan and that is basically why he voted no. Mr. Bressi read the last sentence of Mr. Peters' summary which states \"We do not believe that", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p4.2", "order": 2, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 67.44, "t": 63.6, "r": 75.84, "b": 54.24 }, "text": "4", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p4.3", "order": 3, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 86.64, "t": 64.56, "r": 428.4, "b": 52.56 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 2 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 5, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 5, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 3 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p5.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 71.28, "t": 718.8, "r": 541.44, "b": 663.12 }, "text": "the adopting or prohibiting ordinance offers the Township any additional protection from a land use perspective.\" It does not cut and dry protect you more. But it can give the applicant and their attorneys more to fight with. That is why Mr. Bressi is against this ordinance. He feels the ordinance is not consistent.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p5.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 70.32, "t": 649.44, "r": 541.2, "b": 483.6 }, "text": "Mr. Rogers thought the ordinance gave the possibility of a data center in the future and he thought the language in the Master Plan allowed for new interpretations of businesses to be considered. Dr. Campbell confirmed that no, it does not allow for the consideration because it is not named. It is not mentioned. However, the ordinance does mention it. Mr. Rogers stated there is a section in the Master Plan that says it will in the future consider the needs and economic benefits to the Town. Is that a consideration? Dr. Campbell replied that we need to remember where we live. We live in the center of the Pinelands. The chances of the Pinelands Commission and the DEP ever even considering that in this area is a non-starter. But this would go to the Zoning Board. It would not come to the Planning Board. It is a matter of zoning and they already are protected against that development. We do not say you cannot build an airport, you cannot build a nuclear waste pit or a ten-story building. They are not identified there specifically for a reason because anything that is not permitted is not permitted.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p5.3", "order": 3, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 66.96, "t": 471.84, "r": 541.68, "b": 111.84 }, "text": "Mr. Shea took it back to first principles. In an ordinance review like this, what the Planning Board does is called a consistency review. And just to keep it simple, forget about the language of the statute, the Board has to just make a finding as to whether or not the ordinance presented to them is consistent or inconsistent with the language of the Master Plan. That is just at its very foundational first principle elements. That is what the Board does when it comes down to what is in the ordinance. There are two different types of uses. One is a non-permitted use, which is when we are at the Planning Board here, you see a list of uses permitted and then conditionally permitted and typically, anything that is not permitted, conditionally permitted is considered not permitted. This is going beyond the non-permitted aspect. It is prohibiting the use specifically. The legal consequences or ramifications of that are no matter what happens, it is a D1 variance. So whether you are a non-permitted use or you are a prohibited use, you have to file for what is called a D1 variance in order to build it or get an approval for it and that goes through the Zoning Board. Whether it is a non-permitted use or a prohibited use does not change the legal test. It is still the D1 test. The D1 test is a lot like the C2 variance that we see here with additional legal hurdles. What happens with the non-permitted use, you have the positive and negative prongs. The negative prong has you have to make sure that it is not substantially detrimental to the Master Plan, zoning plan and neighborhood scheme. That is for regular non-permitted. If you prohibit something, what it does is that it adds an additional detriment to the zoning and ordinance negative prong. So, it does not change the legal standard, but the weight of evidence that needs to be presented by a professional planner is increased. The legal standard does not change, but the weight of evidence is increased. Those are the legal ramifications of the ordinance that is presented in front of us. The legal standard itself, the D1 does not change. The evidentiary weight that needs be presented by the applicants' professionals does. When it comes down to what the Board has to do, they have to take a look at the Master Plan, put this ordinance up against it and identify whether it is consistent or inconsistent with the language as contained in the Master Plan. It is truly a planning function of this Board.", "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p5.4", "order": 4, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 66.72, "t": 63.6, "r": 75.6, "b": 53.76 }, "text": "5", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 3 }, { "id": "p5.5", "order": 5, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 86.64, "t": 64.56, "r": 427.68, "b": 52.08 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 4 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 6, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 8, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 6 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p6.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 71.76, "t": 719.28, "r": 538.8, "b": 635.76 }, "text": "Mr. Rogers asked if what Mr. Shea was saying was that if it is not listed, it is a non-permitted use. Mr. Shea replied that it is correct. What this ordinance does is specifically prohibits and that increases the evidentiary burden at the D1 level. It does not impact the Planning Board because any non-permitted or prohibited use goes to the Zoning Board. This is just a finding of whether it is not the ordinance that the Board has to have.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p6.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 71.04, "t": 623.28, "r": 541.44, "b": 567.12 }, "text": "Mr. Heller thought Mr. Shea put it very eloquently and made it very understandable. Mr. Bressi also had great points. Mr. Heller asked if there is anyone that can elaborate at all if there is any beneficial use whatsoever to data centers in Jackson. He does not see any personally, but he was curious for discussion on that.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p6.3", "order": 3, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 70.56, "t": 554.4, "r": 528.48, "b": 498.24 }, "text": "Ms. DeMarzo agreed with the fact that the Master Plan Subcommittee did not list it, it is definitely already not permitted. The way the ordinance is written right now, it is very vague. Ms. DeMarzo thinks it would really open up a door that we do not need to open. She does not think that this is consistent with the Master Plan.", "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p6.4", "order": 4, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 69.12, "t": 486.24, "r": 541.2, "b": 414.96 }, "text": "Mr. Parkes, having read through the Master Plan again specifically for the relevant parts of it, thought it was very useful to have this discussion because he realized with that knowledge that it does not appear to be consistent with the Master Plan and certainly outlining the ramifications of it being not permitted to be danger and it could open up an avenue for these to be actually installed in the Township.", "reading_order": 3 }, { "id": "p6.5", "order": 5, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 67.2, "t": 403.44, "r": 539.52, "b": 167.28 }, "text": "Mr. Sullivan stated that if you look at the wording, and he has seen some legal interpretations of this, it is really a meaningless ordinance. It is placating to the public because they fear this is an issue. But in reality, it does not change anything. Anybody that would want to build a data center would have to go to the Zoning Board and would require a D1 variance. This does not change that. Whether or not this is consistent or inconsistent with the Master Plan, Mr. Sullivan supposes it is inconsistent in that it is addressing something that does not need to be addressed and that it is creating a perception that the governing body is directing the Zoning Board to have a certain shaded belief towards an application. While the Zoning Board is an independent body, he does not think people quite realize that Planning Boards are appointed by the Mayor. We are not an independent body. The Zoning Board, however, is appointed by the Council, but it is considered an independent body because they are working outside the scope of the Master Plan and the zoning. They can give people variances that would allow them to build something that is technically not allowed in the Master Plan or in the zoning. To have the Council direct the Zoning Board to have an opinion towards certain types of applications would open up the Township to litigation that it might lose and therefore, the ordinance would create an issue that the ordinance is trying to fight. It is a catch 22. So no, it is not consistent with the Master Plan and at the same time it does not affect the Planning Board. This is a Zoning Board issue.", "reading_order": 4 }, { "id": "p6.6", "order": 6, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 65.76, "t": 156.72, "r": 537.84, "b": 84.96 }, "text": "Dr. Campbell thought this discussion has been very helpful to the Board members. Before going to a vote, she asked Mr. Peters, with a simple yes or no, if this is consistent with the Master Plan. Mr. Peters replied it is not a simple yes or no answer. It is asking for a yes or no answer to what amounts to a popularity contest. Mr. Peters does not disagree with any of the comments the Board members have made, but he is not sure that this ordinance was not crafted for the purposes", "reading_order": 5 }, { "id": "p6.7", "order": 7, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 66.72, "t": 64.56, "r": 75.36, "b": 54 }, "text": "6", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 6 }, { "id": "p6.8", "order": 8, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 86.64, "t": 65.04, "r": 427.44, "b": 52.32 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 7 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 7, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 16, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 14 }, "build_ms": 2, "items": [ { "id": "p7.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 72, "t": 719.52, "r": 545.04, "b": 676.08 }, "text": "of reconciling itself with the Master Plan. Dr. Campbell asked how this should be verbalized and what exact language should be used. Mr. Shea advised keeping it simple and somebody makes a motion to either have it consistent with the Master Plan or inconsistent with the Master Plan.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p7.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 70.8, "t": 664.32, "r": 543.36, "b": 552.48 }, "text": "Mr. Bressi made a motion that Ordinance 2026-25 is not consistent with the Master Plan. This ordinance was placed be so minimal that the applicants can just go in and like a conditional use add more testimony. He referred to the main thing that Mr. Sullivan brought up by assigning out a particular use to ban by affirmative legislation permits a developer to argue the Township itself and therefore the Zoning Board is a biased against the application and that would be a loss all the way around. It would also ruin the Master Plan because they would make you turn that around. That has happened in the Town before. So with all that said, there is enough here to support why he voted no. Mr. Bressi is not telling anyone else how to vote. His opinion is all his.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p7.3", "order": 3, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 70.08, "t": 540.72, "r": 534.48, "b": 498.48 }, "text": "Mr. Shea wanted to make it clear that prohibited use would increase the weight of evidence and burden of proof on the negative criteria of a D1 variance regarding that type of use. It does increase the weight and burden of proof on the negative side.", "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p7.4", "order": 4, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 68.88, "t": 485.52, "r": 537.12, "b": 417.12 }, "text": "Being in the middle of a motion, Dr. Campbell asked Mr. Bressi to restate that motion. Mr. Bressi once again made a motion that this is not consistent, especially with the minimal effect it has for the applicant to just add some more testimony to try to wean his way through the Zoning Board. His motion is it is not consistent with the Master Plan. Mr. Sullivan seconded that motion.", "reading_order": 3 }, { "id": "p7.5", "order": 5, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 69.84, "t": 403.68, "r": 199.2, "b": 390.48 }, "text": "A roll call vote was taken:", "reading_order": 4 }, { "id": "p7.6", "order": 6, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 68.88, "t": 376.08, "r": 259.92, "b": 362.88 }, "text": "Mr. Bressi voted yes for not consistent.", "reading_order": 5 }, { "id": "p7.7", "order": 7, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 68.4, "t": 348.24, "r": 276, "b": 335.04 }, "text": "Ms. DeMarzo voted yes for not consistent.", "reading_order": 6 }, { "id": "p7.8", "order": 8, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 67.68, "t": 321.12, "r": 346.08, "b": 307.68 }, "text": "Mr. Heller voted no, it is consistent with the Master Plan.", "reading_order": 7 }, { "id": "p7.9", "order": 9, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 67.68, "t": 293.76, "r": 388.32, "b": 279.6 }, "text": "Mr. Parkes voted yes to it being inconsistent with the Master Plan.", "reading_order": 8 }, { "id": "p7.10", "order": 10, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 67.68, "t": 266.16, "r": 258.24, "b": 252.72 }, "text": "Mr. Rogers voted yes it is inconsistent.", "reading_order": 9 }, { "id": "p7.11", "order": 11, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 67.2, "t": 238.8, "r": 263.76, "b": 225.36 }, "text": "Mr. Sullivan voted yes it is inconsistent.", "reading_order": 10 }, { "id": "p7.12", "order": 12, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 66.72, "t": 211.2, "r": 369.84, "b": 197.28 }, "text": "Dr. Campbell voted yes it is inconsistent with the Master Plan.", "reading_order": 11 }, { "id": "p7.13", "order": 13, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 67.2, "t": 183.36, "r": 330.72, "b": 169.68 }, "text": "Application for Block: 2202; Lot: 3-ZYSR, LLC", "reading_order": 12 }, { "id": "p7.14", "order": 14, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 65.28, "t": 156, "r": 535.92, "b": 85.44 }, "text": "Adam Pfeffer, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is seeking preliminary and final site plan approval to construct a 20,000 square foot building for a contractor warehouse and to retain the existing approximately 6,100 square foot existing contractor warehouse office showroom. The application this evening is located in the HC Highway Commercial Zone. The proposed uses and the existing buildings are all permitted uses within the zone. The property is", "reading_order": 13 }, { "id": "p7.15", "order": 15, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 66, "t": 64.08, "r": 74.88, "b": 54.24 }, "text": "7", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 14 }, { "id": "p7.16", "order": 16, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 86.64, "t": 64.56, "r": 426.96, "b": 52.56 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 15 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 8, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 4, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 2 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p8.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 69.6, "t": 719.52, "r": 545.76, "b": 234.48 }, "text": "located along East Commodore Boulevard at the intersection of William Street and behind it is Diana Road. The confusing part, this goes back over 20 years, is that the front portion of William Street was vacated previously. So when you drive past and you see the sign William Street and you see the road there, that is not a Township Road, at least the front portion. About a third of the way down the road it is a paper street and then Diana is also a paper street that is somewhat gravel but it is a road. But the front portion of William Street has already previously been vacated. Mr. Pfeffer gave a copy of the ordinance to Mr. Shea so he has it for his file. Again, that was done back in 2004. He cannot say why or explain any of it. He has no idea why, but the Township Committee did vacate the front portion of that. The reason why it is important to go through some of this before getting into the actual testimony, and the Board may have some other suggestions, is because they did discuss prior to submitting this application the idea of vacating or requesting a vacation of the remainder of William Street. You cannot get to William Street unless you go through Diana. There are also two single family houses that are on Diana. But again, technically the end of William Street is not a public road anymore. So, theoretically, it is not really an access point that the public could use. Mr. Pfeffer is not saying they do not use it today, but as a technical matter, it has been vacated. They did discuss the concept of doing so to go ahead and request the application to vacate the remaining portion of the street before submitting this application. That always comes with which comes first, the chicken or the egg. He has seen applicants do that and then they get to the Township Committee and they want to see what happens with the application and then have the applicant come back. Additionally, Mr. Pfeffer asked Mr. Macfarlane if the road had been vacated, what he would have designed differently on this application and he indicated nothing. The application has been designed so it really would not make much of an effect if they vacated the rest of it or not. However, it would eliminate a couple of the setbacks. Again, because they are on a public street, so they do have some front yard setbacks for that portion of the road. The only other thing that Mr. Macfarlane indicated is that he would just add some buffering and some landscaping in the area that would have been vacated. All of this is important to start with because again these roads are dirt, other than the front portion of the intersection of Commodore and William, it is all gravel compacted road and Diana as well is gravel roadway. Diana Road is not going anywhere. There have been some discussions with the Board professionals about what should be done there and, what could work, but Mr. Pfeffer just wanted all that to be on the forefront of everyone's mind when hearing the application. It is important, especially as you drive past that street and you see the street sign and it says William Street, you think it is a street. You could turn down there as it is a street. However, as a technicality, it has been vacated. They do have some variances, but that will be addressed through testimony.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p8.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 66, "t": 224.16, "r": 536.4, "b": 84.48 }, "text": "Mr. Macfarlane, a Professional Engineer and Professional Planner previously qualified and testified before this Board, was sworn in and the Board accepted his credentials. As Mr. Pfeffer indicated, one of the first items to just get clarity on is the disposition of William Street. Exhibit A1 was an aerial photo. The subject property contains about 2.2 acres with frontage on East Commodore. It also has frontage on Diana Road in the back. And then William Street is a 33 foot right-of-way. The front portion of William Street for about 200 feet was vacated in 2004 and became a part of Lot 40, which lies to the south of the subject property. The balance of William Street from that point back to Diana remained as a 33 foot public right-of-way. Mr. Shea asked if the paper road setbacks are the same standard as a regular road. Mr. Macfarlane confirmed that is correct. Mr. Macfarlane testified that there is a street sign just north of the", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p8.3", "order": 3, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 67.2, "t": 63.84, "r": 75.84, "b": 53.52 }, "text": "8", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p8.4", "order": 4, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 86.88, "t": 64.32, "r": 428.16, "b": 51.36 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 3 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 9, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 4, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 2 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p9.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 71.52, "t": 718.56, "r": 543.6, "b": 510.24 }, "text": "the property line that says William Street. A passerby, a member of the general public, would certainly think that is a public right-of-way, but in fact, again, that portion has been vacated.\n\nAnd again, the right-of-way does exist in the back portion of this property. The existing access road that goes from West Commodore back to Diana is currently used by the current operation on the site and used by the adjacent business on Lot 40. The existing building on site is going to remain. The back portion of the site for quite some time has been used as outside storage for some of the businesses that occupy the site. There are two businesses occupying the site currently. One is owned by their client, the applicant, is a concrete business. He has an office in a front portion of the building and he was using the back part of the building for storage of various materials for that business. Then he has a granite countertop business in there as well who uses the back portion of the existing building and they have some outdoor storage of granite slabs and such on the premises. This application is proposing to remove those outdoor storage activities, bring this plan way more into compliance with ordinance requirements, keep the existing building, propose a new warehouse building and provide the required parking and other improvements in accordance with ordinance requirements.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p9.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 67.2, "t": 498.48, "r": 540, "b": 86.88 }, "text": "Mr. Macfarlane asked if there were any questions about William Street and the vacation. Dr. Campbell liked the way it was explained which came first, the chicken or the egg. She asked if they get this Board approval, then will they still have to go and get something done with this street that does not really exist. Mr. Macfarlane replied that they would like to vacate the right-of-way. This front piece was vacated by Committee by ordinance in 2004. In 2004 it was a Committee, not the Council. The ordinance was adopted in 2004 to vacate that right-of-way and it was a different lot number at the time, but it is now Lot 40. They unfortunately do not know the history or the how and why that happened, but it certainly did happen. What is a little confusing is that the tax map has never been updated to show that. The current tax map, as can be seen on their cover sheet, William Street is a right-of-way all the way out to East Commodore. Mr. Shea asked if 50% went to either owner. Mr. Macfarlane replied no, it all went to Lot 40. Mr. Shea asked if all that was recorded in the chain of title or if the property owner filed anything deed wise. Mr. Pfeffer stated that is on a neighboring property so he did not research that. Ms. DeMarzo asked why the ordinance has Lot 56. Mr. Macfarlane explained that the Township changed the lot numbers about 10 to 12 years ago, so Lot 56 is now Lot 40. Mr. Bressi thought that on a road that is vacated it always went 50% both ways. Mr. Alfieri stated that is the general rule. Mr. Bressi asked why did it go one direction. Mr. Pfeffer replied that he was not there, but it usually it goes from where the road was created from. Mr. Shea clarified that what happens with road vacation legally is that it is typically split with 50% going to the person on the right and 50% going to the person on the left. What happens in some situations is that you have one property owner and they can wave their interest. So if you had a paper road in between you and your next door neighbor, you can go to your next door neighbor and say if you sign a waiver I will pay for all of the costs of doing the road vacation, filing the applications, getting the survey and all of that if you give me your side. That happens all the time. That is an ordinary kind of customary practice. So the only thing that we are missing here is probably the waiver that they executed between each other, which is why the Committee vacated it all towards one property and not the other. That is probably what happened in 2004. That happens a good amount of the time, probably 20% to 30% of the time with road vacations. We typically do not see that here as a Board because all that happens at the Township Council level.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p9.3", "order": 3, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 66.72, "t": 63.84, "r": 75.84, "b": 54.24 }, "text": "9", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p9.4", "order": 4, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 86.64, "t": 64.56, "r": 428.64, "b": 52.08 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 3 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 10, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 4, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 2 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p10.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 69.6, "t": 704.4, "r": 541.92, "b": 288.48 }, "text": "Mr. Heller asked if they get an approval here tonight, are they going to then go to get the road vacated 50/50 with the neighbors. Mr. Pfeffer stated this is part of the conversation to have to the Board. He started out saying that he asked Mr. Macfarlane if they had already vacated the street would he have designed their application differently and he indicated no but for again he would add this buffering in that area that would come back to them. Now it is part of a conversation if the Board also supports the request to have it vacated and clean this up. Dr. Campbell asked whom may that affect and how that would affect anyone. Mr. Pfeffer replied that there are two residential houses to the rear of the property. Again, they have Diana, which then goes out to Herman and goes right out. So they would not be blocking any access whatsoever. They would be cleaning up in the sense that again technically William Street is not a public right-of-way. So there are issues with cars driving on that front portion, liability issues. Again, it is a dirt road, but if you drive past it you think it is a public right-of-way. Dr. Campbell said no one will be adversely affected because they will still have access to Herman, which is a better road to access and go in and out of Mr. Pfeffer agreed that is correct. Dr. Campbell asked if this would clean up that situation and then William Street would be removed entirely. Mr. Pfeffer explained there would be request to vacate the paper street. If the Township Council votes in favor it would then be removed. It would be split half to the left and half to the right. Mr. Shea stated there is a Township road vacation application, a formal one that has to be filled out and submitted. The Board can make it conditional that the applicant has to file it with the Township Council and get the approval. Mr. Pfeffer confirmed they are perfectly fine making the application. They are going to put the testimony on for the other variances. If the Township Council says they do not want to vacate this street if the Board still hears the rest of the testimony and approves the application, the Board will hear all of their testimony if that road remains. All he is saying is they would like to try and have it vacated, but they cannot control that. This Board cannot control that. But they agree to make it a condition to make the application. Mr. Bressi asked that when they make the application to vacate the road, they state that on there that there will be no additional development or anything by vacating the road. Mr. Pfeffer agreed but they would add a condition that should this Board approve it and they make the application to the Council and Council agrees to vacate it, the only thing they would put there would be buffering vegetation.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p10.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 66.24, "t": 278.88, "r": 540.48, "b": 82.8 }, "text": "Mr. Peters stated that they keep intertwining the word right-of-way and the word road. He asked if the area shaded in blue on the site plan drawing is the 33 foot right-of-way that was vacated and granted to the property owner to the east. Mr. Macfarlane replied correct, that is the former right-of-way of William Street. Mr. Peters asked Mr. Macfarlane to explain to the Board where the physical roadway of William Street is with regards to the property line between their property and the property across the street. Mr. Macfarlane stated it is right under where it says sign, that is the southern edge of the current travel way. Mr. Peters stated, generally speaking, for the 200 or 215 feet that was vacated and given to the property owner to the south, William Street is pretty much on their property. Mr. Macfarlane said that is correct. Mr. Peters said that when we are done with this application, that portion of William Street, the actual dirt road will not exist anymore because they are going to build a new road, which you can see on this plan. That needs to be part of the resolution that for this portion of William Street, they are responsible on their property to get rid of William Street because if you leave it there, the locals are going to drive down it. The use on the other side of the road uses William Street and these guys are going", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p10.3", "order": 3, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 67.44, "t": 63.12, "r": 81.84, "b": 52.56 }, "text": "10", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p10.4", "order": 4, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 91.68, "t": 63.36, "r": 433.44, "b": 51.12 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 3 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 11, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 3, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 1 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p11.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 67.68, "t": 719.76, "r": 544.32, "b": 111.6 }, "text": "to get rid of it. So, it needs to be clear what is going to happen to William Street because at this point in time, a very small portion of it is on the private property which is now Lot 40. But most of the existing road of William Street near the intersection of East Commodore is on the subject property and they are getting rid of it. It was Mr. Peters' understanding that they are only proposing to vacate the right-of-way up to Diana. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Macfarlane confirmed that it was correct. Mr. Peters stated, just for the record, on their side of the property, they own all the property up to Diana. On the opposite side of the street, as you look at the plans, it is called Lot 3. Lot 3 is basically the open space for the multi-family project next door. So they only have to deal with one person, the homeowners association for Willow Point. So asking for a right-of-way vacation of the remainder of William Street up to Diana is only between them, Willow Point and the governing body. Mr. Peters does not have a problem with the Board making a recommendation. We do not have any approval authority. We do not review it. If they want to get rid of it, it is a good idea. His concern is in that right-of-way area, as you pass the existing vacated portion of William Street, William Street starts to go back where it belongs. Mr. Macfarlane agreed that is correct, it kind of zigs further to the south. Mr. Peters stated that now what happens is, for the very few people who live north of the intersection of Diana and William, which is one house then the emergency access to Willow Point, that cul-desac at the end, as someone leaves the right hand side of the page and they used to go down William Street until they got to East Commodore they have to make a right at Diana then go down to Herman and make a left at Herman. All those movements are fine. The problem is that physically out in the field, this road is still going to exist in a public right-of-way. So, we are going to need to decide what portion of the existing dirt William Street the applicant is responsible to remove or to sign to the Police Department or emergency services satisfaction so that people do not start driving down and end up stuck. Because at some point in time, while he is sure the applicant is a nice guy, they are building an access through their property. And in theory, he would assume it is going to be private. Once you get past the intersection of Diana and William, the road does not go anywhere anymore. It is just going to sort of stop. And then as William Street starts to bleed onto the applicant's property, they are going to get rid of it. We are going to put in a resolution that any part of William Street on their property has to get ripped up. Mr. Peters' point is that they are getting rid of the improved portion of an existing street simply by putting the access drive through their property. So there is still this part from Diana towards the vacated portion in blue that is up in the air. Again, one or two people may use this, but he thinks it is this Board's or this applicant's responsibility, whether they talk to us about it or they talk to the cops about it, someone in responsible charge has to say what needs to be done at this intersection where they are going to ask for this roadway to be vacated because otherwise, we are just going to leave this leaky bag that the governing body, the Public Works Department or someone will have to address. Dr. Campbell asked if the Board could make that conditional upon approval that they would have to work on this road access with the Police Department, the Fire Department, the Town Council or whoever. Mr. Peters left it up to Mr. Macfarlane and Mr. Pfeffer to give us an idea of what their thought process is. It is important to note that right-of-way is right-of-way. It is lines on a paper and we can give them up half to Doug and half to Ernie. The street that is out there, something needs to happen with it because a portion of it now goes onto the applicant's property and he is not continuing it out to East Commodore. He is building an access drive through the property.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p11.2", "order": 2, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 67.44, "t": 65.04, "r": 81.36, "b": 54 }, "text": "11", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p11.3", "order": 3, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 92.16, "t": 65.04, "r": 433.68, "b": 52.32 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 2 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 12, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 5, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 3 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p12.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 71.28, "t": 718.32, "r": 544.08, "b": 484.56 }, "text": "Mr. Peters did not have a lot to say about the property. It is a nice site plan. His concern is that someone has to be in charge. Whether it is us as the Board saying you need to give us a plan or you need to go get a review by emergency services, Public Works and the Police Department to figure out what to do with William Street between Diana and East Commodore. Dr. Campbell asked if that job could be given to Mr. Klee. Mr. Bressi thought that job should be definitely between the Police Department and Mr. Klee. Mr. Bressi is very familiar with William Street for a lot of reasons. The way it has been used has not been the best way in anybody's interest. There has been a lot of stuff going on there and he will trust that every cop knows William Street. Any improvements done on it or if it is vacated should go through the Police Department. It has been in the last ten years really used in the wrong fashions. So, this would definitely be an improvement, but they should run it past the Police Department. Mr. Pfeffer agreed and he was pretty sure as part of the application to vacate a paper street, part of that is they go through each of the departments. Mr. Peters stated it would still require something from the applicant at that intersection because the intersection of William and Diana is on their property as well. At some point the applicant needs to put something on a plan that Mr. Klee or the Police Department can review and says what is going to be done when they are finished with the project. Mr. Macfarlane affirmed they take no exception to that.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p12.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 68.64, "t": 470.88, "r": 539.76, "b": 276.48 }, "text": "Mr. Shea asked for a discussion about the stipulations that we can put on this thing to address everything that we just discussed to make sure that the resolution makes sense. Mr. Pfeffer stated that stipulation one would be that the applicant has to, should the Board vote in favor of the application, make an application to have the remainder of William Street vacated. That application must also be sent to the Fire and Police Departments for their review. Mr. Macfarlane added that they made representation that if William Street is vacated, they would add additional landscaping within that portion of William Street that is to be vacated. They will remove any portion of the existing road within that portion being vacated and replace that with landscape subject to the approval of the Board professionals. Mr. Klee added that the governing body will also be weighing in. Mr. Macfarlane agreed with Mr. Peters' recommendation that the plan has to show an improvement of the intersection of Diana Road and the remaining portion of William Street as that portion of the existing roadway is mostly on their subject property. So there will have to be some work done to realign that intersection of Diana and William Street so that it is within the remaining right-of-way.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p12.3", "order": 3, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 66, "t": 264.48, "r": 537.6, "b": 84.48 }, "text": "Ms. DeMarzo had a question about the Jackson Township Police Department letter dated July 14, 2026. The Traffic Safety Unit is recommended no entrance or exit onto Diana Road. Mr. Pfeffer confirmed that they will comply with whatever the Police Department recommends. However, he thought they were unaware that the front portion of William Street was previously vacated because the tax map is not correct. They did not propose any modifications or improvements to Diana Road. They are going to get to that conversation. In reading the same letter, Mr. Pfeffer believes that their comments were based upon the existing roadway. It is only a 16 foot wide gravel roadway. They are going to discuss some of those changes. They would propose some improvements to Diana Road and then send that back to the Police Department for their review and approval. Mr. Bressi stated they will need to also copy the Fire Department because they might use that back access Willow Point entrance as an emergency. Anything they do there would be an improvement, but it has got to be done through all the departments. Mr. Pfeffer agreed. Mr. Shea asked if they were going to do that before or after the road vacation.", "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p12.4", "order": 4, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 66.72, "t": 63.12, "r": 81.6, "b": 52.8 }, "text": "12", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 3 }, { "id": "p12.5", "order": 5, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 91.92, "t": 63.6, "r": 433.68, "b": 51.36 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 4 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 13, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 5, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 3 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p13.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 71.76, "t": 718.08, "r": 543.12, "b": 565.44 }, "text": "application. Mr. Pfeffer replied that Diana Road is going to be discussed no matter what. We will get to the testimony regarding the improvements to Diana Road. But as far as the street vacation, again, they will put the request in should the Board vote in favor and as they get a resolution, he would put that application in right away. He does not how long it takes the Township to vote on that or approve it. Mr. Pfeffer would like it to be conditional upon the request. A conversation would be necessary about what will happen if it does not get approved to be vacated and what the Board would like to see on that balance of the street. Dr. Campbell thought that it would have to occur in order to be approved or they would have to come back to the Board. Mr. Pfeffer asked if the Board would at a minimum at least support their request for the street vacation even though the Board has no say in the vote. Dr. Campbell said that it is putting the cart before the horse. The Board can only do so much.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p13.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 68.88, "t": 553.92, "r": 542.64, "b": 262.32 }, "text": "Mr. Peters did not know that there is any loss if the governing body does not vacate the road. We would just have them deal with the Township about what to do with William Street. So, if they vacated the road that is great. They would get 25 or 50 feet and the condo complex across street would get some property. The idea is we would have to get rid of the road because it will not be usable anymore. If the right-of-way was not vacated and it stayed on the maps, the same thing still has to happen. You still have to get rid of William Street because at some point it goes back on their property and it will not be there anymore. So, the place to cut it off is the intersection. There is absolutely no use for William Street past the Diana intersection because they are going to get rid of a portion of it and all of a sudden it is just going to end. It is going to narrow down until it gets to a point where they hit their property line. So Mr. Peters still thinks that what happens to the physical road is their responsibility. If they get the right-of-way vacated it makes it cleaner. He is just not sure what purpose is served if they do not get it vacated. Mr. Macfarlane said that he had indicated if it gets vacated they would be happy to put landscaping in there. If it does not get vacated, they would agree to ask the Township for the approval to remove the existing gravel surface and then just reseed it. So the gravel surface, the perception of it being a road at all, goes away. Dr. Campbell thought it might require some signage as well. Mr. Macfarlane agreed to signage or a barrier if needed at this intersection. Dr. Campbell would hate to see a truck coming out of the contractor's warehouse making a right and thinking they could make another right. Mr. Macfarlane agreed they could certainly add signs for left turn only. Mr. Sullivan suggested maybe a berm and a sign. Mr. Macfarlane agreed to work out those details.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p13.3", "order": 3, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 66, "t": 251.52, "r": 539.28, "b": 84.48 }, "text": "Mr. Heller asked if there were any easements, utility easements or actual easements on William Street. Mr. Macfarlane replied there are power lines there, so that would have to be researched and confirmed as part of the vacation process. What rights that those utility companies may have and need to retain. It is most appropriate in the best interest of their applicant and of the Township to have that portion of William Street, which really becomes totally unusable and of no value to the Municipality at all, be vacated. Mr. Shea stated we can add that as a stipulation the way that it was described a few minutes ago. Mr. Sullivan said they might you might still need to provide access to power companies if there are easements on there. Mr. Macfarlane is hopeful that can all be worked out. If the street cannot be vacated, their position is that the application still proceeds. They did not want the application having to rely on a street vacation. Dr. Campbell can understand that and that makes sense but it does rely on it. It still has to be vacated and that is up to the applicant, the Council, the Fire Department and the Police", "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p13.4", "order": 4, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 67.44, "t": 63.6, "r": 81.36, "b": 53.28 }, "text": "13", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 3 }, { "id": "p13.5", "order": 5, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 91.92, "t": 64.08, "r": 433.92, "b": 51.6 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 4 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 14, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 5, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 3 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p14.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 72, "t": 718.56, "r": 540.24, "b": 606.96 }, "text": "Department. Mr. Sullivan stated that for the public good, it would be generally a good thing if something was settled about William Street. The worst case scenario is they may have to have some kind of barrier or fence that the electric company can have access to, or if they can landscape it out very nicely and make it nice for the neighbors and everyone else it solves a really big problem. He personally does not have a problem with recommending to the Council that they vacate it. Mr. Bressi felt that any improvements in that area can only be beneficial. If this plan came through like it is planned and all this happens and it came in front of the Council, if he is still on it, going with everything that was said here, he would probably recommend it.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p14.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 69.84, "t": 594.96, "r": 542.4, "b": 317.52 }, "text": "Mr. Macfarlane continued his testimony regarding the application. Exhibit A2 showed the site plan that was submitted. The property includes an area of 2.2 acres in the HC Zone. What is proposed is a new single warehouse building with five tenant spaces, a floor area of 20,000 square feet, a 19,000 square foot warehouse and a 1,000 square foot office space. The existing building in the front portion of the site is about 6,000 square feet and that will remain. The existing parking for that building is in the front of the building with another couple spaces. That will all be removed to allow the new driveway and new parking areas to be constructed. There is a new singular driveway proposed coming off of East Commodore designed in accordance with County access and geometry requirements. They have a total of 42 parking spaces on site. The plan says 43, but it is actually 42. There are 39 are required by ordinance. So they meet the parking requirements of the ordinance. For the warehouse building, each unit has two overhead doors and a singular door to the office. It is a similar arrangement for all five of those units. Proposed are two smaller parking areas, one lying between the front building and the new building and then one lying behind the new building. When they designed this layout, they thought about doing it two ways. One way was having this driveway come straight through and go right out to Diana. The second way, which is the one they ended up going with, was putting in the parking spaces so that any trucks or emergency vehicles that enter the site, they can still get out the back of the site, but they have to weave their way through those two movements. They have to slow down and be careful. They thought that was a better design instead of having it just go straight through. It also does allow for easier access to the refuse enclosures.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p14.3", "order": 3, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 66.72, "t": 306.72, "r": 539.76, "b": 84.48 }, "text": "Dr. Campbell asked if the design includes two-way traffic. Mr. Macfarlane replied that they have it shown as two-way traffic right now, but it does not have to remain as two-way traffic. Dr. Campbell asked the Board members if they want to maintain two-way traffic or have an entry and an exit. Mr. Macfarlane said the second part of the application was to discuss what they want to do with Diana Road. There were some questions about what the Board and the Township would prefer for Diana Road. He and Mr. Klee kicked around a couple of things and they agreed that some input from the Board is needed. Certainly they show it as a two-way access right now, but they are not intending to have any trucks enter from that direction. They are intending all trucks to enter from East Common Boulevard. But there would be no exception at all if that is to be changed to one-way. There will be signage to make sure that all trucks know that they cannot access Diana Road. Mr. Bressi asked about the houses on Diana. If they went one way out to Herman, what effect is that going to have on them? Mr. Macfarlane stated they are not changing Diana Road. He is only talking about one or two-way designation for their driveway that connects to Diana. Dr. Campbell asked if there could be a left turn only out to Herman Road with signage. Mr. Macfarlane agreed because most of the traffic here is going to be small single unit trucks, FedEx type size box trucks. Most of the traffic is going to access the", "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p14.4", "order": 4, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 68.16, "t": 63.84, "r": 82.32, "b": 53.76 }, "text": "14", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 3 }, { "id": "p14.5", "order": 5, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 92.16, "t": 64.32, "r": 434.64, "b": 52.08 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 4 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 15, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 5, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 3 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p15.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 71.28, "t": 718.32, "r": 544.56, "b": 579.6 }, "text": "warehouse, turn around and go back out to East Commodore. Their client, who is the applicant, is the concrete guy. He right now is planning to take two of these units. He has two to three deliveries monthly that are made by tractor trailer, so those tractor trailers right now they enter the site in the existing William Street. They do not turn around. They do not do K turns or five-point turns. They make their drop and go out William to Diana and back to Herman. Mr. Pfeffer said that for the smaller cars, they would be able to exit back out to East Commodore directly. They do not need to go through Herman. Just to be clear, Mr. Shea asked if they are turning this into a one-way. Mr. Macfarlane explained that the exit from the parking area that goes onto Diana is going to be exit only. No ingress will be permitted on that drive. It will be left turn only and exit only.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p15.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 69.12, "t": 568.08, "r": 543.36, "b": 303.6 }, "text": "Mr. Macfarlane continued his testimony. He and Mr. Klee have discussed what, if anything, needs to be done to Diana. The applicant is asking for a waiver of curb and sidewalk from the existing streets. Mr. Macfarlane and Mr. Klee discussed realigning this intersection a little bit based upon the changes being made and maintaining public safety and clarity of what is going on in that intersection. So then the question becomes, do they need to improve Diana Road all along the frontage of the site? It is an existing 15 foot wide gravel road. It is a 40 foot right-of-way. They are proposing the exit driveway with curb out to where it meets the road. Dr. Campbell asked if there is pedestrian traffic there. Mr. Macfarlane not to his knowledge. There are a couple of homes in the back, but there is very limited if any pedestrian traffic. Mr. Macfarlane proposed improving the portion of Diana along their frontage to 24 foot wide gravel. And that would improve the things for the residents there and for the vehicles exiting. They would improve Diana Road along their street frontage to the standard of a semi-improved roadway which is defined in the local ordinances, which talk about the width and it gives some specifications for the thickness of road that needs to be provided. They agree with that ordinance requirement. Dr. Campbell thought the Police and Fire Departments would appreciate that as well. Mr. Macfarlane said it would certainly be an upgrade over what is there today. Mr. Pfeffer stated that leads back to his comment before regarding the Police letter. Traffic Safety saw the application showing a 15 foot existing roadway not to be changed. When they have those conversations with them they will be able to make them happy and satisfy their comments.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p15.3", "order": 3, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 66.24, "t": 292.56, "r": 539.04, "b": 84.48 }, "text": "Mr. Macfarlane testified that there are some variances that are requested in connection with the application, several of them are existing non-conformances based upon the configuration and the existing development of the property. Those qualify as C1 hardship barriers because they are conditions that they cannot rectify or improve. They are not in width frontage on East Commodore, but frontage on Diana and side yard setback of the existing building. Mr. Peters' report talked about the existing front setback to William Street, but that does not apply because that portion of William Street, where the existing building is, was vacated so that it is not a front yard there. So that particular non-conformance does not apply. The other ones do. They ask further relief for those under the C1 criteria. There are also a handful of C2 variances that are requested for the application and these are new variances that are being created by the application. The first one is front setback along East Commodore. The front setback along East Commodore would now reduce to 37.1 feet for the existing building. That is because they are dedicating 25 feet of right-of-way to the County in accordance with their Master Plan. Again, that deals with the existing building, but that meets the C2 criteria. Dr. Campbell stated that it is a benefit because the parking is no longer going to be in front of that building, which is unsightly right now and not a", "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p15.4", "order": 4, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 67.2, "t": 63.84, "r": 81.6, "b": 53.04 }, "text": "15", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 3 }, { "id": "p15.5", "order": 5, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 91.92, "t": 64.08, "r": 433.92, "b": 51.6 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 4 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 16, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 5, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 3 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p16.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 70.08, "t": 719.04, "r": 541.92, "b": 344.64 }, "text": "particularly good use of the property. She recommended they look at some type of berm or something attractive for that portion that is fronting on East Commodore. Mr. Macfarlane affirmed they are removing that existing parking area. They do have just shade trees proposed in there right now, but they can certainly add a little bit of landscaping in the front of the building. Hopefully the Board can acknowledge that this applicant is trying to do his part to make a significant improvement here. The next C2 variance relates to the front yard setback to William Street. They have proposed right now 46.7 feet from the existing William Street right-of-way to the proposed building where 60 feet is required if it is a front yard. If William Street gets vacated that goes away because it becomes a side yard that complies by more than 25 feet in excess. However, if William Street does not get vacated, they would technically need that front yard setback variance. Hopefully everybody is on the same page and agrees that the idea to vacate the street is just and then it will not be a variance. So supporting that street vacation eliminates variances. They have a side yard setback, a little piece of this one corner of the building. Mr. Macfarlane certainly considers that a de minimis request. They have 21.7 feet proposed where 25 feet is required to a very small portion of the building. They have parking area setback relief requested from again William Street. Also Diana again is the same story as William Street. If the right-of-way gets vacated that goes away. Along Diana they have this parking area about 7.2 feet from the right-of-way line where ten feet is required by ordinance. So they have a very small sliver of this parking area that is less than ten feet, so they are requesting that relief based upon the unique geometry of this particular property. There is a setback for the sign at the front of the site which is proposed five feet from the future right-of-way. It will actually be 30 feet from the curb line. It is appropriate to put the sign in that location to at least keep it somewhat visible to the motoring public. If they set it back any further, it is not going to have any visibility. They have it proposed five feet from the future right-of-way line, which does not meet ordinance requirement, but in Mr. Macfarlane's opinion, setting it back any further makes it even less visible and hard for anybody to see at all. He believes that is warranted for public safety.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p16.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 67.44, "t": 334.56, "r": 540.48, "b": 152.4 }, "text": "Mr. Macfarlane stated they are also requesting, which they did not ask for, one sign for each tenant to occupy the building for both the existing building and the new building. They did not include that on the application. But again, as a matter of public safety it is appropriate to have one sign for each tenant. The ordinance only says you can have one sign for a building facade. The building mounted signage would comply with ordinance requirements. The last variance that they have is buffering to a residential use that is associated again with William Street. We talked about the adjoining project Willow Point, which is a multifamily residential project. This Willow Point project has about 80 feet of buffering behind their units to the right-of-way of William Street. The applicant has 200 feet plus or minus from this back unit to their proposed building. The local ordinance would require buffering in there. Their stipulation was that if they can get William Street vacated, they will make every opportunity to put additional landscaping in there to provide the buffering that they can. But given the size and mostly the shape of this property, it makes it very difficult to put any additional landscaping in there.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p16.3", "order": 3, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 65.52, "t": 141.84, "r": 527.28, "b": 84.48 }, "text": "Having identified the number variances that are requested in support of the application, Mr. Macfarlane stated they have justification under the C2 criteria for the benefit of granting the variances to allow this project to proceed. A project which is supporting the Master Plan goals and objectives of commercial development, economic development and creating some job", "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p16.4", "order": 4, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 67.44, "t": 63.84, "r": 81.84, "b": 53.52 }, "text": "16", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 3 }, { "id": "p16.5", "order": 5, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 92.16, "t": 64.08, "r": 433.68, "b": 51.6 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 4 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 17, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 7, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 5 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p17.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 71.52, "t": 718.32, "r": 538.56, "b": 647.76 }, "text": "opportunities, which are all positive benefits. Given that this site does have a unique shape and configuration and its lot width is much less than that required by local ordinance, the variances being requested can be granted without substantial detriment and he has satisfied the test for the grant of each of those. They reviewed the letters from the Board professionals and they do not take any exception to satisfying their technical comments.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p17.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 69.6, "t": 636, "r": 540, "b": 455.04 }, "text": "Mr. Peters asked if the variance for the buffer was for ยง244-193. Mr. Macfarlane replies that is correct. Mr. Peters asked if they have buffer requirements to the west to Lot 2 and Lot 4 and across Diana Street to those residential units as well. Mr. Macfarlane replied no, because they are not residential zoned. The buffer language is very clear that it only applies to properties that are zoned residential use. They happen to have residential uses in commercial zones and the ordinance does not require buffers for those properties. They would be happy to provide some additional landscaping if the Board feels it is warranted. But again, the ordinance does not require it. Mr. Peters stated that the corner of the building requires a side yard setback where 25 feet is required and 21.7 is proposed. It does not appear there is any landscaping there. To put a 35 foot building in an area where you need a variance next to a residential unit, he thinks the least the applicant could do is put some landscaping in that area or make the building smaller. Mr. Macfarlane confirmed that they do have a vinyl privacy fence proposed along that property line as well, but they will be happy to add some landscaping there.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p17.3", "order": 3, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 67.92, "t": 443.52, "r": 540.96, "b": 303.6 }, "text": "Mr. Klee did not have many comments on the site plan itself. Most of the engineering comments he had were for William Street and Diana and we have covered that thoroughly. For that side yard setback, the 21.7, he asked if there is not 3.3 feet that can make it comply. Mr. Macfarlane really did not think so because they are pretty tight with the design the way it is. That request is so de minimis that he does not think there is any impact regarding that 21.7 feet. Mr. Klee will leave it to the Board, but it seems like 3.3 feet would be easy to make up so they comply. Rotate the building a little bit, bring the northerly end closer to the property line, which will let them drop down to 21.7 to 25. He just thinks there is some room. Dr. Campbell stated the Board is making a lot of considerations here, so the applicant has got to do their share on considerations. Mr. Macfarlane offered 22.5 feet. Dr. Campbell said that is better than nothing.", "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p17.4", "order": 4, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 66, "t": 292.8, "r": 540.48, "b": 166.56 }, "text": "Mr. Bressi understood that the Cl variance is all pre-existing. But with all of the C2 variances, if the road does not get vacated, that changes a lot. If they do not have to come back in front of the Board, it still has to be addressed some way. Maybe Mr. Klee can come back to the Board and say they have arranged everything to work around the lack of the vacated road. Mr. Pfeffer agreed that they will still comply with Fire and Police and to make sure that the Board professionals are happy with whatever they are proposing. Mr. Bressi asked that Mr. Klee come back to review it with the Board as he has in the past. Dr. Campbell stated the Board will rely on Mr. Klee if that does not get passed. Mr. Pfeffer said it is their intent to make it a nice project, but also to comply with outside agencies and the Board's conditions.", "reading_order": 3 }, { "id": "p17.5", "order": 5, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 65.28, "t": 155.52, "r": 537.84, "b": 84.24 }, "text": "Mr. Sullivan asked if the applicant received a letter from the Fire District. Mr. Macfarlane replied they did get a review letter dated March 3, 2026 that had a couple of comments that were not significant. It talked about Knox Box insulation, landscaping and making sure there is no mulch in close proximity to the bed. They do have a fire hydrant on site. The Fire Bureau wants them to adjust that. The letter also addressed emergency disconnects for the EV charging", "reading_order": 4 }, { "id": "p17.6", "order": 6, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 66.48, "t": 63.6, "r": 80.88, "b": 52.8 }, "text": "17", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 5 }, { "id": "p17.7", "order": 7, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 91.92, "t": 63.84, "r": 433.2, "b": 51.6 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 6 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 18, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 7, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 5 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p18.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 72.72, "t": 718.32, "r": 523.2, "b": 687.6 }, "text": "stations, roof signage and display lights for the Fire Department connections. There were no comments on circulation, so it is Mr. Macfarlane's understanding that they had no objection.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p18.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 72, "t": 676.8, "r": 540.48, "b": 592.32 }, "text": "Mr. Parkes stated that the improvements on Diana, going from 15 to 24 feet, would be over the applicant's frontage on Diana Road. That means that when Diana goes beyond their frontage, it goes back down to 15 feet or whatever the current condition is. It is a long way for trucks to travel on that road before they hit Herman Road. Mr. Macfarlane testified that it is not along their site frontage. That is an existing road within a Municipal right-of-way. It is not the applicant's obligation to improve anything offsite.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p18.3", "order": 3, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 70.08, "t": 580.8, "r": 541.44, "b": 385.92 }, "text": "Ms. DeMarzo asked for some testimony on the operations. Mr. Macfarlane said they had submitted a statement of operations which was pretty generic for this type of use. It talked about the proposed building and the existing building meeting the criteria in the local ordinance for the term contractor's warehouse, showroom and garage. The existing building is about 6,100 square feet. The proposed building is 20,000 square feet. Deliveries will predominantly be made by single unit trucks such as box trucks and FedEx type trucks. There will be a need for tractor trailers to access the site periodically. The owner of the site who is planning to take two of the spaces does have a need for tractor trailers to enter the site two or three times a month. One of the conditions we spoke about was restricting the access to Diana Road to egress only, eliminating the ingress. The normal hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Ms. DeMarzo asked about the showroom and if there will be any retail sales from there. Mr. Macfarlane replied there is no separate retail but again whatever is permitted by ordinance, so whatever that definition of showroom is defined by local ordinance that would be possible.", "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p18.4", "order": 4, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 67.44, "t": 375.12, "r": 541.92, "b": 138.96 }, "text": "Dr. Campbell asked what is happening with the owner's building in the front since he is taking two of the new locations. Mr. Macfarlane replied that he is currently in the front portion of the existing building. He is going to retain ownership of the property. He will lease that to somebody else. He is going to move into two of the spaces. He has been using the site for a lot of outdoor storage that is all going to be removed because they have stipulated no outside storage as there is none proposed for this application. Dr. Campbell said that we really do not know what is going in the front portion. Mr. Macfarlane stated right now it is set up for two separate spaces. That of course could change to one space or four spaces. That is not regulated by this Board. Market conditions and economy determine what type of business and who is going to be in there. Dr. Campbell asked about the parking spaces. Mr. Macfarlane replied there are parking spaces between the two buildings. The front building requires 16 parking spaces and they actually have 20 that are in the front portion of the site. The remainder are in the back of the site and along the new warehouse building. Again, they have 42 spaces proposed where 39 are required by ordinance and they have them distributed throughout the site. Dr. Campbell asked if there are tractor trailers coming in now. Mr. Macfarlane reiterated that they do, but only about two or three times a month. There are no loading docks proposed and this is not set up for significant tractor trailer traffic.", "reading_order": 3 }, { "id": "p18.5", "order": 5, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 65.76, "t": 127.68, "r": 535.92, "b": 84 }, "text": "Ms. DeMarzo asked if there are going to be any improvements made to the existing office space. Mr. Macfarlane does not know what the plans are for the interior of that building. Ms. DeMarzo asked if there are architectural plans for the warehouses. Mr. Macfarlane affirmed they did", "reading_order": 4 }, { "id": "p18.6", "order": 6, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 67.44, "t": 63.12, "r": 81.84, "b": 52.8 }, "text": "18", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 5 }, { "id": "p18.7", "order": 7, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 92.16, "t": 63.84, "r": 434.16, "b": 50.88 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 6 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 19, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 6, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 4 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p19.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 72, "t": 719.76, "r": 534, "b": 676.8 }, "text": "submit architectural plans for the warehouse building. Mr. Pfeffer stated that the owner placed stucco on the front of the existing building. The owner did improve it and clean it up when he acquired it.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p19.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 71.76, "t": 664.8, "r": 539.76, "b": 607.68 }, "text": "Mr. Sullivan asked if the statement of operations is basically how they are operating at this time. Mr. Pfeffer replied yes, except for all of the outdoor storage of materials. All that will be removed. Dr. Campbell asked if they will stipulating no overnight parking. Mr. Pfeffer replied yes.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p19.3", "order": 3, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 71.28, "t": 596.4, "r": 543.12, "b": 538.8 }, "text": "Mr. Heller asked about the restrooms. He asked if there is going to be plumbing. Mr. Macfarlane replied yes, there will be plumbing in the building. They have water and sewer going to the building. There will be bathrooms for each of the units. There is one small office in each unit.", "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p19.4", "order": 4, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 66.96, "t": 526.56, "r": 541.2, "b": 99.12 }, "text": "Mr. Bressi stated that their frontage on Diana Road is going to be 24 feet, but the rest of that is 15 feet. The applicant is going to use that road a lot. He asked if there is any contribution or anything the applicant can do to take the rest of the roadway and widen it to that 24 feet. He realizes they are not obligated to do that, but he thinks it is important, even if it is just from where they come out and make their left that way. They are increasing the traffic. Mr. Bressi said one of their trucks could sink in a hole out there. Mr. Pfeffer stated that if the Board is going to insist that it is a condition they have to do it. But they are improving a lot of the area. The roadway is currently traveled. They are doing their part. Mr. Bressi said they are increasing the traffic substantially. It would be the right thing to do. It is an expense for the applicant, but sometimes it goes along with the application. Mr. Bressi would like to see that as a stipulation. Dr. Campbell stated the Board is considering a quite a number of variances, so it is a trade. Mr. Pfeffer offered 23.5 feet. Mr. Sullivan said it is beneficial for the applicant because it will make the road safer for his vehicles. Mr. Macfarlane offered that if the applicant is to undertake that additional road improvement that they get credit for that cost taken away from their contribution to the Pedestrian Safety Fund because the applicant is being asked to make additional improvements which are not along his property frontage which in his opinion meets the definition of offsite improvement. He is not really sure the Board has the authority to require offsite. Dr. Campbell did not think the Board could do that. Mr. Klee agreed. Mr. Shea explained that the Pedestrian Safety Fund is a creature of ordinance, so that is a calculation. The applicant would have to request a waiver from that from the Township Council to be exempt from that ordinance. Mr. Pfeffer did not know if there are trees or not that are blocking that roadway to make it a full 24 foot. Mr. Macfarlane stated they are now also going to limit the movement from the site onto Diana Road as exiting movements only, so their traffic in theory is only going to be using half the road, not the full road. Asking the applicant to fully improve the road to 24 feet when he is going to be restricted from using one half of the road is a little bit of a stretch in his opinion. Maybe there is a middle ground somewhere. Mr. Peters strongly suggested to Dr. Campbell that the Board should not get into negotiations with the applicant. They are required by ordinance to do frontage improvements, period. If there is something that the Board thinks is over the top, that is fine, but he strongly cautioned about getting into negotiations with an applicant. Dr. Campbell asked if it can be done, will the applicant take a look at it and consider it. Mr. Pfeffer replied yes.", "reading_order": 3 }, { "id": "p19.5", "order": 5, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 67.68, "t": 65.04, "r": 81.36, "b": 54.24 }, "text": "19", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 4 }, { "id": "p19.6", "order": 6, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 92.16, "t": 65.04, "r": 432.96, "b": 52.32 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 5 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 20, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 7, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 5 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p20.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 71.76, "t": 717.36, "r": 545.04, "b": 619.44 }, "text": "Ms. DeMarzo asked why there is no screening around the dumpster. Mr. Macfarlane replied they do not have any screening proposed around the dumpsters given their locations and that they are pretty far back on the site and out of the public view. They did not propose any screening for the dumpsters, so they are asking for that waiver on landscape screening around the dumpsters for this particular site. Mr. Macfarlane then corrected himself because the landscape plan does show bushes around the back end. He confirmed that they do have some proposed so they do not need that waiver.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p20.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 70.8, "t": 607.44, "r": 543.12, "b": 509.76 }, "text": "Ms. DeMarzo asked about the lighting. Mr. Macfarlane said they had a very small comment about adjusting the lighting slightly. Mr. Bressi asked if they could work with the Police Department on the lighting because they may encourage some lighting up where William Street used to continue and at the back entrance to Willow Point. Mr. Macfarlane replied extra lighting is pointed in that direction so far, but they could add another light along Diana Road. They have no objection to adding lighting on Diana Road which they would keep on their property so it does not have to become part of the lease.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p20.3", "order": 3, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 70.56, "t": 497.76, "r": 531.84, "b": 469.2 }, "text": "Mr. Sullivan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bressi, to take a short break starting at 8:32 p.m. All members in favor among those present.", "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p20.4", "order": 4, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 70.32, "t": 456.48, "r": 542.16, "b": 428.16 }, "text": "Mr. Sullivan made a motion, seconded by Ms. DeMarzo, to go back into session at 8:44 p.m. All members in favor among those present.", "reading_order": 3 }, { "id": "p20.5", "order": 5, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 67.2, "t": 414.96, "r": 540.24, "b": 84.48 }, "text": "Scott Kennel, a Traffic Expert with McDonough & Rea Associates located at 1431 Lakewood Road in Manasquan, was sworn in and the Board accepted his credentials. His office prepared a traffic study dated March 9, 2026. And as part of that traffic study, they conducted traffic counts at the phantom intersection of William Street and East Commodore in February of this year. They conducted the counts from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.\n\nBasically, the morning peak hour is 8:15 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. with approximately 430 vehicles two-way in that section of East Commodore. In the afternoon, the peak hour is from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. with approximately 530 vehicles two-way on East Commodore. Given the type of use that is proposed here, they consulted the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual and determined that during the morning peak hour, the new 20,000 square foot building would generate approximately 17 trips. That is two-way in and out. And then in the afternoon, it would be 24 trips. They assigned those trips to East Commodore with approximately 60% to the east and 40% to the west. Their analysis did not consider any traffic going out to Diana just to perform a worst case conservative analysis. Consistent with the Ocean County Planning Board, they looked at a ten year projection utilizing the traffic growth rates published by the New Jersey Department of Transportation. And in looking at the 2036 traffic volumes for the site access to East Commodore, they determined that the exiting movements out onto East Commodore would operate on level service B, well below the design threshold of level service C to D. And then the eastbound left turn movements from East Commodore to the site would operate a level of service A, meaning that the delays would be less than ten seconds per vehicle making that maneuver. The site plan has been designed to accommodate large wheelbase vehicles and they have parking that meets and exceeds the ordinance requirements. Mr. Kennel is in favor of what the Board has recommended, he thinks it is a good recommendation, where the access out to Diana would be exit only with left movements towards Herman.", "reading_order": 4 }, { "id": "p20.6", "order": 6, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 67.2, "t": 62.4, "r": 82.08, "b": 51.84 }, "text": "20", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 5 }, { "id": "p20.7", "order": 7, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 91.92, "t": 62.88, "r": 434.16, "b": 50.64 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 6 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 21, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 4, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 2 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p21.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 72, "t": 705.12, "r": 529.44, "b": 662.88 }, "text": "Mr. Sullivan made a motion, seconded by Ms. DeMarzo, to open the meeting to the public for cross-examination of the witnesses on this application. All members in favor among those present.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p21.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 66.96, "t": 649.44, "r": 542.64, "b": 89.28 }, "text": "Robert Lewis, resident of 150 East Commodore Boulevard, was sworn in. He lives on the west side of the property and has lived there for about 40 years. This property has gone through many owners. As far as the current situation, he is concerned about the buffer zones on the residential side. Currently they are grinding granite. They open up their back doors and you can hear grinding all day long. They are moving big sheets of granite. They have them stacked up within reach of his property line right on the fence. Mr. Lewis asked what type of buffers are going to be provided by the parking area that is behind the building because when the cars pull in there, that will shine right towards his house. Mr. Macfarlane replied that they do have designated parking areas. They have a six foot high solid vinyl fence proposed along the property line that will stop any impact of headlight glare. That is certainly better than what is there today. Mr. Lewis asked if there will be any trees or any type of buffer at all. Mr. Macfarlane stated they do not have any buffering proposed there. Mr. Lewis said the parking is going to be really close to his house. Mr. Macfarlane stated that right now there is quite a bit of outdoor storage that occurs on the property behind the existing building and that is all going to be eliminated as part of this application if it gets approved. Mr. Lewis asked if they are they going to do anything with the buffer behind there because it looks terrible. He had to put up buffering on his side just so he does not have to look at their junk that they have back there. The whole property is full of junk. Mr. Macfarlane replied all that is being removed as part of this application. There will be no outside storage. Mr. Lewis asked if there is a reason why they came up with a 20,000 square foot building. They could not do that a little smaller. He is not even going to be using it for his own personal business. He is just going to rent these spaces out. Why does it have to be 20,000? Can he shrink the size of the building down and give more buffers to the area? That would alleviate a lot of the problems. The whole area does need to be improved, but it can be improved with a less than a 20,000 square foot building. They just pulled 20,000 square feet out of whatever maximum could fit into that property. He would like to see a smaller building and more buffers on the west side between the residents that are there. Right now it does not look like they have any trees or anything planned for behind the buildings. And there is lighting. They have the lights on the big buildings and there is no lighting plan. They just put up lights over there. There are big lights in the whole area. He would like to see more buffers, a decent lighting plan and a smaller building. Dr. Campbell stated that there is a lighting plan and the applicant agreed the lights will be shielded. Mr. Macfarlane added there is a lighting plan in the package that complies with ordinance requirements. Mr. Lewis asked if there are going to be garage doors on the back of this building. Mr. Macfarlane replied no, the overhead doors are only on the front portion. That will limit any activity towards Mr. Lewis' property. Mr. Lewis asked if it is just going to be main doors in the back. Mr. Macfarlane replied there are no doors in the back at all, so there really should not be any activity on that back portion of the site. And again, any of those outdoor storage outdoor activities that have been occurring would be eliminated by this application. Mr. Lewis asked if they have any idea about the people that are going to be renting it. Mr. Macfarlane replied no, the tenants have not been identified yet. Mr. Lewis stated this owner is an absentee owner. He has never met him. He has gone over several times to try to meet him but he is never there. How is the owner going to be able to manage the", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p21.3", "order": 3, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 66.48, "t": 63.84, "r": 81.12, "b": 53.76 }, "text": "21", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p21.4", "order": 4, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 91.68, "t": 64.56, "r": 433.68, "b": 51.6 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 3 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 22, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 4, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 2 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p22.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 70.32, "t": 718.8, "r": 545.52, "b": 442.32 }, "text": "property when he is renting it out to various other people when he is not there to tell them that the hours are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. or do not work on Sundays, which they do work on Sundays over there. Mr. Macfarlane explained that right now they are not working under an approved site plan. If this site plan is approved, it is going to be subject to all the representations and the conditions of the approval. Dr. Campbell stated the operations are Monday through Saturday, not Sunday. Mr. Lewis said they take deliveries on Sunday and they are very busy on Sunday. He is not sure what they are doing, but there is equipment running back and forth and he does not want to call and complain about noise violations. He gets tired of calling. They used to come earlier than 7:00 a.m. to start working and he would call and then they would be idling out there with big rigs for hours waiting. They come in from other states with granite and what not and they just sit there and they park and they just idle for a long time or for half the night. Mr. Pfeffer stated that the granite business is one of the tenants that is not the owner. The owner is the concrete corporation. Dr. Campbell reminded Mr. Lewis that this is the question portion, but he can come back later and say more if he wants to. Mr. Bressi asked if there are current trees or anything there that the applicant could leave or if they could add a couple of trees to help break it up a little bit where the six foot fence will be near his property. Mr. Macfarlane replied they do have a little bit of landscaping proposed at the end of that parking area. And at Mr. Peters' suggestion, they are adding some additional tree landscaping at the corner of the proposed building. If there is an opportunity to add they will add some landscaping, but they might not have enough room.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p22.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 66.72, "t": 430.8, "r": 542.16, "b": 84.96 }, "text": "Adam Haidi, resident of 70 Verbena Court, was sworn in. He is on the Environmental Commission, but he is just here as a resident. He asked, relative to the environment, if the applicant has any designs for the stormwater management. Mr. Macfarlane replied yes, of course. Mr. Haidi saw that the runoff is going to a catch basin. He asked if they have any diagrams. Mr. Macfarlane replied that they submitted a full set of plans and reports to the Planning Board in support of the application. Dr. Campbell stated they were posted on the website. Mr. Haidi asked if those plans would be subject to County approval. Mr. Macfarlane replied that is correct. Mr. Haidi asked if they applied for County approval. Mr. Macfarlane said they did. Mr. Haidi asked if they received that approval. Mr. Macfarlane replied they have gotten conditional approval from Ocean County Planning Board with some conditions to satisfy. Mr. Haidi asked for elaboration on the conditions from the County. Mr. Macfarlane had minutes from the County dated April 15, 2026 where they outlined nine items that are to be addressed. Mr. Haidi asked if the County asked them to remediate anything. Mr. Macfarlane replied no. Mr. Haidi asked what the County asked them to address. Mr. Macfarlane said provide the required right-of-way, provide easements for site triangles, add a couple dimensions to the plans and traffic and drainage fees have to be paid in accordance with County requirements. Those are generally the conditions of the approval. Mr. Haidi asked if there was anything regarding sedimentation, maybe sedimentation control, from Ocean County. Mr. Macfarlane replied no, it is not their jurisdiction. Mr. Haidi asked if Ocean County touched upon their methods to control sedimentation. Mr. Macfarlane reiterated that is not the jurisdiction of Ocean County, so no. Mr. Haidi asked if that falls under Ocean County Soil Conservation. Mr. Macfarlane pointed out that the Ocean County Soil Conservation District is a separate entity from Ocean County. Mr. Haidi asked if the applicant would also need their approval. Mr. Macfarlane replied yes, they do. Mr. Haidi asked if the Ocean County Soil Conservation District has provided them with a certified plan yet. Mr. Macfarlane said no, not yet but they have made an application. They have", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p22.3", "order": 3, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 66.48, "t": 64.32, "r": 81.12, "b": 54 }, "text": "22", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p22.4", "order": 4, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 91.92, "t": 64.56, "r": 433.44, "b": 52.56 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 3 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 23, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 7, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 5 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p23.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 69.12, "t": 719.04, "r": 544.8, "b": 277.68 }, "text": "gotten some technical comments. If they are successful in getting approval here tonight, that would be one of the outside agency approvals that they are required to satisfy for the application. Mr. Haidi asked if Mr. Macfarlane would be comfortable disclosing what the County Soil District said. Mr. Macfarlane stated that he does not have that letter with him, but they had a series of technical comments that they are going to have to address. Mr. Haidi asked any of the comments were regarding the sedimentation control. Mr. Macfarlane replied that is typically one of their comments and that is an important part of the plan that eventually gets certified by the Ocean County Soil Conservation District. So yes, that is a requirement that needs to be satisfied in accordance with State standards. Mr. Haidi asked if that is prior to receiving final approval or if they can receive final approval under the condition of that. Mr. Shea explained that is an outside agency approval. Municipal Land Use Law states any of the outside agencies can be completed during resolution compliance prior to the zoning permit. So they cannot get a zoning permit unless all of the outside agency approvals occur. The Board makes it conditional that they have to get application approval. That is already built into the resolution. If the Board says yes and the County says no then the applicant has to come back to the Board. Mr. Bressi has learned over the years that the outside agencies want to see what the final project is before they give an approval. If they gave an approval on a preliminary or part of it then they would have to go back and relook at it. They would rather see the entirety of what the Board approved, then they will give their yes or no. Mr. Haidi asked if the applicant got an approval from the sewage authority. Mr. Macfarlane replied not yet, but they have an application that was submitted to the MUA for the water and sewer connections. They have a couple of comments to address with them, but they are required to obtain a final approval from the MUA for the water and sewer service. Mr. Haidi asked for elaboration on the stone tracking pad, the inlet protection device and the stabilization of the disturbed areas. Mr. Macfarlane stated these are not items that he testified to tonight, which are supposed to be the subject of this cross examination, but he was trying to be helpful. What the Ocean County Soil Conservation District and the State Soil Erosion Sediment Control Manual requires is a stone tracking pad at the entrance to the site where the construction vehicles will enter and exit the site. It also requires sedimentation protection for inlets that collect stormwater runoff during the construction period to reduce and hinder sedimentation from occurring on the project. Mr. Haidi asked if they have received any of the County or Municipal approvals that are needed for this final site plan approval. Mr. Macfarlane replied not yet.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p23.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 67.2, "t": 265.92, "r": 526.32, "b": 222.72 }, "text": "Seeing no one else come forward, Mr. Sullivan made a motion, seconded by Ms. DeMarzo, to close the public cross examination part of this application. All members in favor among those present.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p23.3", "order": 3, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 67.2, "t": 210.72, "r": 534.72, "b": 181.44 }, "text": "Mr. Sullivan made a motion, seconded by Ms. DeMarzo, to open the public comment portion of this application. All members in favor among those present.", "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p23.4", "order": 4, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 66.24, "t": 169.44, "r": 529.92, "b": 139.68 }, "text": "Seeing no one come forward, Mr. Sullivan made a motion, seconded by Ms. DeMarzo, to close the public comment portion of the application. All members in favor among those present.", "reading_order": 3 }, { "id": "p23.5", "order": 5, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 66, "t": 128.64, "r": 529.92, "b": 84.96 }, "text": "Mr. Bressi asked if they are just running a line to connect to the MUA. Mr. Macfarlane replied they are in the sewer service area. The existing building already has service. There is sewer available in front of the site. They are providing a new lateral for the new building. Mr. Bressi", "reading_order": 4 }, { "id": "p23.6", "order": 6, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 66.96, "t": 64.08, "r": 81.6, "b": 53.52 }, "text": "23", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 5 }, { "id": "p23.7", "order": 7, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 91.92, "t": 64.56, "r": 433.44, "b": 51.84 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 6 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 24, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 7, "counts_by_type": { "footer": 2, "text": 5 }, "build_ms": 1, "items": [ { "id": "p24.1", "order": 1, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 72.48, "t": 718.32, "r": 540, "b": 688.8 }, "text": "asked if the MUA gave them preliminary approval already. Mr. Macfarlane was not sure if they heard back yet, but they did submit the application.", "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p24.2", "order": 2, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 69.84, "t": 676.8, "r": 543.6, "b": 330.72 }, "text": "Mr. Heller asked what remedies a neighbor has if there is work happening on Sundays when they testified they are not open on Sundays. Dr. Campbell said to contact Code Enforcement. Mr. Shea stated that the restriction is built into the resolution. That resolution then becomes part of the file that the Zoning Officer and Code Enforcement Officers have in their office. If anything transpires and Code or Zoning catches wind of it, they go into the file and they pull whatever approvals are associated with that lot. They then conduct an investigation or do a site inspection to see if there are any violations. They base it off of whatever is in the resolutions or approval documents that go into their files. If they are in violation of it they get a notice of violation or a cease and desist. Dr. Campbell said that the Board does not know what the previously approved hours of operation were. She asked when would that approval for these hours take place. Is it as of tonight? Mr. Shea replied no, it would be when they get the new zoning permit for the new use and that is after the resolution compliance period. Whatever standards they are currently working off of is existing at the time and when they go and get building permits for the new building, once they are past the resolution compliance phase and they have got their zoning permit, that is when this new resolution kicks into gear because that is when the approval goes into effect. Essentially, once the zoning permit gets issued and then they walk the zoning permit over to the Building Department to get the building permits, then they can start construction on the new site. And the new tenants would be obligated to comport with the restrictions of the resolution. Whatever the prior approval was is what the governing standard is for right now. We do not know that because that is not part of the application. In every resolution and pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Law, they have to obtain every outside agency approval prior to being issued a zoning permit. So they cannot even get the building permit unless they get the zoning permit. They cannot get the zoning permit unless every outside agency is imported with. If one of the outside agencies shoots them down, then that triggers a mechanism whereby the applicant has got to come back before the Board.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p24.3", "order": 3, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 68.16, "t": 319.92, "r": 540.96, "b": 249.12 }, "text": "Mr. Bressi asked if the applicant has heard from the Environmental Commission on this. Mr. Macfarlane has not received any comments back. Mr. Bressi asked if they would stipulate that if they get a letter back from the Environmental Commission, which just recommends, they cannot approve or disapprove, and they have a problem the applicant cannot satisfy, the applicant would come back to the Board to address it. Mr. Macfarlane replied yes.", "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p24.4", "order": 4, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 66.96, "t": 237.12, "r": 538.32, "b": 152.64 }, "text": "Mr. Pfeffer believes they have put together a very nice application. Along with the Board's comments and stipulations it is going to improve the site. Over the years the property has been through many different owners and that is where some of the issues came from. He believes that once this application gets finished up, gets approved, gets through resolution compliance and gets built, it will alleviate some of those concerns and it will be a much better improvement for that whole area. Mr. Pfeffer asked the Board to vote in favor of the application.", "reading_order": 3 }, { "id": "p24.5", "order": 5, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 66.72, "t": 141.12, "r": 532.08, "b": 85.44 }, "text": "Mr. Sullivan made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bressi, to approve this application with the required C1 and C2 variances along with the stipulations that they have agreed to. A roll call vote was taken. Voted yes: Mr. Bressi, Ms. DeMarzo, Mr. Heller, Mr. Parkes, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Sullivan and Dr. Campbell.", "reading_order": 4 }, { "id": "p24.6", "order": 6, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 67.68, "t": 63.12, "r": 82.32, "b": 52.8 }, "text": "24", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 5 }, { "id": "p24.7", "order": 7, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 92.4, "t": 63.6, "r": 433.68, "b": 51.12 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 6 } ] }, { "document_id": 11687, "page": 25, "width": 612, "height": 792, "rotation": 0, "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48", "width_pt": 612, "height_pt": 792, "engine": "paddleocr_vl", "source_run_id": 11798, "item_count": 8, "counts_by_type": { "figure": 1, "footer": 2, "heading": 1, "text": 4 }, "build_ms": 0, "items": [ { "id": "p25.1", "order": 1, "type": "heading", "bbox": { "l": 72.96, "t": 704.88, "r": 146.64, "b": 691.44 }, "text": "Adjournment", "attrs": { "block_label": "paragraph_title" }, "level": 3, "reading_order": 0 }, { "id": "p25.2", "order": 2, "type": "figure", "bbox": { "l": 72.96, "t": 704.64, "r": 531.84, "b": 566.4 }, "text": "", "attrs": { "source": "pdf_image" }, "reading_order": 1 }, { "id": "p25.3", "order": 3, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 71.52, "t": 678.24, "r": 532.8, "b": 648.48 }, "text": "Mr. Sullivan made a motion, seconded by Ms. DeMarzo, to adjourn the meeting. All members in favor among those present. The meeting ended at 9:10 p.m.", "reading_order": 2 }, { "id": "p25.4", "order": 4, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 72, "t": 636.96, "r": 204.24, "b": 621.84 }, "text": "Respectfully submitted by,", "reading_order": 3 }, { "id": "p25.5", "order": 5, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 77.52, "t": 618.48, "r": 226.8, "b": 596.88 }, "text": "Laura Morrison", "reading_order": 4 }, { "id": "p25.6", "order": 6, "type": "text", "bbox": { "l": 71.52, "t": 581.52, "r": 319.92, "b": 566.4 }, "text": "Planning Board Secretary and Recording Secretary", "reading_order": 5 }, { "id": "p25.7", "order": 7, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 66.72, "t": 63.84, "r": 81.6, "b": 52.8 }, "text": "25", "attrs": { "block_label": "number" }, "reading_order": 6 }, { "id": "p25.8", "order": 8, "type": "footer", "bbox": { "l": 91.92, "t": 63.84, "r": 433.92, "b": 51.36 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD MEETING", "attrs": { "block_label": "footer" }, "reading_order": 7 } ] } ] }