Rebuilt HTML — PaddleOCR-VL (Baidu)

MINUTES OF THE JACKSON TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RESERVE MEETING- October 7, 2026

The September 16, 2026 Jackson Township Board of Adjustment meeting was called to order at 7:11pm with a salute to the flag by all present. Attorney Jean Cipriani read the Open Public Meeting Act Statement and announced that adequate notice has been provided for this meeting.

ROLL CALL: Lynn Bradley, Chair; Dr. Hofstein, Vice Chair Recording Secretary: Kathleen Bibza Zoning Board Attorney: Jean Cipriani M oshe Heiman, Secretary Carlos M artins Chrystabel Rosal, Acting Secretary Raymond Tremer Jr. Laya Cusano (absent) Alt #1 James Silecchia Alt #2 Angela Kavanaugh (absent)

RESOLUTIONS: NONE

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

M INUTES OF JACKSON ZONING BOARD September 16, 2026 Motion to approve / Silecchia Second/ Rosal Vote and Yes Vote: Heiman, Martins, Rosal, Tremer, Silecchia, Hofstein, Bradley

Approved

PAYM ENT OF VOUCHER : October 7, 2026 $175

Motion to Approve / Tremer Second/ Silecchia Vote and Yes Vote: Heiman, Martins, Rosal, Tremer, Silecchia, Hofstein, Bradley

Approved

Board Professionals in Attendance and sworn in by Board Attorney: Pam Hill filling for Matthew Wilder, Bd Engineer Ashton Jones filling in for Ernest Peters, Bd Planner Gina Tumolo, Zoning Officer Brian Intindola, Bd Traffic Engineer

Brian Intindola, Bd Traffic Engineer

ANNOUNCEMENTS: Application #2 has been carried to January 20, 2027 New Notice is Required

• M s. Cipriani explained there was a letter from Pinelands Commission informing that the certificate of filing for that application had expired and that they could apply for a new one. It was up to the Board whether or not to proceed, until the certificate of filing was approved. The filing is not an approval just a certificate that they had filed an application with Pinelands. Ms. Cipriani received correspondence from their attorney earlier in the week, stating their intention is to get that certificate of filing and then return to the Board. They also indicated they may be making changes to that application.
• GM LAND HOLDINGS LLC (USE VARIANCE 3553) BLOCK: 17201 LOT: 2 ZONE: FA-6 LOCATION: TOM S RIVER ROAD ATTORNEY: ADAM PFEFFER ENGINEER: PDS/ BILL STEVENS
• APPLICANT IS SEEKING A D-5 DENSITY USE VARIANCE TO ALLOW A DENSITY OF 2 ACRES PER SINGLE FAM ILY DWELLING WHERE M AX DENSITY OF 6 ACRES PER SINGLE FAM ILY DWELLING IS PERM ITTED.

(CARRIED FROM 7/15/26 AND SEPTEMBER 16, 2026, MEETING)

Carried to January 20, 2026 New Notice Required

EXECUTIVE SESSION: NONE

Mr. Tremer asked about the last minute correspondence from the applicant for GM Holdings. Ms. Cipriani said last week she got a call from the attorney for the applicant, they acknowledged the Board got the letter from Pinelands and they inquired if she knew if the Board was going to allow the matter to go forward. Ms. Cipriani reached out to the Board Chair, the Secretary and Ms. Tumolo and they advised they would put it on as a matter of discussion, so the Board could make that decision tonight. Ms. Cipriani advised Mr. Pfeffer that was how the Board planned on handling the matter. This afternoon or late morning, Ms. Cipriani received notice requesting adjournment in light of the Pinelands application expiration and that there may be changes in the application. Ms. Cipriani said given all she believes it is the right way to proceed. Mr. Tremer is concerned that they were given warning letter that it was expiring and why they waited until last minute, he feels there should be a penalty. Ms. Bradley said they were put on in July with the understanding that it would be pushed forward since it was the Board's reorganization meeting. Ms. Cipriani said she drafted the ordinance, and it hopeful it will be acted on by the end of this year by the Council, requesting that the applicants are given one adjournment and then they have to reappear in front of the Board to explain why they are postponing the application. The Board expressed concern that the draft had been submitted a while ago. Ms. Cipriani said she will follow up and she will also include the attorney for the Planning Board, they may want to include some of this in their language.

Dr. Hofstein asked the Board Attorney to explain what a waiver is, when and why it is used and why it is not a variance. Ms. Cipriani said the basic premise is it is a request for relief from zoning standards, if there are design requirements than you can seek a waiver. The waiver does not require the positive and negative criteria, just the positive.

Open to the Public

Robert Selzam, resident at 166 Toms River Rd. M r. Selzam said he has been a resident for 39 years. M r. Selzam expressed concern that this application was postponed so late. He feels this is a tactic, on the applicant's part, to attempt to dissuade objectors from showing up to the meeting. M r. Selzam stated he changed his plans several times to come to the hearing and thinks there should be some kind of repercussion. M s. Cipriani said the Board empathizes with the resident. M s. Cipriani advised him that currently the ordinance does not have a standard, the Board has drafted an ordinance and it has been sent to the governing body to adopt it. One of the provisions is specifically to address that, for the convenience of the public and the Board. M s. Cipriani said the way the ordinance is currently written, an applicant may request one adjournment in writing. M s. Cipriani said she can add that the request for adjournment must be within 3 business days. She also stated latter adjournments will require the applicant to appear and request the adjournment in person. M r. Silecchia asked how far, as a land use board, they can go with a penalizing applicants. M s. Cipriani said, anything the applicant is entitled to do under the land use law, cannot be touched by the Board or an ordinance. The land use law does provide for the Board to set up procedures. The Board cannot be punitive but they can establish procedures that are designed to protect the process for the Board and opportunities for the public. M s. Cipriani said it is a reasonable request that if they have not got an adjournment letter in 3 days or that it's a second request, that they come to the meeting and make the application in person to the Board.

M r. Silecchia asked if the Board has the option to deny the application. M s. Cipriani said they do not have the option to deny the application. Under certain circumstances they can require a refiling after a certain number of adjournments. M r. Silecchia expressed concern for how to prevent an applicant from doing this again. M s. Cipriani encouraged the Board to take it on a case by case basis and if an application seems too excessive or abusive, they can possibly require a refiling. M r. Heiman said their concern is they have cases on the agenda and when they cancel last minute other applications are pushed off. M r. Heiman said there is a letter for this application from Pinelands, dated January 5, 2026, due to a change CM P is what is requiring the applicant to resubmit, this was a change from the Pinelands and not the applicant. M r. Heiman's point is that it makes sense from the applicant's standpoint that they don't have to send someone to a meeting but indicated the Board concern is with the last minute cancellations. M s. Cipriani advised the applicant waived the 45 days. M r. Martins clarified, the proposal is to give at least 3 day notice or they have to come before the Board and explain reason for postponement. M s. Cipriani agreed. M r. Martins then asked what criteria determines expert witnesses. M s. Cipriani said the Board has people appear so many times and are accepted as professionals by the Board Chair. M s. Cipriani advised, as a Board member, you can question their credentials. M r. Martins asked how the Board determines experts. M s. Cipriani said there various things but they usually put on record that they are certified in the State of NJ, and in addition there is an educational component and experience. M s. Cipriani advised she will put some material together to guide the Board members with this matter.

APPLICATIONS:

1. BUTTERFLY CORNER LLC (P/F SITE PLAN 960 w/ USE VARIANCE 3555) BLOCK: 15401 LOT: 31 & 32 ZONE: R-1 LOCATION: E. VETERANS HIGHWAY AND BUTTERFLY ROAD ATTORNEY: SALVATORE ALFIERI ENGINEER: PDS/GRAHAM M ACFARLANE
2. APPLICANT IS SEEKING PRELIM INARY /FINAL SITE PLAN W/ USE VARIANCE FOR PROPOSED 18,600 SQFT TWO-STORY PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. (CARRIED FROM 7/15/26 AND SEPTEM BER 16, 2026, M EETING) Testimony given 9/16/26 No additional notice

M.s. Cipriani reminded that this application was last heard on September 16, 2026 and she went over all the conditions placed on the record from last meeting. The conditions are listed as follows: there are lots to be merged, they agreed to eliminate impervious coverage and bring it to 60%, they need JTM UA approvals for water and sewer, no outdoor storage, buffers to be enhanced with planting including trees as shown on plan, planted at height of at least 6ft, sidewalks on both frontages, entrance on 528 right in and right out only, there will be a pork chop island and signs for compliance and safety, will work with township engineers to ensure low light, lights will be dimmed when businesses close, no later than 10pm, they took no exception to Mr. Peters report on grading and drainage, 6ft high fencing on right hand side parking stalls that are along lot 33, County approval for road widening and intersection, improvements to the road must be completed before occupancy of building, there will be a designated spot close to the building for loading and unloading, will work with Township Engineers on location, signage and striping for loading zone, the basin will be fenced, all septic and wells will be removed in accordance with health dept requirements, leases will contain language requiring medical waste pickup by an accredited pickup facility, fence on west side will be 6ft solid fence bordering lot 30. Dr. Hofstein added snow removal for the lot and that the snow should be piled out of site. Mr. Alfieri agreed with all the terms. Mr. Alfieri stated they were here on Sept 16, 2026 and provided testimony from engineer, planner and architect. After the last meeting they made a resubmission, they also have received a

report from RVE on Oct 5, 2026 and from Shari Spiro on Sept 28, 2026. They submitted exhibits late yesterday and all except for one were previously submitted, the only one is a colored landscape plan that was added yesterday. Mr. Alfieri stated he heard the Boards request last meeting that all documents be submitted at least 10 days in advance but added that the M LUL doesn't require it but they did say they would try and cooperate. Mr. Alfieri apologized and left it up to the Board to consider. Mr. Alfieri has Mr. MacFarlane here to testify as an engineer, the applicant is here to testify, Mr. Rea traffic engineer is here and Mr. Borden will put planning testimony. Mr. MacFarlane, previously sworn still under oath. Mr. MacFarlane started with exhibit A7 this is revised site plan that was submitted. This plan shows the changes they made, based upon Board input. They added a loading area on the left side of the building. The parking spaces that were in that area were relocated to the front of the building. They reconfigured the parking proposed, closer to lot 33. The initial buffer width was 15ft and now the smallest buffer proposed up from the original to 22ft. The buffer is proposed at 30ft at the front corner, 44ft at another corner, and along lot 30 the buffer is 27ft. The building is still the same size as originally requested. They have eliminated the need for relief for impervious coverage. They are proposing to use porous concrete for the sidewalk around the building perimeter, and that puts them at the allowable impervious coverage of 60%. They also shifted the building and moved some landscaping and gained an additional 3ft setback to the parking area, along Butterfly Rd. They now have 13ft proposed and originally they had 20ft proposed. They added fencing along lot 30 and along lot 33 for added privacy, 6ft high vinyl privacy fence. They added a decorative black fence around storm water management basin. They are requesting one design waiver, the ordinance requires 10ft wide island, they are proposing 6ft wide, with landscaping, and he feels this is a very diminimus request. He moved to exhibit A8, this is the landscape plan submitted in support of the application, and they added color to it. They increased the landscaping along Butterfly Rd, including shade trees, ornamental trees and shrubbery. E Veterans side, the building is set back further and there is no parking spaces along it and he does not think there is as much need for landscaping, they are still proposing shade trees and ornamental trees. Along lot 33 they are proposing shade trees, shrubbery and evergreen trees. They have landscaping proposed around the refuse enclosure, in accordance with ordinance requirements. Mr. MacFarlane advised that when the buffer is cleared and they have the meeting with the township engineer, if there are any areas that need supplemental plantings, they will agree to provide those and they have no objection to agreeing to any language that would outline the requirement for additional buffering. Mr. Alfieri added that the revised statement of operation has been changed to reflect the hours for the plaza to be 8am-8pm. Mr. Alfieri confirmed they received LVE review number 2 from Shari Shapiro, dated September 28, 2026. Mr. MacFarlane said they have no objections to comply with any technical comments. They also received a report from RVE, dated October 5, 2026. Mr. MacFarlane noted that loading space ordinance would require 12x35ft, the proposed loading zone is 12x24ft and they feel this is adequate to accommodate the type of vehicles discussed at last meeting, they are requesting a waiver for this. Mr. MacFarlane said the refuse is in the back corner and enclosed with a fence and landscaping and he believes that complies with township ordinance requirements. Mr. MacFarlane said they have no objections to the technical comments in the letter from RVE. Mr. MacFarlane said they have not made any changes to the building and signage, no change in any of the architect's testimony from last meeting. Mr. Alfieri reminded the Board, that Ernie Peters agreed, they do need a variance for the height of the building. They agree to comply with the ordinance for the facade sign and it will not exceed 80sq ft. Ms. Cipriani asked if they can go over the list of the all the variances they are seeking. Mr. Alfieri said the planner will go over them. This concludes Mr. MacFarlane's testimony. Mr. Silecchia asked if the refuse is within an area that is going to require a

variance. M r. MacFarlane said they are proposing 26ft from the property line to the refuse enclosure, and it is partially in the 35ft buffer that is required. M r. Silecchia asked why they are using 35ft as the buffer. M r. Silecchia read the ordinance states 244-133- The building or parking setback from any property line common to a lot which is residentially zoned shall be increased by a thirty-five-foot buffer area containing plantings, fencing and land forms sufficient to visually screen the nonresidential use'. M r. Silecchia said the NC zone is 20ft and this should be added to the 35ft, making the requirement a 55ft buffer. M r. MacFarlane said he does not believe that this has been the interpretation of the ordinance by the applicant's professionals or the Board Prof. M s. Tumolo said the key word is 'increased by' 35ft and not increased to. M r. M artins agreed with M r. Silecchia's interpretation. Ashton Jones, agreed with the Board members interpretation. M r. Alfieri said the planner will go over the variance, whether it is 35 or 55ft, they still have to justify it. M r. Intindola, asked for the final parking space count. M r. MacFarlane said it is 93 parking spaces total with ev credit, there are 83 spaces and 10 with ev. M r. Heiman said he is looking at the previously submitted plan and it says 83 and 93, he does not think it is accurate, but on the new plan he agrees there are 83. M r. Jones confirmed there are 83 total spaces include the ev's and they get a 2 for 1 credit for the ev to bring them to the total of 93. M s. Hill questioned the addition of the loading zone and that they are requesting waiver for the area. M r. MacFarlane agreed. M r. M acFarlane said they do not anticipate anything larger than Fedex/single use trucks for deliveries. M r. Heiman asked about the concrete sidewalk close to the handicap spaces, and asked about the last handicap spot and it appears to be smaller. M r. MacFarlane said it is a 6ft wide island, the ordinance requires 10ft, they are asking for a waiver for that. The spot is so they can maintain the required parking on site. M r. MacFarlane said he believes the waiver is so small he does not believe it has any impact on the functionality of the project. M r. Silecchia questioned taking 40% of what is required as being diminimus. M r. M acFarlane said it is an island, not a walkway. M r. Alfieri said the intent of the island is for separation and landscaping. M r. M acFarlane said they can eliminate the smaller island and just stripe the area, and that would comply with the ordinance. They believe the slimmer island is better. M r. MacFarlane said a fire truck can get around all four corners, there are 24ft drive aisles. M r. Tremer asked where the ev parking is located. Ev parking spaces are in a corner, as farm from the building as they can, except for the handicap ev spot. M s. Rosal supports the 6ft island vs just the striping to meet the ordinance.

Open to Public

Bob Selzam, resident 166 Toms River Rd, duly sworn by Bd Attorney. Mr. Selzam is concerned with the porous concrete and compared it with asphalt treatment issue in another town. He is questioning if there is maintenance required and who is responsible for maintaining it. Mr. Alfieri said the owner is responsible for maintenance on site and

Public Session Closed

M ordecai Hirsch, the applicant, duly sworn by Board Attorney. M r. Hirsch spent time with members of the public and residents in the area. He said in addition to modifications and concessions made to the site, he is proposing to extend the sidewalk 1000' linear ft to connect to M onarch Ct. He feels this will address pedestrian safety. M s. Cipriani asked if that is on the applicant's property. M r. Hirsch said none of it is, he is offering this. M s. Ciprian said the offer is subject to getting approval from Ocean County since it is a county road. M r. Alfieri said it would be a condition of approval and they would work with Board Prof and Ocean County for design features. M r. Hirsch said it is his understanding it is in the right of way and he has spoken to Ocean County roads dept and they advised him they welcome developers

ability to assist with installing sidewalks. Mr. Silecchia asked who would maintain the sidewalks. Mr. Hirsch said it would be the same as with any other sidewalks in the municipality, the property owner. Mr. Hirsch said as long as it is in the right of way, they do not need approvals from individual home owners. Dr. Hofstein asked if they contacted the neighbor at 422 Butterfly. Dr. Hofstein said he has not been at any meetings to voice his opinion. Mr. Hirsch said he has been in contact with him and believes he does not have any comments. Mr. Hirsch said the neighbor on E Vets side, was at last meeting, and spoke favorably about the landscaping buffer. Mr. Hirsch added, there are two components, the Master Plan and Fair Share Housing element. Mr. Hirsch said the master plan recommends this intersection for commercial use. The fair share element was included as a supplemental document with the statement of operations. Mr. Hirsch said the fair share identifies this lot and block for neighborhood commercial. If the town had adopted the ordinances they would be at the Planning Board not Zoning Board. Mr. Hirsch said the council's position is that because of Pinelands, this application is not in Pinelands, they halted adopting the ordinances. Mr. Hirsch said there is a Master Plan adopted that supports reduced buffering on this application. Mr. Silecchia said, to clarify, the MP says area to review not recommended. Mr. Hirsch said he believes it states this specific lot and block. Mr. Alfieri clarified the housing element of the MP. Mr. Silecchia asked where this is in the MP. Mr. Hirsch said if they look in the housing element, the secondary book of the Master Plan, page 252-252 there is a draft AH1 ordinance. There is a table, the table was submitted with statement of operations. The table lists this block and lots. Mr. Silecchia says it is seems to be for affordable housing. Mr. Hirsch said it is for affordable housing, higher density mixed use as well as neighborhood commercial. Mr. Silecchia explained the concept under the affordable housing is to have the neighborhood commercial available for the affordable housing. Mr. Silecchia does not think they can take a piece out and ignore the rest of the piece. Mr. Hirsch advised the Board to look at the housing element and page 2, the table shows this block and lot. Sentence 3, after the table, states principal permitted use in the AH1 affordable housing overlay zone show the inclusion of the housing units. Mr. Hirsch said the policy would allow the Housing Administration to provide that 20% of the housing units are set aside and Commercial uses permitted in NC neighborhood commercial zone. Mr. Cipriani confirmed they are seeking D3 variance under the existing conditional use ordinance. Mr. Alfieri said the owner is not representing that the ordinance has changed, it is an element of the proof to support a D3 variance. Mr. Martins wanted on record that they asked about the page in the last meeting and it said draft, he also asked about the feedback the applicant had from the residents has been mostly positive. Mr. Hirsch agreed. Mr. Hirsch said the Master Plan identifies this intersection as commercial use. Mr. Silecchia said it says the intersection should be reviewed. AH page 2 of the draft ordinance this is just an element of proof to support this application. Mr. Martins confirmed that the page they are referring to says draft and it is the same page that is and only says draft because it was part of the supplement to the Master Plan. Mr. Hirsch said the Master Plan, page 62, says neighborhood commercial centers and the word recommended appears in that sentence. There is a bullet point with intersections and one of them is E Vets and Butterfly. Mr. S. Bradley stated it may say recommended but it has not been adopted. Mr. Hill wanted to discuss the sidewalk, and if they are proposing curb and sidewalk. Mr. Hirsch said they will do whatever the county requires and he believes it would match what is on the site plan. Mr. Hill pointed out that there isn't any survey or drainage review and it looks like curbing would be required, it appears there is existing drainage in the grass drainage swale along the road. Mr. Hirsch said Mr. Borden will testify to that.

Open to the Public

Holly Reynolds, resident 3 Mary Beth, duly sworn by Bd Attorney. She is concerned with their claims of NC zone and confirmed that it is still R1 zone, it is only recommended. Ms. Cipriani said that it is correct, and cited professional offices are considered conditional use in the zone and they are looking for a conditional use variance because they don't meet all the conditions. The use is permitted as a conditional use in the zone. Ms. Cipriani pointed out it would be a permitted use if the zoning was NC. Ms. Reynolds stated the part of the affordable housing that was read was just a draft and not part of the affordable housing ordinances adopted in December. Ms. Cipriani said the Board is going to consider the conditional use requirements in the existing ordinance, R1. Ms. Reynolds said she just wanted to state it is not one of the lot and blocks in the adopted ordinance. Mr. Hirsch said that it is what he said and understands it has not yet been adopted. He said the reason it has not been adopted yet is because it has items tied to Pinelands, and it is the intent to adopt it. This property is not in Pinelands. Ms. Reynolds said their lot and block are not on the affordable housing ordinance. Mr. Hirsch said he agreed.

Public Session Closed

John Rea, applicant's traffic engineer, 50 years in traffic engineering field, LPE for 40 years doing traffic work, undergraduate in NJIT and Masters in Transportation Engineering NYU, has testified as an expert in over 250 state municipalities. The Board accepts his credentials. Mr. Rea said they did a full traffic analysis dated March 27, 2026. They did manual turning movement counts at the intersection of E Vets and Butterfly/Grand. They put a traffic recorder across E Veterans and left it there for 9 days. The counts were done in fall of 2025, less than a year old. They did traffic generation analysis for the building based on Institute of Transportation Engineers data. The numbers are contained in traffic impact study. They are projecting a total of 41 driveway movements during morning peak hour and 50 during afternoon peak hour. That is the movement that will be generated consistent with the highest peak hour of traffic flow at the intersection. They projected traffic volumes to a design year of 2035, in accordance with Ocean County Planning Board protocol. They reviewed the NJDOT background traffic growth rate data for the area. They used that data to further project traffic volumes. They identified 9 other projects, in the vicinity of the site, that would add to traffic volumes and have included these in the projections for the 2035 design year. In 2035 there are increases in traffic, along E Vets, of 73% for one of the peak hours, 31% for another peak hour and 30% for the two other hours. They calculated the levels of service for the site driveways to E Veterans and Butterfly Rd. Levels of service are what traffic engineers calculate to determine whether a driveway or intersection will operate within acceptable traffic parameters. Levels of service are related to the delay that motorists experience at an intersection or driveway. They range from A to F, best attainable service to the lowest service. Any intersection or driveway that is operating at E or better is considered to be acceptable traffic, according to engineering parameters. The driveway access from E Veterans will be right in and right out, that driveway will operate at service level B for the 2035 design year. The access to Butterfly Rd will operate at A during AM and PM peak hours. They did an analysis of offsite signalized intersection E Veterans and Butterfly and it will operate at level of service B for both AM and PM peak hours, this is with the no build and build condition of their site. There are very small increment increases in delay that are not significant to the intersection. The conclusion from this data is that the traffic generated would not have a significant negative impact on the signalized intersection. They reviewed the site plan with respect to parking supply, proposing 93 spaces with the 10 ev credits and no waiver needed from Township parking requirements. They have full circulation around the building and all the circulation aisles meet standards. All the circulation and parking stall sizes meet engineering standards. It is their conclusion

the variance can be granted for the construction of the office building, 18,600 sq ft, the variance can be granted and the traffic impact from the office building will be such that it will be compatible with future 2035 traffic conditions. M.r. Rea commented that the typical delivery truck would be Fedex/ Ups size truck. M.r. Heiman asked for the list of the 9 projects they took into account. M.r. Rea answered Grawtown Estates subdivision 482 single family homes, and 96 affordable apartments. M.r. Heiman confirmed it is the list contained in the traffic report. M.r. Rea said it is. M.r. Heiman does not need him to read the list. M.r. Heiman asked if the recent application to build 20 homes and if it was included in the list. M.r. Alfieri said the study was done a year ago. M.r. Rea said that is why they included the NJDOT background traffic growth rate data and said it will easily absorb those 20 units. M.r. Heiman asked if the potential change to the Master Plan was taken into consideration for the traffic plan. M.r. Rea said the protocol to do a study is to take into account what is known and what is approved in the area. That is the protocol they followed. M.r. Rea said the recommended changes to the Master Plan was not taken into consideration. M.r. Silecchia asked which variance is the talking about that he suggested the Board can approve. M.r. Rea said the D3 use variance for a conditional use. M.r. Silecchia said, from a traffic standpoint, the width of the buffer zone is ok. M.r. Rea said he only counts cars. M.r. Alfieri clarified the testimony, by M.r. Rea, is for the use not the buffering. M.r. Tremer asked how they calculate the amount of cars that will be coming and going. M.r. Rea said it is based on the size of the building and data that the IT data. The IT data is accepted by the NJDOT, Ocean County Engineering Dept and it is the standard. M.r. Alfieri testified the applicant is willing to limit tenants to 12. M.r. Tremer expressed concern that 12 tenants with 6 employees each and they won't have any parking spots. M.r. Rea said he cannot speculate who will be tenants here, he can only use what the county and DOT make him use. M.s. Bradley asked what if there is an urgent care, pediatrician, internist and family doctor, there would be a different volume of traffic. M.r. Tremer added that there are a lot of seniors and there is a possibility of 4 medical offices with ambulances and senior buses. M.r. Rea said urgent care would not be an issue, based on his study of urgent care. M.r. Alfieri stated they are seeking professional office for this building. M.r. Alfieri said based on the questions they are being asked, no board would ever be able to approve because no one knows who the tenants will be. M.s. Bradley said they are trying to ensure a level of safety for the public on this highly travelled road and the Board has to take into consideration the potential for medical tenant. M.r. Rea said he has done everything he can to present a conservative accurate analysis. M.r. Tremer said will his calculations factor in the road widening. M.r. Rea said they are providing road widening at Butterfly and E Veterans. M.r. Tremer said there is a 275 million dollar project to make E Veterans 5 lanes wide. M.r. Rea said when Ocean County Planning Board approves this project, they are required and will pay a traffic impact fee. It is County's responsibility to apply the money as they see fit to improve county road network. M.r. Tremer said it is the Board's job to consider they may lose 20% of road when the widening of the road occurs. There is no parking on Butterfly and E Veterans and Mr. Tremer thinks that this needs to be addressed. Ms. Bradley asked if Mr. Rea is aware of the potential widening of E Veterans. Mr. Rea is aware, based on other County projects that they are looking for 3 lane section of E Veterans, including a two lane left turn. Mr. Rea is aware of that because they have asked for that on other county roads in Jackson. Mr. Rea said Cross St has a 5 lane section coming. He does not think anything is proposed for a 5 lane cross section for E Veterans. He does not think it is in the near future. Mr. Alfieri said Mr. Borden will have further testimony on the County project. Mr. Tremer said it still adversely affects this project. Ms. Rosal would like to hear from Board Traffic Engineer. Dr. Hofstein confirmed the limited number of offices to 12 and requested they limit the number of medical offices. Mr. Alfieri said he would have to ask his client. Mr. Martins asked if the data Mr. Rea has presented is best case or worst case scenario. Mr. Rea said it

is a little bit worse than average and closer to the worst case scenario. Mr. Rea said he looks at the average rate for land use and he looks for regression equations and runs the numbers both ways and use the higher number. Mr. Intindola said the traffic report was built appropriately. The issue he sees is relying on the ITE data for general office. He feels if there is a blend of office uses the ITE has a separate category for medical office use and at some point it is or isn't a medical office in the context of the ITE. Mr. Intindola believes they need to take half medical office and half general office to get a clearer picture of traffic. Mr. Intindola said if he gets a suite of 12 doctors the data may not be correct just using general office. He said the Board needs to hear the worst case scenario and he believes that may impact the parking rate. Mr. Martins asked if the Board Traffic Engineer agrees that the Board has been presented with a close to worst case scenario. Mr. Intindola said he does not agree. Mr. Intindola said for worst case that is reasonable, you need to take half and half and present it. Mr. Intindola said the applicant used the general office calculation from ITE. The applicant report is assuming nonmedical use. Mr. Intindola added that if they applicant uses half medical it may not be significant enough of the extra traffic to change the level of service. Mr. Martins asked if it would be possible to run it as a medical office. Mr. Rea said if he needs to revise the report based on Mr. Intindola's recommendation he will do that. Ms. Rosal agrees to this and believes they need to see the worst case scenario. Ms. Tumolo added this is specific for professional office, which has a specific definition per code. Mr. Rea did not realize medical would be permitted in a professional office. Ms. Bradley asked what has been approved and if they are aware of any since March 27, 2026. Mr. Rea is not aware of anything that has been approved. Ms. Tumolo will get the data for this for the Board. Dr. Hofstein mentioned the M ‌icvah and Hatzolah garage. Mr. Rea said that was absorbed into the report, based on the fact that they will not generate a lot of traffic. Mr. Rea did the study for both of those projects and neither are a big project from traffic standpoint. Mr. Martins asked if they would be willing to update it to current date. Mr. Rea agreed. Mr. Intindola said he believes it is data that the Board should be aware of. Ms. Bradley reiterated that the revised plan should take into account projects in the area that have been approved. She asked if they need to also consider the changes to the Master Plan since the study was done. Ms. Cipriani reminded that this is a conditional use application and the focus on the Board has to be on the deviations from the Master Plan. The traffic testimony is ok for the Board to consider ensure too they are getting the right levels of count. This is D3 variance and the focus needs to be the deviations from the conditional use. They need to consider if the deviations create a substantial hardship that cannot be addressed by conditions of the Board.

Open to the Public

Hershy Greenberger, resident 14 Swallow Tail Ct, duly sworn by Bd Attorney. Mr. Greenberger is concerned about the increase in traffic and how it will affect things like school bus stops. He mentioned the Hatzolah garage and the synagogue with cars that are coming and going. Mr. Rea said if an emergency vehicle is present traffic needs to yield, it is a major county road and school buses are allowed to stop and as a driver they are responsible to yield to the school bus or emergency vehicles. Mr. Greenberger is concerned with causing gridlock. Mr. Rea said there is no gridlock, and gridlock is when cross streets get locked. There is no gridlock. Mr. Greenberger said there is an intersection and what happens when the traffic backs up. Mr. Rea said there are 14-15k cars that travel that roadway every day. Mr. Rea said the study is the impact that this project will have on the adjacent roadway network. Mr. Rea said the study he conducted determines that it will not have a significant impact.

Public Session Closed

Mr. Hirsch, the applicant, still under oath. Mr. Hirsch said there is a single ambulance garage that was approved and will be used instead of the parking location that is currently being used and is close to the Monarch Intersection. Mr. Hirsch added to the new garage will be further from Monarch and should ease the traffic at the intersection. He added the sidewalk he is proposing is 1000 linear feet, from the end of this property to Monarch school bus stop. He believes you can fit 25 school buses between end of property and Monarch. Mr. Hirsch stated that professional office, according to town ordinance, allows for parking ration of 200:1, and he feels the statement that the parking ration would change if it is medical in incorrect. The ordinance of 150:1 is only if it is exclusively medical. The professional office in the ordinance allows for 3 medical in the building and would allow the 200:1. Mr. Hirsch, wanted for the record, he believes they would still comply with parking ration at 200:1 even if portion of building was medical space. Mr. Intindola asked if it is his testimony he is limiting the building to 3 medical offices. Mr. Hirsch said he is not, he was just reading the ordinance definition of allow a minimum of 3 medical office. Mr. Intindola said there is no minimum and does not believe that is correct. Mr. Intindola said they are just asking they client do half and half with respect to trip generation. Mr. Hirsch said they will have Mr. Rea update the report and show the best and worst case scenario. Mr. Hirsch thinks it is best to see the report before limiting the number of suites for medical.

Mr. Alfieri is asking for this matter to be carried

Application to be carried to January 6, 2026 No new notice

Open to Public

Hershy Greenberger, previously sworn by Bd Attorney. Mr. Greenberger stated he is a Jackson homeowner and parent with children in this community. He chose Jackson for the suburban life, open space and quieter life and safer environment to raise a family. He understands that professional offices are conditional use in this area, his concern is the size and intensity of the project. In addition to the amount of relief being requested to accommodate it. They are proposing an 18,600 sq ft building with over 80 parking spaces and application identifies 4 D3 variances and 7 design waivers. Where a 35ft buffer is required, 15 ft is proposed. Where 100 ft is required, E Veterans in the main circulation aisle 25 ft is proposed. Where a 60 ft exit road is required on Butterfly only 35 ft is proposed. He is asking the board to consider the safety and character of our community. These requirements exist for a reason. E Veterans is extremely busy and noted that there was an accident tonight on E Veterans and Grand. Shouldn't we be questioning if this particular project is appropriate for this location. If so many exceptions are being requested, shouldn't they ask how to make the project fit the current zoning requirement rather than relaxing those requirements to fit the development. He understands Jackson is growing but it does not mean that every size project belongs on every property. At what point does residential neighborhood feel like commercial corridor. He is asking the Board to consider the extent of relief being requested and potential impact on traffic, safety and residential character of the community. He wants the Board to see these concerns are not his alone, they are shared by families who care deeply about the safety and character and future of our community. Mr. Greenberger said he believes that Mr. Hirsch only spoke to one neighbor about the sidewalk. Most of the residents are here tonight and are opposed to this development.

Holly Reynolds, 3 Mary Beth, still under oath. After hearing the testimony on this application her concern is not just that the development is requesting several variances and design waivers. Her concern is the pattern those deviations reveal. The property is in the R1 residential zone and

professional office use is allowed as a conditional use but Jackson has attached conditions to that use for a reason. When they look at what this applicant cannot comply with, many of those conditions involve the very things intended to separate and protect residential areas from nonresidential areas. Jackson requires 55ft buffer adjacent to residential zoning, the applicant proposed 22ft. The required parking setback for Butterfly Rd is 20ft, the applicant proposes 10ft. The required parking setback as a residential use is 20ft, the applicant proposes 13ft. The same pattern continues in design waivers, 25ft buffer is required along the road frontages, the applicant no buffer. The ordinance requires screening treatment, including two rows of evergreens, instead this application proposes reduced and relies upon existing woods. The question the Board should ask is why so many of the protection are being reduced to accommodate this building. The applicant is asking for more coverage. It is asking for less buffer, smaller setbacks and reduced screening. This raises a fundamental question of this proposal: why shouldn't the building, parking, pavement and overall development footprint be reduced so the property can comply with more Jackson requirements. The circulation design raises some concern, Jackson requires 100ft between E Veterans and the parking aisle and major circulation drive. The applicant is proposing only one quarter of that distance. The Butterfly Rd requires 60ft and approx. 35ft is proposed and parking spaces access the major circulation drive. Those should not be viewed as 3 independent waivers, they all occur within the same circulation system. The Board should consider the combined effect of vehicles entering from E Veterans, vehicles circulating and maneuvering around pedestrians and potentially of emergency vehicles. Is the ordinance creating the problem or is the amount of development being placed on this property creating the need for all these deviations. There are environmental and site design concerns too. The plan shows substantial storm water infrastructure including underground infiltration and recharge facilities. She is also concerned with relying on the existing woods as a substitute for ordinance screening unless the woods are protected and there is a clear replacement obligation. There is a border plan issue, Jackson Master Plan and circulation policies emphasize the orderly and efficient movement of people and goods in consideration of the limitations of the roadway system. The township's Master Plan also address land use, circulation, environmental features, and ground water recharge and sewer service. This application should be considered with broader planning framework, not as a collection of individual dimension deviations. Most importantly is the d3 conditional use, the issue is not whether professional offices can exist in the zone, the issue is this site, with this particular plan remains appropriate for that conditional use despite failing to satisfy those conditions. And whether the site can accommodate the problems those conditions were designed to address. That distinction matters here. The governing body decided residential buffering, maximum coverage, parking setbacks, frontage buffers and screening all matter. There entrance and exit design standards for a reason. This application asks the Board to relax all those protections at the same time. Before granting these variances and waivers, she is asking the Board to ask if complying with the 55ft residential buffer, 25ft frontage buffer, parking requirements, screening requirements and circulation standards will require a smaller building and less parking or less intensive development, doesn't that tell us whether this particular site can accommodate the particular project at the intensity proposed. Based on the cumulative deviations shown on this plan, she does not think the applicant has demonstrated that it can. She is asking the board to deny the request for relief or scale back the design so it reduces the intensity of the development and bring the project much closer to the protection Jackson ordinances require.

Este Friedman, resident at 33 Imperial Place, duly sworn by Board Attorney. Ms. Friedman lives adjacent to this property. She has read the zoning ordinance and the technical review of this application. She wanted to make one important distinction. She agrees the ordinance creates a pathway for a

professional office to be in certain neighborhood zones. That does not mean it is permitted as proposed. The reason she believes they are here is that the applicant does not comply with the applicable zoning standards and is asking the Board to grant multiple variances to complete the project. This is an 18,600 sq ft, 2 story office building with 8 suites in an R1 zone. The code requires 35 ft buffer, where the development is near residential property and the proposal is 15 ft. There are additional requests involving coverages, setbacks, and parking setback. She does not believe the question is does the ordinance mention professional offices. The question is should the Board grant the collection of variances necessary to make this particular development necessary in an R1 neighborhood. She believes this needs to be considered in context precedent, if use requires multiple variances from the standards meant to protect residents, we should ask are we granting reasonable relief or are we changing the character and intensity of the use of the zoning ordinance established for this property. She expressed concern that if this is established, the next applicant can point to this approval and say a similar project was already approved here. Gradually a residential area may become commercial without the town ever formally changing the zoning. She understands the towns Master Plan identifies this intersection for examining the area but examining an area for commercial planning is not the same as rezoning this property. Today the property is R1, if the town wants this area to become commercial, it is a policy that should be made through to appropriate planning process not one variance at a time. Her family and others chose to live here because we wanted a residential community with less traffic, less noise, and more open space. A different quality of life from the congestion they deliberately left behind. The do not oppose development, they are asking to follow the zoning framework that protects the residential character of the community and be careful about using variances to accomplish what would otherwise require a change in zoning. She is asking the Board to deny the variances asked in this application.

Public Session Closed

M r. Alfieri said he disagrees with some of the comments just made, as things have been amended since the last time. He wanted to make it clear that there will be no new notice for next meeting. Ms. Cipriani said the January 6, 2027 date is kept with no new notice required. Ms. Cipriani also noted that if the January 6^{th} date is not available they may try for an earlier date to be heard. If a date other than January 6^{th} is used new notice will be required.

M s. Tumolo stated that on January 6th the Board does their annual reorganization and added they will have a regular meeting afterward. M r. Martins wanted to put on record that the variance is a D3. He read: a variance should be granted in most cases, only if the Board, feels that the public interest, as distinguished from the private interest of the applicant, would be served best by permitting this project. M s. Cipriani does not agree to that statement in regards to this application. M r. Martins said how much weight should the Board give to the testimony of the neighbors. M s. Cipriani explained the Board can give weight to the testimony of the public. M s. Cipriani said what he read is an accurate summary of the D1 standard/use variance. This application is for a d3 variance, it is not a question of the use, the ordinance for R1 zone contemplates, under certain conditions, that professional office is appropriate for the zone. It is not a question of determining the use is appropriate, it is appropriate if certain conditions are met and they are requesting variances from those conditions. The focus of the Board is still positive and negative criteria but it is different. The focus is does this site remain appropriate for professional office use, despite the number of variances requested and on the negative criteria are there conditions the Board can impose on the approval to ensure the deviations do not cause substantial detriment to public good. They are requesting deviations from the ordinance standard and can it be conditioned so

that those deviations will not substantially impair public good or are the requested variances so intense that there are no conditions which will sufficiently ensure the public good is not substantially injured by the granting of the approval, are there conditions that can be imposed which ensure the deviations from the conditional use requirements do not cause substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the Master Plan. Mr. Martins said his point is that detriment to the public interest is still a key factor, besides everything else Ms. Cipriani said, and the public is going to let the Board know if there is a detriment to their interest. Mr. Alfieri said 3 neighbors is not the public and he disagrees. Ms. Cipriani said the public good is a critical part that needs to be considered and what they hear from the public is evidence that you can consider, it is not dispositive, but it is evidence that can be considered. Mr. Martins said he understands that it is the Board's responsibility to determine if it is in the public interest. Ms. Cipriani said it informs but does not dictate the public good.

APPLICATION IS TO BE CARRIED TO JANUARY 6, 2027 NO NEW NOTICE. IF THE DATE CHANGES NEW NOTICE WILL BE PROVIDED

Motion to adjourn Tremer / Second Heiman

Meeting adjourned @ 9:49pm

Respectfully Submitted,

Kathleen Biba, Zoning Board Recording Secretary