{
    "document_id": 11687,
    "page": 16,
    "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": "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."
        },
        {
            "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."
        },
        {
            "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"
        },
        {
            "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"
            }
        },
        {
            "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"
            }
        }
    ],
    "excluded_furniture": {
        "first": [],
        "last": []
    }
}