{
    "document_id": 11687,
    "page": 15,
    "width_pt": 612,
    "height_pt": 792,
    "rotation": 0,
    "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48",
    "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."
        },
        {
            "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."
        },
        {
            "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"
        },
        {
            "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"
            }
        },
        {
            "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"
            }
        }
    ],
    "excluded_furniture": {
        "first": [],
        "last": []
    }
}