Rebuilt HTML — PaddleOCR-VL (Baidu)

MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE JACKSON TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT- APRIL 2, 2025

The April2, 2025 Jackson Township Board of Adjustment meeting was called to order at 7:01pm 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; Robert Hudak Vice Chair Kenneth Bressi Moshe Heiman Dr. Sheldon Hofstein Chrystabel Rosal Alt #1 Carlos Martins Alt#2 Jason Such Recording Secretary: Kathleen Bibza

Board Professionals in Attendance: Mark Rohmeyer, Bd Engineer Ernest Peters, Bd Planner Gina Tumolo, Assistant Zoning Officer

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

MINUTES OF JACKSON ZONING BOARD – MARCH 19, 2025 by Kathleen Bibza Motion to Approve/Rosal Second/Hofstein

APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS:

2025-13: Appointment of Recording Secretary, Kathleen Bibza through -6/2025 Motion to Approve/ Heiman Second/Rosal Eligible to Vote and Yes Vote: Bressi, Heiman, Hofstein, Hudak, Rosal, Martins, Such, Bradley

PAYMENT OF (1) VOUCHER

Kathleen Bibza, Zoning Board Recording Secretary for 04/02/2025 Motion to Approve/Hudak. Second/Rosal. Vote and Yes Vote: Bressi, Heiman, Hofstein, Hudak, Rosal, Martins, Such, Bradley

ANNOUNCEMENTS

See Applications Carried

APPLICATIONS CARRIED

1) Application No 2, Avrohom Ellinson (Variance 3526) – Block 14001 Lot 28 – 8 Florence Ct (TO BE CARRIED TO JUNE 18, 2025. NO ADDITIONAL NOTICE)

BOARD PROFESSIONALS SWORN IN BY Ms. Cipriani

ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL: COUNTY OFFICES LLC/MEGANS ASSOCIATES-SITE PLAN 664-1 – B. 5601 L. 61.01 – ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL for LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS (CARRIED FROM FEBRUARY 5, 2025 MEETING) Testimony given 2/5/2025. Notice required.

Adam Pfeffer, Esq., Applicant's attorney opened by explaining that this is just an administrative approval and they are back to address the questions raised during February testimony. Mr. Pfeffer stated that tonight's meeting required notice and he did get a new list and notice was sent out. Mr. Pfeffer said when the application was approved years ago it was approved with placing the landscaping on the neighboring association of Three Pence, that is how it was submitted and approved. Mr. Pfeffer is prepared to offer the revised plan to move the landscaping onto the applicants' property. He wanted to clear up confusion and to notify the board that the applicant had already starting planting trees and what is planted is not a representation of what will be planted, when and if the board decides in favor the amount of trees proposed will be planted. Simply seeking to amend the original plan and relocate them from Three Pence to the

V

applicant's site. Mr. Pfeffer presented Ian Borden, PP, president of Professional Design Services as the only witness, duly sworn in by Bd Attorney Ms. Cipriani, and credentials accepted by Ms. Bradley. Mr. Borden does not recall why, back in 2008, the trees were proposed to be placed on the Three Pence property, he went on to point out that placing the trees on their property would disrupt sprinkler system, loss of lawn area and they would have to trim back some of the trees on their wood line to create light and air for new trees to grow. Ms. Cipriani asked if Three Pence ever consented back then to the trees being planted. Mr. Borden acknowledged that he could not find any consent on the part of Three Pence. When his client approached him and inquired about how to go about completing this project and plant the trees, Mr. Borden sought advice from Township Officials, Mr. Purporo and Board Engineer Hill. Mr. Borden set up a meeting with the homeowners, with a member of association Management Company and spoke with them about how to go about planting the trees. Mr. Borden said they agreed verbally it would be a better idea for the trees to be planted on the applicant's property, which is when they started this application, filed November 2024. The client had already ordered trees and planted what he had ordered because they did not want to waste them. Mr. Borden said that what is planted is maybe only about 60% complete. The trees behind the building are widely scattered but they will be significantly filled in, when and if the board accepts the change. Dr. Hofstein asked if HOA approved the planting in 2008. Mr. Pfeffer said he cannot find anything that states they agreed. Also adding that this plan makes more sense, the trees will be on the applicant's property and the applicant will bear the responsibility to maintain them. Once it is all done the performance and a maintenance bond will be in place to cover this. The trees are a combination of Norway spruce and Cypress. Mr. Heiman - what density will they be planted? Mr. Borden states double staggered row with 8-10ft on spacing, so approximately 4ft apart, standard design in accordance with township ordinance. Mr. Borden acknowledged they will replace any trees that are dead that were planted prior to this board's approval. Mr. Pfeffer said if the board approves this, this is what the applicant will do, regardless of what is planted out there. Bd Engineer Mark Rohmeyer commented that board may grant administrative approval for changes to any previously approved site plan for changes that do not affect the purpose or intent of the original approval. In his opinion this is an acceptable request, they are shifting a row of trees onto their own property and where there was a single row they are proposing a double staggered row. There is an ordinance for the trees that states at the foundation diameter 11/2" -3" and 5-6ft in height. Mr. Pfeffer acknowledged his testimony is complete. Ms. Bradley opened to objector: Objector 1: Bonnie Wright Esq., speaking on behalf of the home owners Rodrigo and Megan Anderson. Clients live along the back portion of the building facing Three Pence. Ms. Wright said her client's position is that it is untenable for the trees to be planted on Three Pence property. Since the applicant is seeking to amend the original plan, Ms. Wright is asking that the board impose on the applicant to plant more trees than he is proposing. Ms. Wright has several photos she wants to present to the board. Home owner Rodrigo Anderson 9 Forge Ct was sworn in by Bd Attorney. They went through several photos that were taken over 5 years ago, pointing out the dense woods that were there before the building was put up. They showed current pictures taken within the last phew days that depict sparse and dying trees. Ms. Bradley pointed out that they are showing us pictures of trees that are on the common property of Three Pence and not on the applicants side, asking how that relates to the issue before the board. Ms. Wright said that when they cleared land for the building project it destroyed the buffer on Three Pence. Mr. Heiman objected to this statement, there is no proof or correlation, and they are comparing photos taken 5 years ago in summer to pictures taken a few weeks ago after a long dry winter. Mr. Martins stated it has nothing to do with the applicant. Mr. Hudak pointed out that they are comparing warm weather when trees are full, to a picture from now when things are bare. Mr. Such said if the association trees are no longer there, it may be something the homeowner needs to take up with the HOA. Ms. Bradley stated they are residents of Jackson and they do care, but she pointed out that when they visited the property to see where the trees would be planted they observed a lot of dying trees but that it would be a code enforcement issue that the applicant will have to meet what they are currently proposing. Bd Attorney stated to Ms. Wright that if she wanted to bring an expert to testify as to why associations' trees are dead that was her right. Dr. Hofstein asked Mr. Anderson if he has asked HOA to replace some of the trees? He said he has not. Mr. Bressi asked the applicant if over the years the applicant has received any complaints that they have killed their trees or their actions damaged any trees? Mr. Pfeffer answer no. Ms. Wright finished testimony stating they are just asking to make them put more substantial buffering. Mr. Pfeffer summation is that the plan is very much in line with what was proposed in 2008, only difference is moving the planting onto applicant's property. Ignore what was planted a few months ago. If approved they will abide by this plan. Mr. Hudak asked Mr. Borden if they would be agreeable to if need be work something out with the association. Mr. Borden stated he met with association and there was a site visit attended by someone from their association. If the HOA wants the applicant to add more trees than Three Pence will have to remove trees, to allow for growth of new trees. Mr. Borden said if they plant too many close together they will self-prune. Mr. Hudak asked if they would be agreeable to a

different type of tree? Mr. Borden yes, they are more flexible, and always looking to improve what is proposed. Mr. Martins asked how long will it take for the trees to grow into something larger. Mr. Borden said the thicker the tree the slower it will grow. It could range from a few inches to a few feet a year. Mr. Borden pointed out the buffer is meant to hide the activity of the building and soften the view not hide the building. Mr. Heiman stated he noticed and 8x4 ft. sign and he is asking if it can be removed right away as it is not safe to pull out of the lot. Ms. Bradley opened to the public. Cindy Strong, 45 Shilling Way in Three Pence, sworn by Bd Attorney. Ms. Strong has been living in her townhouse for 30 years. She stated that the property does not look the way it looked back when she bought her home. Ms. Strong's opinion is that there is plenty of room on the applicant's property to plant more trees. She says the lights from the building are very bright. Mr. Pfeffer pointed out the builder only cleared 50% of the property, all the other trees were not touched.

Ms. Bradley closed public session.

Bd Attorney Cipriani made a statement to the board that this is an administrative approval to change plan, from the buffer being planted on property the applicant did not own and that is not a viable plan. Mr. Pfeffer was correct that this is a bonded project and in order to get out of the bond the project would have to be done in accordance with any proposed plan, if in future trees were to die it would be a matter for code enforcement.

Motion to approve/Bressi based on HOA not coming forward to complain about loss of trees after all these years/Second Hofstein Eligible to Vote and Yes Vote: Bressi, Heiman, Hofstein, Hudak, Rosal, Martins, Bradley

APPLICATIONS

1) LUV 2 HOWL ANIMAL RESCUE/HOWLING WOODS FARM (USE VARIANCE 3522)

BLOCK: 18204 LOT: 2 ZONE: RD – 1371 W VETERANS HIGHWAY

(CARRIED FROM 12/18/2024 AND 2/18/2024, MEETING) Testimony given 12/18/2024 No additional notice.

(CARRIED FROM 12/18/2024 AND 2/18/2024, MEETING) Testimonily given 12/18/2024 No additional notice. John Jackson JJJ Law firm, representing applicant. Mr. Jackson brought as witness Ms. Colleen Case, Supervisor at Howling Woods Farm. Both parties were sworn in by Bd Attorney. Mr. Jackson reminded the board that they are here for a D Variance and that the location is a wolf dog farm/animal rescue believes it is a great community resource and asset. It has developed over time. Ms. Case read a statement about the farm and the importance of the wolves on the planet. She went on to discuss that it is 1 of 13 rescues of this type in the US. The farm hosts various events, some of which include, military appreciation day, offsite educational program for schools and senior programs and libraries, they host tours for special needs children/adults, they offer tours to people enrolled in rehabilitation programs. Guests come from as far as Australia to visit. It is a unique experience. Mr. Jackson and Ms. Case pointed out that the animals are mostly docile, and a shy animal. Ms. Case has been there over 9 years and they have never had any incidents of aggression. Ms. Case described the enclosures are all made out of cattle panel, extremely durable, double gated areas. The type of fencing also lends to the aesthetics of the property. Howling woods has built many relationships with the community for example various workgroups that volunteer, Bank of America, and every year they do pictures with Santa. Dr. Hofstein asked if it is a non-profit? Ms. Case stated they are a 501C3, non-profit. Mr. Jackson pointed out it is laid out in their PowerPoint presentation. It is completely funded by donations. Dr. Hofstein stated this is a land use board and would like to address the nature of that and how it relates to this application. Mr. Jackson stated that it is in a farm zone and they feel it has a lot more in common with an agricultural use. Operating since 2010. Mr. Hudak - Why are you just now coming before this board?

Mr. Jackson said it has evolved over time and zoning officials were out there and said the business is there and time to make this legitimate. A zoning officer part of his routine checks stopped by and said it is probably time to make it official. Mr. Jackson also noted it is a testament to the neighbors and the owner Mr. Hodanish that they have been under 'the radar' for so long, no complaints or incidents. Dr. Hofstein – Up until now you do not have any approvals? Mr. Jackson said yes it started as a farm and they started taking in a few rescue animals, they did not think they were doing anything wrong. Bd Attorney opened up questions to the public. No questions for Ms. Case. Next witness presented by Mr. Jackson is William Stevens, VP of Professional Design Services, duly sworn by Bd Attorney, credentials accepted. Mr. Stevens gave a brief overview. Applicant is seeking D1 use variance to allow the wolf farm refuge to remain, the farm is meant to be a refuge for wolf dogs. The property is located on W. Veterans Highway, Rugged Cross Motorcycle Club is next door, and a pool supply company is across the street. Located in RD zone, it is 10acre property, it is bordered mostly by Colliers Mills, other parts of the property back up to homes on Hawkin Rd, and nothing is close. The only portion of the property that is close proximity to anything is in the NW corner near the Motorcycle Club. Mr.

t

Stevens described the zone is RD, which permits residential housing at a low density 3.8 acres, the property across the street is located in a neighborhood commercial zone which is why business's across the street. He believes it to be a very safe and well run facility. Mr. Stevens described the improvements that will be made to the site plan. NW corner is existing home and detached garage it will remain owner's primary residence, the driveway that goes from W Veterans Hgwy leads up to the garage and connects to a gravel lot. The gravel lot is used for guest parking. There is a small office/retail space and then right behind that is the pens where the animals are kept and behind that is a large play yard for the animals. In addition to D1 variance, they are seeking a waiver of providing a site plan they are not looking to make any improvements or changes to what exists. Mr. Stevens compared it to a local farm market. The home was constructed in 1936, so it pre-dates the Pinelands and Jackson Township land use rules. It has the 80ft setback, one of the corners is over by 6 inches, if the board feels this is something the applicant needs to address as a non-conforming variant the applicant would seek out that variance. Two structures on the plan, shed and a trailer. The trailer is being removed from property and the shed will be moved behind that 80ft setback. The employees park vehicles in the home owner's driveway, the guest's park in the gravel lot. The location is by appointment only and the farm keeps the groups to a limited number of guests. Dr. Hofstein questioned about parking, zoning laws require a certain number of spots, and do they have to have it marked? Mr. Stevens answered average day 10 people working on farm and guest have maximum 15 cars in the gravel, it is not marked in traditional parking lot, they are trying to keep with the rural feel. Mr. Peters said there is not a particular parking standard for this specific use in Jackson Land Use Ordinance, this specific use isn't permitted simply because it is just not listed in our code. Mr. Stevens testified that they regulate the number of vehicles coming to the site, and will satisfy any parking need that the board might determine. If the board finds that this testimony is sufficient for this type of parking, the board can set a limit of how many vehicles can be placed on the site and if they exceed then they would have to come back for site plan. Mr. Martins – does this fit in any zoning code in town? Mr. Stevens reply no it does not fit due to its specific use. Mark Rohmeyer found most similar parking in the code for an animal care facility 1 space for 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area, for this site it require 8 and they have 15. Septic and well on property, the well is 1.1 ft. in located on the property. Mr. Stevens addressed questions submitted by letter from Board Professionals concerning the fenced in area on the Eastern part of site along Colliers Mills, it is not part of Howling Woods, and it was put up by home owner to protect some native wild flowers that are growing there. Mr. Heiman is questioning the shed, office and the trailer. Mr. Stevens said the shed is for storage, the office/retail is 500 sq. ft. and it is just a point to gather guests and give instruction to them before going out to visit the wolf dogs. Mr. Heiman is asking is there two principal uses on this property, Mr. Stevens said the retail space and howling woods operate as one. Ms. Cipriani wants attorney to clarify is there two principle uses and one accessory use. Mr. Stevens states that the home will remain on the property and home owner will live there. Mr. Hudak wants them to commit to the use. Applicant attorney agreed and stated the primary use is single family residence and animal sanctuary is secondary. Wolf statue and sign, name plate sign as per ordinance. Mr. Stevens stated the 10ft buffer that is required is satisfied, except for the adjoining property of Rugged Motorcycle Club, the owners of the Club have agreed with existing buffer. The farm is used for educational and charity. The municipal land use law point A, encourage municipal action to guide appropriate use or development all lands in this state in a manner that will promote public health safety morals and general welfare. Mr. Heiman – do they need a variance for 8ft fence? If the board feel a variance is required the applicant would request that. Mr. Heiman said they should stipulate it would be a see through fence and blends in with the woods. Mr. Heiman asked about emergency vehicles? Mr. Stevens referred to site plan page 17, the property is easily accessed from the front driveway. In addition the fire department inspects the property annually. The applicant is happy to request further approval. Mr. Peters stated they have addressed required purpose of zoning. The waiver of site plan he suggested the board create an affirmative resolution to this specific to this use, layout a plan for what they are going to be doing and what they are not going to be doing. List the limits as far as animals on site, people and parking, how visitors are controlled, water and sewer for people that live, visit and work on the site. Applicant pointed to statement of operations that gives specific details to the questions raised by Mr. Peters. Mr. Jackson said that applicant would stipulate that use is specifically tied into adherence to those operations and any expansion would require them to go before the board. Dr. Hofstein – asked what will happen for future use of property if business sold or closed up, Mr. Peters said a change in use would require new owners to come back to the board. Mr. Jackson suggested a memorandum that runs with the land that advises future purchasers that there is a resolution of approval that must be abided by, instead of deed restriction. Ms. Cipriani agrees with Mr. Jackson's idea on the memorandum. Mr. Heiman – dumpster for trash removal? There is a dumpster and recycling on site, refuse is picked up by a private hauler, animal waste is bagged and is picked up multiple times a day and disposed of via a dumpster, and recycling is picked up by town. Ms. Rosal asked about 15 dogs vs 20 dogs maximum, if they will have room for them or need to expand? Ms.

Case answered that they usually stay around 15 dogs, but they have enough room for the 20 if they needed. Ms. Bradley opened to the public. Paul Revere, W. Commodore address was sworn in by Bd Attorney. Asked if it is a school and if so will there be a building to see slides? Mr. Stevens said no, just the small office where they muster and then they are taken out to the dogs. Mr. Revere is concerned if it grows will they be able to handle the traffic? Ms. Bradley reminded the resident that this business is by appointment only and that they will abide by their statement of operations. Donald Cove, neighbor of applicant sworn in by Bd Attorney. Mr. Cove is in support of everything being done at the farm and an asset to the community, finds it great therapy for Vets. Steve Forsythe, Rugged Cross Motorcycle Club sworn in by Bd Attorney. His club hosts a run every year in support of Veterans when they come back from war, and they have a great relationship with the farm. Christine Watson, 1383 W. Veterans Hgwy duly sworn by Bd attorney. She stated she is never disturbed by traffic, she enjoys hearing the wolves at night. Noted by Mr. Jackson that there were at least 15 supporters. No one in attendance that opposed it. Ms. Bradley closed public session. Mr. Jackson gave his summation, stating this business has evolved over 20 years, no problems reported. Respectfully submit that they meet the criteria for the variance and will leave it up to the board. Ms. Cipriani stated they are hear for D1 variance, also variance was discussed for 8ft fence to be see through, site plan waiver, and some of the conditions Mr. Peters proposed: if board is inclined that it be conditioned on operational parameters as per statement of operations, which would be incorporated into an ordinance, residence is the primary use with sanctuary secondary, and memorandum put on the time of sale so any buyer would be aware of zoning board approval should there be one. Relocating the shed and updating survey to show shed and dumpster. As per Mr. Rohmeyer the signage does not require a variance.

Motion to approve with stipulations/Hudak Second/Rosal Eligible to Vote and Yes Vote: Bressi, Heiman, Hofstein, Hudak, Rosal, Martins, Bradley

Mr. Bressi and Ms. Bradley both stated presentation was very well done, their statement of operations, public testimony and page 7 showing list of all they give to the township is a testament to the business and what it means to the community.

5 minute break

2) SWANBORNE LLC (PRELIMINARY/FINAL MAJOR SUBDIVISION 662-1 APPROVAL AMMENTDMENT) BLOCK: 20701/20801 LOT: 3/1,8,9,10,11,12,15,16,17,18,28 ZONE: RG-2 LOCATION: WHITESVILLE AND EAST VETERANS HIGHWAY

Mr. Hudak recused himself.

Ms. Cipriani pointed out to the Applicants Attorney the time and discussed that it would be his decision if he wanted to begin testimony tonight or wait and postpone until the next meeting. Mr. Giunco, the applicant's attorney, said he wanted to proceed and get through as much testimony as they can. John Giunco Esq, Ian Borden, John Rey Traffic all duly sworn by Bd Attorney. Board accepted their credentials. Mr. Giunco stated that the application has been before the board for some time, the applicant needs to address wetland issues that had changed from original application, when the project was fully approved. Wetlands had to be reevaluated and the result is less plots from 205, now it is 192 lots. The changes that go along with multifamily and house of worship are unchanged. They are seeking to modify unit count and request phasing plan that has been modified 2023-17, limited Phasing 170 houses with 8 affordable units, Phase 2 62 with 16 affordable units and Phase 3 60 with 16 affordable units. Mr. Giunco turned it over to Mr. Borden to discuss the project. Mr. Borden stated the property is bounded by 3 county roads, it is approximately 158 acres, and it is in RG-2 Residential Zone, regional growth zone of Pinelands. The Regional Growth Zone is an area that promotes growth, subject to satisfying environmental constraints. The property has a number of houses, the Northern portion of the project has three lakes, and this is former Maple Lake Campground and Whitlock Dr. Higher density single family lots are a conditional use in this zone. They have 10,000 sq. ft., 100x100 ft. lots, with public sewer. In addition they were obligated to do a traffic study. Those provisions are all met, in addition with all the other bulk zone requirements. The project had been approved 205 single family lots, 202 to be built and three houses that will remain. The site has been in planning for at least 10 years. There is proposed access to E Veterans Highway, S Hope Chapel Rd, and Denton

.

Lane which leads to Whitesville Rd. All intersections will have a traffic signal. The traffic will not use current road Whitlock, they will accomplish this by having a cul-de-sac, and so existing residents will not have an increase in thru traffic. Secondary component of the project are the affordable units, located on the NW corner of property which already has a D3 conditional use variance approved. The RG-2 has a 20% affordable housing component and this is being met. Standard is maximum 4 unit buildings, applicant obtained the D3 variance for 8 unit buildings, this area is completely unchanged. Proposing 48 affordable units, where only 38 are required. Phase 1-3 are in progress but there is a phase 4 and 5 they have not been in front of any land use board yet. So the additional 10 units are to service future projects. Ms. Bradley asked about original approval including 48 affordable units and will that be in Phase 1-3? Mr. Borden answered yes, they understand they have to follow the 20% which is a conditional standard. There is a recreation area close to E Vets Hgwy and there is improvements for what used to be Maple Lake Campground and a building which will be incorporated into the recreation area. He confirmed the recreational components will be completed in Phase 1. The last improvement is a lot adjacent to S Hope Chapel Rd this has a separate plan approval for a house of worship. The lot will be created by the subdivision. They are not proposing to change that. The lot will be developed by this project during Phase 1 and then it will be sold to whoever intends on building the house of worship. All improvements having to do with this lot will be created during Phase 1. Mr. Peters made statement to the board the subdivision and affordable housing don't rely on the house of worship, but the house of worship site plan relies upon the improvements that need to be installed as part of the phasing plans for residential portion of the site, including sewer, water and storm water management. Mr. Borden agreed, the house of worship isn't standalone it requires subdivision application for its infrastructure. The changes that were forced by Pinelands, down near Denton Lane, there is small additional wetland expansion it was not deemed as wetlands when they got the Certificate of filing with wetlands verified. When they applied for a final review they deemed additional wetlands. The result is relocating access road to E Vets slightly to the east. Amended subdivision proposes 194 lots, they lost 11 lots that is 192 to be built and 2 house to remain. Pinelands introduced another item in their Certificate of filing, they want Mr. Borden to testify that this is not a high hazard forest area. In Pinelands when more than 100 homes being built you must provide a 200ft buffer to any adjoining forest that is high hazard. Mr. Borden stated for the record there is no unbroken forest surrounding the property, completely surrounded by development on all sides. The trees that can be seen on Cannon Blvd actually have houses on the property and around Canon and the areas that are not developed are fresh water wetland which are not high hazard. There is no high hazard forest anywhere surrounding this project. All of the lots/bulk zone requirements are met. Mr. Borden addressed questions raised by planner's letter: The area 8.28 which is near cul-de-sac of Whitlock and the new road Mahogany, the lot appears to have frontage on two roads, is there 80 ft. on any road...Mr. Borden yes there is the portion of Mahogany that is near Whitlock is 50ft but they are not proposing to access that and they would deed restrict access from 8.22 and 8.28 to prevent them access to Whitlock. The separation between cul-de-sac and Mahogany is very narrow they are proposing hedge and tree landscaping to aid as a buffer between. Mr. Peters asked about the Whitlock Ave right away does it end before it gets to Mahogany. The answer the right always will connect, the existing Whitlock right away overlaps onto Mahogany, and they have a street vacation request into the township council to vacate a few streets including the portion of Whitlock that is currently overlapping Mahogany. Mr. Peters expressed concern about the cul-de-sac and right away from Mahogany, concern is they will have to deal with board engineer and tax assessor to make sure they don't create another lot east of Mahogany or a no man's land. Mr. Borden agreed. Mr. Borden addressing the open space, 3 lakes and wetlands to the south, on approved plan is 65 acres and now due to the wetland it opens the space to 70 acres. The question in the planners review letter, the lot/third lake, it is land locked from the residential lots, and the lot space does not comply with zone requirements. Mr. Peters said it is his job to make this board's decision appeal proof, if he needs a variance he thinks they can prove hardship for the variance but that little piece of land doesn't serve a purpose it doesn't have frontage on improved street so it doesn't comply with RG-2 zone requirements. Mr. Borden stated the lot would require a lot frontage variance, it meets all the other requirements, it is a lake and there are walking trails that remain unchanged. They would ask for the D3 variance for the lot. Affordable housing parking remains unchanged, 96 spaces provided and they were not asked to provide guest parking, they are not proposing to change this. 15% of lot will be EV ready. Mr. Borden said they agree to comply with all the comments in the Bd Planners letter, including Morgan Engineering comments. HOA will maintain storm water management systems. This project was caught in between the change storm water management rules, they were approved prior to the adoption of the Green Infrastructure Rules. Pinelands has determined they must comply with them. Original plan had 3 very large storm water basins, and now they are proposing 31 basins. To meet the requirement to provide smaller discreet basins. Some of basins are on home ownen lots and easements will be provided and all will be maintained by homeowners association. Item 6 questioned

structures in the affordable housing area: there is no change proposed to this. Original plan had 8 sheds, 1 for each building so affordable housing can store bikes and other various things. Item 7: Questioned Denton Lane which intersects with Whitesville, the development will connect with Denton and it will be improved by a subdivision at the corner called Denton Pines. Which is separate but will have the obligation to improve the intersection. This application is relying on the Denton Pines Project. Mr. Peters pointed out that this applicant needs to reassure the board that when they get to the point in development with Denton Lane that they will do the necessary improvements and not rely on the Denton Pines Project. Mr. Borden stated he can show those plans as supplementary to this application. Mr. Borden agreed he can satisfy what Mr. Peters is asking. Item 8: asked for letters of consent from the 3 property owners, the board secretary has been provided them. Lot 8 on Whitlock is not part of the project. Item 1 of traffic circulation notes: Mullen St was not included in the street vacation request, as per Mr. Borden this was an oversight and will be included. Trees: The site is not subject to Tree Ordinance, there is a tree settlement agreement which will guide the removal of trees. Mr. Borden will provide copy of that to the Board. Recreation will be Phase 1 with no change. They are requesting a temporary office trailer. Mr. Borden summarized that the amended project includes reduction by 11 lots, to comply with Pinelands Wetlands Statutes and Pinelands Storm water Management requirements. Ms. Cipriani asked to go over the affordable housing: Phase 1 70 and 8, 62 and 16 affordable, 60 and 16 affordable, this is only 40 affordable. Mr. Borden agreed they are only proposing to build 40 in these phases. Applicants lawyer clarified that the site plan calls for a total of 48 affordable and the additional 8 will be built with the later 2 phases, the site plan will remain the same. Ms. Cipriani will look at that existing proposal and may have some questions at a later date. Mr. Peters stated the lot dimensions are not on the plan, they are not approving the lot layout, they are asking for preliminary and final, when they put the lot dimensions on it if there is a problem they will have to come back before the board. Mr. Peters wants clarified signal and access points and what county improvements are being done. Mr. Borden all three existing intersections are all lighted county intersections, they are proposing Veterans and S Hope to be signalized and including left turn lanes, the County has approved the project including the striping and improvements to the two intersections and they have also reviewed and approved the house of worship. Ms. Bradley open to the public for questions to Mr. Borden. Paul Revere duly sworn by Bd Attorney. Mr. Revere asked if Pinelands approved the wetlands, Mr. Borden stated they have approved and accepted. Mr. Revere where will the children play and home owners association building? Mr. Borden: there is a designated play area approximately ¼ acre in size and there will be no home owners building. Mr. Revere feels not having a building for functions and to gather is a problem. No further questions by public.

Ms. Bradley closed public session

Application will be carried to June 18, 2025 with no additional notice required.

Motion to adjourn Ms. Bradley/Second Mr. Heiman Agreed by all.

Meeting adjourned at 10:51pm.

Respectfully submitted by, Kathleen Bibza Zoning Board Recording Secretary