Rebuilt HTML — PaddleOCR-VL (Baidu)

The May 19, 2021 Jackson Township Board of Adjustment Meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. with a salute to the flag by all present. Attorney Sean Gertner read the Open Public Meetings Act Statement and announced that adequate notice has been provided for this meeting.

ROLL CALL:

Also Present: Sean Gertner, Board Attorney, Evan Hill, Board Engineer, Ernie Peters, Board Planner, Frank Miskovich, Board Traffic Engineer, Jeffrey Purpuro, Zoning Officer, Anthony Jacob, Township I.T. representative, Fran Dibella, King Reporting, and Danielle Sinowitz, Zoning Board Recording Secretary.

Resolutions: 2021-18: Powalie, Block 12201, Lot 1, 158 Frank Applegate Road- granting a variance to construct a fence. Motion to approve by NAJARIAN/ Hurley. Yes: Costanzo, Fritch, Hurley, Russell, Najarian, Book.

2021-19: Cardinale & Jackson Crossings 2, Block 3001, Lots 2-4- granting amended preliminary and final site plan and minor subdivision approval for a commercial recreational facility. Motion to approve by NAJARIAN/ Costanzo. Yes: Costanzo, Fritch, Hurley, Comello, Russell, Najarian, Book.

Motion to approve a voucher for Francesca DiBella, King Reporting in the amount of $250.00 for June 2, 2021 & Danielle Sinowitz in the amount of $150.00 for the meeting of June 2, 2021 by NAJARIAN/ Mcllhinney. Yes: Costanzo, Fritch, Hurley, Mcllhinney, Comello, Najarian, Book.

Motion to approval Zoning Board meeting minutes of April 21, 2021 by NAJARIAN/ Costanzo. Yes: Costanzo, Fritch, Hurley, Comello, Russell, Najarian, Book.

Matters for discussion: Mr. Book announced there are some items, one being the calendar and the other being the fact that the zoom meetings are being done away with, and Mr. Gertner will address some items on the calendar and there should be some guidance. Mr. Gertner advised as correspondence indicates New Jersey is moving towards fully live meetings and at the time it was not known that other municipalities are moving to fully live meetings and to cut to the chase it would be the recommendation to move to live meetings starting the first meeting in July and this allows applicants to prepare the notices and it gives the public time to prepare, and it has been asked to participate virtually, and it would be asked that if the public is being asked to make the transition the Board members should also, and there should be full participation in house, and having heard from individual Board members and the public, the fact the applications and certain information is available online is liked, and it is liked that Anthony Jacob is present to show the exhibits on the wall, and it would be the recommendation to have the Board move towards the July meetings being fully live and it can be discussed whether or not the meetings should be taped so that Board members and the public can have access to the documents. Mr. Book stated it would be a preference to having things go back to how they were beginning in July and it is appreciated that the electronic was mentioned however there should be no zoom once the meetings are back to a live setting in July. Mr. Najarian agreed, and mentioned as a Board member things should go back to how they were, and like the chairman stated one positive is having the exhibits on the screen. Mr. Gertner announced effective in July, there will be no zoom available for public participation virtually. Mr. Costanzo asked when there is an application where there is higher attendance accepted, can that be zoomed. Mr. Gertner suggested getting back to live meetings first, because there is sometimes complications with public participation virtually. Mr. Hurley mentioned if the Board goes beyond what is required by the land use law, if the public is known that there is technology available and it may not be required but it's requested, if it's not provided there may be an issue, and applicant or subject applicants will find one issue.

Mr. Gertner stated there are a number of announcements and it's best to go in order, and Mr. Pfeffer is present regarding application 3. WSNP LLC, Block 6401, Lot 22, 21, 146 S. New Prospect Road; Adam Pfeffer- Attorney for the applicant- stated this was before the Board about an month ago and there were issues raised with 2 separate houses and there was requests to go back to the lender and the parties have met and there has been an agreement to sell, and the application does not need to change, this was bifurcated and now there is an agreement, there will be lot consolidation later on and there is time being requested for a technical review meeting, and there are now 2 homes on site, and there isn't a huge period of time needed however there is a short 2-4 week extension requested before this comes back before the Board and both lots are included in the application, and this is very close to being conforming. Mr. Gertner advised the Board appreciates the applicant took initiative and advice of the Board to acquire the lot and there are some issues, and the contract is not signed, however the applicant is hopeful because there is no presumptions. Mr. Pfeffer stated that was correct. Mr. Gertner stated there was representation made and the client cannot be spoken for, and it would be difficult to share a proposal because it's UN sure what type of variances are being sought. Mr. Pfeffer stated that was correct, and there will be answers received in a short period of time. Mr. Gertner made the recommendation to move this application to the August 4, 2021 hearing without the need for further notice and it would be asked that coordination be done. Mr. Pfeffer stated the client is very responsive and everyone will be on an email to get the technical meeting scheduled. Mr. Hurley asked if notices have gone to the residents with 200' of both lots. Mr. Pfeffer stated that was correct because both lots are part of the application, and it was mentioned that no further notice is required however a notice will be done to assure everyone is prepared. Mr. Gertner agreed that there will be notice required after listening to what is being said. Mr. Gertner stated that application 3. WSNP LLC, Block 6401, Lot 22, 21, 146 S. New Prospect Road will be noticed for August 4, 2021. Mr. Hurley noted he is not in favor of bifurcated applications and there should be a concept site plan.

M r. Gertner announced for members of the public application 4. KKV Investments LLC, Block 902, Lot 10, Jackson Mills Road has been asked to be carried to July 21, 2021 without the need for further notice, and this is the first request to carry.

Mr. Gertner continued to application 5. Miles II LLC, Block 2603, Lot 18, 470 W. Commodore Blvd which has also asked for a request for adjournment. Adam Pfeffer- attorney for the applicant- stated there were letters received last week and there is the desire to have the letters addressed so the concerns can be addressed for a cleaner dialog. Mr. Gertner stated this matter can also be carried to the July 21,

Page 2 of 4

2021 hearing without the need for further notice. Mr. Gertner stated lastly, given the schedules there has been material provided and there should be an executive session. Mr. Book suggested it be sooner than later, possibly the June 16th. Mr. Gertner advised it would be best to have it in July since it is the reorganization meeting and there is usually executive session on that date anyway.

Applications: 1. Toby & Eliezer Shain, Block 7806, Lot 33, 1 Columbia Court- Eliezer Shain- home owner- affirmed- M r. Book mentioned that Mr. Shain was looking for a 10x12 shed with 0' to the property line where 10' is required along with a 6' in height fence in the front yard of the corner lot, and asked where exactly is the fence desired. Mr. Shain stated there is a gate on site currently at 4' and the 6' is desired because the children have climbed and jumped the chain link fence, and the neighbors come and speak to his children and the 6' will provide privacy. Mr. Book asked if the highlight in yellow markings are where the fence is desired. Mr. Shain said yes. Mr. Book asked if the chain link fence will stay where the solid fence stops. Mr. Shain said yes. Mr. Book mentioned the chain link fence is a few feet off the sidewalk, and asked if the new fence going exactly is where the chain-link is set now. Mr. Shain advised that it was correct. Mr. Book advised after looking at the site, there is no shed currently, it's a coop. Mr. Shain said that it was correct. Mr. Book stated there is an issue with the shed being right on the property line, and there is enough contour to have it maybe 2-3' off the property line, would that be ok. Mr. Shain said yes. Mr. Book asked if it is being used for storage. Mr. Shain advised it will be used for bikes, the lawn mower, and lawn equipment. Mr. Book asked if there will be heat or electric. Mr. Shain said no. Mr. Najarian asked if the shed is existing. Mr. Book stated there is nothing there now. Mr. Hurley asked if this is going into the neighbor's yard. Mr. Shain said no. Ms. Fritch asked if there is going to be visibility issues. Mr. Hill stated there have been similar applications where the 4' fence previously existed along the property line and because it was lower and open there was no site issue, and solid fences may cause an issue, and someone backing out will have to be cautious backing out of the driveway, and it was asked to move the 6' fence further off the property line and the recollection has been asked the fence to be 10-12' off the property line. Mr. Book mentioned this property configuration is similar to his, and his property line does not encompass the sidewalk, and personally the fence was moved in 3' from the property line and the chain link fence is not that far in and if this is moved back 3-4' there should be no site issues. Mr. Hill stated in most of the properties in the Brookwood area, the average is 6' off pavement so the property line isn't far from the sidewalk, and another option is to angle the fence at more of a triangle figuration. Mr. Shain noted the driveway has never been backed out of, cars are backed in and pulled out. Mr. Book mentioned that the Board cannot assure that everyone else is doing what you're doing, and the fence should be moved along Rutgers Road so there is a total of 10' off the pavement, it would be 4' in off the property line. Mr. Shain advised if that is the safest option it will be done. Mr. Costanzo asked regarding the shed, what was agreed too. Mr. Book stated 3' on each side. Mr. Shain asked what the other suggestion was just for clarification. Mr. Hill stated the Board is asking the fence to be moved 4' off the property line and the other option would be to keep the rear right corner at the property line and angel the fence 4' off the property line at the driveway so it's more triangular. Mr. Gertner stated the applicant wants to maintain as much property as possible. Mr. Shain stated the second option would be preferred. Mr. Hill stated with looking at the diagram, the rear right corner of the fence will remain on the property line and instead of being along the property line it will be 4' off the property line. Mr. Costanzo asked if the fence will about the driveway. Mr. Hill stated it will be 4' off the property line. Mr. Gertner asked if the fence will meet the property line. Mr. Hill advised only on the back corner.

Opened public comment, seeing no one use the “raise hand” function; public comment closed

M r. Costanzo made a motion to approve per the testimony given; the shed will be 3' from the property line on both the East and North side, and regarding the fence line, the vinyl fence will be as purposed and will open the site line at the North East corner and as it works towards the driveway it will setback 4' from the property line

Motion to approve by COSTANZO/ Najarian. Yes: Costanzo, Fritch, Hurley, Mcllhinney, Comello, Najarian, Book.

2. Paul Fornicola/ 534 Whitesville Road LLC, Block 22401, Lot 15, 534 Whitesville Road- Sal Alfieri- attorney for the applicant- stated this was here in March and the direct testimony was complete and there were some things agreed to, and the mechanic is present, and it was agreed that any approval from this Board, there would be approval with Toms River as well and there is an application to be filed and both towns will be worked with to see who takes jurisdiction, and Mr. Hill asked there be a fence installed by the wetlands and that was agreed too, and Mr. Borden was here at the last hearing and his testimony was completed and Mr. Clifton is present so there can be testimony placed on the record.

John Clifton- Clifton Diesel Repair- 534 Whitesville Road- sworn- M r. Alfieri asked how long has M r. Clifton been in operation. M r. Clifton stated 2 years. M r. Alfieri asked what is done there. M r. Clifton stated the business is a diesel repair shop, so anything can be done from breaks to motors, body swaps, hydraulics, anything to do with diesel trucks we do. M r. Alfieri asked what the hours are. M r. Clifton stated 9 a.m-5 p.m., and sometimes the shop is open until 6 p.m. M r. Alfieri asked what days is the business open. M r. Clifton stated Monday- Friday with an occasional Saturday. M r. Alfieri asked how many employees were on site. M r. Clifton advised it's himself, his brother and 2 additional employees. M r. Alfieri asked how fluids are handled from repairs or storage. M r. Clifton stated there is safety cleaning company used, and there is a fee paid for anything to be removed such as waste fluid, oil, anti-freeze, and safely clean is used and oil absorbed mats are used to catch oil and fuel, they don't absorb water however they do absorb the fluids. M r. Alfieri asked what type of equipment is stored on site. M r. Clifton mentioned there are some vehicles in the shop and on site outside. M r. Alfieri asked if there is a tow truck onsite. M r. Clifton said no. M r. Alfieri asked how are drop offs arranged. M r. Clifton stated a client would drop off a vehicle. M r. Alfieri asked if the clients let the shop know they are arriving. M r. Clifton mentioned not always, there are times when vehicles are broken down over night a vehicle is left and the keys are left in the drop box. M r. Alfieri asked if the Board were to approve this use, there would be no dismantled vehicles on site, this is not a junkyard. M r. Clifton stated this is not a junkyard, so of course that would be agreed too. M r. Alfieri asked if there are site improvements purposed, such as a parking lot expansion. M r. Clifton advised there are no site improvements purposed. M r. Alfieri asked how much space is available in the shop. M r. Clifton stated the bay is 4 vehicles wide and deep. M r. Alfieri asked if there is office space owned. M r. Clifton said no. M r. Alfieri asked if the operations are just in the garage. M r. Clifton advised that was correct. M r. Alfieri asked how the fumes can be controlled. M r. Clifton stated there is nothing excessive, the normal fumes from a vehicle running, there are containers on site for these liquids and standing next to a container there is no scent that comes from it. M r. Book mentioned he went to visit the site, and there is a concern because this doesn't seem like the right site, and what was seen is at 534 Whitesville Road. M r. Clifton said yes. M r. Book asked if it's the very last day, number 7. M r. Clifton said yes. M r. Book stated it's possibly 20' wide and it's long and inside the bay there was material laid out and parts, and there was access to bay number 4, and there were 2 gentlemen working on cars, is there another auto repair operation. M r. Clifton said yes. M r. Book mentioned the guys were on the ground and luckily it was nice out however in the winter that can't be done, and there was a crane and diesel vehicles in the back are they yours. M r. Clifton stated there is someone who rents spaces and that is

Page 3 of 4

Someone else's vehicles. M.r. Book stated it seems like the best is trying to be done in an area where it's not suited, and asked if Mr. Clifton was a certified diesel mechanic. M.r. Clifton advised he was not certified, however has been doing this since he was 15 years old. M.r. Hurley noted initially it was testified that the diesel repair shop has been done for 2 year with 2 employees. M.r. Clifton stated his brother and himself work at the shop along with 2 employees. M.r. Najarian thanked M.r. Clifton for coming out, and asked when the door is closed and there is trucks running indoors how is the carbon monoxide handled. M.r. Clifton stated there is a detector, and there are 2 fans that went to the outdoors, and everyone tries to not have a vehicle running without the doors open. M.r. Najarian asked if Mr. Clifton feels safe in this location. M.r. Clifton stated he does feel safe here, and there has been no issues and no employees have been injured or himself. M.r. Najarian asked if there is anything that can be done to help with this location. M.r. Clifton mentioned once the business grows a bigger shop would be desired. M.r. Najorian asked how many trucks are bright in at one time. M.r. Clifton stated there are 2 at a time however at a maximum there can be 3. M.r. Book stated to the Board members point, it has been asked what's outside, and there are items being stored outside the location besides the vehicles, are there truck parts stored outside or equipment. M.r. Clifton stated there is a motor on a stand and a transmission, and they will be transported and a good appearance is always attempted to be had, and there are 2 trucks that are stored on site that are his brothers and they stay there all the time, the trailers and trucks are in and out. M.r. Book stated this operation is too big for this space, and there seems to be in Mr. Peters letter from December 17, 2020 item 6, it speaks to industrial activities within a completely enclosed building, does that apply. M.r. Peters stated the zone that the project is located in there are certain requirements and to the extent the repair is the activity, the repair is not a permitted use in the zone which is why a conditional use variance application is before the Board. M.r. Book asked if the bay is currently rented. M.r. Clifton advised that is correct. M.r. Book asked if there is a lease now. M.r. Clifton said yes. M.r. Hurley asked what was in the building prior to the diesel repair shop. M.r. Clifton stated he was not sure. M.r. Hill mentioned in addition to adding fence along the wetland buffer, it's for the entire site. M.r. Alfieri advised that is correct. M.r. Hill asked for the portion of the building that is being used for this be delineated, the variance plan should be updated to reflect one bay not 2, and it was asked that the outside areas be delineated and marked on the variance plan so the portion of the outside is known. M.r. Alfieri stated that will be done. M.r. Gertner stated it appears that the majority of the outdoor activity occurs in Toms River, so would it therefore be helpful to this Board by resolution or agreement to know exactly what Toms River will approve. M.r. Hurley advised this Board should approve or address the use in Jackson and make it subject to Toms River, because this Board is addressing a use here in Jackson, and the design of Toms River may affect the approval, and 1 bay is being discussed and maybe being able to address one truck and whatever is decided for outdoors is on Toms River. M.r. Hill advised a suggestion is currently there has been no testimony from the planner, or the applicant that all outdoor services are on Toms River's property, and there can be a restriction that anything outdoors cannot be done in Jackson, and there is some guidance in Toms River who will be hearing this. M.r. Costanzo asked if that includes the vehicles that are stored. M.r. Hill stated they are in Toms River, and outdoor servicing or storage should be restricted in Jackson and it be limited to inside the building subject to delineation.

Tom Smith- 520 Whitesville Road- sworn- mentioned there is correspondence from May 3, 2021, and primarily there is dumping that has gone on at the site

M r. Alfieri confirmed the correspondence has been received

Tom Smith- 520 Whitesville Road- said the dumping, the expanding, the filling of the wetlands and the areas inside the wetlands areas have been removed and cleared, there is material being dumped and there is clearing and most of this is in Toms River however some encroaches Jackson the Board should be addressing the issues on site

Mr. Book stated the focus of the hearing is on Mr. Clifton's operation being a use variance and although the application is from Mr. Fornicola it's for a use variance for bay #7, is the question to the applicant for this use regarding the dumping.

Tom Smith- 520 Whitesville Road- said not necessarily to the mechanic, however every previous hearing there has been mention of multiple uses, and it's been testified that Toms River has an application pending and that is not true, there is blanket use for contractors.

M r. Alfieri stated if there are any violations of wetlands, clearly the applicant has to comply and this use other than the limited outdoor activity in Toms River, and the complaints being made are to the site as a whole and the site was testified to in support the D variance. M r. Gertner asked if the applicant will agree to address the violations prior to resolution compliance. M r. Alfieri stated the applicant will agree however is not taking credit for what is being done, however it will need to be dealt with regardless.

Seeing no else use the “raise hand” function, public comment closed.

Mr. Alfieri stated the use was refined this evening to a much more reasonable request and it's asked that the Board grant D variance relief with no outdoor activity in Jackson and all technical comments will be addressed to Toms River will be provided with whatever conditions are given and any violations that may be on site will be addressed as a condition of approval. Mr. Book asked if the hours were 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Mr. Alfieri stated Mr. Borden did testify to longer hours, however it is Monday through Friday 9 a.m.-5 p.m. possibly 6 p.m. with an occasional Saturday. Mr. Najarian asked if the wetland issue be spoken too. Mr. Hill stated the plans that were prepared indicate a portion of the exterior gravel has encroached on the wetland buffer which is under pinelands jurisdiction and the applicant has agreed to restore those areas based on pinelands regulations, and to assure this does not occur in the future there will be a 6' chain link fence along the wetlands so they are protected. Mr. Alfieri stated as it relates to the fence there is no activity where there is a wooded area. Mr. Hill stated the fence should be along the wetland buffer where the parking area is and to a point where the site is developed currently. Mr. Hurley asked if the use of the other tenants. Mr. Purpuro stated prior to appointment of Zoning Officer there were multiple tenants in this building, and even in 2001-2002 it was solely owned by a drywall company and once they left there were different tenants, and over the years some of the tenants that were renting outside got more aggressive with the site and took advantage of ownership and its trying to be reeled back in. Mr. Hurley was curious if someone comes in and they want a retail space and it could be broken down as long as all the uses are permitted, it was originally a single use and was changed. Mr. Purpuro stated whenever the prior approvals were looked, only the subdivision was found. Mr. Hill stated it's been asked that the variance plan be delineated so the intensity is known. Mr. Book stated after reviewing chapter 244-97, PM zone ordinance similarities are searched, and within the permitted uses there is food processing, canning, bottling, and there is noise concern, is there assurance that those tucks won't be running prior to 9 am or after 6 pm. Mr. Alfieri asked if there is an issue with not having trucks running before or after operations. Mr. Clifton stated there is no issue. Mr. Book stated the operation as defined here and as conditions wouldn't have a determinant to the public good, there are mixed uses and there is a mechanic shop in there already however the concern is the facility itself, it just doesn't seem like enough space for the operations that are happening. Ms. M. Clhinney agreed, and the current uses are

Page 4 of 4

similar and there is no further detriment or negative impact, if this were approved it would be a comfortable vote. Mr. Hurley agreed with the chairman's analysis and there is a benefit and there are no negative impacts and the noise is an enforcement issue. Mr. Najarian stated if this is felt to be safe, safety and health are most important and if the applicant feels comfortable doing it that's all there is to it.

Motion to approve with all stipulations placed on the record by COSTANZO/ Najarian. Yes: Costanzo, Fritch, Hurley, Mcllhinney, Comello, Najarian, Book.

Motion to adjourn by NAJARIAN at 8:57 pm. Yes: Unanimous by all those present.

Respectfully submitted,

Danielle Sinowitz, Zoning Board Recording Secretary