Page 3 of 6

stated the other intersection is being funded. Mr. Peters stated there is concern with the standard of the road and it may be 90% saying it's the town's problem however the town may need to be on notice to drive 70 vehicles an hour. Mr. Kennel advised there are other uses on Wright Debow Road with existing truck traffic. Mr. Peters mentioned it was glanced over and while Wright Debow Road is a Township Road, as engineers the roads need to be looked at to assure its sufficient and it may not be the applicant however someone needs to tell the town that something is happening and there should be a way to have the Board, the town and the Board Engineer to get together to make sure the town doesn't get into a bad spot and there should be a conversation had to assure the road is adequate. Mr. Alfieri stated there are no issues to contact the township engineer to determine the Wright Debow pavement and at final there will be a report. Mr. Hudak asked if a traffic study is done for offsite conditions. Mr. Kennel mentioned that typically with permitted uses the intersections that have more than 100 peak hour trips it's un canny and at route 526 there is not a 100 vehicle trip count and if there were a zoning application it's up to the purview of the Board to see how detailed the report or study would be. Mr. Hudak asked if the report took into consideration the approval on route 526 and Paterson Road. Mr. Kennel stated there was a project approved of 30,000 SF plus or minus as well as the warehouse of 50,000 SF plus or minus and the development on Paterson Road was a contractors warehouse and that would be 30 peak hour trips and that would be in the growth rate and if that is added to the growth rate the counts would be ok. Mr. Hudak asked if the intersection that will be improved with all the new traffic coming in and aligning it with Burke Road would there be a traffic signal required. Mr. Kennel advised if it were extended east the traffic is large enough for a signal however 250' west of Burke Road will be improved. Dr. Campbell raised concern about the "T", its taking from an angled street and squaring it off, and hearing the board members it can be pictured by some but not all and this time of year is crazy and these things need to be seen. Mr. Kennel mentioned a document has not been made because it's still in the works. Mr. Alfieri stated the use variance for the class a recycling center had 43 trips a day and they were required to pay a fair share contribution and those improvements may never be made so at least in this case it's going to happen. Mr. Gertner stated with regard to the Glory's Market intersection since it appears there has been request for preliminary approval, will the count discussions be reported back. Mr. Alfieri said yes. Mr. Dolan mentioned with talking about Burke Road and route 526 and Wright Debow Road, is there attention to Paterson Road as there are schools proposed with bus traffic. Mr. Kennel stated this site is adding 30-40 peak hour trips and it was intended to be evaluated and right now there is a deadline with the intersection improvement specifically. Mr. Hudak stated with all the approvals for Jackson 21 and how there is so much truck traffic going through the residential areas on roads that are not designed for this and competing with school buses, it's just not turning out the way it would be accepted in this area, not to mention the traffic going to 527. Mr. Kennel advised that was limited to passenger vehicles and employee vehicles and the site is projecting 34 peak hour trips in the morning and 37 in the afternoon with 2 way traffic on Wright Debow Road to Route 527. Mr. Hudak asked would it be possible to make left from Wright Debow to 537. Mr. Kennel said no, and stated it will be prohibited and that is the way the site plan was developed. Mr. Gertner stated the message of the Planning Board to the county has been loud and clear and the county needs to be more aware of the master plan of the Township and the county while it may be dualizing county line road from the Lakewood border to the lake its done nothing passed that to the west and for instance the Planning Board just found that to be consistent with the master plan and that consistency with the master plan has not been caught up to by the county and the Board direction is giving the applicant between preliminary and final approval to take the message to the county to look. Mr. Alfieri stated there is no problem taking the message to the County. Mr. Hudak noted safety is a concern and it needs to be taken into consideration.

Opened public comment; seeing no one come forward, motion to close public comment by HARING/ Campbell. Yes: Dolan, Campbell, Burnstein, Herman, Wall, Riccardi, Haring, Hudak.

Motion to approve preliminary approval with the stipulations place on the record for revised plan by CAM PBELL/ Burnstein/ Yes: Dolan, Campbell, Burnstein, Herman, Wall, Riccardi, Haring, Hudak.

Recess taken at 9:00 p.m. reconvened by Mr. Hudak at 9:15 p.m.

3. Jackson Project, LLC, Block 7309, Lots 13 & 13- Mr. Klee stated this is an application for preliminary and final major site plan approval for an office building, and there is no basement in the application, the project does require variance approval for lot area and depth and the setback, there is a front yard variance setback required and there is some testimony that should be heard weather or not there are residential uses within the project, and the project should have hours of operations testified too and there has been a traffic impact analysis and the findings of that report should be placed on the record, there is a right in right out configuration and there is an internal safety isle required that is short of 10' and the applicant is compliant, and the grading and drainage should be spoken too and there is lighting and landscaping that should be spoken too and there are 2 sign variances identified and there is a ground sign setback variance. Mr. Peters stated there is a report dated December 13, 2021 and this site is located where office space is permitted use and the variances were listed and there may be an additional required for the dumpster structure and there are a number of design waivers listed and the parking report should be gone through as well as the lighting and landscaping.

Sal Alfieri- attorney for the applicant- stated this is an undersized lot and there were buy sell letters and that should have been submitted as an exhibit and they can be provided, there was a response received and the owners of 7 Oak Drive had a discussion of selling the rear of the property which will be marked as Exhibit A-6

Graham Macfarlane- professional Engineer and Planner, licensed in the state of NJ and has been before this Board on numerous occasion and has been providing testimony on those planning and engineering matters- credentials accepted- sworn- handed out a package that will be Exhibit A-1 through A-5 and Exhibit A-1 is the site plan over view, and as said there were requests sent and after consolidation of lots 12 and 13 it would be 37,000SF and the minimum lot size is 40,000SF and if there was a portion of lot 4 to be bought or sold who had an interest their existing lot is 200x200 which is 20,000SF and buying a portion of that lot doesn't bring this into conformance and for information there is not one property that conforms to the minimum lot size in the area. Mr. Macfarlane mentioned there is also an Ariel that is Exhibit A-4 and that shows the proposed footprint and the existing buildings along County Line Road and it shows the existing lots and it shows lots 9-13 and 14-16 and the subject lot is 37,000SF where 40,000SF is required and buying another portion of a surrounding lot would not bring this to conformance. Mr. Gertner noted there is an obligation to respond indicating the positions that a partial purchase while it may bring this lot into conference it would further bring a non-conformity to the lot. Mr. Alfieri agreed to provide a response. Mr. Macfarlane mentioned when all that is in play this lot has a hardship to grant a variance for lot area and depth as the existing conditions again do not meet the standards, and the proposed building is in the center of the exhibit and within this zone the required front yard setback is 60' and there was a study done to the existing building pattern and it can be seen there were tabulations on the existing setbacks on the existing building on County Line Road, lot 10 is 31', lot 11 is 32', and on the subject premises there are currently 2 buildings and 2056 County Line and 2052 County Line were 26' and 17' from the right of way line and it was decided to put this building in an area that would not give an impact on