[ { "page": 1, "items": [ { "page": 1, "type": "TITLE", "location": { "l": 195.36, "t": 989.04, "r": 442.32, "b": 957.36 }, "text": "JACKSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING\nMONDAY, JULY 26, 2021", "reading_order": 0, "level": 1 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.72, "t": 939.12, "r": 563.52, "b": 895.68 }, "text": "The July 26 2, 2021 meeting of the Jackson Township Board was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Planning Board Secretary, Denise Buono with a salute to the flag by all present. Attorney Sean Gertner read the Open Public Meetings Act Statement noting that adequate notice has been provided and advertised in the manner prescribed by law.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.72, "t": 878.64, "r": 250.56, "b": 865.68 }, "text": "ROLL CALL: Tim Dolan- arrived at 7:42 p.m.", "reading_order": 2 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 312.48, "t": 878.64, "r": 461.76, "b": 865.92 }, "text": "Terence Wall, Township Representative", "reading_order": 3 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 132.96, "t": 863.28, "r": 427.68, "b": 850.32 }, "text": "Dr. Michele Campbell- Martin Flemming, Councilman", "reading_order": 4 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 131.28, "t": 841.44, "r": 444.24, "b": 828.24 }, "text": "Jeffrey Riker Joseph Riccardi, Mayor's Designee", "reading_order": 5 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 132.72, "t": 819.36, "r": 212.4, "b": 807.84 }, "text": "Anthony Luisi- Alt #1", "reading_order": 6 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 132.24, "t": 807.36, "r": 213.6, "b": 796.08 }, "text": "Manuela Brito-Alt #2", "reading_order": 7 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 313.44, "t": 819.84, "r": 431.52, "b": 806.64 }, "text": "Robert Hudak, Board Chairman", "reading_order": 8 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.72, "t": 769.68, "r": 282.48, "b": 756.72 }, "text": "Absent: Andrew Jozwicki, Len Haring, Board Vice Chairman", "reading_order": 9 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.72, "t": 747.12, "r": 565.2, "b": 723.36 }, "text": "Also Present: Planning Board Attorney Sean Gertner, M r. Peters, Board Planner, Doug M r. Klee, Board Engineer, Denise Buono, Planning Board Secretary, Anthony Jacob, Township I.T. representative, and Danielle Sinowitz, Planning Board Recording Secretary.", "reading_order": 10 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.72, "t": 700.32, "r": 577.44, "b": 610.08 }, "text": "M r. Hudak advised there was correspondence with Macedonia Baptist Church and there was a question in the ruling regarding the septic system. Mr. Klee stated there was a condition of the approval that the church provide a pinelands approved system and it was asked the Board not include that condition and they provide an expanded system and there was a letter from the attorney and there is a 20% increase in the standard disposal field and there will be an advanced treatment system and any expansion for the church or expansion of use there will have to be an application to come back before the Board to take the extra step to see if what is being proposed is acceptable on the existing system and there is no issues and the church has gone above and beyond. Mr. Peters concurred with Mr. Klee, the applicant has gone above and beyond the requirements and met the Board more than halfway.", "reading_order": 11 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.72, "t": 599.52, "r": 540.72, "b": 573.12 }, "text": "Motion to amend the Resolution for Macedonia Baptist Church by CAM PBELL/ Flemming. Yes: Campbell, Riker, Luisi, Brito, Wall, Flemming, Riccardi, Haring, Hudak.", "reading_order": 12 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.96, "t": 561.6, "r": 538.32, "b": 535.68 }, "text": "Resolutions: Dubin Contracting, LLC, Block 3601, Lots 2, 3, 5 & 6- Motion to approve by FLEM MING/ Wall. Yes: Luisi, Brito, Wall, Flemming, Haring, Hudak.", "reading_order": 13 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.72, "t": 523.2, "r": 560.4, "b": 497.76 }, "text": "Royale Property Management, Block 14101, Lot 18, 211 Brewers Bridge Road- Motion to approve by LUISI/ Flemming. Yes: Campbell, Riker, Luisi, Wall, Flemming, Riccardi, Hudak.", "reading_order": 14 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.72, "t": 485.28, "r": 571.2, "b": 459.84 }, "text": "Luxor Drive 1426, LLC, Block 13401, Lots 2.02, 4.01 15, 16, 24 & 26 Green Valley Road- Motion to approve by LUISI/ Brito. Yes: Campbell, Luisi, Brito, Wall, Flemming, Riccardi.", "reading_order": 15 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.48, "t": 447.12, "r": 561.12, "b": 434.64 }, "text": "Payment of Recording Secretary, Danielle Sinowitz, for 7/26/21 motioned by RIKER/ Flemming. Yes: All in favor among those present.", "reading_order": 16 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.48, "t": 421.92, "r": 553.44, "b": 396.96 }, "text": "Payment of Planning Board Secretary, Denise Buono, for 7/26/21 motioned by CAMPBELL/ Flemming. Yes: All in favor among those present.", "reading_order": 17 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.96, "t": 384.24, "r": 562.56, "b": 359.52 }, "text": "Motion to approve regular meeting minutes from June 21, 2021, by FLEMMING/ Luisi. Yes: Riker, Luisi, Brito, Wall, Flemming, Riccardi, Hudak.", "reading_order": 18 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.24, "t": 346.32, "r": 577.2, "b": 231.84 }, "text": "1. Adventure Crossing Phase 3- Mr. Klee stated this a continuation of an application for preliminary final site plan approval for a mixed use development of phase 3 of Adventure Crossing and there was some history provided and the Board did get to a point where the absence of architecture was asked to see the floor area and parking, and the applicant has provided those and there is one feature missing which is the clubhouse between the parking, there was a report from July 23, 2021, and the applicant should fill in the blanks and there are discrepancies with the plan provided vs what was originally submitted, and the residential units have stayed the same at 480 units. Mr. Peters stated there was a report dated July 23, 2021 which was the second review letter and it should be noted there is an application for preliminary and final for the 3 phases of phase 3 and there is conditional use approval for the solar fields and it was originally a preliminary approval for phase 3 and final for 1 phase and now it is preliminary and final for all 3 and as indicated the architect plans and site plans need to be reconciled and it should be gone through and it should be placed on the record.", "reading_order": 19 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.72, "t": 220.08, "r": 566.88, "b": 168.24 }, "text": "Sal Alfieri- attorney for the applicant- advised this is a continued public hearing, and Mr. Borden provided the summary and at that time only preliminary was being requested and now there are architectures, and the applicant is seeking preliminary and final and the conditional use approval and there are 4 witnesses, Ian Borden, Art Bernard, John Rea, and Graham Macfarlane, and Mr. Cardinale is also present and Mr. Borden will be introduced again", "reading_order": 20 }, { "page": 1, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.96, "t": 156.72, "r": 573.6, "b": 16.8 }, "text": "Ian Borden- sworn- M r. Alfieri asked if the plans submitted since the last hearing were prepared under his supervision. M r. Borden advised that was correct, and there were 13 exhibits submitted to the Board earlier and Exhibit A-1 through Exhibit A-5 was gone through and Exhibit A-6, and Exhibit A-7 were prepared by PDS, and Exhibit A-8 through A-13 are architecture renderings. Exhibit A-6 is the phase 2 overall site plan and after the June 21 hearing it was presented the architectures for phase A which is the \"L\" shaped buildings and since then there have been workings done and there are now floor plans and color renderings and the general layout of the project, the access, the drainage, and the grading as well, and one thing that has been changed is the building numbers and the building 500 and 510 are 2 mixed use buildings, and building 520 and 530 are 3 story buildings with the 2 floor residential above the commercial space, and there is 540 -570 which are partially mixed use and partially residential and building 580 and 590 are 2 residential buildings with a clubhouse in the middle and in addition some other items that were heard is the pedestrian connection between phase 3 and 1. M r. Borden advised Exhibit A-7 is the pedestrian walkway plan which shows the entire project including phase 4 and phase 1 is to the right and to the right of that is the phase 2 warehouses, and as discussed the pedestrian walkway was discussed and once phase 4 is developed there will be a paved", "reading_order": 21 } ] }, { "page": 2, "items": [ { "page": 2, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 500.4, "t": 979.68, "r": 559.68, "b": 967.92 }, "text": "Page 2 of 6", "reading_order": 0 }, { "page": 2, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 59.28, "t": 955.68, "r": 577.2, "b": 916.8 }, "text": "roadway, and the service road comes in from the jug handle and that was part of the county master plan when M onmouth Road was\nreconstructed and because all traffic will be entering from the jug handle there will be an entry off that with the tram services and there are\nground mounted solar panels in phase 3 which will be addressed and that completes the revisions.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "page": 2, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 59.52, "t": 904.56, "r": 575.28, "b": 752.16 }, "text": "Mr. Borden stated Phase B has the special needs housing and the \"V\" shaped building and Exhibit A-9 is the ground mounted view showing the end of the mixed use buildings and there is a main boulevard where there is no parking which goes into the parking field and there are storm water rain gardens in that center island, and Exhibit A-10 shows the parking lot view to the \"V\" building and the access drive, and that shows building 540 and 550 with the commercial first floor, and Exhibit A-11 is the view along the sidewalk of the \"V\" building and the purpose of this is to show the materials and colors and there is a discrepancy in the square footage and that is because the outdoor space is captured by the architect as building area and the outdoor square footage is not spoken to in the ordinance which will be discussed further. Exhibit A-12 shows the view from the service road and Exhibit A-13 is a view of the end of the \"V\" building on the west end standing at the jug handle looking at the \"V\" building there is the building and outdoor gathering areas. Mr. Borden moved to Exhibit A-14 the view from M onmouth road which is building 570 and there are full apartments and at either end to comply with the Township height ordinance, and these building are residential and there is no commercial extended to the end of the building and to the far right is when the commercial comes into play. Exhibit A-15 shows the southern portion of the property, and Exhibit A-17 shows the building from the wetland area that separates phase 3 and phase 4, and Exhibit A-18 shows the front rendering.", "reading_order": 2 }, { "page": 2, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 59.52, "t": 739.68, "r": 577.68, "b": 31.68 }, "text": "M. R. Borden mentioned some high points from the review letter, all tech comments are agreed to be compiled too, and it was noted that medical offices and physical therapy are not permitted uses and that is disagreed with and speaking in particular to the discrepancy in commercial uses there are still 480 affordable units. Mr. Borden advised the number is actually 74,764SF and the parking requirements as noted were based on a commercial area of 70,000SF and to assure everyone is on the same page there have been recalculations done using the 74,764SF and in the plans the requirement for 1 bedroom is 1.9 spaces per unit and when that is utilized and the parking is counted at 1 space per 100sf and all of phase 3 is approximately 1,200 spaces and the amount proposed is 1,236 and there are less spaces being provided then required and the waiver is for 43 spaces and that is a single waiver for the entire project and Mr. Rea will provide testimony on the parking, and as noted the RSIS required 1.8 spaces for a 1 bedroom apartment and there is no parking required at that rate. Dr. Campbell asked if that includes the garage parking. Mr. Borden said yes, that includes the garage and driveway. Mr. Peters stated the applicant's professionals and Boards professionals have been going through everything, and to make the record clear there should be some notes taken and the record should be clear that the calculations are being put on the record. Mr. Hudak agreed. Mr. Klee noted to follow up the required number of spaces is 1,279 and the provided spaces are 1,236 does that include the outdoor seating. Mr. Borden said yes. Mr. Klee asked if that reconciles the garages and the driveway. Mr. Borden said correct. Mr. Hudak asked if the calculation will be written and submitted. Mr. Borden said yes. Mr. Alfieri stated some variance relief was spoken too although it's changed. Mr. Peters asked if the applicant is in agreement that the square footage of the architect plans are correct. Mr. Borden advised that was correct and the architect numbers are being used, and in the June 21st hearing there was a variance for the identification sign and there was testimony for the building length for phase A which are the \"L\" buildings and there are some buildings that need that same variance relief and the ordinance speaks that 220' is the length of a building and building 500 and 510 are 224.3 and there are 2 additional variances identified and one is building 540 which is the top of the \"V\", and 229.3 is the length and that qualifies for a C-2 variance as it does benefit the public good and it's a pedestrian friendly mixed use design. Mr. Alfieri asked with regards to signage, there was a stipulation that any building facade sign would comply are there variances for the building mounted signs. Mr. Borden said no they will fully comply. Mr. Borden stated there are solar energy conditional use requirements, the solar conditional use is a conditional use in the HCM U zone and there are conditional use requirements and the first is the solar energy facilities and the solar collectors should be at least 50' from the property line and that has been ensured they are not within 50' of the property line and the height of the solar collectors, the max height which these are the panels in the parking area and the ordinance states the carport should be 25' and the max height is 15' and that is in compliance with the ordinance, and the parking area will be paved, and the panels are proposed over the parking area, there are islands under the panels and to the solar there is a section on the ordinance which there are 4 conditions that are complied with the opinion is that the section does not comply because this is not in pinelands. Mr. Alfieri stated one thing that is common in solar facilities is the condition plan, which if they stop being used there would be agreeance that there would be a dismount protocol followed, and asked if this site is seeking technical subdivisions, or will this all be one parcel. Mr. Borden advised that was correct. Mr. Alfieri stated there is a missing club house on the architect plan, can that be spoken too. Mr. Borden referenced Exhibit A-6 and stated there are 3 residential clubhouses and there is one with building 500 and 510 and that plan was provided and there is a second clubhouse in phase B and the rear of the \"V\" building and there are 3 clubhouses so all the residents have more access to the amenities and there is a clubhouse with use from building 520-570 which were provided and the one being referred too is for building 590 which has 70 units and there is a clubhouse in that area and clubhouses are not required under the ordinance however they are being provided. Mr. Alfieri stated the applicant will stipulate that the clubhouse in question will be consistent with the other 2 clubhouses. Mr. Flemming mentioned there is a building length ordinance and the front \"V\" buildings are connected with a facade does that matter. Mr. Peters advised they are going in a direction, and the understanding is that the intent of the ordinance is to have different planes of the buildings to assure there isn't a 1000' warehouse. Mr. Flemming asked where the car ports are going. Mr. Borden mentioned they are in certain parking area which is to keep 50' away from the property line and there might be some shaded parking areas. Dr. Campbell asked have there been plans for electric vehicles. Mr. Borden stated they are being worked on and there will be charging stations and because it's so new the numbers are rising and they will be provided. Dr. Campbell asked if they will be in all parking areas, including the special needs housing. Mr. Borden advised that was correct they will be distributed throughout all parking areas. Mr. Hudak asked if the heights of some buildings conform to the ordinance. Mr. Borden said yes. Mr. Peters agreed, and mentioned the further back from 537 the higher the building can be which is why the center building is 60-70' and that is permitted due to the project of the size and scope. Mr. Hudak asked if the firefighting apparatus is ok with these heights. Mr. Flemming advised Jackson does not have a truck that tall, however it would be assumed there is a sprinkler. Mr. Borden stated all buildings are sprinkler buildings. Mr. Hudak asked what percentage of energy will be going into this project, and who benefits from it. Mr. Borden advised he was UN sure however the goal is to have as much energy as possible. Mr. Alfieri stated more specifics will be obtained. Mr. Borden stated phase 1 has substantial solar panels approved by the Zoning Board. Mr. Hudak mentioned the panels will be 15' rather than the 25' does that purpose an issue with emergency vehicles. Mr. Borden stated they are only over parking spaces. Mr. Peters noted there was comment about minimum distance between buildings and that is not being followed in numerous locations. Mr. Borden mentioned the ordinance requires a separation between a building and curb alignment of 20' and that is the intention to be followed and there are areas where that is not complied with and that is the area where there is garages because if there is garage there cannot be a curb line of 20', and there is the mixed use as the report indicates there may be 8' from the curb line. Mr. Peters asked if the Jackson township Police safety unit report of June 18, 2021 has been reconciled. Mr. Borden mentioned that was not received. Mr. Klee stated there will need to be construction reports. Mr. Borden advised it will be provided.", "reading_order": 3 } ] }, { "page": 3, "items": [ { "page": 3, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 500.4, "t": 979.68, "r": 559.92, "b": 967.92 }, "text": "Page 3 of 6", "reading_order": 0 }, { "page": 3, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 59.28, "t": 955.68, "r": 577.2, "b": 803.28 }, "text": "Art Bernard- managing member of Art Bernard associates, licensed planner in NJ with over 45 years in land use planning and affordable housing and developed and supervised the council on affordable housing and wrote all the regulations in effect today and since leaving in 94' served 27 municipalities as a planner and served as a special master in court, and has been before the Board of adjustment- credentials accepted- sworn- Mr. Bernard stated the Township Ordinance was reviewed and tonight the use is permitted and the set aside is set by ordinance and in sure of how many applications have been before this Board as far as affordable housing, and the eastside is what would be set aside for low to moderate households and they are deed restricted to remain occupied by low income occupants and usually it's for 30 years, and there are multiple sets of specials needs and most deal with the mentally disabled and these are people who can still function without much medical assistance but need food and transportation and some residents may be able to live more independently, and there is a process in place to select people to live in affordable units, and for people with other disabilities the process would be similar to someone who didn't have disabilities and that would be a marketing effort and after the advertising there would be an application process and there would be the responsibility to make sure the advertising is done correctly and that the application was reviewed correctly and there is also the responsibility to make sure they stay deed restricted.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "page": 3, "type": "TITLE", "location": { "l": 60.96, "t": 790.8, "r": 287.04, "b": 778.32 }, "text": "Recess taken at 8:39 reconvened by 8:53 by Mr. Hudak", "reading_order": 2, "level": 2 }, { "page": 3, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 59.52, "t": 764.4, "r": 576.48, "b": 384 }, "text": "Mr. Bernard stated there is a process where units are advertised and a qualified person who works for the municipality who is an administrative agent will oversee the applications, and there is a deed restriction in place over time and the units will have access to an elevator and they will be accessible and adaptable for someone wheelchair bound to get around these units and one thing that was asked to discuss is to recognize the Town has an court ordered affordable housing plan and that is through 2025 which goes to 2035, and there will be another housing obligation, and the Zoning Board was told when a site is found suitable it's good planning to incorporate the affordable housing, and the Governing Body was wise to incorporate affordable housing and it was asked about the credits, and there are limits to the number of special needs units for credit, and there is guidance that 50% have to be affordable to include families and children and 50% don't have to be, and it was felt that developers needed incentive to build on higher densities, and the incentive was to get an extra credit, and municipalities can get 2 credits per 1 unit and sometimes with special needs it's 2 credits per 1 bedroom and if the bonus credit was not available any longer it would effect a large number of affordable housing plans and it's popular with towns that with the extra credit a housing obligation can be done with fewer housing sites. Mr. Gertner asked since it's recognized that the municipality has made a choice through the ordinance that there is a 10% set aside not 20%. Mr. Bernard advised that was correct. Mr. Gertner asked if that because the differential that the normal 20% vs the 10% is because there will be special needs and or rental credits. Mr. Bernard advised he was not sure what the thinking was however the 10% set aside is consistent with the regulations because the normal density for rental housing is 10 units per acre and here it's 4, and there is also language that speaks to the sizing and the scale based on density and the 10% set aside makes sense here. Mr. Gertner asked if it's sufficient based on the plan presented to the Board. Mr. Bernard said yes and stated it's what's the governing body decided. Mr. Gertner mentioned there has been original representation that the special needs units would be dedicated to MS patients and there has been testimony indicating why that narrow population cannot be focused upon, can there be specifics to the fundamental reason why special needs is defined and why the applicant is driven to change what was envisioned. Mr. Bernard mentioned that 20 years ago there was a project where a nonprofit was funding special needs units through the Governing Body to reserve or give priority to a segment of the special needs population with another disease not MS however the principal need is to reach a broader base of low income housing and there can be agreement or priority, and these units should be marketed including MS residents, and how the mechanics of that work can be dealt with down the road. Mr. Gertner asked based on experience there is no objection to create to the administrative agent on a priority scale to the availability of funding and residents. Mr. Alfieri advised the problem is who would provide that scale however it can be agreed to have a separate developers agreement relating to the affordable housing element. Mr. Gertner stated the Board recognizes that reality is on the ground dictate that the administrative agent addresses how the regulations will be once the affordables are developed and the set aside for special needs residents can be worked down because the goal of the Board and the applicant is to maximize the number of credits from this development subject to the Governing Body there be a 10% set aside. Mr. Alfieri agreed the goal is double credits. Mr. Wall noted for this applicant and others the Governing Body passed by resolution the administrative agent of Jackson twp.", "reading_order": 3 }, { "page": 3, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 59.52, "t": 370.8, "r": 576.72, "b": 18.72 }, "text": "John Rea- professional engineer, licensed in the state of New Jersey. And will be testifying on parking issues- credentials accepted- sworn-\nM r. Alfieri asked Mr. Rea is his office prepared the traffic impact analysis. Mr. Rea advised his office also prepared phase 1 and 2. Mr. Alfieri\nasked what was done to generate the report. Mr. Rea stated the analysis went back to the summer counts that were done in 2018 which\nwere done pre COVID and since there were counts collected in 2019 and 2020 and 2018 was the highest, they were the counts used as a\nbasis for the traffic study and the 2018 traffic volumes were expanded after reviewing the NJDOT and it can be assumed the traffic levels\nwill go back to the pre COVID levels and the NJDOT growth rates were added to the counts and it was done through 2030 and the\nprojections were done to 2030 and the primary focus was those that of traffic coming in and out, and Exhibit A-6 shows the 2 accesses and\n1 jug handle is to the east of six flags and the jug handle was analyzed and improvements have already been started and the jug handle has\nbeen expanded, widened and lengthened and it's the jug handle that takes traffic and reverses it back to the east and its wide enough for a\n3 lane approach and ultimately there will be a double left turn lane and one through lane which will provide access into phase 3. Mr. Rea\nstated in addition to that improvement which was done there will be improvements on the Southside and these have been discussed with\nM onmouth and Ocean County and part of the improvements have been done and with respect to the internal, there are 1,279 parking\nspaces in the residential units and in phase 3 1,236 spaces are provided and the 48 special needs apartments have been calculated at 1.8\nparking spaces per unit and realistically the special needs apartments shouldn't generate more than 1 space per unit and that provides over\n40 spaces that won't be needed for the special needs units and for the commercial space there are 374 required for the 74,000SF\napproximate space, and residential parking peaks between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. and the commercial will generate very little parking after 10\np.m. and the office and retail will use the parking and when the office is closed and the retail is closed and when the residential parking\npeaks the 374 space will be available after 10 p.m. Mr. Gertner asked how much of that commercial space is oriented to the retail\ncommercial and how much is office. Mr. Rea advised it's a 50; 50 split however that is not yet determined since there are no tenants\nhowever looking at the units to the front would be retail and they generally like more visibility. Mr. Gertner asked if it's 70; 30 will the\nparking change. Mr. Rea advised it wouldn't the requirement is the same for office and retail. Mr. Klee stated the commercial and retail are\nequivalent, and the architect exhibit where there is restaurant how does that tie in. Mr. Rea stated there is always the assumption that\nthere is some percentage of the retail, and they do generate more parking and some retail can be assumed it will be food. Dr. Campbell\nnoted there will be some people with 2 cars. Mr. Rea stated it is possible but un likely and there could be people with no vehicles and it\nwould be assumed 1 vehicle per household, and if there is a split between uses there will be restaurant and offices and the offices are\nusually shut down in the afternoon when the restaurants get busy, and the spaces will be constructed and the shared parking and the\nparking demands are taken into consideration. Mr. Wall mentioned that depending on the level of medical need and there is a big call for\nhigh level need there will be nursing staff and other assistance related needs, the care giving staff. Mr. Rea stated there would be a parking", "reading_order": 4 } ] }, { "page": 4, "items": [ { "page": 4, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 500.16, "t": 990.96, "r": 559.68, "b": 980.16 }, "text": "Page 4 of 6", "reading_order": 0 }, { "page": 4, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 59.52, "t": 967.2, "r": 576.96, "b": 636.72 }, "text": "demand for care givers and wouldn't assume there will be 40 spaces needed. Mr. Alfieri stated that is why the communities are clustered and what's being done in M analapan is having one company to service 40 units rather than 48 care givers. Mr. Riccardi stated the was residents mentioned being home from 9 a.m. - 6 p.m. and there is change of people going out to business. Mr. Rea stated the shared parking is assumed that during the middle of the day 70-75% of cars will be parked and this worked into the shared parking and the numbers are so high once the number gets into the 1,200 range things tend to balance themselves out. Mr. Rea stated to touch on the Jackson PD letter that was provided this evening and the items can be worked out with Police Department and there was suggestions made for additional stop signs which can be done however a meeting can be had and one thing is coming in from Monmouth Road there is at the first internal intersection a 4 way interaction adjacent and it's asked to be looked at and its was asked for the circulation driveway to be one way coming in and one way going out and that can be put on the plan, and lastly it was mentioned the offsite conditions on 537 and the road is inadequate to handle traffic and the primary focus was to assure the access in and out would operate at a good level of service and the jug handle will operate at level C which includes phase 1 and phase 2 and the applicant is confident that the phase 3 operations will be at a good level of service and it was asked during phase 1 and phase 2 to collect more summer traffic data and this the understanding of the county. Mr. Rea stated there is data being collected now and it was held off for a reason and there are counts in progress for the county approvals. Mr. Peters mentioned this may be for Mr. Rea and Mr. Alfieri, however there is plenty of baby boomers in this room and what is before the Board seems to work however what happens when it changes, building 520 near the bus drop off lane at some point is not a special needs building any longer and people live there and they need the 1.8 spaces per unit and the parking lot is deficient by 20% what is done to make sure that area is entitled to parking with someone else. Mr. Alfieri advised there is not going to be separate parcels now, and the applicant agrees that as part of any subdivision there will be cross access parking and utility easements. Mr. Peters stated Mr. Rea dealt with refuse enclosures and there is concerns with phase A and C, there is a large compactor area and it appears there is not pedestrian productivity and general people will get in there cars and will dump their trash in there, not sure if that that the layout behind building 510 is not necessarily accessible for a trash truck, and no one will walk to it there is no sidewalks, and the same for building 540 and 570, people may not walk to them, it's a practical thing that could cause issues. Mr. Alfieri stated there are compactors within the building for residents to put their trash and the management staff takes trash to the enclosures, and the question of the power is 11 megawatts and the applicant is told the solar power will generate enough power to generate the site at 100%. Mr. Gertner asked if that 11 megawatts is generated from all 4 phases. Mr. Alfieri stated the warehouse rooftops are not counted in generation yet. Dr. Campbell asked who benefits. Mr. Alfieri advised the occupants here and the businesses and the goal is to have this generate off the grid.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "page": 4, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 59.52, "t": 626.4, "r": 576.96, "b": 473.04 }, "text": "Graham Macfarlane- professional Engineer and principal of PDS and been before this Board on numerous occasions and will be providing testimony on the drainage design- credentials accepted- sworn- showed Exhibit A-6 the overall site plan shows the layout of the total project and the portion of the project is the western portion, and the eastern portion is wetlands and wetlands buffers, and currently the runoff is towards the wetlands and proposed 32 acres of the site as depicted and the amount of runoff will be pre developed and in accordance with state rule the runoff will be reduced from the pre developed condition, and the new storm water management rules and green info structure and that is the design that recommends the breakup of storm water as much as practical and there are 3 primary retention basins and there are 3 rain gardens on site and these rain gardens will have water tolerant vegetation and will promote ground water recharge and will feed the primary retention basins and the primary retention basin will function similar and will serve to manage the volume and peak rate of discharge that will be leaving the site. Mr. Macfarlane stated to summarize the magnitude of pre developed condition and the out falls are regulated by the depth and in essence the basins will comply with all standards and they will be privately owned. Mr. Alfieri mentioned that in the Board engineer prepared a report and there were comments made. Mr. Macfarlane stated all technical comments will be agreed too.", "reading_order": 2 }, { "page": 4, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 59.52, "t": 462, "r": 577.44, "b": 208.08 }, "text": "Mr. Klee advised the drainage calculation are still under review, however there is nothing that is outstanding. Dr. Campbell mentioned there are buildings for each group for socialization and there is no tot lots, is there anything for young children which has been addressed in every project that comes through this Board. Mr. Alfieri stated there is no exterior recreation at all. Dr. Campbell advised it seems when this entire project was proposed there was large recreation area proposed in this big project and that has shrunk to a smaller area which is now future phase 4, can phase 4 be discussed and when can the Board look forward to that, ALSO phase 4 was supposed to be available to those residents for recreational purposes, and this is a great project however there is no opportunity for people to play ball or have recreation and that is to assumed for the phase 4. Mr. Alfieri stated the applicant cannot comment on phase 4, however it will be commercial recreation. Dr. Campbell asked where the young kids are going to go, it will not affect the special needs areas as much however there will be a lot of people living here. Mr. Hudak noted the Board has held other applications to this standard as well and have pushed them into providing some type of recreation areas for the children, and in the beginning this project has evolved and changed over time and there have been things that have been eliminated, there is talk about a stadium and there has been no testimony on that and that was on the GDP. Mr. Alfieri stated the recreation will have to be discussed and phase 4 there will be commercial recreation uses and nothing can be spoken to publicly until there is a tenant. Dr. Campbell asked since this is a body of land, could there be a portion of that land for a ball field or tot lot. Mr. Dolan mentioned the apartments that are for special needs seem to be moved from all the activity, will there transits or something to get these people throughout the site because they need it the most. Mr. Alfieri stated they will have access to the clubhouses closest to their units and there will be a bus stop internal, and there is talk of having NJ Transit, and when this comes in for phase 4 the walking trail will be a connecting road for phase 4 and it will connect to the other phases. Mr. Gertner mentioned there was representation made to Manalapan and a special organization, does that service provide internal transportation since there is the argument of shared parking are they going to have internal transportation to get them to a restaurant. Mr. Alfieri stated the applicant would agree to have an internal transportation service for the special needs residents at a minimum.", "reading_order": 3 }, { "page": 4, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.96, "t": 195.84, "r": 166.32, "b": 182.88 }, "text": "Opened public comment;", "reading_order": 4 }, { "page": 4, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 59.76, "t": 169.92, "r": 569.76, "b": 131.04 }, "text": "Vincent Scatuccio- 24 Plymouth Court- sworn- said there was a feasibility study submitted and thanked the Board for reviewing the study. Mr. Gertner stated part of the testimony had credentials listed in the study and it should be reflected for the record that the study was done", "reading_order": 5 }, { "page": 4, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 59.52, "t": 119.28, "r": 577.2, "b": 17.28 }, "text": "Vincent Scatuccio- 24 Plymouth Court- advised he has a bachelors in Engineering and worked in the civil engineering field and construction yield for many years and worked with several types of projects, and was a project manager in New Jersey and is now retired however those are the credentials- Adventure Crossing is a good project and it has the opportunity to become a Town center and the concept is good however it doesn't bring the town together, and phase 2 and 3 should be flipped with phase 4 and with referencing Exhibit A-1 the community is not being thought about and flipping phase 2 which is the 2 warehouses and phase 3 with the new housing development a neighborhood is created and the Anderson Road community would be expanded and the would have better access to the retail and the restaurants, and if the apartments were moved where the warehouses are there would be access to phase 1 and the outlets and there would be better pedestrian access to the amenities on site and there are disabled people on site, and currently it's a half mile walk from the", "reading_order": 6 } ] }, { "page": 5, "items": [ { "page": 5, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 500.64, "t": 979.92, "r": 559.68, "b": 967.68 }, "text": "Page 5 of 6", "reading_order": 0 }, { "page": 5, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60, "t": 955.92, "r": 569.52, "b": 904.8 }, "text": "housing to the closest restaurant pad, and if its moved there will be less truck traffic, people will be walking around the arena and the housing with trucks going in and out and if the housing is moved there is less polluting of the air, and the noise coming from Great Adventure and the water park was deafening and there is going to be apartments there and there is going to be a lot of people with noise issues.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "page": 5, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.72, "t": 892.8, "r": 380.64, "b": 880.32 }, "text": "Tracy McKinney- Jackson Resident- sworn- asked if there was a sheriff camera review.", "reading_order": 2 }, { "page": 5, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60, "t": 881.04, "r": 577.2, "b": 815.76 }, "text": "M r. Rea stated the cameras being mentioned are the Ocean County Cameras that were installed by the County however there will be cameras installed from the applicant and the county is still collecting data and it has not been reviewed however a data analysis will be done by the applicant, and one thing with Anderson Road is M onmouth county has jurisdiction over this area and that area has been looked at for many years and it's a possibility for a roundabout for the Anderson Road intersection and near the outlets and there are no plans however the county will be addressing the intersection", "reading_order": 3 }, { "page": 5, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60, "t": 804, "r": 573.6, "b": 714.96 }, "text": "Tracy McKinney- Jackson Resident- said the DOT was contacted about the ramp of 195 and it's the understanding that there was a chance that Jackson could purchase the right of way to construct the ramps, is that something that can be done prior to the approval of this phase Mr. Rea advised there have been numerous meetings with Monmouth and Ocean County and the DOT would be provided with a problem statement and the DOT have been asked to get included because it would require funding in order to get something done and its unsure if it's been done and it's an offsite intersection and as indicated before the applicant is going to pay a traffic impact fee for offsite traffic reports and that will be the construction to fix offsite conditions however it's a regional DOT issue and those issues were there long before this project", "reading_order": 4 }, { "page": 5, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60, "t": 703.2, "r": 569.76, "b": 601.68 }, "text": "Tracy McKinney- Jackson Resident- said it would be in the best interest to have that situation addressed before building more\nMr. Wall stated it's wonderful the DOT has interest to come into Jackson and it appears that on the federal level, and the mayor has reached out to get someone in to have this addressed, and since there has been contact, it was asked to have them contact his office to come in as early as tomorrow. Mr. Gertner stated what is before the Board is the only thing that can be focused on, and it's on site implications and as testified there has been no contrary testimony there is a scheme to address certain off site implications. Dr. Campbell advised the Board can't use traffic off site in regards to a project like this. Mr. Gertner noted the Board can't use offsite in any mass. Dr. Campbell stated there are certain restrictions on what can be considered when voting on a project and off site traffic cannot be taken into consideration. Mr. Hudak noted that is the oath and law.", "reading_order": 5 }, { "page": 5, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 61.2, "t": 588.96, "r": 559.2, "b": 567.12 }, "text": "Tracy McKinney- Jackson Resident- asked what is distance between phase 3 and the 1st access point, and is there a purposed walkway going to phase 4 will that be built with phase 3", "reading_order": 6 }, { "page": 5, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.72, "t": 564.48, "r": 327.36, "b": 551.52 }, "text": "Mr. Alfieri stated it will be built as phase 3, and its 2,200ft of a walkway.", "reading_order": 7 }, { "page": 5, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.48, "t": 539.04, "r": 415.92, "b": 527.28 }, "text": "Tracy McKinney-Jackson Resident- asked does the water and sewer connect to Anderson Road.", "reading_order": 8 }, { "page": 5, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.24, "t": 526.8, "r": 572.4, "b": 500.16 }, "text": "Mr. M acfarlane stated the project will have a water main that will connect to 537 and there is a pump station purposed. Mr. Borden stated there is an approval for phase1 and as far as phase 3 in concerned it will connect to an existing main on 537.", "reading_order": 9 }, { "page": 5, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.72, "t": 488.64, "r": 564.24, "b": 438.96 }, "text": "Eric Davis- 210 Disbrow Hill Road, Millstone- sworn- had concern with the offsite traffic impact and there have been significant backups near six flags, and with warehouses and apartments and future commercial recreation facilities and restaurants, the traffic will increase, and it's been testified that this roadway is inadequate and there will be continued studies on what can be done, can that process be elaborated on and the timeline.", "reading_order": 10 }, { "page": 5, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.96, "t": 437.52, "r": 576.24, "b": 398.64 }, "text": "Mr. Rea stated there is an application that needs to be made to the Ocean and M onmouth County Planning Board and data will be collected after the summer and there will be additional traffic studies and both counties will review the studies, and the latest plan is still in the concept phase, and there is no time frame that can be spoken too people are just getting back to in person work.", "reading_order": 11 }, { "page": 5, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.48, "t": 386.88, "r": 462.24, "b": 374.88 }, "text": "Randy Bergmann- 5 Brentwood Drive- sworn- asked what the Board's opinion was on the flipping of phases.", "reading_order": 12 }, { "page": 5, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 59.52, "t": 374.16, "r": 577.2, "b": 272.64 }, "text": "Mr. Alfieri stated as it relates to the comments, the warehouse project has been approved for some time now and is ready for the construction and the shifting of phases will not happen. Dr. Campbell stated this is very well done and everyone has ideas and some people in the professions have the right to express their ideas and the Board has to look at things as they come before the Board and the Board has already approved things in certain locations and some of it is interesting and town center is a great idea, and these would've been good ideas years ago however it's too late to flip areas, and the Board has to go with what is presented, and the ratable have to be considered and they are great ideas however the Board has to consider what is good for Jackson and have to be reasonable and allow developers to develop their projects, and this project will not only create beautiful living conditions it will create ratable, and it will bring lots of jobs and it will be something that the town can be proud of, and yes the traffic is bad however we have to look to the future.", "reading_order": 13 }, { "page": 5, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60, "t": 260.64, "r": 568.8, "b": 209.52 }, "text": "Randy Bergmann- 5 Brentwood Drive- mentioned when phase 2 made the approval there were things that needed to be done such as the offsite traffic study, and if that condition has not been considered yet how can phase 3 be approved.\n\nM r. Alfieri stated this phase 3 can be built independent of phase 2, and the warehouses don't ever have to be built to construct this and conditions to phase 2 have to be met, it's not an opinion so whatever is required to be done, it will be.", "reading_order": 14 }, { "page": 5, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60, "t": 198.24, "r": 574.8, "b": 134.4 }, "text": "Keith Jolliffe- 3 Holly Tree Court- sworn- said these ideas were addressed to Board and the Board disregarded the comments, and it was mentioned the sewer system on Anderson Road, can someone let the residents know when the construction will begin.\n\nMr. Borden advised it's fully approved and the time period is not known. Mr. Gertner asked if there is a timing issue with the MUA. Mr. Borden stated its contractor timing issue, and it would be assumed it will be within 6 months and it must be done before the fast food pads are done.", "reading_order": 15 }, { "page": 5, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 61.2, "t": 122.16, "r": 575.52, "b": 98.16 }, "text": "Keith Jolliffe- 3 Holly Tree Court- asked if the berms that were mentioned during the phase 2 approval would be put up soon along with the vegetation.", "reading_order": 16 }, { "page": 5, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.96, "t": 96.72, "r": 562.32, "b": 83.52 }, "text": "Mr. Borden advised he was not sure at this time. Mr. Alfieri stated there has been no building permits issued for the warehouse project.", "reading_order": 17 }, { "page": 5, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.72, "t": 71.76, "r": 550.8, "b": 47.28 }, "text": "Keith Jolliffe- 3 Holly Tree Court- mentioned that it was testified there would be no construction with phase 2 until the ocean county studies were completed.", "reading_order": 18 }, { "page": 5, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.72, "t": 45.6, "r": 369.84, "b": 33.12 }, "text": "Mr. Alfieri clarified that construction is the start to an actual building, not site prep.", "reading_order": 19 } ] }, { "page": 6, "items": [ { "page": 6, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 500.4, "t": 978.96, "r": 559.92, "b": 967.44 }, "text": "Page 6 of 6", "reading_order": 0 }, { "page": 6, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.48, "t": 954.96, "r": 577.68, "b": 902.4 }, "text": "Vincent Scatuccio- 24 Plymouth Court- said it's not too late to change the plans, and construction hasn't even been started, and the GDP plan was approved and it's been abandoned and this has come back time and time again for changes.\n\nMr. Alfieri stated in response to the GDP, it's a vision of what the site would look at and it gives no one the right to build anything, and there was approval to build apartments and because of the objections of the neighbors another plan needed to be done.", "reading_order": 1 }, { "page": 6, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 59.04, "t": 892.08, "r": 571.92, "b": 840.24 }, "text": "Joyce Jolliffe- 5 Holly Tree Court- sworn- agreed that the residences in the Anderson area did object the original design because of the golf facility, and no one cared about the residences, and this has been a disaster since the beginning and at this point this has been before the Board numerous times and a change can be made and flip flopping of the phases can be done, the project is not that bad if its fixed and at this point it can be fixed", "reading_order": 2 }, { "page": 6, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.48, "t": 828.72, "r": 362.64, "b": 815.52 }, "text": "Tracy McKinney-Jackson Resident- asked if there is another clubhouse proposed", "reading_order": 3 }, { "page": 6, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.72, "t": 815.28, "r": 207.84, "b": 803.52 }, "text": "M r. Alfieri stated there is 3 clubhouses", "reading_order": 4 }, { "page": 6, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 58.8, "t": 790.32, "r": 524.64, "b": 778.08 }, "text": "Seeing no one else come forward, motion to close public comment by RIKER/ Riccardi. Yes: All in favor among those present.", "reading_order": 5 }, { "page": 6, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 58.8, "t": 764.64, "r": 574.8, "b": 575.52 }, "text": "Mr. Borden advised there has been thought about the recreation comment, and there is a clubhouse and a courtyard area surrounding the clubhouse and there can be a lot of the place there, understanding most of these units are 1 bedroom and the reaming at 2 bedrooms. Mr. Hudak stated its 10:45 p.m., and asked that the summation be held off for the next hearing, which will allow time to finalize the remarks made. Mr. Alfieri advised all comments have been agreed to be addressed. Mr. Riccardi asked if the professionals feel all concerns have been addressed. Mr. Peters stated from a planning perspective the applicant has provided information to address the comments that were made. Mr. Klee added that the applicant has agreed to address outstanding items. Mr. Hudak asked if there are traffic issues. Mr. Peters stated things that were done on site, and there are comments from both offices and the Police Department and there can be a separate meeting and off track there has been concerns heard and they are doing what they are required to do by law and the Board cannot ask the applicant to do more than the county asks and outside agencies are dealt with as a resolution. Mr. Wall mentioned that comments on the recreation amenities and with voting on the narrow piece before the Board and the offsite comments have been illustrated great and it's the NJDOT for the transportation and it's not on Jackson especially since that's a bifurcated street and on that area the application is ready to move forward and there were not comments on the recreation mentioned. Mr. Klee stated the applicant has heard the Board's comment and agreed to incorporate the recreation area and have seen what's proposed. Dr. Campbell stated the Board is looking for a plan for the recreation, and asked if the applicant would come back administratively for the recreation. Mr. Alfieri advised the applicant will prepare a plan for the professionals.", "reading_order": 6 }, { "page": 6, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.72, "t": 563.52, "r": 554.4, "b": 536.88 }, "text": "Motion to approve subject to all stipulations set forth including the recreation plan by CAM PBELL/ Flemming. Yes: Dolan, Campbell, Riker, Luisi, Brito, Wall, Flemming, Riccardi, Hudak.", "reading_order": 7 }, { "page": 6, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.24, "t": 525.36, "r": 360.72, "b": 511.92 }, "text": "Motion to adjourn at 10:55 p.m. by RIKER. Yes: All is favor among those present", "reading_order": 8 }, { "page": 6, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.96, "t": 499.92, "r": 163.2, "b": 486.72 }, "text": "Respectfully Submitted by,", "reading_order": 9 }, { "page": 6, "type": "TEXT", "location": { "l": 60.96, "t": 437.28, "r": 263.28, "b": 423.12 }, "text": "Danielle Sinowitz, Planning Board Recording Secretary", "reading_order": 10 } ] } ]